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.

Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act

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

Madam Speaker, it is my turn to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-88, an act to amend the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and the Canada Petroleum Resources Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, at second reading. This bill was introduced by the Minister of Intergovernmental and Northern Affairs and Internal Trade on November 8, 2018.

Before I begin, I would like to say that I have never had the opportunity to visit these northern territories, but I have made two trips to Nunavik, in Quebec's far north. Once someone goes to these areas and speaks with the people who live in Canada's far north, they gain a completely different view, a different perspective, of northerners' potential and desire for self-determination, their desire to take charge of their land. During my two visits, I felt that the people in this area truly wanted to look after their own affairs and contribute to Canada's social and economic development in their own way. They want to be a part of this great big country that we share.

The bill consists of two parts. Part 1 amends the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. It repeals the provisions that would consolidate the Mackenzie Valley land and water boards into a single board. Those provisions were introduced by the previous Conservative government in Bill C-15. Part 2 amends the Canada Petroleum Resources Act to allow the Governor in Council to issue orders to prohibit oil and gas activities, freeze the terms of existing licences and prevent them from expiring during a moratorium, if it is in the national interest to do so.

Part 1 undoes what the Conservatives did, and part 2 announces that the Liberal government is going to make things worse. That is what I get from Bill C-88. Overall, what I get from Bill C-88 is that it is a Liberal anti-energy policy that will drive even more energy investments out of Canada. It will cost Canadian workers their jobs, and that certainly will not help improve the quality of life of residents of northern Canada. Bill C-88 reveals a full rejection of calls from elected territorial leaders for increased control of their natural resources.

The previous government believed the north would be a key economic driver for decades to come. Other Arctic nations, such as China and Russia, are exploring similar opportunities. Unfortunately, the Liberal government decided to take a different tack.

I was mayor of Thetford Mines for seven years. My community has grappled with major problems. It was an asbestos mining community where companies dug up white gold, as it was known then, for years. We see asbestos in an entirely different light now. For years, we were exploited by outsiders who came into our community and left nothing but deep scars, from mountains of tailings to infrastructure that still mars the landscape. We wish we had had a say in all of those projects. We wish we could have played a role and worked with the people who operated the mines. We could have influenced how it was done, and we definitely could have told them where to put the massive piles of tailings, how to dispose of it all, and how to improve our people's quality of life.

In some territories, when one is elected to represent a community, the more control that territory has over its own affairs, the more one can contribute, the more decisions are made at the local level, and the more one understands the impact of decisions. Unfortunately, in this case, just before Christmas 2016, the Liberal government cavalierly decided to force the territories to do things its way.

During a trip to Washington, the Prime Minister took the opportunity to announce a moratorium. There was no consultation with people in the north, despite the same old tune from the Liberals that consultation is important. Despite the countless consultations that were held in this case, the Liberal government did not feel obliged to consult the people of the north. The decision was made unilaterally by the Prime Minister's Office. Then we learn that the leaders of these territories were informed just one hour before the government announced important changes that would affect them.

I will quote the leaders of the affected communities. The Premier of the Northwest Territories published a red alert for a national emergency debate on the future of the Northwest Territories. He said that the promises of the north are fading and the dreams of northerners are dying as we watch a resurgence of colonialism. Whether we are talking about ill-conceived ways to fund social programs or new, disconcerting restrictions on their economic development, he says, their spirit and energy are being eroded.

Then, he said that staying in the middle class or trying to join it is becoming a distant dream for many. He says that means that northerners, through their democratically elected government, have to have the power to determine their own destiny and that we can no longer allow the bureaucrats and governments in Ottawa to make the decisions. He says that decisions concerning the north have to be made in the north. He says that unilateral decisions made by the federal government without consultation to impose a moratorium on offshore oil and gas development in the Arctic is just an example of how their economic self-determination is thwarted in Ottawa.

The Premier of the Northwest Territories was rather quick to respond.

In an interview on national television on December 22, 2016, another premier, the Premier of Nunavut, said that they want to get to a point where they can make their own determination of their priorities, and the way to do that, he said, is by gaining meaningful revenue from resource development. Meanwhile, when one potential revenue source is taken off the table, it puts them back at practically square one, where Ottawa will make the decisions for them.

Those statements are rather clear. These are not extremists who wanted to attack the government. They just wanted to be consulted on important decisions related to natural resource development on their lands. It is important to hear those messages and act accordingly. When the government is making these kinds of decisions, it is even more important to avoid concentrating too much power within one office, in other words, the Prime Minister's Office. This helps ensure that decisions are not made for purely political reasons. That is unfortunately what happens when the PMO is given so much decision-making power that a moratorium can be imposed without having to consult.

On October 22, 2018, the mayor of Tuktoyaktuk said the following to the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs:

I was talking to [the Liberal member for the Northwest Territories], and he said, “Yes, Merven, we should be doing something. We should be helping you guys.”

I agree the Liberals should be helping us. They shut down our offshore gasification and put a moratorium right across the whole freaking Arctic without even consulting us. They never said a word to us.

We're proud people who like to work for a living. We're not used to getting social assistance and that kind of stuff. Now we're getting tourists coming up, but that's small change...[We don't just want to sell] trinkets and T-shirts and that kind of stuff.

Those messages are clear. I hope that the government will listen to elected officials from these territories and reconsider Bill C-88.

National Defence Act

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my colleague for his speech. The general public may not be very familiar with military justice—as his colleague pointed out earlier—but there is no doubt these changes are desperately needed. They are tackling issues that have caused a lot of well-documented harm.

Based on his experience, would my colleague agree that this government's legislative agenda will have been rather slim?

Few substantive bills have been passed, and now that the end is in sight, they decide to move this sensitive subject forward. How long did it take them to get to this point—two years?

Last fall, when Bill C-15 came into force, the government could have made amendments that would have implemented all this right away. Victims in the military community are suffering. Why did the government take so long to introduce this?

[Col Stephen Strickey]

I'll let Colonel Lortie fill in the gaps, but generally speaking vis-à-vis restitution, since restitutions have been allowed.... You may recall that on September 1, 2018, through Bill C-15, the restitution provision was brought into force. Since then, five courts martial have been completed. None featured a restitution order. Certainly Bill C-77 will allow a restitution to be made at the request of a victim rather than just the director of military prosecutions. It will also require the court martial to inquire of the prosecutor, after a finding of guilt and before imposing the sentence, if the victim is seeking restitution.

That's the restitution aspect.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

I have to say this is something I've followed since I was elected to Parliament, and finally, we're making some progress, so my congratulations to you on the progress that we are making in this area.

Two things were left out of Bill C-15 and are now before Parliament in Bill C-77 , and those were provisions with regard to victims in the military justice system and also the provisions with regard to the treatment of aboriginal offenders within the military justice system. My question is really about whether the delays in getting this legislation into force will impair the new reforms. In other words, I'm feeling things would be better if these were implemented at the same time. We have a lot of changes taking place without the victims' rights part and without the aboriginal offender part.

Do you have any comment on that? Would that require further adjustments and further training?

[Commodore Geneviève Bernatchez, Judge Advocate General, Canadian Armed Forces, Department of National Defence]

I'm pleased to confirm that the regulations that were related to the coming into force of Bill C-15 have now been completed and approved. We will see these sections and regulations coming into force on September 1, 2018.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

That sounds like very good news. I do have the twin concerns of maintaining employment and of not losing the expertise of people because of gaps in the employment, so thank you very much for that answer.

I'm really pleased that we have the judge advocate general with us today. I'd like to turn my questions now to the military justice system. Bill C-15 passed in the previous Parliament, and there were great delays in proclaiming sections of that act and getting on with the reform to the military justice system. I know you've been in the job just under a year, so I'm not going to ask you if you've finished everything, but I'd like an update on where we are, because I understand that most of the remaining sections of Bill C-15 will be proclaimed very soon, and my understanding is that those reforms should get under way September 1. Can you give us an update on those reforms?

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have had the opportunity to speak to the budget in previous years, and I often refer to budgets as showing what a government's priorities are, and more importantly, what a government's priorities are not.

The inequality gap between Canada's wealthiest and the rest of Canadians has never been greater in our country. According to the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, as of 2016, Canada's 100 highest paid CEOs now earn over 209 times more than the average Canadian worker. This year, Canada's CEOs could have stopped working at 10:57 a.m. on January 2 and taken the rest of the year off and they would still make as much as an average Canadian this year. Members can think about that for a minute.

Reducing this inequality is simply not a priority of the government. Despite promising to close the stock option deduction loophole, which is projected to cost some $840 million this year alone, the government, under pressure from its wealthy friends, abandoned that promise. The finance minister has suggested that this is because small businesses and start-ups use this as a legitimate form of compensation. However, the data shows that this is not the case.

The CCPA found that 99% of benefits from the stock option deduction went to the top 10% of income earners in Canada. It found that, “In essence, there is no benefit from this tax expenditure to anyone making less than $215,000 a year.” These are not employees of small start-ups. These people are the government's wealthy backers and fellow French villa owners. This is just one tax loophole.

Unfortunately, despite its promise and its posturing as a progressive force, the government has left several of these highly regressive tax policies on the books. It has also failed to take real action on the abuse of tax havens. Tackling these issues is simply not the government's priority.

For Vancouver East, housing remains the number one issue for many of our residents. It has long been declared a basic right by the United Nations, and Canada has signed and ratified a number of international human rights treaties that identify the right to adequate housing as a fundamental human right.

The NDP introduced Bill C-325 to enshrine the right to housing for Canadians in the Canadian Bill of Rights. To my dismay, every Liberal MP joined hands with the Conservatives to vote against that bill.

At a town hall I hosted, many attendees agreed on the necessity of a real, national, affordable housing program; the need for renewed and ongoing federal housing subsidies; the need for a long-term solution, not two-year transitional measures, for co-op housing; the importance of the Liberals honouring their election promise of incentives to build rental housing; and the need for dedicated funding for aboriginal housing.

The Liberals promised to bring back a national housing strategy, and there was much fanfare, by the way, with that announcement. However, what we learned was that 90% of the funding will not actually be spent until after the next election. The issue of housing affordability constitutes a crisis, with real, immediate needs, and the government's response was to say that it will get back to us after the next election. Honestly, we do not deal with a crisis by spending over 90% of promised funding after the next election.

The NDP has urged the government to bring the funding forward by increasing housing spending to $1.58 billion in budget 2018 instead of in 2021. Sadly, budget 2018 failed to acknowledge this important call for action. According to the government, tax loopholes for the richest must continue. Funding for affordable housing can wait.

Homelessness costs Canada $7 billion annually, $1 billion in B.C. alone. Every dollar invested in providing housing has been found to yield over $2 in savings in areas like health care, the justice system, and other social supports. Each dollar invested in housing construction has also been found to result in $1.52 in GDP growth. These are investments that pay for themselves and simply should not be made to wait.

I had the opportunity, when speaking in support of Bill C-15, to draw attention to the work of the Vancouver East community and what it is doing in trying to obtain UNESCO world heritage site designation for Vancouver's Chinatown. With Canada having just celebrated its 150th birthday, partnering and investing in preserving heritage sites like this would have been welcome.

B.C. was able to join Confederation through the labour and sacrifices made by Chinese railway workers, and 2017 marked the 70th anniversary of Chinese-Canadians winning the right to vote. Vancouver's Chinatown is number three on the Heritage Vancouver Society's top 10 watch-list of endangered sites. It is on the top 10 endangered places list of the National Trust for Canada.

Relentless development threatens the area more and more each year. Our community was hoping that the federal government would get behind our UNESCO push and provide preservation funding. There was not anything in budget 2018 for this important work. I hope that in future budgets, there is recognition from the federal government to help revitalize Vancouver's Chinatown and Chinatowns across the country.

On another critical issue, there is not an indigenous community in Canada that has not been touched by the systemic racism and sexism that allow indigenous women to be stolen from their loved ones and allow indigenous men like Colten Boushie to be killed without repercussions.

The National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls has been riddled with challenges since the beginning. The inquiry is the result of decades of work and advocacy by families and survivors. I feel very strongly that it must put the needs of families and survivors at the forefront. It is also vital that organizations that have been granted standing because of their expertise on the conditions and practices that cause and perpetuate the murders and disappearances of indigenous women and girls are also heard by the inquiry. To date, there has been no information regarding the process or the timeline for these experts and the institutional hearings of the inquiry. This is not acceptable. “No more stolen sisters” cannot just be a slogan.

Recently I had the opportunity to participate in the massive rally to stop Kinder Morgan. This call for action was led by indigenous leaders from across the country. Thousands gathered at Forest Grove park to send a clear message to the Prime Minister: no consent, no pipeline.

With eagles soaring above us, the leadership spoke eloquently and passionately about future generations and how it is our responsibility to “warrior up” to protect those who cannot speak for themselves. Their powerful and inspirational message united all of us: with one heart and one mind, let us all work together to stop Kinder Morgan.

The issue of pipelines brings us to the need for real action for a just transition to a sustainable future. What about bringing in a strategy to expand the use of solar panels for homes and public buildings? There is nothing like that in the budget.

On a critical issue, the government has also finally decided to provide the Immigration and Refugee Board with some funding to address the strain on the system caused by the significant increase in asylum claims in Canada. Unfortunately, because of how long the government put its head in the sand on the irregular crossings, this new funding will address the issue for only two years. That is not nearly enough. The added funding will only ensure that 18,000 cases are processed. At a time when there are over 40,000 cases in the backlog, which is increasing by 2,100 cases per month, this is not sufficient.

This budget does not address the real needs of Canadians. Action is what really matters. It takes courage to act, and I call on the government to act.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Great. Thanks very much.

It wouldn't be complete unless I went back to the commodore again with one last question on military justice.

When Bill C-15 was going through the House, significant delays were being seen in military justice, and Bill C-15 was supposed to help in some ways with those delays. Then in 2016 we had a Supreme Court of Canada decision called Regina v. Jordan, which said that matters have to be dealt with within 18 months.

What is the situation on delays in military justice, and will you be able to meet the 18-month deadline? I know one case, a serious assault case, has already been dismissed as a result of delays. I would hate to see that happen again. What is the situation on the delays?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Thank you.

As a follow-up to Mr. Garrison's comments on Bill C-15 —I believe I was parliamentary secretary at the time we brought that through—quite a bit of concern was being expressed at that time by civilian organizations like the Canadian Bar Association about transparency, accountability, and how summary convictions were being applied in the military.

In the implementation process going forward, is there going to be more of that transparency and sharing with Canadians on how convictions are reached and punishment is meted out?

[Cmdre Geneviève Bernatchez]

As we know, Bill C-15 represented significant modernization of the military justice system and had several clauses and several aspects to it that need to be implemented once the bill received royal assent in 2013. The bill incorporated recommendations that had been made by the Right Honourable Antonio Lamer in his 2003 report, as well as recommendations that had been made by the Senate committee in 2009.

It presented a gargantuan task for lawyers to be able to draft the regulations that would put Bill C-15 into force, and our team at the Office of the Judge Advocate General worked relentlessly over the course of the last several years to try to not only draft the regulations that needed to be put in place as a first order of business but also to look at the second, third, and fourth degrees of effect of having legislation that was modifying other aspects of the regulatory scheme of the Queen's Regulations and Orders.

I'm very pleased to tell the committee today that this gargantuan task, this adventure, is coming to fruition. We're looking at the finalization of this process. We remain extremely committed to seeing it come into force in the next little while.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

I support the amendment. I think the Conservatives do. The language is more modern and inclusive. Certainly if and when Bill C-15 gets passed by Parliament and is brought into law, this kind of review will be going on automatically with all legislation. To get ahead of the curve, I think it would be appropriate.

[Sarah Ryan, Senior Research Officer, Canadian Union of Public Employees]

Hi, my name is Sarah Ryan and I'm a senior research officer at CUPE. Thank you very much for inviting CUPE to present our concerns regarding the Canada infrastructure bank today.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees, or CUPE, is Canada's largest union, representing 643,000 workers across Canada. CUPE members work in health care, education, municipalities, libraries, universities, social services, public utilities, emergency services, transportation, and airlines.

As more details about the Canada infrastructure bank have emerged, CUPE members have expressed strong concerns that the bank is essentially a bank of privatization. They are deeply concerned that the bank could lead to the privatization of airports, ports, public transit, roads, highways, bridges, water and waste-water systems, hydroelectric utilities, and transmission grids. These are all key services that the Canadian public depends upon every day.

Bill C-44 states that infrastructure projects financed by the bank must generate revenue and promote the public interest. Revenues can only be generated in two ways: by charging high interest rates on loans, and by introducing tolls and user fees on new infrastructure projects or existing infrastructure assets.

The mandate of the bank is fundamentally contradictory. Private investors will be the clear winners, since revenues from projects financed by the bank will fall into their pockets. Canadians who depend every day on infrastructure to heat their homes, to get them from place to place, and to ensure they have safe drinking water will be the losers. The public will shoulder the costs of the bank's high interest rates and will be hit hard by added costs of living that will result from new tolls and fees.

Bill C-44 will also allow infrastructure projects to be privately pitched through unsolicited bids. This puts private investors in the driver's seat and allows them to set priorities on what gets built.

The bank gives investors unprecedented control over how infrastructure is built, operated, and structured. Infrastructure projects developed by private investors will be tailored to profit the projects' backers and risk being totally out of touch with the public's needs and interests. This eliminates the capacity of governments and citizens to decide what infrastructure their communities need and how it should be built and paid for. It severely limits the public's capacity to influence decision-making on infrastructure investments.

Minister Morneau said that cabinet will have the final say on what gets built, but to sustain a private investment in the bank, CUPE members are not confident that cabinet will be willing or able to deny investors' proposals. Furthermore, the private sector will still play a key role in shaping the project structure to maximize profits.

When governments propose, design, finance, and build infrastructure projects, the public can hold them to account. However, Bill C-44 limits the bank's public transparency and accountability requirements. It allows project information and investor deals to be kept secret from the public. This means that information about how community infrastructure is being funded, who is involved in projects, and how much investors are profiting will not be available to the public. This is bad news for Canadians who have a right to know how public monies, which will partially fund the bank, are being spent and how public infrastructure is being built.

In conclusion, CUPE offers the following recommendations.

First, the government should establish a public infrastructure bank that provides low-cost financing for new infrastructure projects, and that means public financing. There is no shortage of financing available for the federal government to borrow at low interest rates right now. If this is done through a public bank and lending institution, similar to the Business Development Bank of Canada, CMHC, or EDC, then its investments in borrowing wouldn't need to increase the deficit or net debt any more than the current proposal.

Second, the government should ensure there's stronger accountability, transparency, and review by auditors general over the bank and its projects. The bank should be mandated to provide full public disclosure of all business deals, value-for-money assessments, and contracts. The bank should also have public officials on its board to ensure that it acts in the public interest. Public infrastructure projects must remain public and not turn into secret deals with private corporations.

Finally, the government should not allow private corporations to determine infrastructure priorities, including through unsolicited bids. Instead, it should establish a public and transparent process using evidence-based analysis for truly objective planning of priority infrastructure projects.

Thank you.

Income Tax Act

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to thank my colleague once again for raising this important issue.

I can assure him that we are listening to Canadians. I meet with people every day. I have met with accounting firms and tax firms. We understand this issue, but the most important thing we have to do, as a government, is to understand that the greatest injustice we could do would be to introduce new tax loopholes in Canada. The $800 million figure is the figure provided by the Department of Finance, which has studied this issue at least as thoroughly as my colleague on the other side of the House. The $800 million figure is just the beginning; we expect it to be higher in subsequent years.

I am rising in the House to speak to my colleague’s bill, Bill C-274. The stated objective of this bill, to facilitate the transfer of family businesses to future generations in a family, seems commendable. It is the statement of principle by my colleague across the aisle. His proposed approach is to amend two long-standing anti-avoidance rules in the Income Tax Act. Those two measures have been in the Canadian tax code for a long time.

I am so pleased to be here this evening to discuss the repercussions that these fiscal changes may have. We often talk about unexpected consequences. My colleague's principle is worthy, but we have to take a close look at the measures themselves and really understand the fiscal consequences this could have for the country. I am sure all members of the House will agree that the intention behind this bill is good, and I want to go on the record as saying that my colleague's intention is very good. There is no doubt about that. Many of us are from rural parts of Quebec and Canada. We understand how things are for our farmers and entrepreneurs. I represent Shawinigan, which is, in a way, the beating heart of entrepreneurship in Quebec. We know all about entrepreneurship. We all come from places where small businesses can prosper, and we all want a fair tax system for all Canadians.

However, when weighing the merits of this bill, it is important to consider all the potential consequences of passing it. We must not lose sight of the fact that the tax rules that Bill C-274 proposes to amend exist for a reason, and that is to prevent people from engaging in inappropriate tax avoidance in Canada. Let us be clear about what Bill C-274 is proposing, and that is to soften the rules designed to prevent tax avoidance in Canada.

Let me explain. The proposed changes would dilute the anti-avoidance rules in sections 55 and 84.1 of the Income Tax Act. To help my colleagues fully understand what that means, let us first look at section 55 of the Income Tax Act. As currently worded, section 55 of the act applies to corporations that seek to inappropriately reduce capital gains by paying tax-free dividends between corporations. In short, the anti-avoidance rules consider such dividends to be a capital gain.

Two exemptions to the anti-avoidance rule authorize business restructuring by allowing company shareholders to split company shares between them, while deferring taxes. When those exemptions apply, any dividend paid between companies in the context of restructuring is not considered a capital gain.

The first exemption applies to the restructuring of related corporations, and the second applies to all corporate restructurings. Bill C-274 would broaden that first exemption, which we can call the related corporations exemption, so that it applies to brothers and sisters.

Spouses, as well as parents and their children, are eligible for this exemption because it is presumed that they have shared economic interests. However, brothers and sisters are considered to have separate and independent economic interests and are therefore not eligible for the related corporations exemption. That is consistent with other tax rules. For example, a family farm or fishing corporation cannot be transferred among brothers and sisters on a tax-deferred basis.

That being said, although brothers and sisters cannot restructure their participation in a corporation on a tax-deferred basis under the related corporations exemption, they can do it under the second exemption I mentioned earlier, which applies to all corporate restructuring. It is called the “butterfly exemption”.

Now the question is why siblings and their companies would want to have access to the first exemption if they can already achieve the same thing through the second exemption. The answer is that the conditions are less rigorous under the first exemption. The conditions are less rigorous because the companies are linked and are considered part of the same economic group at the time of restructuring. As a result, assets can be transferred on a tax deferred basis within a group of related companies regardless of the composition of assets.

Under the second exemption, known as the “butterfly exemption”, one condition requires a proportional distribution of the various types of assets transferred. The goal of this condition is to prevent tax avoidance.

By way of illustration, I would return to the example my colleague used of three siblings who each own one-third of a family farm corporation. Those siblings could reorganize the company's assets by transferring, on a tax deferred basis, those assets to their individual farm corporations by transferring their proportionate share of each type of asset from the family farm corporation.

There are fewer tax avoidance opportunities under the butterfly exemption because of the requirement that each of the brothers’ and sisters’ corporations must receive its proportional share of the assets of the corporation being restructured. If the proposed amendment to section 55 were passed, as my colleague suggests, the siblings could undertake a business restructuring in which the dividends paid between their corporations would not be treated as capital gains. The consequence of that would be to create new opportunities for tax avoidance in Canada.

I would also like to point out that Bill C-15, which received royal assent in June 2016, included an amendment that tightened the anti-avoidance rule set out in section 55, a rule that Bill C-274 would loosen. Consequently, if Bill C-274 were passed into law, we would be sending a message that conflicts with what Parliament recently decided concerning this particular provision.

I would now like to say a few words about the other anti-avoidance rule that Bill C-274 would loosen, the rule set out in section 84.1 of the Income Tax Act. This anti-avoidance rule may apply when an individual sells shares of one corporation to another corporation that is related to the individual.

For example, an individual might sell shares to a corporation owned by his child or grandchild. In such a case, the proceeds of the sale received by the seller may be considered, in certain circumstances, to be a taxable dividend instead of a capital gain, which is taxed at a lower rate or even exempt from tax if the lifetime capital gains exemption is available to the individual.

Bill C-274 would limit the application of the anti-avoidance rule by excluding the sale of shares of a corporation owned by an individual to corporations controlled by his children and grandchildren. However, that would facilitate the conversion of dividends into capital gains that are taxed at a lower rate or tax exempt. Such conversions of corporate dividends into capital gains taxed at a lower rate could be made as often as the managing owner wants to extract the corporation’s surpluses with tax deferral.

Significant tax planning would occur if Bill C-274 were passed. For example, a high-income shareholder could reduce his income tax by $17,500 for each $100,000 in business profits.

Another important point to consider is the fact that nothing is stopping a parent from selling shares of his family corporation directly to his child or grandchild and claiming the lifetime capital gains exemption on the capital gains arising from the transaction.

In closing, I think that the most important thing to say today is that nothing in Canada’s Income Tax Act prevents corporate transfers. My colleague’s proposal would create opportunities for tax avoidance.

The government listened to Canadians, and then it pledged to do everything in its power to make tax fairness a reality in Canada.

[Pierre LeBlanc]

On your first question, as you say, in the fall economic statement we reported that the cost of indexing in the 2020-21 fiscal year would be $505 million, and in the 2021-22 fiscal year it would be $1.2 billion.

On your second question, the government didn't make the decision until after the first budget implementation act, Bill C-15, was tabled in Parliament. That's why it's in the second budget implementation act.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to take a moment to say thanks to all the Olympic athletes and Paralympic athletes who were here today. It was quite an honour to see that. For 15 minutes, the whole House kept applauding. It was great to have had them represent us in Rio the way they did. I want to give a special shout-out to Olympic boxer Mandy Bujold and Paralympic swimmer Alexander Elliot, who live in my riding of Kitchener South—Hespeler.

During last year's election campaign, I spoke confidently to the residents of my riding of Kitchener South—Hespeler about our plan to grow the middle class and revitalize the Canadian economy by doing three things.

First, I talked about our plan to reduce income taxes on the middle class and those aspiring to join the middle class. Lowering taxes means leaving more money in the pockets of those who need it most and having more money to spend on goods and services in our economy.

Second, I explained our plan to implement a tax-free, means-tested Canada child benefit to replace the patchwork of existing programs. The Canada child benefit will assist families with the high cost of raising their children.

Third, I talked about our plan to borrow at current historically low interest rates to make very large investments in both physical and social infrastructure.

As I spoke to people, I stressed that these programs would not only help individual families that were struggling after years of stagnant growth but would grow our economy, generate economic activity, and create jobs by way of what economists call the multiplier effect.

As I spoke with people at the door, I did so with confidence, because I believed that our plan offered immediate help to those who needed it most. It set an ambitious long-term approach for growth by strengthening the heart of Canada's consumer-driven economy, the middle class.

A strong economy starts with a strong middle class. When middle-class Canadians have more money to save, invest, and grow the economy, everyone benefits. A strengthened middle class means that hard-working Canadians can look forward to a good standard of living and better prospects for their children. When we have an economy that works for the middle class, we have a country that works for everyone.

Judging from the reaction I got from people throughout my riding, the message I was delivering resonated with voters. The results of the election speak for themselves. Our message of hope caused voters across the country to raise us from a distant third place in this House to a majority government. On election night, Canadians saw the merit in our plan, and Canadians chose a plan to invest in our future for generations to come.

Our plan increased again, when legislation to reduce personal income tax rates, as promised, was introduced by this government last December as the second piece of legislation proposed in Bill C-2.

The hon. Minister of Finance tabled the government's budget in Parliament on March 22 this year. A budget is more than a mere forecast of expenditures and revenues. A budget is a financial strategy to fulfill what a government sets as its mission. A budget is a comprehensive plan of action designed to achieve the policy objectives of the government. A budget is a financial blueprint for action. A budget will remain only a blueprint unless there are the workers, materials, coordination, skills, and activities necessary to construct it.

Real change will remain only a vision unless there is legislation to implement the budget that flows from that vision. Following quickly on the heels of the budget, Bill C-15 was the first legislation introduced by the government in April. It was the first budget implementation bill. It turned the second major promise I made to the constituents of Kitchener South—Hespeler, as I went door to door during the election, into a reality.

Bill C-15 brought in the Canada child benefit. Simpler, tax-free, and more generous, the Canada child benefit replaced existing child benefits. Bill C-15 passed quickly through this House and the Senate and received royal assent in the third week of June.

Immediately afterwards, in July, the Canada child benefit payments started flowing to families to fulfill their financial responsibilities in raising the next generation of Canadians.

The Canada child benefit is a social program of unprecedented generosity. Since July 1 this year, families can receive up to $6,400 per year for each child under six and $5,400 for each child aged six to 17. Nine out of 10 families are better off. They are receiving higher monthly benefits, and hundreds of thousands of children will be raised out of poverty.

This government has taken a long-term approach to helping families, who will be able to count on extra help now and for years to come. When Canadians look towards the future and think about planning, they know that the Canada child benefit will be there to help fulfill their financial responsibilities.

Today before the House is Bill C-29. It is the second of two pieces of legislation intended to implement the budget tabled in the House in March. Bill C-29 is the second act to implement this year's budget. It contains a number of consequential housekeeping amendments to various acts, such as the Employment Insurance Act, the Canada Education Savings Act, and the Canada Disability Savings Act, to replace references to “child tax benefit”.

However, for most Canadian families, the most important part of Bill C-29 is the introduction, as promised, of indexation of the Canada child benefit. Bill C-29 would implement the budget by indexing to inflation the maximum benefit amounts and the phase-out threshold under the Canada child benefit, beginning in the 2021 benefit year. This means that the benefits will increase if prices increase, and thus the purchasing power of the benefit will remain the same after 2020.

I would now like to turn to a couple of articles.

The first article is from The Economist, which said, “Canada is in a better position than almost any other rich country to take advantage of low rates”.

With the historically low interest rates, this is the time to invest in Canadians, in our future, and in the young generation to take advantage of these low interest rates.

The second article I want to refer to is from CBC News:

The IMF head [Christine Lagarde] said economic growth has been “too slow for too long” and the IMF advocates a “three-pronged approach” from governments trying to kick-start the global economy.

She said the [Liberal] government is following that approach with monetary, financial and structural reforms that will mobilize the resources of the state to increase growth.

For those reasons, I would therefore encourage all members of this House to support Bill C-29.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, today I rise in the House to participate in the debate on the Liberal government's second budget implementation bill. In the spring, the Liberals presented their first budget. The actual implementation comes in two phases: Bill C-15, budget implementation act, 2016, No. 1, which was passed last spring; and now we are implementing the next phase of the budget, known as budget implementation act, 2016, No. 2, which are the technical measures to make the budget law.

Left with a $2.9 billion surplus by the Conservative government, confirmed by the parliamentary budget officer on October 24, the Liberal government, which campaigned on controlled deficit spending, blew through its promises and did not just double its projected spending but tripled it. If that was not enough, it has now been made clear by the Bank of Canada, the International Monetary Fund, and the OECD that Canada's forecasted growth will be much less than anticipated. This means the deficit will actually be larger than three times the government's original promise. In fact, TD Bank estimates that the deficit will be approximately $34 billion.

If we consider debt charges alone over the course of the government's mandate, interest charges increased by almost $10 billion. Over the next four years, the interest costs alone will rise from $25.7 billion to $35.5 billion. That is just interest alone. This is a lot of money that could be invested better, perhaps reducing taxes, especially for the small business sector.

Canadians believed the Liberal Party when it said that the deficit spending it would undertake would lead to prosperity and growth. Following the release of the budget, my office sent out surveys to every household and business in my riding, asking whether they supported the out-of-control spending of the Liberal government. Of the responses I received, over 90% of my constituents did not support these ballooning deficits and unnecessary spending.

Canadians will remember the stimulus spending the Conservative government undertook during the recession years of 2008 to 2010 and the ability of that government to lift Canada out of the recession stronger than any other G7 country. On top of that, our Conservative government kept its promise to return the budget to balance and, as I said before, even left the Liberal government with a surplus of $2.9 billion.

However, we are not seeing the promised results of the Liberal deficit spending. Just a year ago, the Liberals promised that they could spend their way to prosperity and growth. Hard-working Canadians trusted them to borrow just a modest sum. They said that they would create more jobs and put more money in their pockets. Canadians are still waiting.

By most measures, Canadians are worse off than they were a year ago and the unemployment rate has not changed since the Liberals took office. Good jobs are in short supply. The vast majority of new jobs created under the Liberals have been part time, which helps explain why weekly earnings for the average worker have not budged. Meanwhile, the cost of living has gone up and it is now harder for Canadians to afford new homes. The new federal rules announced last month mean even fewer will be able to buy a first home.

During the summer, I invited the member for Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, who was the critic for economic development for southern Ontario, to my riding to participate in a manufacturing round table. There was a great turnout and I was pleased to listen to the concerns of many in the Waterloo region.

In addition to a number of small business owners, also present were the Cambridge and Greater Kitchener Waterloo Chambers of Commerce. One point that came up time and time again from business owners was they cannot operate businesses for very long by borrowing for operating costs.

All of us realize that a major capital investment, such as a home or new equipment, will require sensible borrowing, but to borrow more and more for operating costs is a recipe for disaster. It is really only a matter of time until businesses are finished. The same principle needs to be operative at the federal level of budgeting. We cannot continue to borrow to operate a bloated government.

Another issue that was brought up during the round table were the increased challenges the Liberal government was forcing on businesses such as changes to the CPP program, and, at the same time, the prospect of a national carbon tax. With both of these changes being implemented in the near future, these job-creating businesses in the Waterloo region will be forced to make hard decisions and limit their own growth or perhaps even lay off workers.

The Waterloo region has a strong manufacturing sector and for the Liberal government to be putting unnecessary pressure on these businesses simply does not make sense.

In addition to these manufacturing businesses, other small businesses in my riding and members of the agricultural community have great concerns with the Liberal government's changes to CPP and the implementation of a national carbon tax. Small businesses have learned already through the Liberal government's broken promise to lower their tax rate that this government is not making decisions that are in the best interest of job creators.

However, if that were not enough, just like the manufacturing businesses I heard from, the increase in mandatory CPP paycheque hikes would cost these companies jobs. It would force them to reject the proposal for expansion, postpone new initiatives, or to put off hiring that new employee.

Layered on all of this is the government's new top-down mandatory carbon tax. In my riding, there are over 1,200 farms, approximately 1,400 farms in all of Waterloo region. This new tax will raise their operating costs by thousands of dollars per year, which will in turn raise the grocery bills of Canadians from sea to sea. The cost of living under the Liberal government keeps rising, while employment and wages are stagnant or, in fact, on the decline.

Over the past several months I have been petitioning the Minister of Transport, through letters and questions during question period, on the topic of ultra low-cost carriers. My office has been contacted directly by Jetlines and the Waterloo international airport, asking the Minister of Transport to change the foreign ownership rules for carriers so companies, such as Jetlines, can operate in Canada.

Nine months ago, the pathways report was made public, and this clear recommendation came to the transport minister. Here we are, nine months later, and still no action. This change would provide Canadians with low-cost and convenient travel, as these carriers would primarily be servicing secondary airports across Canada. This is an absolutely clear issue. This has the potential to create thousands of new jobs and offer a more affordable option for travel. However, the Liberal government remains committed to standing in the way of private enterprise.

The Liberals said a massive deficit would create jobs. The parliamentary budget officer's employment assessment said that after a year of Liberal borrowing, there have been zero new full-time jobs created. Job growth is at half the rate of the previous government, and all of the jobs are part time. Despite the low dollar, there are 20,000 fewer manufacturing jobs than there were a year ago.

I would like to talk about the tax credits the government has abolished with this new budget and the introduction of the Canada child benefit.

The Liberal government's removal of the student textbook tax credit has big impacts on the Waterloo region, which is home to several universities and colleges. With the cost of tuition increasing and fewer and fewer job prospects, students need help covering costs. This was one method the government was able to help them.

The Waterloo region is also home to many great sports clubs and associations. Our previous government introduced the child fitness tax credit to help families pay for the cost of their children's sports fees. This helped many families that otherwise might not have been able to afford it and it also encouraged health and wellness through sport, which in turn reduces health care costs.

The Liberals defend these cuts by citing their Canada child benefit, but recently we discovered that their own budgets did not allow for indexing to inflation. This would mean that Canadians would actually be losing money each year under this new plan. In an effort to remedy this monumental error the government has included in this legislation updates to the program allowing for indexation.

The parliamentary budget officer had estimated that indexing and enriching the Canada child benefit would cost $42.5 billion over the next five years. The parliamentary secretary said that the Liberals were going forward with this regardless of the financial pressure it put on public finances. The parliamentary budget officer found the program would cost more than double the original amount budgeted if indexed over the next five years. Where will the Liberals find money for this new spending?

As we have seen already over the past year, and I have made clear in this speech, the government will be digging deeper and deeper into debt without any plan of ever returning the budget to balance.

It is clear that the government's uncontrolled spending and poor policy decisions have been, continue to be, and will be over the next three years, disastrous for the Canadian economy. That is why I cannot support the legislation. I ask the Liberal government to reconsider the poor economic decisions that are included in the bill.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I would like to inform you that I will be splitting my time with the member for Hamilton Mountain. I want to wish everyone a happy Halloween.

Today we are dealing with the sequel to the first Budget Implementation Act. Once again, we see that Liberals seem to be emulating the Conservatives with another omnibus bill. This one is tipping the scales at a good 231 pages, while the previous one, which was Bill C-15, was 179 pages.

I remember debating Bill C-15 in June when it came before us for third reading. That bill changed 30 different statutes. I remember that the NDP at that time argued that several portions of the bill should be split so that members in this House could do their due diligence, both here in the House and at finance committee. Unfortunately, those recommendations were not agreed to by the government and we had to again go through the omnibus bill.

I remember that the Liberals at that time were extolling the virtues of their so-called middle-class tax cut and the fact that they were bringing in the child benefit and had made some significant changes to employment insurance. It seems that for the second budget implementation act, we are hearing much the same arguments. It seems to be a chance for the Liberals to again put forward the arguments put forward in March in their budget speech, and so on.

The bill amends 13 separate pieces of legislation. I would have hoped for a little bit more time to study each individual one, but I hope that the finance committee will get its opportunity to do that. Some of the major acts that will be changed by the bill concern the Income Tax Act, the Employment Insurance Act, and the Old Age Security Act, among others.

One of the things we in the NDP have been concerned about that we have been hearing from the Liberal government both last week and this week, and what I suspect will be formalized in the economic update tomorrow, is the privatization of our infrastructure. This is very worrisome to me and to many of us on this side, and indeed to many Canadians, because it was an agenda that was never presented in the Liberals' election platform.

I am one who believes fundamentally that when we put forward a platform and use it to get votes, we should honour it, and there should be no hidden surprises. I feel that with this privatization agenda, the Liberals are taking a page from their provincial cousins in Ontario and that consumers and Canadians will be the ones who end up paying in the long run.

I believe that the real change that was promised last year was not supposed to be just a coat of red paint over the old blue one. There was supposed to be a whole new vehicle for Canadians. I think we are seeing a lot of the same arguments come forward. The Liberals did not run under these promises.

I will say that the Liberals are very good at acting like New Democrats during an election, but when it comes to governing, they are very good at acting like Conservatives.

The biggest problem is the fact that this was never outlined in their platform. I will go into further detail about that.

The first point is that the Liberals stated in their platform that they would establish a Canadian infrastructure bank, and I believe they will be going ahead with that. This bank was to provide low-cost financing for new infrastructure projects, but again, nothing was mentioned about privatization.

The second point is that the federal government would use its strong credit rating and lending authority to make it easier and more affordable for municipalities to build the projects their communities need. Again, nothing was mentioned about privatization, nothing about taking those assets and selling them to the private sector for private interests.

The third point was that when a lack of capital represented a barrier to projects, the Canadian infrastructure bank would provide loan guarantees and small capital contributions to provinces and municipalities to ensure that projects were built. Again, there is no mention of privatization of infrastructure assets.

I believe that Canadians were misled and will be in for a surprise at tomorrow's update.

At this point, I would like to acknowledge the hard work of my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques. He has done some amazing work as our finance critic and really has led the charge for our party in exposing these plans and raising our party's concerns about them.

In budget 2016, we got a hint about what was to come and we started to see the term asset recycling. We found out that the government was now asking Credit Suisse for advice on the benefits of privatizing airports. This advice is coming from a company that buys airports. This is a clear conflict of interest. It would be like me asking a senator on whether it is a good idea to abolish the Senate. I do not think I would get an honest answer to that question.

I believe the infrastructure bank that is being proposed is going to be largely funded with private funds, and those are ultimately going to bestow a high cost on our society. Any company that invests in infrastructure is going to demand a high rate of return. It is not going to act in the public interest, and that is an important point to establish. It will be working on behalf of private shareholders.

Infrastructure projects by their very nature are a public institution. Everyone depends on them. When we start selling those off, it is very hard to get them back and it becomes very hard to implement policies for the public good. On this side, we are all about that. We are about ensuring the public good is recognized and maintained for all policy options.

When companies want that rate of return on their infrastructure events, it means having user fees or tolls, and those charges are always passed on to the consumer. The consumer will not have any effect on changing those user fees or tolls because they will not have a democratically elected government in charge of them anymore.

We have seen experiences where public infrastructure projects have been privatized. I think of BC Ferries in British Columbia. The whole B.C. ferry system was made into a corporation. We have seen no stop of user fees and ticket prices go up and up, making life really unaffordable for the coastal communities.

This is all coming under the context of the Liberals having hidden their true plans, and it is a fundamental betrayal of the trust of Canadians.

The term asset recycling is no more than a cover word for privatization. We have seen experiences of this in other governments around the world. For example, the right wing government of Tony Abbott in Australia tried to introduce asset recycling schemes. The Australian senate saw through the use of this language and it gutted and retitled the bill to call it “encouraging privatization”. Perhaps that is what we should be calling this bill.

I will go back to B.C. The B.C. Liberal government has become an expert in this. It sold off a ton of public assets to balance the books. To me, that is short-term gain for long-term pain.

Asset recycling will fundamentally rob future governments and budgets of the ability to regulate and generate revenue. The Advisory Council on Economic Growth was started up in March to advise the the Liberal government. The chair of this group is none other than Dominic Barton, who has spent 10 years with the McKinsey consulting group, which promotes massive private involvement in infrastructure. If that is the advice the government is getting, it is easy to see exactly what we will see in the update tomorrow.

On October 20, the Advisory Council on Economic Growth published three reports with recommendations. One of those key recommendations was that Ottawa should privatize some of its existing assets as a way of raising money to spend on other infrastructure.

The road map seems pretty clear to me: to sell off our public assets that were funded by taxpayer dollars so private interests can start generating their own revenue streams on them. This is contrary to what was promised to us in the election. The NDP can never support a bill that would sell off our communal assets to make a quick buck. It has been shown not to work. That is why we stand opposed to the bill and the general economic policy of the government.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak to the budget implementation act, 2016, No. 2.

For people who might be watching or listening, a brief summary of the process may be helpful in terms of why we are here and what we are debating.

In the spring, the Liberals presented their first budget. The actual implementation comes in two phases. There was Bill C-15, the Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1, which of course was passed last spring. Now we are implementing the next phase of the budget. It is known as the budget implementation act, 2016, No. 2. These are the technical measures to move the budget into law.

The Liberals always used to talk about the Conservatives and the omnibus nature of our legislation. I am not going to call this omnibus, although we can see that it has many different features. It is necessary, sometimes, to move a budget into law that impacts lots of different pieces of legislation. The Liberals called it omnibus. I just call it good governance and how a budget is actually put into action.

Part 1 is a number of income tax measures. Part 2 focuses on the goods and services tax, the harmonized sales tax, and some commitments made there. Part 3 focuses on the excise tax. Part 4 has a number of different pieces, including the Employment Insurance Act, the Old Age Security Act, the Canada Education Savings Act, the Canada Disability Savings Act, the Financial Consumer Protection Framework, the Royal Canadian Mint Act, and funds management, etcetera. What we can see is a broad piece of legislation impacting many acts of Parliament. It is not called omnibus. It really is just a government doing its business.

Before I talk about my concerns about this particular budget and the budget implementation bill, not all is bad. There are perhaps one or two features that I actually think are reasonable.

We all know of lower-income senior citizen couples who are perhaps separated. Perhaps one needs additional care and has to go into a home. Their benefits are still calculated as a couple. I think it is reasonable to say that if a couple is separated and someone has to go into a home, they now have double the living expenses, so the calculation of the GIS and OAS will not be impacted.

I want to note that there are one or two pieces that I think are reasonable.

More importantly, I think the budget is a disaster for Canada and overall is totally unsupportable.

I remember very fondly when I had the privilege of serving on the finance committee when Canada entered the global recession. The late hon. Jim Flaherty was our finance minister. He was also named the best finance minister in Canada.

It was a global crisis at the time. It was a catastrophe. We were very concerned. Leaders across of the world had many sleepless nights because of the global recession. I can remember that the hon. Jim Flaherty came up with a plan. He articulated that plan to Canadians. He said what he was going to do over a number of years. Not only did he articulate the plan, he executed the plan, and he executed the plan in almost exactly the way he said he would when he first announced that we were going to have to take extraordinary measures to deal with the global recession.

It is important to say that it was a plan. It was articulated to Canadians, it was executed, and the results speak for themselves.

Up to about 2008-09, things were moving along very well. About $30 million or $40 million was paid back on the debt, then we were struck by the global recession.

The plan at the time was a number of years of deficit spending. The reason I am going over this is to contrast the current plan of the Liberals with the plan we had back then. It was deficit spending to deal with an extraordinary situation, but it was declining deficit spending, starting at approximately $55 billion, and over five years getting back to surplus. That was the plan. It was seen as short term. We needed an infusion to get the wheels going when the systems were failing around us.

Canada can be incredibly proud of having the stimulus. I would say to the Liberals that it was truly infrastructure stimulus. It got out the door fast. It was something that actually gave a jolt to the economy. We did not make mistakes and create deficits because of calculation errors.

Jim Flaherty also knew that once we opened the taps of government spending, it becomes incredibly difficult to turn those taps off. Any of us who lived through the 1990s, when we were in an absolutely horrendous position, realize that turning off those taps is very painful. It was very painful for the provinces. They saw health care transfers come down. There was a lot of pain and effort to get our finances back into a reasonable condition. That was a lesson we recognized.

The late hon. Jim Flaherty would have been incredibly proud to know that he achieved his plan. He did not live long enough to see the results. There are some lessons the Liberal government needs to take from that exercise.

It is also important to note that for 2015-16, the parliamentary budget officer recently confirmed that had it not been for the Liberal spending spree once it took office in October and November, we would have had a $2.9 billion surplus.

Different times require different remedies. Canada came through the global recession. None of our banks failed. We had a short-term stimulus for the economy, we had the best job creation record in the G7, and we moved into a bit of a steady state.

Yes, we have slow growth, but we are not in a recession. That is critical to remember. Slow growth is not a recession, and a different remedy is required economically. The Liberals seem to feel that it needs the kind of jolt we had during the global recession. We need a different remedy to deal with the slow-growth situation we are in, as opposed to the catastrophe we faced with the global recession.

I want to talk about how the Liberals believe they need to craft a budget. In the last year we heard that the budget would balance itself and the economy would grow from the heart out. Nothing could be further from the truth. The budget will not balance itself, and the economy is not going to grow from the heart out. It takes a lot of work and a lot of specific policies to ensure that the government does its part in creating an environment for the economy to grow, and balancing a budget requires some spending discipline. That is something we have not been seeing.

I talked about how we had a plan and that it was not a structural deficit but stimulus spending. It was roads and bridges and different investments that created short-term jobs.

What we are creating with the policies of this new government is a structural deficit that is growing and growing and is going to be more concerning as time goes on.

First, on the middle-class tax cut the Liberals so proudly talk about, they miscalculated by a couple of billion dollars. It was going to be revenue neutral. What the rich pay, the middle-class was going to benefit from, but they missed by a billion or two in the structural deficit.

It was a difficult decision to move the age of eligibility for old age security from 65 to 67. Canadians are living longer, and that is what a lot of other countries are doing. A number of countries in the world have moved the eligibility age for old age security from 65 to 67, because times are different. People are living a lot longer. This was something that would create a sustainable structure for old age security. The Liberals have obliterated that. It is now back to age 65. They have not taken into account the huge structural deficit that will be created with that.

The Liberals talk very proudly about their child care benefit. However, they did not index it. They have learned from the parliamentary budget officer that in a few years it will not be as good as the program we had in place. Therefore, they are indexing it through this budget implementation act. However, the cost of indexing it is $4.2 billion over five years. We have not heard what they are doing to create that revenue, so that will also become part of this structural deficit.

During the election, the Liberals claimed they had to run a small deficit of $10 billion because we had a sluggish economy. It was $30 billion, give or take, when they presented the budget. We will see what the minister has to say next week about this whole economic forecast. I hope I can be optimistic, but I am worried about that $30 billion deficit increasing. What we have is a deficit that continues to grow. There is no plan to create a fiscal anchor to bring it back to balance. They speak of the debt-to-GDP ratio, but have no anchor. Rather, they have a horrific spending problem.

At the same time, the middle class appears to be the touchstone word that we hear from the Liberals. To be frank, instead of growing the middle class, the Liberals are breaking it. They are creating an environment that is very difficult for businesses to thrive in.

Another broken promise is with respect to small business, which is the foundation of our economy. It is critical for employment and the revenues that come into government. The Liberals made a promise, reversed it, and now the small business tax has gone up.

During the election, every party committed to a low small business tax, because we recognized that what the government did not take in, the businesses would put into growing their business and increasing their payroll. Therefore, we felt that supporting small business with low taxes would be fundamentally important for the economy. The Liberals backtracked on that promise.

The next thing the Liberals did to small business owners was cook up a deal with respect to the Canada pension plan. Not only has small business had its tax raised, but it will cost an additional $2,000 a year for every employee: $1,000 paid by the employer and $1,000 by the employee. That might not sound like a lot, but for a new business with 20 employees that is struggling to make payroll, $20,000 can make a huge difference as to what it does and how it deals with its business. A number of these measures are creating some significant issues for the middle class.

I need to make a quick comment with respect to rural communities. Again, rural communities are incredibly important. We do not have a softwood lumber agreement signed. We are concerned about these good-paying, middle-class jobs, which keep the fabric of our rural communities alive. It will be an especially important issue for British Columbia. There does not seem to be any concern at all for rural communities.

Today, our colleague who represents Vegreville, which is a small community of 1,000 people, made reference to the fact that 200 immigration jobs would be moved to Edmonton. That will potentially destroy that community. It will have a huge impact.

The minister justified that by suggesting there were economies of scale. It does not take much to recognize that the commercial rates in Edmonton are going to be a whole lot different from the commercial rates in a small town. I really doubt that the business model is going to have that much impact. In the meanwhile, what they are doing is destroying a small town, and those who choose to move to Edmonton, all of a sudden, are going to face huge challenges because housing prices are extremely different.

We have talked about the middle class. I really do not think the middle class is benefiting from this particular budget. We certainly know that our small businesses are not benefiting from the budget. We certainly know the additional complications that are being created around environmental assessment processes, which are really causing pause. I heard from an investor from Korea who was looking at making significant investments in our country, but who is now backing away. He was saying there's now no certainty, that they do not know what the environmental assessment process will look like and how the carbon tax will fit in. People are looking at Canada and saying that maybe their money would be better spent in another place.

What the government does not realize is that money is mobile and for people to invest in Canada, they need to have confidence in Canada, but the changing landscape with government processes is really creating some challenges. They need to have certainty. They need to know what the process is. They need to know how long the process is.

Yesterday, we had a pretty powerful discussion about the indigenous child welfare system. The fact was brought up that during the first 100 days in office, the Prime Minister committed to spending billions of dollars in other countries. I am not sure those billions are really creating a positive impact in Canada. I do agree that we need to do our part to help address some of the challenges facing other countries. However, when we have in Canada some aboriginal communities facing underfunding of their child welfare services, that is a problem.

In conclusion, the government has time to take pause. It is not too late. But please, before you create this structural deficit, those the government says it is helping, the children, are the ones who are going to have pay it back.

Income Tax Act

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan.

It is good to be returning to the discussion on Bill C-2. As we all know in the House, this is a bill that received its first reading all the way back on December 9, 2015. We have had quite a session since then, and it is good to be returning to some old familiar ground.

Bill C-2 covers a few different areas. It is a bill that would amend a few different areas of the Income Tax Act. However, I am going to be limiting my comments to two areas in particular. The reason for that is they are the areas that are most relevant to the constituents in Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, and I suspect to constituents of most members of Parliament in the House as well. One area is the changes the bill would make to our tax code, notably to the area that the Liberals define as the middle class; and the second area is the reduction of the TFSA contributions from what the previous Conservative government used to have at $10,000 per year, down to a more reasonable level of $5,500 per year.

As part of my introductory remarks, I also want to speak a bit about my history as a former constituency assistant. I had the honour of working seven years as a constituency assistant. In that time, Canada Revenue Agency casework was one of the top three cases that came across my desk. It was some of the top casework that I got to see. I had a very privileged position, because over seven years I had very privileged access to many members of my constituency and their tax returns. I got to see the full range of their incomes, the very intricate details of their tax returns, and their relationship with the CRA because they essentially signed a contract with our office to give me unimpeded access to their tax returns and their tax history so that I could make some inquiries with the CRA on their behalf and try to solve the problems that they brought to the office.

One of the notable things that I saw during those seven years was the range of incomes. The range of incomes in Cowichan—Malahat—Langford would not be touched by the Liberals' tax measures. Incomes generally fell in a range of about $25,000 per year and maybe up to a high end of $50,000 to $60,000, so that the people at the high end would get some benefit but not much.

The key point I am trying to make here is that most constituents in my riding and I suspect most people across Canada would not receive any benefit from this tax cut, yet the Liberals keep on selling to the Canadian public that this would be a middle-class tax break. That is absolutely false.

I spoke to the bill at second reading back in February, when I was still getting used to making speeches in this hon. House. One of the things that I really loved to bring up during that speech, and I brought it up again during our discussions on Bill C-15, was the fact that the median income in Canada according to Statistics Canada is $31,000 a year. If we take the definition of median, which basically is the number separating the higher half of a data sample from the lower half, we could take $31,000 a year as a reasonable definition of where the middle class is. However, the Liberals' so-called middle-class tax break would not even start to begin giving benefits until people reach an income of $45,000 a year. They would max out when they get above $90,000 and into $100,000 a year.

To make it perfectly clear to everyone watching this debate, every member of Parliament in this chamber who earns $170,000 a year, which is on the public record, would get the maximum tax break of $670 per year, everyone. That is what the Liberals would do. They would give people in very high incomes a tax break, which frankly speaking we do not need. I do not know about everyone else in this chamber, but I was not elected to come to the House to give myself a tax break while the hard-working men and women of my riding get nothing. That was not what I was sent here to do. That is not the middle class that I came here to fight for.

The Liberals will say that it is okay because they are introducing the child benefit. It is a great concept, the child benefit. I will never, as a father of young children and knowing many constituents who have young children, argue against giving more money to the hard-working men and women of our country to help them raise their children.

However, I need to point out some evidence for everyone who is watching this debate. The Liberals' plan for the Canada child benefit will provide a maximum annual benefit of up to $6,400 per child under the age of six. Compare that with the average cost of child care in B.C., which is $14,000 per year. It is a drop in the bucket.

When I talk to families about the difficulties of child care, they say that more money would help but that what is really bugging them is the lack of affordable spaces and the lack of spaces overall. Furthermore, a lot of parents come up to me and say that their spouse works and they are a stay-at-home parent, and what would really get their family ahead is if they could actually hold two jobs. They cannot do that because the costs of child care are too high. They literally cannot afford to go and get a job.

That is what I hear. That is what I heard during the election. That is what I heard during seven years of working with constituents, right where the rubber meets the road, right at the constituency office.

I do not want any member of Parliament to tell me I do not know what I am speaking about, because I come here with evidence. I come here with testimony. I come here with seven years of experience of working with families. It is a shame that this Parliament is not doing anything to expand child care spaces in this country.

Furthermore, if we really wanted to give lower-income Canadians a leg up, we would pay attention to the wages they are receiving, and we would take this opportunity to show some leadership and institute a federally regulated minimum wage of $15 an hour.

A lot of people will say that is only going to affect a small number of jobs. That does not matter. It is about showing federal leadership. It is about having the House of Commons lead the way so that we put ourselves in the morally correct position of saying that we did it first and we expect the provinces to follow. I do not know how families make it on $11-an-hour wages. I simply do not. It is a miracle that they get by in the first place on those low wages.

I have spent a lot of time in my speech speaking about that particular tax change. It is a very passionate subject for me, as members can see. I do want to devote a little time on the TFSA, because that is one change in Bill C-2 that I agree with.

The Conservative government's plans in the previous Parliament to raise the limit to $10,000 a year would have been a huge cost to our treasury in later years. Furthermore, I do not know many families who could max out at $5,500 per year, let alone $10,000. When a family is earning a median income of $31,000 a year, how on Earth are they able to save $10,000 per year extra, to sock away? It is simply not possible.

That is a policy that benefits the top income earners in this country. Leaving the limit at $5,500 is perfectly reasonable, and it is something I can certainly support.

The costs with the TFSA increase to $10,000 a year would have risen to $132 billion by the year 2080. Conservatives like to portray themselves as the party of low taxes, and they like to really use the phrase “tax and spend”. The point I am trying to make is that if we are taking that much money out of federal revenue by those later years, that in itself is a tax on the programs that we use to support this society, to help low-income people get through.

If we are taking that kind of revenue out of the federal revenue stream, we are going to have to make cuts to federal programs. As much as we do not like to pay taxes, they are a part of living in our society and they are a part of building our infrastructure and building our supporting programs.

I will conclude by saying that we have been proposing some truly progressive things that could have made a real difference to low-income earners. I am sad to see that Bill C-2 did not live up to those standards and for that reason I will be voting against the bill at third reading.

Seniors

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for the opportunity to reiterate this government's commitment to seniors and to highlight once again the concrete measures in our first budget to support Canadians who have earned the right to a secure and dignified retirement, our seniors.

We on this side of the House value the contributions that older Canadians have made and continue to make to our communities, workplaces, and families. We are taking concrete steps to support this important component of Canadian families and Canadian society. One of the first measures that this government initiated when it came to office was to cancel the previous government's plan to raise the age of eligibility for old age security benefits from 65 to 67. Without these benefits, seniors aged 65 and 66 would have faced a much higher risk of living in poverty, and that is not acceptable.

The 20% of people aged 65 and 66 with the lowest income would have lost 35% of their income with that measure, while the 20% with the higher income would only have lost 5%. It is not fair. In addition, the previous government had not been able to produce proof showing that their irresponsible move was based on sound economic research. In fact, the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development researched this very issue as a leading university professor of economics and demonstrated that the current system was viable. He also stated in the House that his findings contributed to his decision to seek public office prior to the last election. As a consequence, I am very proud to serve with the minister in the House.

Under the previous government's plan, the most vulnerable Canadian seniors would have lost approximately $13,000 per year. The plan would have plunged 100,000 seniors into poverty. As a percentage of Canada's GDP, the estimated cost of restoring the age of eligibility to 65 represents an increase of less than a third of a percentage point in old age security expenditure in 2029.

Next, this government is increasing the guaranteed income supplement top-up benefit by $947 annually for the most vulnerable single seniors, many of whom are women. This action represents a 10% increase to the total maximum guaranteed income supplement benefits available to the lowest-income single seniors. It will improve the financial security of about 900,000 single seniors across Canada and help to lift thousands of seniors out of poverty. We are also moving ahead with concrete actions to ensure that couples living apart for reasons beyond their control, such as being in long-term care facilities, will receive higher benefits based on their individual incomes.

Most of the measures that I have just enumerated are contained in Bill C-15, the budget implementation act. I would encourage members from across the way to join with this government and support this important piece of legislation for seniors, the middle class, children, and all Canadians. It is not about a title, it is about the substance of the actions that are being taken and the real difference these actions will make in the lives of older Canadians now and in the future.

On behalf of the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, the minister responsible for seniors' issues, I am proud to say that we are delivering on the promises we made to Canada's seniors.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It being 6:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division of the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-15.

Call in the members.

The House resumed from June 10 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 third time and passed.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Minister of Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this debate on Bill C-15. I want to focus my remarks today on the provision that introduces the new Canada child benefit. This legislation is about building a more caring and compassionate society and it is about giving all Canadian families a chance to build a better life for themselves and their children.

The new Canada child benefit was one of our most important campaign commitments. I am very proud that we are now turning that promise into reality. The bill will put real money into the pockets of Canadian families who need and deserve our support to raise their children.

As a single mother myself who raised two boys, I know the difficult financial realities of raising a family alone. When I was first separated from the father of my two children who were then under six years old, my gross salary was $35,000 per year and I also received about $6,000 annually from child support. I was fortunate to have what many other parents who are in this situation do not have, a stable job, access to benefits, and the ability to borrow money.

As a result, my boys were fed well, had access to medication when necessary, and were able to take part in limited activities with support from P.R.O. Kids, a not-for-profit organization initiated in Thunder Bay that offers non-judgmental support for low-income parents to ensure their children can participate in an extracurricular activity that is otherwise out of reach.

However, it was still very difficult to make ends meet and I often turned to credit to pay for the extras that I saw as essential investments in my boys' development. Many families do not have the ability to pay for child care or to give their children opportunities to learn or grow.

Had the Canada child benefit been in place when I was in those early difficult years, I would have received an extra $11,300 tax-free per year, meaning more opportunities for my children and the ability to live without the crippling anxiety of carrying a high debt load. In fact, I may have been able to save a bit for their education, something that is far out of reach for many low-income families.

We know that our communities are better when they are stronger, safer, and more inclusive. We want people to have the ability to raise happy and healthy families and the Canada child benefit will allow many more families to do just that. Nine out of 10 families will receive more money every month with the new benefit than they receive now and the ones who will be receiving less are those fortunate families who are on the higher end of the income scale.

Families earning less than $30,000 per year will receive the maximum benefit and the maximum benefit is substantial. It is $6,400 per year for each child under age six and up to $5,400 per year for each child ages six to 17. It replaces the Canada tax benefit and the universal child care benefit. The payment is tax-free. Parents do not have to report it on their tax returns as part of their income and it is much more generous. Families benefiting will see an average increase in benefits of almost $2,300 in the 2016-17 benefit year. It is also a much simpler system. One payment each and every month starting in July this year, just a few weeks from now.

We have also eliminated the children's art tax credit and the child fitness tax credit. These tax credits only benefit those higher-income families who can afford to spend the money on extracurricular activities for their children. Lower-income families often cannot and do not benefit from those tax credits.

In fact, my family was one that was not able to use those credits to their fullest potential simply because I just did not have the money to pay for the activities up front. Now, with the introduction of the Canada child benefit, low- and middle-income families will have the extra income they need to allow their children to participate in these and many other activities or use it for whatever needs best suit their family. That could include child care, nutritious food, or even a medication that may not be covered by any health plan.

The best news is that the new Canada child benefit will lift upwards of 300,000 children out of poverty by 2017. We also recognize that it costs more to care for a child with a severe disability. That is why we will continue to pay an additional $2,730 per year over and above the regular child tax benefit for every child eligible for the disability tax credit.

I can say that this government also understands that struggle. We understand that low- and middle-income families, in particular, need to be the focus of much of our effort in government.

We want to lift as many people as possible into the middle class. At the same time, we want to continue to strengthen the middle class itself, and that is why the Minister of Finance introduced the middle-class tax cut. It lowers taxes for low- and middle-income Canadians and asks the very wealthy to pay a bit more. It is a basic question of fairness and allowing every individual to live up to their full potential. It is also very good economics. Good social policy is good fiscal policy. A strong middle class means a strong economy.

The new Canada child benefit is also about inclusion. It is about bringing people into the mainstream, helping take people out of poverty, giving them hope for the future, and providing the supportive tools that they need to help them build a better life.

As the Minister of Status of Women, I know that a disproportionate number of low-income households are headed by women, and many of these working women face particular challenges in raising their families. The harsh reality is that women are still not treated as full equals in the workplace. On average, they are still paid less than men.

An even harsher truth is that women are much more likely to be the victims of domestic and sexual violence than men, so needless to say, we have a lot more work to do. We cannot accept the status quo. We need to focus on finding answers and putting the solutions in place, just as we are doing with the new Canada child benefit.

How can we accept that women should be paid less than men for work of the same value? How can we accept that women are disproportionately the victims of violence? How can we accept that children in low- and middle-income families should be deprived of basic food, shelter, and clothing just because their parents are not rich enough?

With the new Canada child benefit, we are taking the kind of direct action that will make a positive change in the lives of hundreds of thousands of families across this country, this year, next year, and for many years to come. That is something we should all be proud of.

In my career before politics, I worked with many individuals, women and men, who faced severe challenges such as substance abuse, poverty, homelessness, violence, and mental health issues. In fact, it was the desire to make systemic change through good policy that drove me to seek election. I knew that by ensuring that people struggling to join the middle class have the support to do so, we could see long-lasting change for citizens and communities for generations to come.

When we ensure that those who need a hand up get the support they need, the result is healthier children and families, and ultimately a stronger Canada.

When parents who are struggling to raise healthy children have an economic boost, it creates a healthier future for all of us. Indeed, good social policy is good fiscal policy, because when children are supported to succeed, they do better in school and avoid many problems that result from inequality.

The new Canada child benefit provides non-judgmental financial support, and it will help give many thousands of individuals the support they need to thrive. Children who have enough to eat can take part in community activities, have a safe place to live, and have a much better chance of success in school, and therefore, in society at large.

We want every child in Canada to grow up healthy and strong and contribute their talents and their skills to making our society even more inclusive and strong.

I believe, as the Prime Minister has said, in Canada, better is always possible, and it is. The Canada child benefit will make our country a much better place for tens if not hundreds of thousands of families and children.

I sincerely hope that all of us in the House will give the legislation the enthusiastic support that I truly believe it deserves. It is time to give families hope for a better future and it is time to let Canadian children know that we are committed to helping them succeed.

I was fortunate as a single parent to be able to increasingly earn more, leading to more possibilities for my boys as I gained the capacity to ensure their success through full participation and access to post-secondary education. Now they are both doing very well with very optimistic futures. I have no doubt they will contribute to their communities and country in meaningful ways, and I want the same opportunities for all children across Canada. I want all Canadian children to have an equal footing to reach their potential.

It is time to invest in our future through making sure that all Canadian children are supported to thrive. In fact, this investment is one that will pay dividends for generations to come.

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 third time and passed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague opposite for his impassioned speech about Bill C-15 and our budget.

The party opposite at times confuses me, because what I hear now from the party opposite is that we need to spend more on this and more on that, we did not spend enough on this, and we did not spend enough on that. However, the NDP campaign was run on austerity, budget cutbacks, and budget controls. I certainly saw, going door to door during the election campaign, that voters were absolutely confused as to where NDP members actually stood. Some said they went so far right they were actually left.

I am not sure where they were, but my question to my colleague is this. Could he please explain the $15-a-day day care policy that the party opposite put forth, and how the NDP was actually going to implement that when there were already provinces that said they were not going to agree to it?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I just want to thank my hon. Liberal colleague for splitting his time with me, although we will probably take some different approaches on our views on Bill C-15.

Bill C-15, the budget implementation bill, is, as I have heard some Liberal members of Parliament say, where the rubber meets the road for a government's budgetary policy. The NDP has examined some aspects of Bill C-15, and we do agree that there are some positive measures that the NDP has fought for, so we will acknowledge that there are some good things in the bill. However, it is nowhere near what the Liberals promised and it is not what is necessary to strengthen our economy and combat inequality.

For example, one of the major things that I campaigned on and on which I received feedback from my constituents was child care spaces. It is one thing to increase the child benefit, but when families are struggling to even find spaces or they have wait-lists that go on longer than a year, that will not really help two-income families try to find that space so that one parent can have the freedom to find work.

The other major glaring omission is with employment insurance. There was a real opportunity in the bill to make some profound changes to the Employment Insurance Act, to how it operates for Canadians on an equal basis from coast to coast to coast, and that is what was lacking.

In conclusion to my introduction, we will be opposing Bill C-15 because of its content, but also because of the fact that it is an omnibus bill.

The Liberal government has studied a few Conservative tactics from the previous government. The bill has been rushed through. We have had time allocation. The committee meetings that were held were also rushed. We have an act that spans 179 pages. It changes over 30 different statutes that fall under nine different ministries. There are a few things that we argued should have been split off to give proper study, but the committee, when it was studying Bill C-15, had six meetings. Only two had witnesses and the amendments that were proposed by the opposition were all rejected.

The Liberals make a big deal about how they reach across the aisle and they want the opposition to work with them, but when over 35 amendments are proposed by the opposition and all of them are rejected by the Liberals, I do not see that as working together.

It brings to mind the quote from the movie, Jerry Maguire, “Help me help you”. If the Liberals want the opposition to truly work with them, then I think some deference has to be paid to the propositions we are putting forward and not have them rejected out of hand. Those are a few of the reasons.

In terms of the time to adequately review the different components of the legislation, when the Liberals were in opposition and on the campaign trail, I remember they talked about how undemocratic omnibus bills were. They said during the campaign that they would not resort to legislative tricks to avoid the scrutiny of their bills. I think we will see the history of the previous six months shows completely the opposite.

The Liberals promised to change the Standing Orders of the House to bring an end to this undemocratic process of omnibus bills. I just truly feel that if we are to study an omnibus bill that is changing a few different pieces of legislation, it has to be given the proper time and scrutiny. I believe all Canadians and expert witnesses deserve to have their say in things like this.

I will devote a little time to just going over a few of the good things, with the caveat that there will be a few criticisms as well. The NDP proposed in the last Parliament that we would remove taxes on feminine hygiene products because that costs women $36 million a year, so we are happy to see that mentioned in the bill.

We are also happy to see the Liberals recommit to returning the old age security and GIS eligibility back to age 65. I heard my previous Liberal colleague talk about the GIS and what a wonderful thing it was that it would be increased by 10%. Let me provide a bit more of a factual basis to that claim.

The guaranteed income supplement is going to be increased for people in the income range of $4,600 to $8,400. A person with an income of $4,600 per year or less would get an increase of $947 per year, which is less than $100 per month. GIS benefits will be phased out completely at $8,400. Rather than increasing the GIS by 10% across the board for every senior who is eligible for it, the Liberals are targeting a narrow bandwidth. It is important to illustrate that fact because it gets lost in all of the hyperbole about how great the Liberal government is and how it is helping our low-income seniors. We must always read the fine print.

I am also happy to see that the government has committed to enhancing the Canada pension plan. This pension model survived the recession very well. It is a model for the world to see how well managed a pension plan can be. Our interest is in making sure that every worker who pays into the CPP can retire with an adequate income.

One of the biggest broken promises comes with respect to small businesses. Page 10 of the Liberal fiscal plan in the 2015 election specifically mentioned that the Liberals were going to reduce the small business tax rate to 9% from the current 11%. Not going ahead with this reduction is going to cost the small business sector $2.2 billion. It is going to cost $125 million in the next fiscal year, $475 million in the year after that, $770 million by 2019-20, and $825 million by 2021. This is according to both the finance ministry and the parliamentary budget officer.

What am I supposed to tell entrepreneurs in my riding, when I tell them there will be personal income tax cuts that mean income earners in my range will get a reduction but they will not see that? Furthermore, small business owners usually pay themselves a small amount of money to keep their business afloat so they are going to get hit twice. Their business rate is not going to be reduced and their personal income tax rates are not going to be affected. That is a shameful broken promise.

Bill C-15 swallows what was Bill C-12, which dealt with veterans. We were happy to see the changes in Bill C-12 because we agreed with them, but we believe that Bill C-12 should have been made a stand-alone bill so that we could have proposed different changes to make it better. Swallowing Bill C-12 into Bill C-15 creates an omnibus bill and avoids proper scrutiny. The Liberal government's record with veterans right now is absolutely shameful. It has broken a solemn promise that was made during the campaign. The Liberals agreed during the election campaign that the government has a sacred obligation, a social covenant, and now they are taking veterans to court. I would like to see the government take some firm action and stand up for our veterans for once and not use them as campaign props to get votes.

In terms of employment insurance, I suggested to the Minister of Employment that one of the great things the Liberals could do would be to set up the employment insurance fund as a stand-alone fund so that it would be protected from raiding by future governments. Right now, those premiums, which are paid by workers in the event that they might end up unemployed one day, simply get raided as a cash cow. It would set something meaningful up for workers if we put that up as a stand-alone fund. Again the Liberals have taken no significant action on that and we still have an employment insurance system where six out of 10 Canadians will not qualify.

To help my Liberal colleagues understand why we oppose the legislation, it is always helpful to read quotes that Liberals have given in the past. The current Minister of Public Services and Procurement and the member of Parliament for Bonavista—Burin—Trinity said something in 2014 that really sums it up. She said:

...there is so much contained in this omnibus budget bill that it really does not give parliamentarians the opportunity they need to act on behalf of the people they represent. We do not get to scrutinize the legislation.... At the end of the day, we end up voting on a bill that we have had little time to digest.

I could not have said it better myself.

The House resumed from June 8 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 third time and passed.

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, I would love to inform the House what the plan is.

This afternoon we will continue debate on the Conservative opposition motion.

Tomorrow, we will resume debate on Bill C-15, the budget legislation. We have been in discussion with our opposition colleagues, and I hope we will conclude third reading at the end of day tomorrow.

Monday and Tuesday of next week will be allotted days.

On Wednesday, we will have a debate on concurrence of the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities concerning the transportation of grain. Following that debate, we would then take up second reading of Bill C-13, which implements the WTO trade facilitation agreement.

On Thursday, we will resume third reading debate on Bill C-6, Citizenship Act amendments.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand to discuss Bill C-15 today, an act to amend certain provisions of the budget. Today, I would like to discuss two different issues. One thing I will be discussing is old age security and what I think we should be looking at. It is great to join in those kinds of conversations.

As I said, I will be discussing things that are important to Canadians, seniors and youth. I will begin with changes to old age security and eligibility being reversed from 67 back down to 65.

In March 2016, the Prime Minister made the announcement in the United States that the government was going to do this. When the Conservative government made the changes in 2012, it was taking a very complex issue and putting forward a very simple solution. The Prime Minister has now put forward a very simple solution to a very complex issue just by reversing it. These are considerations that we have to look at.

We see countries like the United States, Denmark, Spain, Germany, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and a variety of other countries in the industrialized world that have made these increases to age eligibility, and there are many factors in doing so. Last week, I joined the discussion in the House with the Minister of Finance about old age security and I was looking for answers. Unfortunately, I did not find them, so I am hoping that today I can find some of the answers as we go forward.

I want to point out some of the facts. When we talk about old age security, we have to look at why it came into existence and how it has moved along.

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time.

Back in the 1960s, when old age security was put forward, it was because the government saw that approximately 40% of seniors were living in poverty. At the time the change was made and the age went from 70 down to 65, there were approximately six workers for every one senior. Today, that ratio has changed to four workers for every senior, and in 20 years, there will be two workers for every senior receiving old age security.

To me or anybody who can do simple math, that is extremely problematic. In a simple pie chart, we can see that if half the group is working and the other half of the group is not working, who is going to be paying for the other half? We have to be aware of those things.

When I come to the House, I come with years of experience from working in a constituency office. Many people believe that they pay into and invest in old age security. We have to remind ourselves that old age security is derived from taxes for that year. It is not money that people put into it, like the Canada pension plan or RRSPs, or even pensions at work. Therefore, we must be aware of that when we are having these discussions.

If we look back to when the changes were made to old age security in the 1960s, the life expectancy for men was about 14 years above retirement age. In the 2011 to 2016 period, our life expectancy has grown. For males, it is 21 years above retirement age and for females, it is 25 years above retirement age. Just in those few decades, we see people living seven years longer and receiving old age security.

This is a big transition and we must recognize that there have been many changes since the 1960s, including the removal of mandatory retirement. If one person out of four is retired now, we must recognize that old age security is going to be drawn on very heavily and will be for a much longer of period of time if people are living longer. In 2011, old age security was an expense to the Government of Canada of approximately $38 billion. In 2030, it is going to be $108 billion.

Let us look at two workers per pensioner. I welcome any solutions. The Prime Minister indicated we went back to a simple solution, but just yesterday, the anti-poverty committee came up with some excellent solutions. Even Mr. Shillington, who appeared at the anti-poverty committee yesterday, indicated the proposal for a gradual shift for old age security eligibility to go up to 67, as proposed by the Conservatives, and to move the age of eligibility for GIS back down to 60. Those are things we are going to look at.

In talking about a very complex issue, let us not just take such an easy solution as the government has done, reduce the age back down to 65 and say we will be fine and then deal with it in 20 years.

Another thing I want to discuss when it comes to this is that many women are very unfortunate. Perhaps they are single or widowed, and I recognize that one in three senior women are living in poverty. That is why we need to look at this complex issue and not just have such a simple approach by reversing the decision.

We must consider that in the future this is truly going to be a greater deficit, with more and more spending, and those middle class families the government says it is going to help are going to be stuck footing the bill when we have not looked at any long-term solutions.

Therefore, I urge the government to look at solutions. We cannot just have short-term solutions. We need to have long-term solutions as well. Those are some of the concerns I have.

One of my biggest concerns is the deficit. We talk about the middle class. This middle class is going to have more deficit and more debt than we can even imagine with all the spending we have here.

I see you would like me to stop, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to commend my colleague on her speech and her sensitivity toward the most disadvantaged members of our society. It is very commendable.

I would like to ask her a question in that regard, more specifically regarding the health care and social services available to the less fortunate. When I am out and about and run into people from my riding and elsewhere in Quebec, that is what they talk to me about. The health care and social services available, particularly to the less fortunate, are no longer up to snuff, both in terms of quality and quantity. One of the main reasons for that is the fact that the federal government is providing less and less funding for these services every year. I expected the budget and Bill C-15 to include increased transfers for these services, but I did not see anything like that.

Why did the government not at least undo the most recent cuts made by the Conservatives?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sharing my time with the member for Labrador.

I am happy to rise today in the House to speak again to the 2016 federal budget, Bill C-15.

During the 2015 federal election, I was an unelected candidate, I was consistently down 10 points in the polls, I had to trust my party's platform. My party's platform was my road map and I came to know my road map very well. I came to trust it, I sought to inspire that same trust from the people of Saint John—Rothesay.

I told my constituents that a Liberal government would tackle head-on the generational poverty that was gripping Saint John through the enhanced child benefit that would lift 300,000 children out of poverty. I told my constituents that a Liberal government would make investments in affordable housing. I told my constituents that we would increase funding for skills training and social enterprises, finding innovative ways of teaching people who needed the skills to succeed. I said that we would provide better support than previous governments for community-based initiatives like the Saint John community loan fund and the Saint John learning exchange.

I told my constituents that the Liberal Party would take social development seriously and provide better support to the excellent work done by people like Randy Hatfield at the Human Development Council, and provide better resources for the homeless through our local women's shelter Coverdale, our men's shelter Outflow, and our youth shelter Safe Harbour, which after some tough times I hope will be reopening very soon.

I told my constituents that the Liberal Party would make historic investments in necessary and overdue infrastructure upgrades, such as Rothesay waste water, as a long-term plan to grow our economy.

I told my constituents that a Liberal government would support major upgrades to economic drivers such as the port of Saint John and the Saint John City Market.

I told my constituents that a Liberal government would cut income taxes for nine million Canadians as a way of strengthening the middle class and putting money in the pockets to those who spend and those who drive our economy.

I told my constituents that a Liberal government would do more for seniors than previous governments, especially the past government opposite. We would increase the GIS by 10% for seniors living in poverty.

I told my constituents that a Liberal government would invest in social infrastructure such as tourist sites like Carleton Martello Tower and recreation facilities like the Saint John field house and the Rothesay Arena.

I told my constituents all these things. Our party platform was my road map and that map did not steer me or the Liberal Party wrong. That map steered me and my constituents toward a new government, a government that rather than cynically catering to a small strategic base, that made and followed a plan that looked out for all Canadians.

Good government governs for the many, not the few, no matter who they are or what party colours they fly. We govern for the homeless, the middle class, veterans, disabled, rich, indigenous, ill. Everyone ended up in a better place because of this map, our party platform of 2015.

How can I prove this? Let us talk about the budget Bill C-15. This budget was endorsed and accepted by the majority of Canadians. Even critics are forced to fall silent when the real judges, the Canadian people, weigh in. The budget has been a resounding success with Canadians. Everything I told my constituents has either been delivered or the way has been paved for delivery in future years and in future budgets of this government's mandate.

With its first budget, the Liberal government delivered on its plan to tackle poverty head-on. I come from Saint John—Rothesay. I am so proud of my riding, but my riding leads the country in child poverty. Our Canada child benefit is transformational. It is a historic, $23 billion investment in Canadians and, most important, Canadians who need it the most. This program will help more Canadian families than any other social program since universal health care.

I am excited about July, and not only because of Canada Day, not only because of summer, which is my favourite season. I am excited this year for the new Canada child benefit and what it will do for disadvantaged people in my riding of Saint John—Rothesay.

Nine out of 10 families will get more help than they do under existing programs. A single mother with one child under the age of six and earning $30,000 a year will receive an annual benefit of $6,400 a year, tax free. Coming from a city with the highest rate of child poverty in Canada, I cannot express how happy I am for the priority wards in Saint John, such as ward 3 where one out of every two children live in poverty, 50%. That is a higher rate of poverty than is experienced by people in many developing countries. This cannot be allowed to continue, and I am proud to be a part of this historic change.

Coupled with our local poverty reduction strategy, I am proud to say that we are finally set to change things for the better in the priority wards of my riding.

It takes an important shift in social policy to move the needle on poverty. I believe this is a historic investment in Canadians, and we will finally move the needle in Saint John—Rothesay. I look forward to seeing how many children we can lift out of poverty across our great nation. This act, the Canada child benefit, is transformational and will make us a greater country.

Also, $112 million will be given to anti-homelessness initiatives across the country, which is good news for our local shelters and our programs. We would love to see what the very successful At Home-Chez Soi program, which helps homeless participants get off the street and into a stable home, can do for those experiencing homelessness in Saint John. We would love to see increased funding to Outflow and Coverdale, our men's and women's homeless shelters, to continue every day to do their excellent work in our community, helping those who need help. We need to give these community leaders all the help we can.

One thing both our men's and women's homeless shelters desperately need is transition housing. This is a crucial step in the process of getting Canadians off the street and into stable homes. Transition housing makes it so that those people who are getting back on their feet can move out of the shelter and into their own room.

As a government, we need to look after all of our people, not just the ones who we think will vote for us.

With this budget, the Liberal government is delivering on infrastructure. This year we will invest $11.9 billion to modernize and rehabilitate public transit, water and waste-water systems, provide affordable housing, and protect infrastructure systems from the effects of climate change.

This is good news for my riding of Saint John—Rothesay. In Saint John, we have 1,400 people on the waiting list for affordable housing, and we have many projects that are shovel ready. This budget is good news for them. Rothesay waste water has applied for necessary funding, along with the Saint John field house. Both projects make a strong case, and I am confident they will move forward.

The Liberal government is also investing $3.4 billion over five years to maintain our national parks, harbours, federal airports, and border infrastructure, and to support the cleanup of federal contaminated sites across the country.

There has been great news recently for Carleton Martello Tower, the first line of defence in guarding Saint John since 1813. Parks Canada has undertaken a massive restoration of one of Canada's most significant historical fortifications. It is the oldest structure in our city. This funding is also great news for Partridge Island, an important and neglected historical site on federal land.

I told my constituents that a Liberal government would implement a middle-class tax cut from 22% to 20.5%. We were able to do this even before the first budget. A strong economy needs a strong middle class.

Seniors make up a large percentage of our population in Saint John—Rothesay. We will help the most vulnerable seniors by increasing the guaranteed income supplement for single seniors by up to $947 annually.

In our election campaign, we promised real change. I am proud to stand here today speaking to my constituents, speaking to all Canadians. I am proud to stand here and say that my road map, our party platform of 2015, was a success. I am proud of our government. I am proud of the budget we delivered. It is progressive. It is innovative. It will be a change for our country for the better.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address Bill C-15, the budget implementation act.

I will note that the hon. member opposite indicated in the introduction to his speech that this was part one of budget implementation. Therefore, we look forward to part two of the budget implementation act when that arises.

For many weeks, we in the official opposition have had many opportunities to take a look at the legislation. We have actually had a lot of opportunity to also question the Minister of Finance and the government on their fiscal plan. Unfortunately, it appears that the more we ask for clarification the less things become clear for us. That is why I would like to focus today on the aspects surrounding the credibility of the minister in delivering this budget.

This plan, or really the lack thereof, his projections, and his assertions are incredibly important to the veracity of this budget. The Minister of Finance is continuing to battle serious questions about his fiscal credibility and his lack of transparency.

We in the opposition would much rather be working with the government to make amendments to the legislation. However, we cannot support a plan for massive borrowing and massive spending when it is based on such flawed assumptions. The fundamentals of the legislation were simply not sound from the beginning.

During the committee of the whole on May 30, the Minister of Finance stated the following, “We found ourselves in a low-growth era. That is what we are facing right now.” Indeed, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance repeated the concept of the low growth the Liberals were handed. This simply is not the truth.

In a briefing prepared for the Minister of Finance, his own department advised him that Canada's real income per capita growth was the strongest of all G7 countries in the 2000s, compared to the weakest growth in the 1990s. It also showed that we had the healthiest middle class of our G7 cohorts. More importantly, it was proven by the OECD that income was evenly distributed during this period of time.

It is indeed concerning that the Minister of Finance and his Liberal budget appear to be so out of touch that his budget is based on a false assumption. The history and the current state of the Canadian economy are important factors, and the way in which the Liberals are characterizing it is simply incorrect. Indeed, the excessive spending that is set out in this budget is wholly inappropriate for the actual state of the economy of this country. The facts are very clear that we are not in a recession, yet the government continues to act as though we are.

During the committee of the whole, the Minister of Finance also said, “The 'Fiscal Monitor' in 2015 shows clearly in the month of March that in fact the government before us left us in a deficit. That is our starting point.”

Once again the facts do not support this claim. The evidence shows clearly that the minister was actually left with a surplus by the Conservative government and that it really is his own spending decisions that have set it off track. Our government balanced the budget in 2014-15, as we said we would, and there was a $1.9-billion surplus. The parliamentary budget office has confirmed that the 2015-16 budget was left in a surplus by our Conservative government. We have still yet to see the full extent of the Minister of Finance's March madness, but it is clear that in this spending spree he worked really hard to spend away Conservative surpluses, and he refuses to take the responsibility for this reckless spending.

Credibility is key and trust is a key as well. The current government's inability to answer simple questions asks us to question both credibility and trust.

When we look at the budget implementation bill and reflect on the testimony in the committee of the whole, we actually gave the Minister of Finance about four hours to answer some pretty basic questions about his plans, but our questions were often met with silence, and that is a very revealing indication of problems with respect to the implementation of this budget.

Revealing, as well, were our questions about the $6-billion contingency fund the minister built into the budget. During this particular exchange, the minister was actually unable to provide any details at all as to what kinds of factors were taken into consideration when determining the size of the fund. I would add that one of the witnesses before the finance committee indicated to the members of the committee that applying this contingency fund was, in essence, projecting oil to be at a price of $20 per barrel, and we know that not to be the fact.

More concerning was the fact that the minister revealed that he already had plans to spend this $6-billion contingency fund. The next day, in question period, the minister doubled down. Again, he committed to spending this $6 billion, regardless of whether it was needed, instead of returning it to taxpayers. This is not responsible and is simply not acceptable.

People could understand it if it were put in simple terms of dealing with their own credit cards. For example, a person asks for a $6,000 credit card increase but has no need and no plan as to what to buy but knows that he or she is going to buy something, the only factor being that every single last cent of that $6,000 will be spent. Even Canadians going to a bank for a loan these days are asked to explain why they need the loan, whether they are students looking to invest in their educations or young families wanting to make improvements to their homes. Any responsible institution would ask why they are applying for the loan.

Canadians also expect that when someone promises to do something, that person will follow through on the promise. The Liberals have made many promises, but those promises lack credibility. The Liberals have broken their election promises, and their out-of-control spending will end up hurting families, small business, and hard-working Canadians, because we know where this ends. It ends in the form of tax increases.

The Liberals were elected on a platform of modest deficits capped at $10 billion. They were elected on a platform of reducing the ratio of debt to GDP, with a goal of returning the budget to balance. However, almost immediately after taking power, they changed their minds. At a time when Canada is not in a recession, they have nearly tripled the deficit, admitted that they cannot control the debt to GDP ratio, and decided that balancing the budget was really not that important after all.

Not only is the minister breaking his promise, but as we know, he is suggesting that Conservatives would do well to get past this whole budget balance thing. However, the Conservatives will not simply get past the whole balanced budget thing, because we know that budgets do not balance themselves. We will continue to voice our concerns, as well as those of Canadians who want to see balanced budgets, not broken electoral promises and out-of-control spending.

We should take a closer look at some of the broken electoral promises. The Liberals have absolutely shattered their promise to small businesses to proceed with a small business tax rate reduction to 9% by 2019. While the Liberals promised to stand by this commitment during the election period, since taking power, it has become clear that small businesses are not the government's priority at all.

Budget 2016 lays out the Liberals' plan to tax small businesses at 10.5%, but they cleverly say that plans for any other small business tax cuts will be deferred. I know what the definition of “deferred” is. For the record, it is “withheld for or until a stated time”.

The finance minister indicated, when he appeared before the finance committee, that he actually has no further information about any planned date to restore this tax reduction, as promised. He refuses to own up to the fact that this tax cut has been clearly cancelled.

The president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, Dan Kelly, has expressed his disappointment and his shock as well. According to the CFIB,“This decision will cost small firms over $900 million more per year as of 2019”.

The parliamentary budget office, in a report from May 10, “estimates that by 2020-21, Budget 2016 changes to the small business tax rate will reduce real GDP by $300 million”, and this Canadians will really understand, “and the level of employment by about 1,240 jobs”.

Not proceeding with the planned implementation of the tax rate, in fact cancelling it, will have a long-term effect on employment in this country and on our GDP. This will clearly not help grow the Canadian economy.

We know that the Liberals will have to raise taxes to pay for all of this out-of-control spending. However, when we reflect upon it, it really is disconcerting and unfortunate that 700,000 middle-class small business owners, who employ 95% of working Canadians, were the first target of this finance minister.

When it increases taxes on job-creating small businesses, the government is discouraging success and discouraging entrepreneurship, and that has an effect on the entire country. It is not helping the middle class. It is absolutely hurting the middle class.

I, along with my constituents and the Conservative Party, have a long list of concerns about this budget. We have the ballooning deficit, with no sign in the future of what the cap will be. The Prime Minister famously gave an interview in the United States, and when he was asked how big the deficit will grow, he said he did not really have a number in mind. That is not prudent management.

We also have concerns about eligibility for old age security being lowered from 67 to 65. I have two points on that. First, it was this country's finance minister who indicated no more than three years ago that this was the right thing to do, and now he has done exactly the opposite. Second, when we actually did this in the former Conservative government, we were lauded as having the courage to do the right thing by the Secretary-General of the OECD. We joined a list of 29 out of 38 countries in the OECD proceeding down this road.

I am concerned about the fact that this budget has no plan to create jobs. There is the notion that if the Liberals sprinkle the money out into the economy, it is going to actually take root and there will be growth. The reality is that there are a lot of things that can happen between the sprinkling of the money and the creation of a job. My concern is that there is no plan to actually nurture the creation of jobs.

I am very concerned that there is no plan to promote business investment. In fact, it is quite the opposite. The government's version of promoting investment by private businesses is taxing them more, creating more regulation, and giving far greater uncertainty in decision-making within this country when it comes to the movement of our natural resources.

That does nothing to help our economy. That does nothing to help us with the commodity shock we are feeling right now in this country that is actually putting so many people and Canadians in pain, in several provinces, as a result of something that is completely out of their control.

I am very concerned that the Liberals have repealed the balanced budget legislation. There were provisions within this legislation to take into account in emergency situations. Instead, the Liberals have decided to just remove it, because they do not want to be tied to a fiscal anchor that every Canadian household can completely understand and should absolutely live to attain.

We can look at studies that have been produced by the parliamentary budget office. One that came out in January that was of most importance to me looked at household indebtedness in our country. It may be surprising to note that household indebtedness in our country is projected to rise to about 174% of debt to household income. That is a very large number. It means that Canadians are gathering in more debt. They have higher debt than they did before the recession hit in 2008-09. The government is now getting on that bandwagon and saying that debt is good, and it is going to go into debt now too, as their government. However, it is not doing it on its own behalf; it is doing it in combination with provinces that are doing the exact same thing, going into greater amounts of debt. We have households with increased debt. We have provinces really racking up the debt, especially in my province of Ontario.

By the way, Ontario is the number one sub-national government in the world in terms of the size of the debt. We are number one, Ontario. That is fantastic.

The other aspect of debt is the reality that at the end of the day, this debt actually does matter. It takes away the flexibility of a government to act when things get very difficult with respect to the economy.

The bill also targets tax credits we introduced, as the previous government, that actually helped families. One of the aspects of the fitness and arts credit I appreciated the most was the fact that it was actually recognizing Canadian families for doing something good for their children's health in the future, their mental health by taking arts and their physical health by getting involved in fitness. That incentive has been taken away by the government.

Changes to EI are of great concern.

However, the small business tax cut cancellation will, of course, have a long-term, long-run effect on our Canadian economy.

When people realized that the government had actually increased taxes on higher income earners in our country, a lot thought that should be okay and that it did not really mean a lot, because those people make so much money that it does not matter. I asked the minister's officials at the finance committee whether there had been any studies done to indicate difficulties in having a combined tax rate of over 50% when we are trying to attract to Canada world-class talent for our Canadian companies. Not a single study had been done to determine what the effect would be. That is just another example of rushing to implement parts of a platform without thinking about the total effect.

The only things the government is going to grow in the coming years are two-fold: it is going to grow our debt, and it is absolutely going to grow the size of government. Coming from Cape Breton, I can say that big government is not here to save us. Big government is not something we should be reliant upon. We should be reliant upon ourselves, our families, and our communities to ensure that we live a prosperous life and can contribute to the economy of Canada.

With all of these concerns in mind, Conservatives will not forget that Canadians voted for responsible fiscal management on election day. Those who voted for the Conservatives and NDP in both cases voted for balanced budgets. We will not forget those who voted for the Liberals either, because they voted on the basis of small, moderate deficits that would primarily go to infrastructure. That is far from what the Liberals have delivered so far.

We will hold the government accountable. We will fight for lower taxes, we will fight for a balanced budget, and we will fight to get a plan that will actually keep Canada growing and thriving.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I stand today in support of Bill C-15, the budget implementation act.

I am pleased to discuss the investments that the Government of Canada's first budget makes to strengthen the middle class and to grow our economy. I am proud to honour the trust that Canadians have placed in our government.

We are bringing a renewed sense of optimism with our 2016 budget and with our budget implementation act, which is putting people first. The measures included in this bill will give parents more money to help with the high cost of raising children.

Bill C-15 will ensure that out of work Canadians have the support they need while they look for their next job. It will help our seniors to retire in comfort and dignity. It will support our veterans and give back to those who have given so much in service to our country. In short, it is the first step in our long-term plan to restore hope and revitalize the economy for the benefit of all Canadians.

This legislation reflects what Canadians have told us. The Minister of Finance and I, as well as many members of our caucus, travelled the country from coast to coast to coast in an unprecedented prebudget consultation exercise. I personally met with Canadians across Canada, from my home province of Quebec to as far north as Yellowknife.

What we heard from the thousands of Canadians who spoke to us directly shaped the measures contained in today's legislation. In communities across the country, we heard two common messages. First, people would say that we should do something to help them and their family make ends meet. Second, they would say we should invest in things that will make the whole economy grow, so that it creates jobs and wealth, strengthening and growing our middle class, and our communities.

Our government listened. We took action based on what we heard. The result is budget 2016 and the legislation before us today.

Bill C-15 builds on the measures that we implemented as soon as we took office, when we lowered taxes for middle-class Canadians across the country. Approximately nine million Canadians now benefit from this tax cut, which took effect on January 1, 2016. This tax break will help them to save, invest, and grow Canada's economy.

Now, with our budget plan designed to grow the middle class, we are taking an even bigger step to help the middle class, and those working hard to join it, keep more money in their pockets through the Canada child benefit.

Compared to the existing system of child benefits, the new Canada child benefit will be simpler, tax-free, more generous, and better targeted to those who need it most. Nine out of 10 families will receive more money from the Canada child benefit than they receive under the current system. Families benefiting will see an average increase in child benefits of almost $2,300 in the 2016-17 benefit year.

This is an important measure to help Canadians make ends meet. This money can be used to buy groceries, pay for soccer camp this summer, or buy clothes for the fall.

Furthermore, the Canada child benefit will not only help us strengthen the middle class, but it will also help us lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty. We estimate that about 300,000 fewer children will live in poverty in 2017, compared to 2014.

With this bill, as of July, families with children under 18 will receive a maximum annual benefit of $6,400 per child under the age of six and $5,400 per child aged six through 17.

By supporting the budget implementation bill, all my colleagues will help give more Canadian parents some breathing room at the end of the month and will help them save for their children's future.

Helping families improve their lives is just one aspect of the budget implementation bill. This bill implements measures to help people who are struggling as a result of the troubled global economy.

These measures include targeted support for people who are facing exceptional circumstances. For example, unemployed Canadians in the regions most affected by the slowdown in the commodity sector will have the support the need as they look for a new job.

This bill will provide five extra weeks of EI regular benefits for eligible claimants in the affected regions across the country and will also provide up to 20 additional weeks of EI regular benefits to long-tenured workers who have experienced the highest increase in unemployment in these regions.

The budget identifies 12 economic regions for EI that are eligible for extended benefits as a result of the slowdown in the commodity sector.

Regardless, our government also promised to monitor the economic situation after introducing the budget, and it recently acted on its commitment by announcing that, as a result of its analysis, it would add three more regions to the list. Those three additional regions, along with the 12 initial regions, will be targeted by the passage of the budget implementation bill.

Moreover, for employment insurance recipients in all regions of Canada, this bill will reduce the employment insurance waiting period from two weeks to one as of January 1, 2017.

The goal of this measure is to relieve the financial pressure on those who have recently lost their job and are looking for work. Furthermore, with the passage of these legislative provisions, people who enter or re-enter the labour force will have to comply with the same eligibility criteria as other claimants in their region. This measure, which will come into force in July 2016, will make about 50,000 more Canadians eligible for employment insurance benefits.

Canadians have always understood that the test of a just society is how it treats the most vulnerable among us. Our budget and its legislative provisions bear witness to those values, and not just for people who lose their jobs.

This budget implementation act will help ensure that Canadian seniors can retire with a degree of comfort and dignity through substantial additional support for those most vulnerable. Although Canada's retirement income system has generally been successful in reducing the incidence of poverty among Canadian seniors, unfortunately, some seniors continue to be at a heightened risk of living on a low income.

For instance, seniors who live alone are nearly three times more likely to live in low income than other seniors. That is unfair to the people who helped build this country, and we need to fix it. With the passing of this budget implementation act, that injustice will be rectified. This legislation will increase the guaranteed income supplement top-up by up to $947 per year for seniors who live alone, who are the most vulnerable, starting in July 2016.

These measures will also help those seniors who rely almost exclusively on old age security and guaranteed income supplement benefits and may therefore be at risk of experiencing financial difficulties.

This enhancement will more than double the current maximum top-up benefit, which represents a 10% increase in the total maximum guaranteed income supplement benefits available to the lowest-income single seniors.

By investing over $670 million per year, we are improving the financial security of about 900,000 single seniors across Canada and helping them retire with some security and dignity. In addition, two-thirds of the people who will benefit from this increase are single women.

This bill will repeal the provisions in the Old Age Security Act that increase the age of eligibility for old age security and guaranteed income supplement benefits from 65 to 67 and allowance benefits from 60 to 62 over the 2023 to 2029 period. Restoring the eligibility age for old age security and guaranteed income supplement benefits to 65 will put thousands of dollars back in the pockets of Canadians as they become seniors and start to retire. These benefits will be particularly helpful to lower-income seniors age 65 and 66, who depend on this support and, without it, face a much higher risk of living in poverty.

As is the case with seniors, it is unfortunately sometimes those who have given the most to our country who face the biggest challenges, and that is just not right. Canada's veterans and their families have earned the deepest respect and gratitude of all Canadians for the sacrifices they have made. With this budget implementation bill, we are giving them the support they deserve for the sacrifices they have made.

Upon passage of the bill, we will make significant investments to ensure the financial security and independence of disabled veterans and their families as they make the transition to civilian life. It proposes to restore critical access to services for veterans and to ensure the long-term financial security of those who are severely injured physically or mentally in the line of duty.

The bill will amend the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act to increase, both retroactively and going forward, disability awards and associated benefits, such as the death benefit, and to adjust the orientation and terminology of the permanent impairment allowance, while also increasing the earnings loss benefit to 90%.

As a result, $1.6 billion over five years will flow directly to our veterans and their families in the form of higher direct payments. Specifically, the bill will increase the value of the disability award for injuries and illness caused by service to a maximum of $360,000 and will ensure payment of higher benefits retroactively to all veterans who have received a disability award since 2006.

It will increase the earnings loss benefit to replace 90% of an eligible veteran's gross pre-release military salary, and it will change the name of the permanent impairment allowance to the “career impact allowance” to reflect the intent of the program, consistent with changes announced in the budget to better compensate veterans who have their career options limited by a service-related illness or injury.

These amendments deliver on mandate commitments and respond directly to recommendations from key stakeholders, including the Veterans Ombudsman. However, most importantly, they give back to those who have given so much in their service to our country.

Our government, through the budget implementation bill, will also support those who are educating the next generation of Canadians. We know that educators often incur costs at their own expense for supplies that enrich our children's learning environment. The passage of the bill will implement a new teacher and early childhood educator school supply tax credit in recognition of out-of-pocket expenses for supplies such as paper, glue, puzzles, and supplementary books for their students. This 50% refundable income tax credit will apply to up to $1,000 of eligible supplies in 2016 and subsequent tax years.

In conclusion, taken as a whole, all these measures contained in the bill represent a giant step forward in our plan to put people first and to deliver the help they need now while investing for the years and decades to come.

I am proud to have been involved in its development, and I am proud to lend my voice today to its timely implementation for the benefit of Canadians. By doing so, we will be seizing the opportunity before us as members of Parliament. It is an opportunity to build a better future, through targeted investments, to support our people and grow our economy.

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec, QC]

moved 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 third time and passed.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

It being 3:04 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions on the motions at report stage of Bill C-15.

Call in the members.

The question is on Motion No. 1. The vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 2 and 3.

The House resumed from June 7 consideration of Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

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

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in the House to speak to Bill C-15, the implementation bill for the budget the Minister of Finance tabled on March 22.

I will be very clear from the outset that I am very worried. This government does not know what it is talking about and does not know what it is doing. It spends without thinking, it throws money around the country from coast to coast, it has no structure, and no guidelines. I must say that it is a bad manager.

Let us go back to October 19. Let us look at the many promises that were made and broken by our friends across the way who are now in government. First, they said that they would balance the budget at the end of their term in four years, which they criticized us for doing. I will talk about that broken promise later.

Their second broken promise was having a modest $10 billion deficit. They told us that they now project an astronomical deficit of $30 billion for the first year. They promised to lower business taxes from 11% to 9%. They did not do that. Again, they did not keep their promise. They asked Canadian voters to trust them to put postal workers back on their routes. Again, that is not true.

With regard to refugees, the Liberals created an emergency. The election took a turn and, unfortunately, the party that was in the lead got bumped to third place. The Liberals took the lead by promising to bring 25,000 refugees to Canada before December 31, 2015. Once again, they did not keep their promise.

They said that the middle-class tax cut would be revenue-neutral. They probably do not know how to count. It is going to cost a minimum of $1.2 billion. They also said that they were going to paint the Quebec Bridge and that they were going to solve that problem in my region. They have two weeks left to do so, or 23 days to be exact, but I can already tell the House that they will not keep that promise either.

They said that they were going to do politics differently. It is funny but there have never been as many gag orders as there have been under this government. They are not capable of governing responsibly. Canadians families must not follow their example. I am a father and, if I managed my family's budget the way that the government is managing our economy, we would go bankrupt. Managers, parents, and adults need to do things carefully.

Yes, every so often, circumstances arise in which we need to borrow money to improve our country, but we need to do so in a careful and controlled manner. Every Canadian family knows that, sooner or later, they will have to pay back what they borrowed. The day of reckoning will come. It is the law. It is a fact of life. When we borrow money, we have to pay it back. Money does not grow on trees. We have to fulfill our obligations.

What the government announced in the most recent budget is a structural deficit created by the Liberals. We need a drastic remedy. With a little luck, in four years, Canadians will be able to elect a Conservative government. Our children and grandchildren are the ones who will pay the price.

There are members here who have children at home. If they do not set any limits, if they do not get organized, and if they always say yes, their family unit will crumble and they will go bankrupt. If you give a child a credit card with no limit, you will be in a mess in no time. That is what the Liberal Party is doing to our beautiful country.

This government must govern. It must make hard decisions, decisions that are not very popular, but that are nevertheless extremely important and responsible. For example, its decision to reduce the pension age to 65 years was easy and popular, but was it responsible? That is the question. I can only answer that it was not.

It is simple, really. Fewer people are contributing, and costs are higher. More people are taking money out of the fund, and fewer people are putting money in. Nobody needs to take a university course to understand that.

Are the Liberals aware that life expectancy is going up? People are in better health and have a wealth of experience. Why take them out of circulation?

Even an expert with a high-profile financial firm, when he was in private practice, commended the Conservative government for having the courage to make what was a difficult but necessary and responsible decision. What is that so-called expert doing now? He is the Government of Canada's Minister of Finance. Things are not going well. How are we supposed to trust this minister when he does an about-face now that he is responsible for the budget?

Imagine if I said that I was going to give back my universal child care benefits because my income is above average and, on becoming prime minister, I hired two nannies and kept my benefits. What is going on?

They cannot even admit to some of the facts that have been confirmed repeatedly by the parliamentary budget officer. We, the Conservatives, left a budget surplus, and that was after going through one of the biggest global financial crises. Our former leader, who was not a drama teacher, but rather an economist, successfully led Canada out of that situation and made it an economic leader and the first G7 country to get out of the red. As Canadians, we can be proud of that.

The Prime Minister said he was going to govern differently. He is not governing. He is surfing the waves and taking selfies. Rather, it is most likely his inner circle who are taking selfies. Instead of making decision, he is using words like “we are going to consult”, “we are going to analyze”, and “we are going to re-examine departmental reports”. Those are the kinds of things we hear all the time in question period. The Liberals do not even trust Canadian federal public servants. For instance, at Canada Economic Development, a survey was done to determine what to do with the subsidy programs and what sector to support. Let us be serious.

Where is the amazing plan they had announced during the election campaign?

I visited companies that told me they were discouraged by the red tape. On the tax side, business owners must have access to measures that will let them keep these companies in Canada and sell them to family members without losing their shirts. The current federal tax system makes this difficult. Why not look to Quebec for inspiration? It will help companies remain in Canada and let owners, such as a mother or father, to transfer their business to their family. Why not? Why do we not put in place measures to help make this happen? It is not complicated.

Let us move on to another matter and talk about Bombardier. The Liberals have not yet said whether they will support the company or how they would do it. They said that they would provide that information 10 days before the budget, and then in the budget. It is now June 7 and Bombardier's management does not even know what to expect.

It would have been easy and very simple to extend the runway at Billy Bishop airport. That is not complicated. It does not cost anything. However, the Liberals never choose the solutions that do not cost anything.

There is nothing in the budget for our regions. We have to invigorate our regions. The only measure is providing broadband Internet. Our regions deserve more than that. They have tremendous potential that must be developed with our local partners.

I will move on quickly and get to my conclusion. Do members know that the worst debt-to-GDP ratio in Canada's history, 72%, was recorded in 1996 when the Liberals were in power? Do members know that the best debt-to-GDP ratio was recorded in 2009, when the Conservative government and economist Stephen Harper were in power? How can we trust a drama teacher and his troupe? The current government has no vision. It consults, considers, looks at, studies, examines, observes, thinks about taking into consideration—

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to stand in the House and speak to Bill C-15. The bill would implement a number of the measures that the government had previously announced in the budget that was tabled here in Parliament on March 22.

Today I would like to outline the various reasons why I am opposed to this legislation and also to the fiscal plan of the government more generally.

The main reasons why I am opposed to the budget include the following: a larger than promised deficit, not just larger but huge; removal of the universal child care benefit and other beneficial tax credits; gutting of the Canadian military; lack of support for small businesses; and the list goes on. What really irks me and most Canadians is that the Liberals brag about a middle-class tax break when we all know that in reality it is really a middle-class tax fraud.

I want to carry on with the topic of deficits. This was perhaps the most disheartening part of the budget. many Canadians were disappointed that the Prime Minister broke his main election promise to Canadians to keep deficits at $10 billion or less. Budget 2016 misses this target by a country mile. The budget projects deficits of $29.4 billion in fiscal 2016-17; $29 billion in 2017-18; $22.8 billion in 2018-19; and further deficits past 2020. This is not what was promised to Canadians and is not a fiscally responsible plan. The Liberal government has the arrogance and audacity to plan for deficits far beyond even its elected mandate.

What is most concerning is there is not a clear plan or pathway to balance the books. When the global economic crisis hit in 2008, the former Conservative government and my good friend the late hon. Jim Flaherty recognized the need to run deficits to stimulate the economy and create jobs for Canadians. However, it was always made clear to all that there was a plan to return to balance. Budget 2016 provides no such plan and the economy is far better off today than it was in 2008.

The government seems content with running deficits simply for the sake of having a deficit. The most recent “Fiscal Monitor” was very telling of this. It showed us that from April 2015 to February 2016 the government was running a $7.5-billion surplus. However, the government posted what has been called a blockbuster deficit of $9.4 billion in the last month of the fiscal year and therefore we were left with a $2-billion deficit for 2015. This is shameful, simply does not make any common sense, and certainly does not make any economic sense.

I have heard from a number of families in my riding who are concerned with the benefits that the budget would take away from hard-working families. Most notably, budget 2016 would remove the following tax credits: the children's fitness tax credit, the children's art tax credit, and tax credits for post-secondary education and textbooks. These measures were widely supported by families in my riding and across the country who enrolled their children in minor hockey, baseball, soccer, and lacrosse, and by those who enrolled their children in dance classes, piano lessons, and other arts and culture activities. Furthermore, the tax credits that supported those in post-secondary education were vital for helping families afford to send their children to school beyond high school. All gone. The floor swept clean of good programs just because they were initiated by the previous government.

While in government the Conservative Party reduced taxes to their lowest point in 50 years, which resulted in a typical family of four saving almost $7,000. We brought in concrete measures that allowed families to keep more of their hard-earned money. Furthermore, these were fair measures that benefited all families, in particular, low- and middle-class families. Did I happen to mention that middle-class tax fraud?

In keeping with the topic of keeping taxes low, I was also disappointed to see two measures in budget 2016 that are bad news for small businesses in Canada. These are keeping the small business tax rate at 10.5% instead of lowering it to the scheduled 9%, and ending the hiring credit for small businesses. These were small potatoes for the government, but big items for small businesses. Small businesses, in my riding and in most ridings across the country, are the lifeblood of the Canadian economy and are especially important in rural communities. They are responsible for 82% of jobs in Canada. In my riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, the local economy depends on a healthy community of small businesses. I strongly support measures to ensure that small businesses keep more of the money they earn so they in turn can hire more staff and grow their business. That is how the economy works. Unfortunately, the budget removes two key measures that have supported and would have continued to support small businesses in Canada.

Furthermore, the budget is a slap in the face to the Canadian Armed Forces. We all remember too well the 1990s and what has been called the “decade of darkness” for our military under the Liberal government at the time. It appears as though while sunny ways are supposedly shining everywhere else, our military is once again being left in the dark. Budget 2016 removes $3.7 billion out the budget of the Department of National Defence, which was earmarked for vitally important procurement projects. What this means is that under this government the military will not be able to upgrade important military equipment. It is my fear that we are in for another Liberal attack on our military. In fact, the military is under attack, and it is not by ISIS. It is by the government.

Finally, I want to comment on Canada's recreational fishery and the importance that the industry has to the economy as a whole. Like my riding, I know, Mr. Speaker, your riding depends a lot on it. I have fished up there, and anyone who does recreational fishing, no matter where it is, they leave money behind, which supports small business.

My riding is surrounded by the Great Lakes on three sides, and the recreational fishing industry is a vital source of economic activity for a number of communities. For example, every year, the Owen Sound Salmon Spectacular draws anglers from across the country and out of the country to the area, which is fantastic for local businesses.

It should be noted that every year, recreational fishing in Canada adds approximately $8 billion in economic activity. Supporting this industry has always been a top priority for me, and I want to spend a few moments presenting an issue that I feel was overlooked in the creation of budget 2016.

The Great Lakes Fishery Commission plays a vital role in protecting our Great Lakes and the recreational fishery. The commission was established in 1955 by the Canada-U.S. Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries. The commission has a mandate to conduct research on the Great Lakes fishery and to protect the fishery from invasive species such as Asian carp and sea lamprey. However, while the United States has increased annual funding to the commission, budget 2016 contains no new funding. In fact, a number of the Great Lakes state governors have written to the Canadian ambassador, outlining their disappointment. I am with them on that. I am also disappointed that the budget did not address this problem.

In closing, Canadians expect more from their government than what they are getting with the budget. Canadians did not vote for spiralling deficits with no plan to return to balance. They did not vote for an assault on our military, and they did not vote for irresponsible economic policy. Lastly, they did not vote for a middle-class tax fraud.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among the parties and I think if you seek it, you would unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, the third reading of Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures, may be taken up in the same sitting during which the report stage of the said Bill is disposed of.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this afternoon to speak to Bill C-15, the budget implementation act.

During the election campaign the Prime Minister went all across Canada talking about change. Over the last seven months, as evidenced by budget 2016, Canadians have received change but unfortunately it is not the change that was promised and it certainly is not change for the better.

During the election the Liberals made a commitment to run a $10-billion deficit, which they characterized as modest. They promised that by 2019-20, the budget would be returned to balance. Barely after the ballots were counted, the finance minister was trotted out and he admitted that they would not be able to bring in just a $10-billion deficit, that it would be many billions of dollars more. Boy did it ever turn out to be billions and billions of dollars more, $30 billion, more than three times what the Liberals committed to.

What about that commitment to balance the budget by 2019-20? Much like the Liberal promise to run a $10-billion deficit in 2016-17, that promise was another Liberal promise made and another Liberal promise broken. Now the government admits that in 2019 instead of a balanced budget, it is going to deliver a $17.9-billion deficit. No wonder, because over the next four years the Liberal government plans to borrow an unprecedented $113 billion, that is $113 billion that Canadians do not have.

Taking a step back one might ask why it is that the Liberals, during the election campaign, promised to take the $1-billion surplus that they inherited from our Conservative government and turn that into a $10-billion deficit. The answer is that the Liberals said there needed to be some short-term spending in some critical areas such as infrastructure.

What do the Liberals have to show for not a $10-billion deficit but a $30-billion deficit in infrastructure? Budget 2016 would provide no new funds for roads, bridges, railways, ports, and highways. Aside from some new funding for public transit, all of the new infrastructure spending in budget 2016 is dedicated to ill-defined green and social infrastructure.

More significantly, much of the $30-billion deficit is not attributable to increased spending on public transit or even spending in green and social infrastructure. Rather, much of this $30-billion deficit is attributable to a 7.6% increase in discretionary spending that would do absolutely nothing to create jobs and growth but would do plenty to saddle Canadians with more debt.

Much of the spending in budget 2016-17 is permanent and ongoing rather than temporary and cyclical. As a result, budget 2016 would set Canada on a path to long-term structural deficits.

While there was no plan in the budget to create jobs, growth, and prosperity, there is a plan in the budget to tax job creators, particularly small businesses that constitute the backbone of the Canadian economy. The government wants to eliminate and is going to eliminate a hiring tax credit and the student tax credit. What about the reduction of the small business tax rate to 9% that the previous Conservative government introduced and that the Liberals during the election campaign said that they would implement? Another Liberal promise made and another Liberal promise broken, because now the government has announced that it is reversing the small business tax cut.

Then what about that middle-class tax cut that the Liberals touted with such enthusiasm during the election campaign, the revenue-neutral middle-class tax cut? Well it turns out the revenue neutral part of it is just another Liberal promise made and another Liberal promise broken. It turns out it is not revenue neutral at all. That is just the beginning because what we begin to find out is that the Liberal middle-class tax cut is actually a Liberal middle-class tax cut fraud. Why is that? Because average middle-class Canadians, if they are lucky, would receive $1 a day under the Liberal middle-class tax cut. What do they lose as a result? The talk about eliminating the textbook tax credit, the sports tax credit, the arts tax credit, income-splitting for families, and on and on, is part of the Liberal middle-class tax cut shell game that is making more Canadians worse off than better off.

The Prime Minister talked about change, the government has brought about change, unfortunately, it is not change for the better. Regretfully, it is change for the worse and it is why budget 2016 and Bill C-15 must be defeated.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be here with all members of Parliament.

It is an honour for me to rise on behalf of the citizens of Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.

Today I will focus on Bill C-15.

The title of the bill is an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures.

There are a number of items in the bill. Again, previous members have pointed out that the budget implementation act, like most budget implementation acts, tries to amend multiple different bills, and there are 35 different pieces of legislation in the bill.

I would first like to thank the government for hosting a technical briefing that went through each section. I also want to thank the government for ensuring it was not in a small hot room, as it has been in previous years. Those technical briefings are very important when we talk about larger pieces of legislation.

I will be critiquing the legislation and speaking directly to items that are in it. Hopefully, on the particular argument I will be making today, the government will have the ears to listen and consider some of the things this member of Parliament has to say on behalf of his constituents.

I would first like to start with the bail-in legislation.

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.

Specifically on the bail-in legislation, the idea arose in Pittsburgh as part of the G7 discussions on how best for us to tackle the issue of failing banks. In 2007-08, Canada was very fortunate that all of our banks were sufficiently stable. Our country should be very proud of that. However, we have heard that things can always be made better, and I am a big believer in that. The prime minister of the day had suggested that we look at bail-in legislation.

One of the things I have been fortunate to learn in the finance committee, through the officials who were there and through the technical briefing the government gave, is there are some unintended consequences. Although it has been thought of, and this was confirmed by government officials, it has not been thought of in the legislation. New instruments will be sold in secondary markets. What that means is some people will hold short or long positions on the viability of our banks. The question is whether they are bailed-in or not.

This happens all the time. These kinds of instruments are traded by very sophisticated people, and that is par for the course. However, on the same token, more and more Canadians are heavily invested, whether through mutual funds or pension funds, because the stock market offers a better rate of return oftentimes, given our considerably low interest rates. Obviously, the more money there is in the stock market, whether through mutual funds, RRSPs, tax-free savings accounts, etc., the more risk there can be.

The government has time and again, and quite rightly, said that depositors should not worry if there is an issue with a bail-in, and I would like to reaffirm that. However, because more and more people are going to be trading these new instruments, shorting and taking long positions, and because more people, and particularly pension funds, are investing in them, it is important for the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions to start publicly tabling the stress tests. The reason for that is simple. We understand there will be these actions in the secondary market. We understand that people and pension funds, which are a larger part of that capital asset allocation, should be able to have that information. It should be transparent. I believe if the government looks at it, it would find that would work.

I would also like to speak about section 9.

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.

The reason I would like to talk about those two things is, as a Conservative, I believe there is a direction the government is going in. I also like to say from time to time that good politics is a destination, but good policy often, though, is a direction. While the government campaigned on a promise to restore old age security eligibility from 67 to 65, it was good politics and, therefore, a destination. I do not believe it is good policy for our country.

The reason I say this is that in the last Parliament, there was much ado about a parliamentary budget office report, when the parliamentary budget officer said that with the changes the previous government had made to the health accord, instead of continuing on a 6% escalator until forever, it was affordable for not bumping old age security up to 67. The Liberal government has reversed that, so in 2023 or 2029, when it was originally to take place, that will not happen. People will continue to be eligible at age 65. Contrary to what other countries, such as Japan and the United States, are doing, eventually we are going to have to tackle our demographics.

Previous prime ministers, such as Mulroney, Chrétien, and Martin, all put forward ideas on how to address the coming demographics, particularly vis-à-vis old age security. The previous government took action in a way that allowed people to change their behaviours over a period of time. That will be reversed in this budget implementation act, and that is the wrong place to go. We want people thinking about saving. No one likes the idea of having to work longer, but we are living longer, so there should be some adjustment.

On the topic of the guaranteed income supplement, I am not a big fan of deficits. In fact, will be voting against budgets like this, but I will give some credit. Helping those who are most in need, particularly widowed female seniors, will be a big help. It may undercut the finance minister's discussion on enhancing the CPP, because people in that area, the academic reports had shown, were the most at risk. That undercuts the need to make further reforms, at least on that premise.

Lastly, in the budget document there was some talk about credit unions, particularly when it came to international FATCA rules. FATCA was a big issue in the last Parliament. However, more or less, Canadian institutions, all shapes and sizes, have been able to follow up with it. Now the government is talking with other governments about offshore tax evasion, bringing international FATCA regulations, a different regime, to Canada, whether a small institution has sufficient foreign nationals investing their money and a large percentage is not.

I am afraid we will end up with an administratively burdensome system, one that does not actually reflect the needs. There is a very small credit union in Summerland. It has a very small staff and is compliant in all things, but a proper risk assessment should be taken when we talk about these international FATCA rules.

I hope the government reflects upon some of my criticisms and, hopefully, in future legislation, some of my concerns will be dealt with. With regard to things like old age security, we all want a great system, where people can retire with dignity, but we have to ensure it is sustainable for the long term.

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

Mr. Speaker, resuming more or less where I left off, I am speaking to Bill C-15 at report stage.

I had earlier canvassed a couple of key points. One is that this is not an improper use of an omnibus bill, but it certainly is an omnibus bill. It does stay and pertain to one central theme, which is implementing budget 2016. I do remain concerned, however, that we should have spent more time on it.

I mentioned one item in particular where I think the current Liberal government may be flirting with the accusation of it being improper. We did spend some time on this one item in finance committee, but not enough, and that is clause 38, which adds section 135.2 in relation to tax-deferred treatment for transactions under the continuation of the Canadian Wheat Board.

It would have been good to have had this in a separate piece of legislation. The chair of our finance committee pursued the matter of what happened to the assets of the Canadian Wheat Board with some departmental officials. There were billions of dollars there. Where did that money go? How do we find out where it it went?

We know that, in respect of the tax consequences of the trust created in connection with the continuation of the Canadian Wheat Board, the debt of the Wheat Board acquired by the trust is not included in the trust income, but we do not know what happened to the assets of the Canadian Wheat Board, which is a rather substantial question, and whether they were transferred to prairie farmers, as was expected. It appears that they were not.

That is an item that would have been better handled had this part of the budget bill been separated out so it could be properly studied.

There are other aspects that I did not have enough time to address before we stopped for members' statements and question period. I want to revisit one of them in particular that I described as egregious moments ago. Let me explain why.

That is found in the budget, and also, of course, the funds are provided in Bill C-15. On the face of it, if we did not know this issue well, we would think that it was great that the government is providing funding for the improved process under the National Energy Board for looking at environmental assessments.

I found it egregious, and I will read from the budget, at page 166. It says:

Budget 2016 proposes to provide $14.2 million over four years...to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency to support the Agency in fulfilling its responsibilities under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012.

Further up on the same page, there is a similar suggestion that money will be provided:

...$16.5 million over three years...to [support] the National Energy Board...to implement the interim approach.

That was announced earlier this year by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and the Minister of Natural Resources.

What must not be lost in this discussion of environmental assessment is that the current state of Canadian environmental assessment law is unacceptable, full stop. It is a failure. It is a process that does not work. It does not examine all parts of the environment, nor does it allow the right agency to do the reviews.

Having the National Energy Board do environmental assessments at all is a departure from Canadian environmental law, it is a departure from the National Energy Board's area of expertise, and it is completely unworkable.

We need to go back and revisit the changes that were made in Bill C-38 and repair the Environmental Assessment Act for good, not based on interim measures being spread out for a further three to four years with funding to operate under interim measures to fix a broken process.

It would be far better for all concerned, including industry stakeholders. I was speaking the other day with the Mining Association of Canada leadership. They said they had never wanted the changes that happened in Bill C-38. They do not find the process better.

We need to fix the process, not fund a kind of Rube Goldberg device to try to make something unfixable slightly better.

Those are main concerns with the budget. I find that, although I like this budget a lot more than anything I have read in the last 10 years, I cannot vote for it, because of the continuation of fossil fuel subsidies and the continuation of funding a broken EA process.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise at report stage to speak to Bill C-15. In the seven minutes I have, I will try to be very economical and focus on a few points that have been mentioned by other members.

I have a very strong view about the improper use of omnibus budget bills, and I want to reflect briefly on the history of omnibus budget bills.

The mandate letter to the hon. government House leader makes it clear that he is directed to “end the improper use of omnibus bills”. Therefore, having fought very hard in the spring of 2012 against Bill C-38, the omnibus budget bill, I want to canvass this because I think it is important for me to say out loud that this is not an improper use of an omnibus bill but it comes dangerously close.

Omnibus budget bills between 1993 and the 2000 were generally around 12 pages long. The biggest omnibus bill that I had seen was in the spring of 2005 under the previous Liberal government of Paul Martin, which topped 120 pages. People actually protested that the Martin government's 2005 budget bill, at 120 pages, was too long, including the leader of the official opposition at that time, who went on to become prime minister and became the champ of all inappropriate and improper uses of budget bills.

This budget bill, at 179 pages, is clearly the longest omnibus budget bill from a Liberal government. However, it is a piker compared to the abuse of democracy that we saw under the previous Conservative regime.

In the year 2010, we saw an omnibus budget bill that was 883 pages long. In the spring of 2012, we saw the first part of an omnibus budget bill that was 440 pages long, with a second part in the fall, which was another 400 pages long.

What makes an omnibus bill appropriate or inappropriate? If in one piece of legislation we are working toward a single purpose and all pieces of the legislation stem from that single purpose, it is an omnibus bill all right, but it is not improper. What happened in the spring of 2012 is that Bill C-38 destroyed our Environmental Assessment Act, which was not mentioned in the budget, destroyed the Fisheries Act, repealed the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, repealed the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, and changed the National Energy Board Act. No fewer than 70 laws were changed at that time.

Therefore, let us not muddy the waters. The warning to my friends in the Liberal government is that they should not tread too far. This one should have split out the commercialization of the Wheat Board. We needed to study that separately. However, overall, this one is not an improper use of omnibus bills; rather, it just flirts with the word “improper”.

What is good and what is not good about this? Obviously, there is much in this budget to like. I was disappointed because I thought there would be more to like, and there are two specific elements I must mention, before we move to Standing Order 31s, that are really unfortunate and, in fact, egregious.

In terms of the good things, there are changes to the employment insurance program that I welcome. However, as many groups have said, including those who testified before the finance committee, we need to go further and fix EI to get it back to the systems we had before the changes of the Conservative regime. Therefore, while it is certainly better to have the changes we just made, I tried in committee to make amendments to deal with the long-tenured worker, the idea that one has to work for seven years to qualify for those pieces. We have not yet seen the reversal of the changes to seasonal workers. We need to see that.

In the case of the child benefit program, I agree with the Canadian Teachers' Federation, which described it as a good first step to alleviate childhood poverty. However, I found this evidence from the Canadian Teachers' Federation really telling, and we should all take it on board as parliamentarians. It stated:

Each day in our classrooms, Canadian teachers engage with children and youth who are hungry, tired, and struggling due to poverty.

I talk to teachers all the time. We need to do much more for our children. This is just a very small first step.

With respect to veterans, I would say that the Liberals kept their promise to open the veterans offices across Canada that were wrongfully closed. They have done some things that will change the permanent impairment allowance and the grade determination. This is an improvement. However, we still need much more to be done for our veterans, just as we do for pensioners.

The National Pensioners Federation made the same point. The increase in GIS for pensioners is very welcome, but it is $2.60 a day. The maximum improvement for poor seniors in this budget is $2.60 a day. That is not enough.

There is more that I liked in the budget, such as cultural industries and better deals for students, although the money needs to be improved. However, there are two pieces that are completely egregious. One is found on page 221, where the fossil fuel subsidy to liquefied natural gas is left in place until 2024. This is a violation of the Liberal election promise to end subsidies to fossil fuels.

Also, at pages 166 and 167, we see a commitment to keep environment assessment in place under the Bill C-38 version, which as I just mentioned, destroyed our environmental assessment regime. Specific reference to continue to fund CEAA under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, is offensive to all of us who understand environmental law.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share my thoughts on Bill C-15, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures.

I was the regional manager for the ministry of environment back in my riding of Kootenay—Columbia. In total, I spent 32½ years with provincial governments in British Columbia and Manitoba, working with provincial budgets. I was also mayor of the City of Cranbrook for three years and responsible for municipal government budgets.

As anyone who has worked for government at the federal, provincial, or municipal level will know, governments always have money. This will not be news to anyone who pays taxes, which pretty much includes all of us except, perhaps, for the very wealthy putting money away into tax havens.

Since governments always have money, it always comes down to priorities and how government chooses to spend our money. While this budget does some things right it, unfortunately, falls short in a number of very important areas. Let us start with the good news: what this budget does right.

The bill contains some positive measures that were led and/or supported by the NDP, as follows: restoring the tax credit for labour-sponsored funds, adding feminine hygiene products to the list of zero-rated products for taxation purposes, raising the guaranteed income supplement for single seniors, and repealing the legislation to raise the age of retirement from 65 to 67 years of age.

I have also heard from my constituents that they were pleased to see the increase in Canada student grant amounts by 50%, to a maximum of $3,000 per year for low-income families and ensuring that no student will have to repay their Canada student loan until they are earning at least $25,000 a year.

At the same time, they are not happy with Liberal cuts that eliminated the education tax credit and the textbook tax credit. For students, with one hand, the Liberals giveth and, with the other hand, they take away.

This is also true for the Liberals' Canada child benefit. While families will benefit with an increase in child benefit, the government is eliminating two very important tax credits, the children's fitness tax benefit and the children's arts tax credits. Both of these were important for helping to build physically healthy kids and to encourage our young artists. They will be sadly missed.

While the tourism industry will benefit with the provision of $50 million over two years, dedicated to Destination Canada for marketing initiatives, the rest of small businesses have been betrayed by the Liberal government. During the 2015 election, I participated in 12 community debates throughout Kootenay—Columbia. At every debate, the Liberals said, as did I, representing the NDP, that if we were elected, we would decrease small businesses taxes from 10.5% to 9%. This was not a “We will consider”, or “We will consult with Canadians” election promise. This was black and white. My Liberal colleague promised that if they were elected, they would reduce business taxes to 9%.

What happened to the Liberal mantra, “That's what we told Canadians we'd do and that is what we will do” on this one?

As I said, there were some good things in the budget, but I have to say that after 10 years of Conservative cutbacks that hurt so many aspects of our lives in Canada, it is not hard for any government that followed to look at least sort of good to Canadians. This is especially true if we do not mind spending an additional $30 billion a year over and above the revenue that we are taking in; $30 billion a year in added debt that will fall to our children and grandchildren to pay back. This is a concern I hear over and over again from my constituents.

I even heard it from school kids at the Kootenay Christian Academy in Cranbrook and the Crawford Bay School in Crawford Bay. They both asked the same question, “How will we ever pay back almost $700 billion in debt?”

I have to say I did not have a good answer for them, other than to say, “Perhaps we should be learning from countries like Norway, where its federal government petroleum fund has $500 billion in surplus money, and is expected to grow to $1 trillion by 2020.” Being half Norwegian, I have to say that is a rainy day fund and a budget process to aspire to and be proud of.

What do my constituents say they find most disappointing about the Liberal government? How much time do I have left? Possibly not enough time, but let me get started.

We are feeling left out in Kootenay—Columbia when it comes to employment insurance. The Liberal government's regionally based enhancements to employment insurance do nothing for my constituents, even though a number of them worked in the oil and gas industry in Fort McMurray. This discriminatory approach to EI must end and be replaced by a universal 360-hour eligibility threshold, and extended benefits should apply to all Canadians.

Too many seniors in my riding live in poverty. Seniors should not have to choose between food and prescription drugs. The government needs to keep its promise to immediately enhance the CPP and the QPP. Our seniors helped to build this great country of ours, and they deserve to be treated better.

On taxation, my constituents believe in tax fairness, which means that the Liberal tax cuts should have included Canadians who make from $20,000 to $45,000. It also means that the richest people in Canada should pay their fair share, which means closing tax loopholes, including offshore tax havens, and punishing tax cheats even if they are wealthy tax cheats.

Infrastructure funding is a major concern. Municipalities in rural areas of Canada expect to get their fair share of infrastructure dollars. As a former mayor of Cranbrook, a city with just under 20,000 residents, keeping up with replacing 50-year-old sewer and water pipes, and fixing failing roads was a constant challenge.

Many Canadians do not realize that for every dollar collected in taxes, 50¢ goes to the federal government, 42¢ to provincial governments, and 8¢ goes to municipalities. Meanwhile, municipalities are responsible for almost 70% of all infrastructure in Canada. While it is heartening to see additional money for infrastructure in this 2016-17 budget, we have yet to see when or how that money will be rolled out.

I can tell members that in 2014, the former Conservative government announced, with great fanfare, its build Canada fund. The reality is that virtually no money made it to municipalities in my region of British Columbia that year. My Conservative member of Parliament at the time put the blame on the B.C. Liberal government for dragging its feet on getting the program under way.

The approach to funding in infrastructure at that time was a one-third, one-third, one-third split, with each level of government having to come up with its share. I can tell members that it is extremely difficult for small rural communities to come up with their one-third. One cannot even get into the game without having the one-third, and having shelf-ready plans in place. Many small municipalities have a very difficult time having staff or contract money to even create shelf-ready plans.

Therefore, while it is good to see more money for infrastructure in the budget, in order for it to be effective, the government needs to ensure a number of things.

First, that there is money and a process in place to help small rural communities develop shelf-ready plans.

Second, the one-third, one-third, one-third funding formula needs to change. Based on the taxes collected, it would be more appropriate if the formula for infrastructure funding would be 10% municipalities, 40% provincial governments, and 50% federal government, and as much of the infrastructure as possible should go directly from the federal government to municipalities with an appropriate funding formula.

Third, the funding should be multi-year, with a minimum of four years to reflect the four-year term of a ruling party. This would give municipalities the opportunity to plan ahead.

High-speed Internet, sometimes called dark fibre, needs to be considered basic municipal infrastructure in the future, along with roads, sewer, water, and storm drains, and it should be eligible for annual infrastructure funding. My major dream is that aging infrastructure funding should come out of politics and just be a line item every year in the Infrastructure and Communities ministry's budget.

In conclusion, I would like to be able to support this 179-page omnibus-like bill, but it falls short of what my constituents in Kootenay—Columbia expected from the Liberal government, and I am unable to support it at report stage.

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

Agriculture and Agri-Food

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased, yet rather surprised, to have to once again rise in the House to talk about the diafiltered milk issue. Everyone has been aware of this problem for months now. The problem is growing because nothing is being done. The problem is getting bigger and it is blowing up in our faces, here in the House of Commons, since 3,000 dairy producers came all the way to Parliament Hill to protest and express their frustration.

Dairy producers were not just here to mark World Milk Day. I heard a government member say that a few moments ago and it made me smile. Does the government really think that dairy producers took a day of their time in the middle of forage crop season to come say hello to their MPs in Ottawa, tell them that it is World Milk Day, and celebrate with them? Let us be serious here. Dairy producers did not come to Parliament Hill to celebrate World Milk Day. They came to protest against the importation of diafiltered milk. It is important to point that out.

I heard the previous speaker talk about a new government approach. The government is now taking the time to listen and talk.

This is not a new approach. Listening and talking is what the government has been doing for seven months. There is never any action or anything tangible. This is not a new problem. There was an election on October 19, and we had a change in government. It just so happens that during the election campaign, dairy farmers decided to meet with every candidate. What was on their minds? They asked us to resolve the problem of diafiltered milk. This was an existing problem and all the parties said they would take care of it, that they would resolve this problem once they were in government. We said the same thing. When we were in the previous government, we started working on resolving this problem. The Liberals came to power having made this big promise to our dairy farmers that they would resolve the problem. Seven months later, the Liberals are saying that they are going to consult, they are going to discuss, and they are going to negotiate.

Will the problem be resolved with the motion before us? It says that the problem is recognized. It is rather surprising that it took the government seven months to start recognizing that there is a problem. The motion says, “That the House recognizes that the government strongly supports supply management”.

The government needs a motion telling it that it recognizes a problem. I have never seen that before. I never would have thought that the government would need the House to tell it that it recognizes a problem. Unbelievable.

There is more. The motion calls on the government to recognize “the magnitude of the economic losses to Canadian dairy producers”. Producers lost $220 million in 2015. It is done. It is over. There were complaints; there were losses.

The motion also urges the government to “recognize that the industry call for the problem to be resolved rapidly”. It seems to me that we have been hearing this for seven months.

Then, the motion urges the government “to meet with dairy producers and Canadian dairy industry, within the next 18 days”. First, there was a 30-day deadline, more than 30 days ago. Now, the motion calls for another 18 days, which will take us right into the summer, when producers will no longer be mobilized and will no longer be able to come and meet their members of Parliament in the House, because we will all be back in our ridings. This is a way of watering down the problem and spreading it out across Canada. This is yet another deadline with no action.

Further on, the motion urges the government “to propose a sustainable solution toward modernizing the dairy industry”. That is all we want. The government was not ready. It got elected on false promises. I am not just talking about diafiltered milk, but most of the files that the current government has brought here to the House.

This government said it had a plan, but we are realizing that it was not a plan to govern, but to prepare for its governance. That plan was to consult people to determine how it should govern. If that had been presented to the voters, I am not sure the result would have been the same. However, that is how the Liberals chose to present themselves to the voters and, of course, to get themselves elected under false pretences. The diafiltered milk case is rather telling in this regard.

The farmers who came to the Hill last week were from every part of Canada and Quebec. The farmer who made the biggest impact on me was in the aisle opposite the front door of the House of Commons. I was talking to the farmers and, at one point, I saw about eight pairs of boots on the ground. I went up to the farmers and asked them why they had put their boots on the ground. They replied that it was to make the government realize that it needed to walk the talk. They said that, since the government was all talk and no walk, they were going to provide some boots. In other words, they said the government was not keeping its promises.

I hope that government members will use those boots so that we can finally find a solution and implement the solution that has already been proposed many times by the dairy farmers. By the way, I salute those who gave up a day’s work on the farm to be here and give that message to the government.

When I walked around among the farmers, they said they did not understand why the government still had not taken action. However, the solution is quite simple: treat diafiltered milk as a dairy ingredient, period. The farmers are telling us that if that were done, they would no longer have a problem. So why are we not doing it? It seems simple, but you have to understand that it is complicated.

Since we started asking this government questions about agriculture, and particularly about diafiltered milk, we have not seen much action. The Minister of Agriculture himself is mostly absent from the debate on diafiltered milk. His parliamentary secretary has answered most of the questions, probably because the minister is not very familiar with the diafiltered milk issue.

In fact, the Minister does not seem very interested in agriculture. In another bill that we are studying here in the House, Bill C-15 on the budget, there is nothing about agriculture. There is no mention of agriculture in the last budget, which we are being asked to pass and for which the government was forced to use a time allocation motion to prevent us from talking too much about it and from pointing out the budget’s flaws.

When we ask the government why agriculture does not come up in Bill C-15, we hear that it invested to improve Internet access. That does not really feed Canadians. Yes, we need it in our regions, and it is an extremely important issue for all of our rural communities, but why does the government talk about the Internet when we are talking about agriculture? The government seems to have a profound lack of knowledge about agriculture.

I did a little research in Hansard online. I discovered that the Minister of Agriculture deigned to reply at least five times to opposition members' questions about the diafiltered milk problem. Here is a sample of the minister's answers:

In May 2016, he said, “...I appreciate [his] concern. We recognize the importance”.

On May 11, 2016, he said, “We recognize that this is an important issue for dairy farmers, and we are working to reach a long-term solution”.

On May 3, 2016, he said, “Mr. Speaker, I can assure my hon. colleague that this government supports supply management, and we are fully aware of the industry's concerns about the use of diafiltered milk”.

On March 11, 2016, he said, “Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's question... I can assure him that I have met with many sectors in the agriculture industry, including the dairy farmers”.

Another contradiction: the Liberals were aware of the issue, yet they are asking us for 18 more days to resolve it. Today's motion requests 18 more days to meet with people again. What does the minister not understand? Why does he need more meetings? Is the solution not simple? We have put it to the House and to the committee a number of times.

In March 2016, the minister answered a question as follows:

Just to make sure the record is straight, I am not negotiating with anybody. It's the industry and the manufacturers that are in discussions, but I am not negotiating with anybody. My job is to make sure that both sides understand the regulations.

We understand why the Liberals are not doing anything; it is because they do not want to. They are trying to teach us something. They are trying to explain why they do not have a solution and explain the regulations. The cat is out of the bag. They are not interested in negotiating or coming up with a solution. They want to make sure that farmers become fed up, and they are waiting for the parliamentary session to end so that they can avoid taking a position and have a nice, quiet summer. They will not get the chance, because we will not let them get away with it. They can count on all the opposition parties to ensure that that does not happen.

The parliamentary secretary is the one who has answered most of our questions on diafiltered milk. In fact, he has answered our questions 16 times, so here is the score: parliamentary secretary, 16, and Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, 5. We see the importance the government places on the diafiltered milk issue.

What did the parliamentary secretary say on June 2, 2016? He said, “With respect to our commitment, we are still listening to the people in the industry...we are aware of the industry's concerns about the use of diafiltered milk in cheese production.”

The message was more or less the same as the minister's message.

On May 19, he said, “We are in regular contact with industry stakeholders, and we are listening to what they have to say about compensation. We are aware that compensation is important to the supply-managed sector.”

There is something I do not understand about that statement, but let us move on.

The parliamentary secretary answered 16 questions about diafiltered milk, while the minister answered five questions. We get the picture quickly of what this means. The best was when the parliamentary secretary said that he wanted to “act quickly”.

On May 9, he said, “I remind members that last Tuesday we committed to consulting with [the entire] dairy industry in the next 30 days”.

That was in early May and the deadline has now expired.

On April 21, he said, “We need to take action quickly. That is what we want to do, but first we need to take the time to come up with a lasting agreement...I understand the time crunch, but we are holding discussions.”

Blah blah blah: I just summed up in a few syllables what the Liberal government has to say about diafiltered milk.

I sincerely think that the government needs to take action. It needs to grab a pair of the boots that were left on Parliament Hill last week, put them on, and get to work. The government has to walk the talk. It needs to understand that this is urgent.

I could have shared the concerns of all the dairy farmers in my riding, and those from all the ridings in Quebec and Canada who talked about their major financial problems. The equivalent of their annual income is on the line.

These are not rich people, contrary to what many are implying. That money goes toward their wages. The dairy producers are often the only economic engines in our towns. While they struggle to make ends meet, the government spews its empty rhetoric.

It is important to remember that, basically, what we want is not complicated. We want the government to acknowledge that, in producing cheese, there is good cow's milk and there are dairy ingredients. The dairy ingredients have all sorts of names: concentrates, powders, isolates, diafiltered milk. That is clear. These are all ingredients produced from milk. It is not that these products are bad, but consumers have the right to know what is in the products they consume.

Unfortunately, this changes in the case of diafiltered milk, because at the border diafiltered milk is considered an ingredient. When it arrives at the plant, however, it is considered milk.

In front of the crowd of producers last week, the president of the Fédération des producteurs de lait du Québec, Mr. Letendre, challenged all those in attendance and all parliamentarians to sample a glass of diafiltered milk to see if it was really milk. He said he was sure that after trying it, no one would doubt that diafiltered milk is not milk. Milk is milk, and diafiltered milk is dairy ingredients. That is the way it is.

Once again, I will make myself the producers’ spokesman and invite the government members to sample a glass of diafiltered milk and take up the challenge launched by Quebec’s milk producers. They will tell us if diafiltered milk is milk. I advise putting it in the refrigerator for a few minutes before trying it. That might improve the taste a bit, but it will still be diafiltered milk all the same.

When we buy cheese and the label says that it is made of milk ingredients, we know exactly what we are getting. When we buy cheese that was made with diafiltered milk, the label merely indicates that the product is made of milk. The label does not indicate that the cheese was made with American proteins created to dispose of any surplus of American milk, which contains growth hormones that we do not want here in Canada. That is the reality and that is what Canadian consumers have the right to know. If we deal with this small problem, then we are resolving a big problem for consumers and a very big problem for dairy producers in Quebec and Canada. That is what the government needs to understand.

Many cheese factories in Quebec are currently having trouble competing and that is because of the unfair competition created by those who use diafiltered milk. There is a small cheese factory called La Bourgade in Thetford Mines in my riding. It uses only milk, which supports our dairy producers. The company is really proud of its cheese, but it costs $1 more at the store than the cheese made by producers who use diafiltered milk. One dollar does not seem like much, but it is a lot at a time when everyone is doing everything they can to keep money in their pockets.

In conclusion, enough with the Liberals' empty rhetoric. Let us take action now, not in 18 days. We are pleased that the government is being told by the House to recognize the problem. We did not think that the government needed a motion in the House to recognize a problem like this one. We will obviously support this motion, but I do not think that the producers, who are back home working hard on milking their 30 or 50 cows, understand the nuances of the motion before us.

Why did the government need a motion to recognize an existing problem? That is the real question. The government is not listening and is looking only to get an extension to find and implement a solution. I am reaching out. I am asking the government to act now and not to wait 18 days. Everyone, all the parties in the House, and especially all Canadian dairy producers will be pleased with the solution and the government's response.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, it is a huge honour to rise to speak on Bill C-15. As a spokesperson for the NDP on small business, I am going to focus on the small business tax cuts that are not in this bill, that are going to be deleted, and the false promise by the Liberals.

As a former small business owner, as a former executive director of a chamber of commerce, and as a member of Parliament who represents a riding that has six chambers of commerce, I understand small business and know how important small business is to our communities and we support it. Small business people are the builders of our communities. They are the volunteers who sit on our boards, donate to charities and local organizations, and sit on councils in local governments. These are the people who coach our children and are innovators. They build the culture of our communities and are the backbone of our local economies.

In 2008, I was a small business owner. I remember when the largest recession hit since the 1930s. Sales plummeted and people had hard decisions to make in order to keep their businesses alive. Some businesses did not make it. It was a tough reality, and that it is the way it goes sometimes. However, what was really hard to justify were the massive bailouts for Canada's largest corporations and nothing for small business. Many small business owners saw this as completely unfair.

In the last election, small businesses felt like they were going to get a break and have a little more fairness. All three parties, including the Green Party, promised to lower taxes on small business to 9%. I have the page from the Liberal platform in my hand, in black and white, which says, “reduce the small business tax rate to 9 per cent”.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, today I rise to speak to the amendment put forward to strike clause 34 from Bill C-15, the budget implementation act.

Clause 34, as it stands, will amend the Income Tax Act in a manner that would increase the small business income tax rate to 10.5% instead of continuing its scheduled decrease to 9%. Right this minute, the Income Tax Act, as currently written, will continue to lower the small business tax rate down to 9%. The removal of clause 34 from Bill C-15 will be an important gesture to demonstrate the commitment that the government made to small businesses during election time. During the 2015 campaign, all parties promised to reduce the small business tax rate and continue the outlined reductions put forward by our previous Conservative government.

We understand that small businesses are the backbone of our communities and are essential for job creation and a robust economy. As a result, the government should be encouraging small business owners and ensure that they have access to low tax rates. However, the Liberals seem to think differently. This is exactly why clause 34 is so concerning. This clause seeks to break one of the key promises previously made by the current Liberal government. I strongly believe that this reduction is crucial to motivating small businesses to grow and prosper.

As the former coordinator of the small business programs at both the Vancouver Community College and Kwantlen Polytechnic University, I have trained many business owners in leadership and business development. There are many challenges that small business owners face, whether it is working long hours, sacrificing time spent with family and loved ones, or the personal expense. However, when it is time to mature as a business, and at the point of decision to expand or not, the ability to reinvest is key and perhaps the greatest challenge. The question is to expand or not to expand.

This is exactly true for female entrepreneurs. I have had the opportunity to witness the growth and prevalence of female-run businesses, through the British Columbia Women's Enterprise Centre. Tax burdens, whether personal or business, have always been a great challenge to creating access to the money they require in their own pockets to reinvest. Additionally, my involvement as one of the founders of the Ethno Business Council in B.C. and my personal business experiences both demonstrate that tax burdens weigh particularly heavily on immigrant entrepreneurs.

While I was completing my doctoral dissertation at the University of British Columbia, I focused my research on studying the business cycle of immigrant entrepreneurs. What I found then, and what I continue to witness, is that immigrant business owners require as much encouragement and assistance as possible, not as a handout, but real encouragement in low-tax policies and business development opportunities.

Over the past several months, I have continued to meet with business leaders in my own riding and from across the country. One concern continues to ring out most clear. Lower tax rates, whether federal, provincial, or municipal, are crucial to small business development. It is not for the government to choose winners and losers. However, that is exactly what we have seen. The current Liberal government has chosen small businesses as the losers.

On several occasions, the Minister of Small Business and Tourism has stood in this House and promised to reduce the tax rate for small businesses. She promised that she was working with the Minister of Finance and other colleagues to ensure that the voice of small business owners were heard. Unfortunately, that was all for nothing.

Instead, the Liberals have deliberately and blatantly left small business out of the budget and show no indication of following through on their promise. Small businesses across the country feel slighted and have witnessed first-hand the broken promises of the Liberal government. However, by accepting this motion, the Liberal government would be able to demonstrate to small businesses that it recognizes their worth and seeks to support and encourage growth for lower tax rates.

As research and data emerge regarding the government's decision to eliminate the tax rate reductions, we are gaining a clear picture of just how much this will cost our small business owners. According to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the CFIB, this decision will cost small and medium-sized firms over $900 million, compared to the government letting the scheduled small business tax reductions stand. That is a cost of nearly $1 billion that the Liberal government is placing on our hard-working middle class. Instead of alleviating the burden on our middle class, the Liberals are actually adding to their burden.

There is no doubt that small businesses stimulate our economy and encourage growth. The president of CFIB, Dan Kelly, stated that “The simple truth is Canada's small business owners are overwhelmingly middle class. They are your mechanic, accountant, hair dresser, and landscaper, just trying to earn a living doing something they love.”

The Liberals are looking for a way to pay their debt by placing it on the backs of our small businesses. Our middle class is not responsible for the Liberals' reckless spending. This I have mentioned before. When small businesses are paying more in taxes, it means they have less money in their pocket to reinvest in their businesses. Whether these investments materialize as hiring new employees, seeking out new business opportunities, or expanding their market, each is important, and this budget will inhibit any type of growth.

I am proud to support this motion to amend Bill C-15, and I strongly encourage all members of the House to do the same. We need to invest in our small and medium businesses and provide them with tools and funding to help them succeed, not just in the start-up phase, but throughout their entire business cycle. Small business owners are counting on us. We need to demonstrate that we value their hard work.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is no line item on the gold sale that the current government incurred right before the budget this year. It begs the question of where we would be and how much more in debt we would be had we not sold off the gold reserves already.

However, since the reference was made to the Green Energy Act, I do want to emphasize that Canadian taxpayers are on the hook, if we look at part 1 of Bill C-15, which would implement a certain income tax measure proposed so that it would exempt the taxable income amounts received as rate assistance under the Ontario electricity support program. It is because the rates are so high that not only do Ontario electricity consumers have to pay their own bills and others' bills; now they would have to pay it through their federal income taxes as well.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak on behalf of the good people of my riding. I thank them for the confidence they have placed in me to be their elected representative, and I in return promise to do my best to protect their interests.

People in my riding are concerned over the contents of Bill C-15, which implements most of the government's first federal budget. They are concerned about the huge, never-ending deficits contained in the budget and the legacy it leaves for their families.

I am proud of the Conservative government that left a budget surplus. In fact the debt-to-GDP ratio was lower than it was when we got in, despite experiencing the greatest global recession since the Great Depression. We balanced the budget, running a $1.9-billion surplus in 2014-15. The books were also $600 million in surplus when we left office in October 2015, which was confirmed by the non-partisan parliamentary budget office. We gave Canada a healthy financial balance sheet with rising revenues that could have been used to pay for the Conservative small business tax cut that was reversed by the government.

The difference between Conservative debt versus Liberal debt is that Conservatives will go into debt like a person getting a mortgage on a home, eventually owning a home and having a place to live while paying off the mortgage. The Liberal budget is like someone going into debt by using their credit card to buy groceries without the funds to make the minimum monthly payment on the credit card.

Under Conservative budgets, eventually the individuals own their homes. Under the Liberals budget Canadians are never expected to pay off the mortgage and go hungry. It is left to the next generation to keep paying the mortgage on the family home.

A budget document is supposed to inspire confidence in an economy. Only by inspiring confidence will consumers loosen their purse strings and entrepreneurs invest in their businesses. Unfortunately for Canadians, investors spoke with their actions before the Minister of Finance rose in the House to deliver his first uninspiring budget.

There is a profound lack of confidence in the government. That is evident from the day it was elected. These are the science-based facts. According to Stats Canada, in the fourth quarter of 2015, which was after the 2015 federal election, billions of dollars had been transferred out of the country by Canadian investors. This represents the largest recorded flight of capital since records began to be kept, stretching back before the Great Depression. For the first time, Canadians are net creditors to the United States, an unprecedented occurrence.

It would appear well-connected insiders got all their cash out of Canada while the going was good. What that means for Canadians is that those private investment dollars are not available to create Canadian jobs, forcing Canada to further increase the national deficit while becoming more indebted to foreigners to replace the lost capital.

In another development that is causing a lack of confidence in the government, Canada has sold off all its official gold holdings. The Bank of Canada on February 23, 2016, showed gold reserves at zero. This is in stark contrast with other developed countries that have seen their central banks become net buyers of gold since 2010. Canada now stands as the only G7 nation that does not hold at least 100 tonnes of gold in its official reserves. Out of 188 member countries in the International Monetary Fund, 100 countries hold gold as part of their monetary assets. Canada is now among the 88 countries that have no gold, countries such as Angola, Belize, and Tonga. Are these coincidences or a sign that Canada is headed for financial disaster?

Not since the disastrous budget of former finance minister Allan J. MacEachen, when five-year mortgage rates spiked to over 21%, have Canadians been more apprehensive about their own personal financial security.

It has to be a Canadian record for breaking promises. The first budget deficit is not $10 billion each of the first three years of the mandate as promised. It jumped to $30 billion each of the first three years with no plans to get out of debt and create jobs, if Canadians can believe the $30-billion annual figure. Is it really much higher?

No economist or institution recommended running deficits to finance government waste. In fact, most of the new spending in this budget has nothing to do with promoting economic growth. Any spending on infrastructure is a holdover from Conservative budgets. It was a budget intended to buy votes with the people's money based on election promises, promises that were made to be broken.

Is Canada preparing for a financial disaster? Are savings protected? Those are the questions now being asked of this uninspiring budget that is eroding investor and consumer confidence.

According to the former non-partisan parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page, the budget is heavy on spending programs for government consumption and lacking in details, including when the federal budget would return to balance, which is how our Conservative government left the nation's finances. “It could be better in transparency...it's kind of a budget without a fiscal plan”, according to Page, who also said, “I think there’s going to be pressure to raise taxes with this kind of spending in the budget.”

Higher taxes drive down consumption and investment. This in turn chokes growth and leads to lower tax revenue, which in turn worsens an already out of control debt problem, and so it goes in a vicious cycle that leads to the need to keep raising taxes, credit downgrades, further loss of investor confidence beyond what this budget has already caused, more job losses, and the inevitable deep cuts to things like health care and defence spending that Canadians suffered from when Paul Martin was finance minister.

The non-partisan parliamentary budget officer observed that this is the least transparent budget, certainly when compared to Conservative budgets or even previous Paul Martin budgets.

An example of that lack of transparency is the bank recapitalization bail-in scheme, proposed in division 5, part 4, of Bill C-15, which is page 223 of the budget document. It has seniors, among others, worried. It allows the government to convert a bank's eligible long-term debt into common shares in order to recapitalize the bank. In addition to being concerned about bank deposits, any retirement savings that included the bank shares would be exposed as well.

Canadians entrust their savings to the chartered banks with the expectation of being able to access those savings when they need their money. I know that the people in my riding do not expect their savings to be redirected into common stock when a bank is in trouble. Canadians may use banks for long-term savings or to park money temporarily in what they thought was a safe place, for example, when they sell their home or a family business.

The Liberal government is scaring seniors about the safety of bank deposits. The question has to be asked.

A preliminary proposal was made by former finance minister James Flaherty regarding the charter bank solvency rules. However, under our previous Conservative government's plan, bank deposits were protected from seizure. In addition to financing the federal spending spree, Canada's banks are holding billions of dollars in debts from the oil sands. The depressed price of oil has already caused tens of thousands of Canadians to lose their jobs. Internationally, there are at least five countries with oil-depressed economies that are teetering on insolvency.

Another example of the lack of transparency referred to by the non-partisan parliamentary budget officer is the decision of the federal government to cover up the costs to Canadian taxpayers of the Ontario “greed” energy act. The greed energy act was brought in by the disgraced former government of Dalton McGuinty, and continues to drive electricity prices in the province of Ontario higher and higher. One of the consequences of that piece of misguided extremist-driven policy is the energy poverty that is now a fact of life in the province of Ontario.

It is important to point out to Canadian taxpayers that part 1 of Bill C-15 implements certain income tax measures proposed in the March 22, 2016, budget by exempting from taxable income amounts received as rate assistance under the Ontario electricity support program. The Ontario electricity support program was brought in as an indirect tax levied on all electricity consumers to provide rate assistance for people who cannot afford to pay their electricity bills. Of all the issues that I am contacted on, the cost of electricity in Ontario draws the most complaints. We call this the Liberal policy of “heat or eat” in Ontario. Federal taxpayers are expected to pick up the costs of this budget tax measure.

What I predicted before the last election is now happening, as we can see in Bill C-15. I predicted that Canadian taxpayers would end up with part of the bill for Ontario's policy disasters. That was predictable because the same policy advisers in Queen's Park, who wrote the greed energy act and fled Toronto, are now hiding in Ottawa as the most senior advisers of the federal Liberal Party. The cozy relationship between the Prime Minister and the Ontario premier is bad for all taxpayers, just as I warned Canadians before the last election.

Nowhere in the federal budget do we see a line for the cost of defending the greed energy act in an international court. Canadians should be shocked to learn that because Canada is being sued under the international trade rules for the activities of the Ontario Liberal Party and international trade is a federal responsibility, Canadians could be forced to pay almost a billion dollars in claims. Because of the lack of transparency in this budget, it is not being disclosed how much the budget must be increased to pay for the other hare-brained green energy schemes that do nothing to protect the environment and cost Canadians jobs.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is finally time for hard-working Canadians from coast to coast to coast to get a helping hand from their government.

Middle-class Canadians have been ignored for too long. Today is a day of change and hope. That is why I rise to speak in favour of Bill C-15, Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1.

When I participated previously in the budget debate, I recognized and applauded the government's work towards helping middle-class families through the Canada child benefit program, reducing poverty, strategies to reduce youth unemployment, and investing in infrastructure and seniors.

However, there are many other initiatives of this budget that I would like to speak about today. I believe they pertain not only to Canadians across the country, but also to the many tireless and hard-working residents of my riding of Scarborough Centre.

As I have said before, my riding of Scarborough Centre is an extremely diverse community, comprised of Canadians hailing from across the globe. They are all here to work hard and provide lives for themselves and their children. We are not afraid of putting in long hours every day in Scarborough. However, for far too long, the costs of living for families, for things such as groceries and rent to other necessities, has continued to rise while paycheques have stayed the same.

At the same time, I always hear that youth are the future of a great Canada. While I do agree, I see the daily struggles that so many youth face, especially as they attempt to enter the job market and start giving back to society and their communities.

While we must assist youth all across the country in solidifying their future, we must also not forget about the many veterans in our communities. These are citizens who have gone above and beyond and provided the highest and most honourable forms of service to our country. Hence, these Canadian heroes must be provided with the resources and assistance they need in due recognition for their sacrifices.

We must also recognize the social, economic, and other invaluable contributions that small businesses provide to our society. Small businesses are the engine of our economy. I would like to bring attention to the issues affecting small business owners and the many dedicated Canadians that they employ. The effects of struggling small businesses are not contained to the owners and their employers. The ripples impact millions of Canadians. It should be of the utmost importance to ensure their prosperity.

Also, with a challenging economy, many Canadians are in need of a helping hand with regard to employment insurance. Budget 2016 addresses that.

Middle class families, youth, veterans, small businesses, and Canadians suffering unemployment have all been subject to unhelpful and sometimes even hurtful policies by the previous government. However, our government has promised change. I can proudly attest that with this budget, we are delivering on these promises for a better society, a better economy, and a better Canada.

The lack of affordable housing poses a great risk to millions of Canadians. As the budget itself states, when affordable housing is in short supply, Canada's whole economy suffers, from raising healthy children to pursuing education, jobs, and other opportunities. Affordable housing is the cornerstore of a strong Canadian family, and therefore of a strong Canada.

This is especially true in my riding of Scarborough Centre, where almost half of tenants spend more than 30% of their monthly household income on housing compared to the national average of less than one in five. Even more, the number of residents in subsidized housing is disproportionately higher in my riding. When it comes to quality of housing, almost one in five dwellings in Scarborough Centre is defined as unsuitable by the national household survey, compared to the about one in 20 nationally.

The need for action on affordable housing is clear, and this government is taking action. Budget 2016 proposes an investment of $2.3 billion over the next two years in affordable housing, with $739 million of that directed to first nations, Inuit, and northern housing. Additionally, a significant portion of this funding will be allocated provincially and territorially to ensure that resources are invested in the most pertinent needs. Much of this investment will be focused on green, clean, and sustainable economic growth.

Moving on, to support young Canadians in gaining the education and skills needed to compete in the economy of tomorrow, the budget proposes infrastructure investments through the Canada Foundation for Innovation. This program will support significant investments in research infrastructure at universities, colleges, and research hospitals nationwide, such as the University of Toronto in Scarborough and Centennial College, both institutions that many of my constituents attend. This will refresh and renew the current 25-year-old infrastructure and ensure that our nation continues to train, educate, and produce the brightest future leaders in the world.

In addition, budget 2016 would implement programs such as the educator school supply tax credit to help teachers and educators make ends meet in classrooms. As well, flat-rate student contributions will make it easier for post-secondary students to work and earn money without worrying about negative impacts on their financial aid eligibility. Initiatives such as these will ensure that Canada can attract young talent while boosting innovation and contributing to constructing a sustainable economy.

Our government is not forgetting about the countless veterans who have already made such a vital impact and contribution to Canada. Canada's veterans and their families deserve our care, compassion, and respect. With that in mind, budget 2016 is committed to reopening the staff service offices across the country that were closed by the previous government, and expanding veteran outreach services to regions that currently lack them.

Moreover, I strongly commend budget 2016 for increasing the maximum disability award for veterans to $360,000, and also increasing the earnings loss benefit to 90% of pre-release military salary. These policies, among several other implementations in this budget, clearly exemplify our government's commitment to each and every Canadian, especially veterans who have served the highest duties.

This budget also addresses the concerns of the millions of Canadians whose livelihoods depend on small businesses. With this budget, the government has introduced a lower small business income tax rate of 10.5% on the first $500,000 of active business income, allowing these hard-working businesses to retain more earnings that can be reinvested to support growth and job creation.

For those who are trying to re-enter the job market, I would also like to recognize the government's initiative of significantly increasing accessibility to employment insurance for thousands of Canadians through eligibility amendments. Not only that, but this budget will bring about a 50% reduction in waiting periods for unemployed Canadians who are in need of a helping hand to get back on their feet.

I must also mention that the government has been swift in its response to unforeseen and sharp rises in unemployment in certain regions by extending EI benefits in 12 regions across the country. Unlike the previous government, we are delivering on our promises. Budget 2016 is a testament to the delivery of these commitments.

As I have said before, there is much more to be done in the years ahead, but with budget 2016, our government has laid the foundation for future growth and prosperity. With this budget, we are investing in Canada's future, and today that future is extremely bright indeed.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I do some good work on the Kurdish file, and I am pleased to work with him on that.

What I will say is that I defer to what others have commented about infrastructure investments, whether it is the former federal reserve chairman Ben Bernanke or the current Bank of Canada governor Stephen Poloz, which is that key investments in infrastructure, which is what this budget undertakes, are an enabler for long-term growth and maintain our standard of living. Therefore, our budget, part and parcel of which represents our platform, and Bill C-15, which is the blueprint, is one of the large first measures to implement our infrastructure program, which will help grow our economy and strengthen our middle class.

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

Mr. Speaker, what I will say is that we have made a large commitment to post-secondary institutions. We have made a commitment to individuals who are enrolling at post-secondary institutions. If we look at the Canada student loan grants and debt repayment schedules that we have put in place in the budget in Bill C-15, we see literally a multi-billion dollar investment into our universities, and our students per se, so that when students exit university and begin working they will have a time frame to accumulate some capital before they need to repay their student loans. Therefore, on the one hand we are helping in terms of investing in infrastructure in universities and on the other hand we are also helping with students enrolling in universities, particularly middle and low-income students who need that assistance when going to university so that they are not burdened by such a high debt burden when they exit university.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak this afternoon to Bill C-15, budget implementation act, 2016. I would like to focus my comments today on one particular area that is of great interest to me and that our government is dedicated to enhancing and that will lead to a stronger economic growth profile for our country, the field of innovation.

When I think of innovation, I look at my riding and in the city of Vaughan there are literally thousands of innovative companies. One that comes to mind is Mircom Group of Companies, a company that has been in existence for many years and whose owners are good family friends. The Mircom Group of Companies is the largest independent designer, manufacturer, and distributor of intelligent building solutions. It competes against U.S. giants like General Electric, Tyco, and Johnson Controls employing literally hundreds of Canadians. Over half of its products are exported outside of Canada to more than 95 countries. Mircom employs a highly skilled workforce, including scientists and engineers. It hires the best from Canadian universities.

This company is one example of a Canadian success story and it is an innovator. I would also like to add that I am proud to say that another company in my riding Vision Plastics, part of the Vision Group of Companies investing $150 million in Vaughan, will be employing literally 300 to 400 Canadians and is set to open this coming fall. I will have more to say on that in the months ahead.

Bill C-15 is a part of the legislative framework our government is attempting to put in place to encourage companies like this to start, to grow, to remain in Canada, and to succeed. That is what makes me happy about what our government is doing. In terms of its commitment to innovation, we are going in the right direction, a direction that will lead to better jobs, better benefits, a strong and growing economy, and a strengthened middle class.

What do we mean when we use the word “innovation”? Certainly it means different things to different people. I just cited an example of what innovation means in my community, but in the broader context, our government is daring to dream of doing something smarter, faster, and better to improve the status quo, to improve the quality of life in whatever way is possible.

Fundamentally we are trying to find solutions to the big problems, to the big issues that challenge us. That means social innovation, embracing the premise that a clean environment and a strong economy go hand in hand. It means understanding that some of our most important infrastructure is not only roads and bridges, but is also digital infrastructure in the context of a knowledge economy. It means moving beyond individual interests to see the collective opportunities.

Technology is fundamentally transforming the way Canadians access information, pay for goods and services, interact with each other, and build communities. At the same time, technology has now reached a new level. It is more than just communications. Technology has become a transformative tool in addressing global challenges like climate change and poverty. Where industrial progress once came at a cost to the environment, nowadays technology has emerged as our greatest tool in clean growth and healthy growth, and prosperous societies.

Our government has defined a new vision in 2016, a vision to build Canada as a centre of global innovation, renowned for its science and technology, creative and entrepreneurial citizens, and globally competitive companies offering high quality products and services, much like the Mircom Group of Companies. We are well positioned for this. We have world-leading research institutions, creative and innovative entrepreneurs such as the Mircom Group of Companies, businesses, and commercial organizations that can transform breakthroughs in the laboratory into products that enhance the lives of millions. That is the lives of millions of Canadians and also the lives of people around this earth that we inhabit.

Canada's innovative society already creates jobs for the middle class, enhances homegrown talent, and helps companies expand beyond our borders. However, we can and we will do much more. What is now an emerging economic opportunity will become the foundation of a modern 21st century Canada. We will transform our economy from one that depends on a few resources to one whose resources are as infinite as our diversity, creativity, and talent.

Through 2016 and 2017, we will define a bold new plan, the innovation agenda. Bill C-15 is a part of that blueprint to get to the innovation agenda. This will be a plan for change. It will define clear outcomes and pinpoint milestones toward achieving them. It will be a cross-government effort, drawing on Canadian and international experts in clean technology, health sciences, advanced manufacturing, digital technology, resource development, and much more.

It is important for us to be leaders in this field. We all hear that word, ecosystem. The ecosystem is important. In prior periods there may have been an auto plant where suppliers would co-exist in the surrounding area. However, today that has changed. Today with an ecosystem, we may have many small companies operating in clusters throughout the world and we need to be at the forefront of that. We need to be a part of that. That is what is going to create a strong and growing economy and strengthen our middle class.

To help us realize this vision, budget 2016 proposes several interim measures to promote research and accelerate business growth. It would focus new federal support for science on world-class discovery research, maintain funding for the commercialization of promising scientific discoveries, begin to orient federal business support toward those firms with ambitions to grow, and build a better evidence base to identify gaps, evaluate performance, and inform future decisions.

The rules are changing around us. In the old bricks and mortar economy, a bigger factory meant not just more output in wealth but more jobs. That is not the case in the new digital economy. We need to enable and support this change. We also need to ensure that we do so mindfully and in a way that does not stifle innovation.

The innovation leaders are the future and must be equipped with the skills they will need to succeed. Post-secondary and other research institutions are the front-line agents in fostering science and research excellence. They help train the Canadian workforce of tomorrow today. They help train my young daughters. They also help to create the knowledge base necessary for the private sector and policy-makers who are looking to build a thriving and clean economy. To ensure that these facilities continue to support our researchers and innovators, budget 2016 would invest up to $2 billion over three years in a new post-secondary institutions strategic investment fund.

If investing in the spaces that enhance our innovative potential is the first step, the second step is most certainly investing in Canadian researchers themselves, particularly those on the cusp of new discoveries. In Canada, this funding typically flows from federal granting councils, which include the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. These councils already receive $2.8 billion annually to support research and training of highly qualified people at universities and colleges across the country. This year and going forward, I am proud to state that our government would provide an additional $95 million to support discovery research, the highest amount of new annual funding in over a decade.

To ensure that federal support for research, including through the granting councils, is strategic and effective, we will undertake a comprehensive review of federal support for fundamental science. We want to be sure that we are providing the right support to the right leaders and that fields of research reflect shared Canadian priorities.

Our government will also continue to support Canada's strength in genomics, the study of the entire genetic code that is fuelling innovations across a number of sectors. We would provide $237.2 million over the next four years to support the pan-Canadian activities of genomics.

Well before genomics, Canadians carved out a special expertise in stem cell research. It started over 50 years ago when two of Canada's own doctors proved their very existence. Since that time, stem cell research has evolved into one of the world's greatest promises, with significant implications for medical treatments, commercial products, and public policy. We would provide up to $12 million over two years in support of the stem cell network so it could continue to provide bridges that connect researchers and professionals through training and outreach activities.

To conclude, in the 21st century global economy, Canada needs to be innovative to be a leader. We need to be leaders. Our businesses need to be fostered and encouraged. We need to embrace the world of science, technology, engineering, and math. We need to diversify our economy to enable growth and prosperity throughout the country. We need to turn the page on the last 10 years.

In addition to these goals, I believe that Canada has a strong foundation to build upon. We have one of the best educated populations in the world. We have one of the highest university investments in research and development. We have one of the world's best investment climates. We are a leading edge of global trade.

Let us be proud of Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise today to speak to Bill C-15, the budget implementation act.

I have spoken to many of my constituents with respect to the budget, and to say there is some concern among my constituents of Barrie—Innisfil is an understatement.

I spent nine years on city council in Barrie dealing with various budgets. I was a member of the finance committee.

Budgets are typically forward-looking documents. When I look at this document, and when my constituents who I have spoken to about the budget look at the document, there is one underlying theme that comes up regularly: Who is going to pay for this? To use the Liberal narrative, quite frankly the people who are going to pay for this are the middle class and anyone working hard to join the middle class.

One only has to look at the situation here in Ontario, my home province, to see some of the parallels to the mindset of unbridled spending that the current federal Liberal government has embarked on. They are very similar situations. It should not come as a surprise to anyone that they are very similar situations, because the very people who were running the premier's office in Ontario are now involved in the Prime Minister's Office. The mindset of debt and deficit spending is very evident not just in the budget but in some of the policies we have seen come from the Liberal government.

I would remind Canadians that the Ontario government is the largest sub-sovereign borrower on the planet. It is not second, not third, but the largest sub-sovereign borrower on the planet The payment on the debt currently in Ontario is third only to health and education. It is an example of unbridled spending and debt that can occur. What we are seeing, quite frankly, is a 2.0 version happening federally that has happened in Ontario. The difference really is that there is just a bigger piggy bank for the Liberals to draw from. Add to that the green program, the unmitigated disaster and the costs associated with that. It is really something we are all going to be looking for. As I said earlier, budgets being forward-looking documents, the question for most Canadians is who is going to pay for this.

When we look at some of the promises the Liberal government made, it promised a small $10-billion deficit. We now know that this year that it is going to be $30 billion. We are looking at $150 billion as we move forward. We also heard about, for example, the revenue neutral tax breaks. We now know that those tax breaks are going to cost Canadian taxpayers $1.7 billion this year and $8.9 billion over the next six years. In fact, we are going to see taxes rise to the tune of $1.3 billion this year and $2.4 billion next year.

When the Liberals talk about the middle class and taxes, when they throw out the talking points and talk in platitudes about the middle class and how they are the party of the middle class, I would suggest, as I have before in the House, that what we are actually seeing is effectively middle class tax fraud. What the Liberals are imposing on the middle class is tax fraud. It is a shell game.

I have said this before, and I will say it again, to make my point. What the Liberals give, the Liberals take back. We only have to look at the budget to figure that out. The fitness tax credit that most Canadians have used, to the tune $1.19 billion since 2006, is gone. The arts and fitness tax credit Canadians have benefited from, to the tune of $118 million or $119 million, is gone. Income splitting for families like mine, a typical middle-class family, is gone. TFSAs are gone as an option for saving. What the Liberals give, the Liberals take away.

On the issue of the OAS, and I think this is critical to discuss at this point, one of the reasons the OAS age limit was reduced from 67 to 65 was a matter of cost and sustainability.

In 2011, almost $38 billion more would have been spent to sustain the OAS. It would be $108 billion by 2020, and by 2030 it would cost almost $266 billion to sustain. In 2012, the Conservative government chose, in keeping with OECD recommendations, to increase eligibility from 65 to 67. It did this because this measure alone would have an estimated annual spending increase of $11 billion. Again, someone has to pay for that. Baby boomers, those born between 1946 and 1964, represented the largest age cohort in history. They retired. The cost of the OAS program was schedule to balloon, as I said, to $38 billion in 2011.

When the OAS system was originally designed and implemented, the average life expectancy was much shorter. Today the average Canadian life expectancy is 85-plus. Seniors starting to receive the benefit at 65 will live 20 years more, greatly increasing the costs for working taxpayers.

According to Statistics Canada, the most recent projections estimate that more than one in four Canadians will be over 65 by 2036. When OAS was introduced in the 1960s, the ratio of active workers to pensioners was 7:1. Today, however, it is 2.5:1. That is not enough to support the massive cost to Canadians.

The finance minister himself wrote a book advocating later retirements. In The Real Retirement, he wrote:

If we were to retire three years later than we now do, any concerns about having adequate retirement income would practically vanish. It would also alleviate any shortages in the workforce due to the aging of the population.

Again, we have a finance minister who on one hand understands this but on the other hand, as finance minister, reverses his position. It begs the question: would the Liberals and the Liberal Party run their households the way they are running the country?

There were also some other issues with respect to the small business tax cut. On the issue of infrastructure, and I spoke about this before, while money sits to be handed out, people sit, as jobs cannot be filled unless projects begin, and projects cannot begin until the funding has been received.

The government can now, today, get this money out in a fair and equitable manner. We have seen members of the Liberal Party out and about in their communities making funding announcements.

One of the things the Liberal Party ran on was fair and equitable infrastructure investment in the country. Granted, it has made significant investments, but there is one way we can get that money out the door quickly, one way we can get the money out that is equitable. In fact, Mayor Nenshi, this past weekend, at FCM, spoke about the issue of the gas tax being a way to get that money out the door.

If the Liberal government wanted to, rather than delay, and already we are starting to see delays in the construction season due to the fact that the money is not going out the door, it could use the gas tax revenue. There is an existing formula in place.

I know that in my city, the city of Barrie, we receive $8 million a year in gas tax funding. The criteria is already set. The accountability system is already set for that gas tax money. In fact two weeks ago when I was in Vancouver, I met with the president of FCM. I met with the president of LUMCO in my role as urban affairs critic. Universally, every single one of them has suggested that the gas tax is the proper source for ensuring that infrastructure money is put out the door in a fair and equitable manner.

This budget, as I said earlier, is a shell game. I have statistics. I can show third party assessments of this budget and how it does not benefit wholly the middle class. I would suggest, finally, that the ones who benefit the most from the Liberal budget are in fact parliamentarians with respect to tax reductions. I think the same thing that holds in Ontario will hold true three and a half years from now. My constituents are looking at this, and I know that others across the country who voted Liberal did not vote for this.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that the amount he is referring to, whatever the court costs are, relate to money that would be spent in Bill C-15 or under the budget itself. I know that the hon. member will join me in saying that since I personally do not have the knowledge of this particular case before the court, I would hardly be in the right to talk about it now.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was talking about the measures in Bill C-15 to help our seniors. I believe that it is very important to take note of all the measures for seniors in Bill C-15 and in the budget.

I was talking about the guaranteed income supplement and the extra 10% that single seniors can receive, up to $947 per year. However, what is also important is that where seniors are required to live apart because one of their health conditions or one of their circumstances requires that they be in a seniors residence or a care home or other places, we are allowed to now treat them as two separate individuals for the purpose of these supplements. This means that where they were losing money because they were married or living together common law, now they will not be penalized for that. That is also important.

I also want to talk about the $200.4 million that is going to improve social housing for seniors, to renovate apartments to help seniors live in their houses for longer.

As we all know, seniors benefit from residing in their residences for as long as possible. We do not want our seniors to be forced into hospitals or institutions before they need to be there. With proper management, with proper accessibility for the handicapped, and with proper services such as bringing in caregivers from health institutions to bathe seniors, we can leave seniors in their homes longer, and they will have an improved quality of life. I hope we can have agreements with the provinces to ensure that the monies in the budget that we intend to transfer to the provinces for health care go toward helping seniors live in their homes for as long as possible. That will continue to improve quality of life for seniors at home.

I also want to talk about another group of people in my riding who I met with a lot during the campaign who were troubled, which are students. Today, students are struggling, as we all know, with the rising cost of tuition and the massive debt they need to incur. It is low compared with our neighbours in the United States, but still high by Canadian standards. Where students have accumulated more and more debt, they want measures to help them afford to go to college, to university, to vocational training.

We have improved the Canada summer grants program by allowing a 50% increase in the amount of money that all classes of individuals can receive in grants, including part-time students. We are enhancing the Canada student loans program by saying that they do not need to repay student loans until their income reaches $25,000, and introducing more flexibility in terms of repayment measures for Canada student loans.

My NDP colleague was very proud that 320 students were hired in his riding. In my own riding 271 students were hired. Twice as many students were hired to work in our ridings as last year.

I believe that many of my colleagues are very pleased with the investment we made in summer jobs for students.

One other thing is training and apprenticeship programs in this budget. It is great to come out of university, but if students do not find jobs, they are still living in their parents basement. We do not want perpetual living in parents basements for our 20-something and 30-something generation. The monies that are going to enhance finding people jobs, going into apprenticeship programs, going into training, has the potential to help many Canadians of the younger generation.

I also want to point out the investments in our rural communities.

My hon. colleague from Laurentides—Labelle keeps talking about the lack of Internet in his community. That is also the case for many of my colleagues who live in rural regions in Canada.

I am very pleased and grateful that we invested $500 million to improve Internet service in the regions of Canada that need it.

I also want to talk about our veterans. I think we all appreciate the incredible service that many women have for generations given to our armed forces. Our Second World War veterans are old now. They are in their late eighties, their nineties, or they are over a century old. They deserve not only our respect but our help in order to get the best services to which they should be entitled, more money for front-line services. Reopening the veterans offices is something that is very important to Branch 97 of the Legion, the Frederick Kisch brigade in my riding, and Legions all across the country.

As mayor of Côte Saint-Luc, I was very proud that we found free space for our Legion in the city. I know that all members from all parties want us to make sure that benefits for our veterans are the type of benefits they are entitled to by virtue of the incredible service they have given this country.

In conclusion, I believe the bill will help Canadians, enhance our middle class, and make our Canada a stronger and better place. I am pleased to support Bill C-15.

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

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all of the hon. members who spoke before me in this debate today. This is the second time I have had the opportunity to speak in the House on Bill C-15.

To try to say something different, I want to start off by focusing on a couple of the things I have heard.

This morning, I heard a Bloc Québécois member accusing the government of neglecting Quebec. He also accused the government members from Quebec of neglecting Quebec.

Then I heard another member from Alberta saying that the budget disproportionately helped eastern Canada and affected Alberta.

I just want to say that we can be upset and disagree with provisions in the budget, but I would call upon all of us, as Canadians, to recognize that we are here as members of Parliament, not only to stand up for the people of our riding and our region, but also to stand up for all of Canada.

Therefore, I would call upon us not to continually divide ourselves by region, saying that one region is favoured over another, but to recognize that all of us believe in the best interest of Canada, and that we are furthering policies that are in the best interest of Canada.

I would only suggest that that be how we start off in this debate. I am pleased to be able to talk about Bill C-15, because coming out of an election campaign, I saw a lot of things going on in my riding that were disconcerting. I am very happy that some of these situations are alleviated by provisions taken in Bill C-15 and in the budget as a whole.

Number one is the Canada child benefit. It was frustrating, as we all walked door to door during the election, meeting so many families with children living in poverty. I am lucky to represent a riding that has a very affluent side, but we also have a very poor section. I got to meet families living on very low incomes with children, who had to question whether they had enough money to put their child in an after-school program as well as feed them.

All parties, whether Conservative, Liberal, or New Democrat, agree that we want Canadian children to start out with a fair chance, to have a full belly, to be able to participate not only in primary and secondary school but to go to university or trade school or whatever option they want post-secondary, and to be able to participate in after-school sports or arts or other programs.

The Canada child benefit says we are focusing on the poorest Canadians, we are focusing on those parents who earn, for example, less than $30,000 a year, and saying they are going to get $6,400 tax free for children below the age of six and $5,400 tax free for children above the age of six. That makes a real difference.

Whatever we think of the whole budget, whatever we think of Bill C-15, I certainly hope we are able to applaud that measure.

As well, I want to focus on seniors. One of the things that was also disconcerting was seeing the number of seniors in my riding living in poverty, widows especially, living alone in their 80s and 90s, with no family in Montreal to support them. These people will benefit from the enhanced guaranteed income supplement for single seniors, of 10%.

I will resume my comments later.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House for a second time 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. Specifically, I plan to address issues of budgetary concern that would have a direct impact on my riding of North Island—Powell River.

We are currently at the report stage, so I will also be discussing a few of the NDP's proposed amendments to the bill. Thirty-six amendments were tabled in committee by the opposition parties; 15 of them came from the NDP. These amendments would not have made this a progressive budget, in my eyes, but they were crucial and would have made the bill passable. Unfortunately, without them, I am afraid I will have to oppose the main motion at report stage.

As we know, the Liberals decided to listen to its false majority, rejected most proposed changes in committee, and introduced time allocation in the House after only two days of debate.

The Liberal government campaigns on a promise of more help for the middle class. In the communities I serve, I hear from people who identify as middle class but who make less than $45,000 a year. I also represent people who are the working poor and struggle day to day to make ends meet. This tax break would not help these people.

At a time when Canadians need a government to tackle growing income and wealth inequality, the Liberals went in the opposite direction. Everyone agrees that those in the highest tax bracket, earning $210,000 or more, would benefit the most from the Liberal's so-called middle-class tax cut. Six out of 10 Canadians will get nothing from this Liberal plan.

What sets New Democrats apart is our belief that the government should be tackling inequality, not compounding it.

One community in my riding is facing a very painful reality. A mill closed and has been shut down for almost two years. There is no word yet to the community on whether it will reopen or not, but the impacts have been extremely painful, and I have been so grateful to the people who have contacted my office to share their stories and to ask for help.

The people in the communities I serve are hard-working and dedicated to the communities they live in. This tax break would not help them in their process to revision their family or their community. New Democrats proposed to modify the tax cuts so that working-class and middle-class Canadians would benefit from tax changes. The PBO confirmed today that the NDP plan would benefit nine million more Canadians and have a much fairer distribution of benefits.

It is time for a government that is more fair to those who work so hard in our communities.

Two weeks ago, I started a tour in my riding of North Island—Powell River for town halls, to have a conversation on seniors' issues. I listened to their priorities so that I could understand their needs better and work to ensure that they are met. In a riding as large as mine, I have completed only a third of the area and look forward to completing the rest, but I will tell members that these voices were strong and often unanimous. I was deeply touched and startled by the stark realities they shared with me of the people who supported us in the building of this country. Many of them are now feeling completely abandoned.

I have been in Ottawa for nearly eight months now and I am astounded to witness how little we have spoken about the needs of our elders. The budget would not include any additional provisions for home care or palliative care, even after the Liberals promised $3 billion for home care during the campaign. I can tell members that, in the riding of North Island—Powell River, it is desperately needed.

How many more years until we see money or even a strategy in place to meet the needs of Canada's seniors? By 2036, the number of seniors will double. It should be a critical question we are asking in the House, planning for now and for the future.

When the federal budget was introduced, we did welcome the government's recommendation to increase the GIS for single seniors. Let us remember that on the campaign trail the Liberals' promise was to help them immediately. Why are seniors having to wait until July?

The NDP moved to make the increase to the GIS retroactive to January 1. The Liberals rejected our amendments. However, the seniors in my riding can count on an MP who will have their interests in mind.

It is rare for politicians to agree on anything, but during the election all three parties promised to lower the small business tax rate to 9%. Liberal MPs still have yet to keep the election promise they made to small business owners that would see a break on their taxes.

New Democrats have been fighting for a long time for tax cuts for small businesses, which are the real job creators in Canada. In the communities I serve, our natural resource industries have taken many hits. Now with less of these jobs, small businesses have stepped up to the challenge of working in the communities to create economic development and local jobs.

Vague comments hoping people will have more money to spend, which would be good for small business, are not enough. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy, and in rural and remote communities they are often dedicated to supporting the communities in so many ways. It is time to return the favour to these small businesses, to give them what they need so they can make choices, which will help communities across Canada.

The NDP proposed two amendments at the Standing Committee on Finance for the Liberal government to reconsider the tax increase for small and medium-sized enterprises. Not only did the Liberal members of the committee reject all amendments proposed by the opposition, but on many occasions they remained silent and refused to explain their decisions.

Dan Kelly, president and CEO of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, said it best. He said:

So you can imagine our surprise on budget day when we heard that, “Budget 2016 proposes that the small business tax rate remain at 10.5 per cent after 2016”....

We've been trying to figure out why the government did this. Some reasons have been floated. I have to say, after meeting with several cabinet ministers, and many MPs of all parties, there has been no suggestion as to why the government chose to take this action.

I would like to thank my colleague and neighbouring MP, the member for Courtenay—Alberni, for standing up for small businesses. In the last weeks he has launched a campaign that encourages small businesses to send a broken promise invoice to the Liberal government. In total, the cancelled tax reduction will cost Canadian small businesses $2.2 billion over the next four years. Many small business owners were counting on these scheduled reductions. They could have upgraded their operations or given their employees a raise. Now, they feel betrayed. I encourage all small businesses in my riding to stand with us and send these invoices to the Liberal government.

Consecutive Liberal and Conservative governments have given massive tax giveaways to Canada's most profitable corporations. Meanwhile, the NDP is a party that offers tangible solutions that would make a difference for those who need it most. We are listening to small businesses.

Budget time is the government's opportunity to start capping transaction fees for credit cards and facilitating the transfer of family businesses between generations. These are small changes that would go a long way.

The Liberals repeatedly criticized the anti-democratic behaviour of the Conservatives with their omnibus bills, but now that they are in power, they are repeating the practice. Bill C-15 is a large bill. It has 179 pages, amends over 30 separate statutes, refers to nine different ministries, and impacts several others. Moreover, it retroactively repeals an act and proposes retroactive changes, includes a complex chapter on bank recapitalization, and proposes changes to employment insurance.

The budget and its implementation bill simply do not meet the needs of the vast majority of the people I serve. Unfortunately, like his Liberal predecessors, the Prime Minister has given us an omnibus bill that puts tax relief for CEOs and big, profitable corporations ahead of help for many hard-working Canadians, unemployed workers, and small and medium-sized businesses.

At a time when Canada needs a government that will combat rising inequality, the Liberals' first budget is inadequate.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise on behalf of my constituents in Guelph to extend my wholehearted support for budget 2016, growing the middle class, Bill C-15. The budget has many bona fides, from the emphasis on the environment, to infrastructure investments, to building the economy, but there is no doubt in my mind that the budget's greatest asset is its focus on innovation.

However, I feel compelled to ask the House this: what is innovation exactly? Innovation is much more than a buzzword. It is a perspective, a new way of seeing our world. Innovation is creativity with a job to do, as John Emmerling defined it. Innovation is the route to developing a prosperous future for business and a more efficient government for the Canadian people. Assembling new technologies, best practices, and ideas is critical, but the process does not stop there. In fact, that is just the beginning.

By bringing together experts and entrepreneurs with new technologies and by utilizing the best available practices from around the world, Canada will flourish, cementing our place as a prosperous nation. That not only adds to the value of our economy but adds to the value of economies around the world.

As I was the former president of the Guelph Chamber of Commerce and co-founder of Innovation Guelph, I have seen this work, and we did our part to grow our community.

As a result of hard work and creativity, Guelphites now have the lowest unemployment rate in Canada. Guelph is ranked number one in the agricultural biotechnology cluster in Ontario. It is also one of the top two in Canada. Guelph's advanced manufacturing sector has 360 businesses employing over 14,000 people in Guelph, with employment growing at close to 10% annually.

Clean technology is a rapidly growing sector in my riding. Canada's largest solar panel manufacturer is located in Guelph, and many businesses are working around the world on water and air quality as well as on alternative energy.

The University of Guelph and Conestoga College have been key to shaping Guelph's growth. Focusing on innovation through business, academic, and government partnerships has been key to Guelph's success, and it will be the key to Canada's success going forward.

If this is what the city of Guelph can accomplish with an innovation network, just imagine what Canada could accomplish if there were a string of innovation networks linking coast to coast to coast.

Building this new future for Canada begins where this government does; it begins with engaging Canadians. Creative and entrepreneurial citizens are at the heart of this new innovation agenda.

Investing in education is a crucial step in developing Canadian talent and as a means of attracting talent from abroad. Through the Canada Foundation for Innovation, the Government of Canada has already made significant investments in research infrastructure at Canada's universities, colleges, and research institutes.

Provinces and territories also provide substantial funding for campus renewal every year. Nevertheless, much of Canada's post-secondary infrastructure is over 25 years old and is nearing the end of its useful life. This presents an opportunity to invest in greener and innovation-friendly spaces.

As chair of the innovation and post-secondary education caucus, I strongly support budget 2016, as it will invest $2 billion dollars in a new post-secondary institutions strategic investment fund.

Commercialization and growth is truly an indispensable element of the innovation process. Dynamic, globally interconnected firms will propel clean economic growth, increase Canada's productivity, and support well-paying jobs for the middle class.

Connections between knowledge producers and users, including researchers and firms, and collaboration within supply chains, driven by market opportunities, create value through innovation while supporting economic growth. Information gaps and coordination challenges may prevent these linkages from being developed to their full potential, impacting the strength of innovation ecosystems.

Therefore, to help address these challenges, budget 2016 proposes to make available up to $800 million over four years, starting in 2017-18, to support innovation networks and clusters as part of the government's upcoming innovation agenda.

Last, but certainly not least, science and technology is the fuel that makes innovation possible. Technology has always shaped the course of human events, and the future will be no different. Therefore, we cannot ignore or become mere bystanders while other nations in the world race past us in an effort to gain the technological upper hand.

Canada's universities, colleges, and other research institutions play a fundamental role in our society by developing the leading technologies of the day, just as we did in the past with penicillin, the Avro Arrow, and the telephone, to name just a few examples of Canadian technology.

In keeping with Canada's long history as a global leader in research and development, budget 2016 proposes an additional $95 million per year, on an ongoing basis, to be provided to granting councils. This will be the highest amount of new annual funding for discovery research in more than a decade. As well as demonstrating the foresight of budget 2016, this initiative will support up to 50% of the eligible costs of infrastructure projects at post-secondary institutions, paving the way for success for hundreds of thousands of Canadian youth.

As a member of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, I recently visited businesses in Montreal's aerospace industry that form part of Canada's aerospace cluster. These businesses show the power of industry-academic collaboration, but also the importance of collaboration with the federal government, to compete and partner with each other and with countries in this area.

I am a member of the automotive caucus, and the same can be said about that sector. It is critically important that government, industry, and academia work together to develop our innovation agenda. Budget 2016 gives us first steps to focus government as a key partner in innovation.

Budget 2016 provides Canadians with the tools they need to innovate and build a stronger, healthier, and greener Canada for future generations. I eagerly await the advances in science and technology that will come about as a direct result of the investments we make here today.

No less than Mahatma Gandhi said that we must be the change we wish to see in the world. By embracing and embodying innovation as a perspective, acting as a lens through which we can see the world, Canadians will once again be the change they wish to see in the world and being the trailblazers to whom the world can look as a model for success.

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

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to stand to speak to Bill C-15.

This past weekend while in Whitby, I had the opportunity to attend a number of events. I went to the “art heals” program at Ontario Shores, a program which supports using art as a way to heal the challenges one faces in life. I also went to the Whitby Yacht Club and joined a reception following the blessing of the fleet. I visited Nova's Ark, an organization run by a courageously selfless woman named Mary-Ann Nova, who opened up her property to children with developmental challenges. Some local high school students were also at Nova's Ark to help with the movie night so that the children, who are not normally invited to go to the fair or to proms, had an opportunity to just hang out. I also went to the 105th Brooklin fair and helped the Abilities Centre celebrate its fourth birthday. At every corner, at every event, I saw people smiling, families having fun, enjoying the weather, and celebrating together.

I mention all of this because when I joined government I wanted to ensure that my role here helped to make lives better for Canadian families, much like the ones I saw this weekend, and I believe the budget does just that. I am therefore proud to stand to support it.

I first want to talk about what this budget does to help families with the cost of raising their children. With the introduction of the Canada child benefit, a targeted, tax-free, progressive benefit for middle-class families and those working hard to join the middle class, Canadian families will have more money in their pockets. Starting this July, nine out of 10 Canadian families will open their mailbox and find a cheque providing them with a benefit that is more generous than their existing benefits. That is money that families, including many of those I saw at the Brooklin fair, can use to provide the best possible start in life for their children.

However, what I saw in Whitby this weekend is not the norm for many families across this country. In a country as prosperous as Canada, no child should ever live in poverty. No child should go to school hungry, or not have a safe place to call home. The Canada child benefit combats child poverty by targeting the most support to those families in greatest need.

This benefit will lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty. As members may have heard my colleague, the hon. Minister of Finance, say many times in the House, the CCB is the “most significant social policy innovation in a generation”, and I am incredibly proud to stand here today to support the budget that provides for it.

In remembering those high-schoolers volunteering at Nova's Ark, and as the parent of three children, I am always thinking ahead, thinking about their futures. As a parliamentarian, I am focused on our collective responsibility to make sure the next generation has every opportunity to succeed. My oldest daughter will be starting college or university next fall and I want to ensure that all doors are open to her, and to all our children, as they head off to school, start an apprenticeship, or join the workforce.

When I was campaigning in Whitby, and increasingly since I was elected, I have heard over and over again from people in Whitby who are concerned about youth employment and underemployment. This remains a persistent and ongoing challenge in Whitby and the broader Durham region. We know that our country's future prosperity depends on the success of our young people and that in order to be successful today, tomorrow, and in the years to come, our future leaders need access to meaningful work at the start of their careers.

I am so pleased to stand here today to talk about how the measures contained in budget 2016 make important investments to make sure that our young people have those opportunities. As I stand here today, more than 77,000 young people from coast to coast to coast are employed through the Canada summer jobs program. That is more than double the number who found placements in 2015.

In my riding alone, more than 400 students will be employed at 68 small businesses, non-profit organizations, and civic institutions across Whitby. These young people will spend their summer learning valuable skills and gaining important experience while assisting these businesses and organizations to better serve our community.

I want to talk about one organization in particular that is participating in the Canada summer jobs program. That is the Abilities Centre. I would be remiss if I did not mention that the vision for this centre came to fruition under the leadership of the former member of Parliament for Whitby, the late Jim Flaherty. The centre, which provides programs and services, including sports, fitness, arts, and life skills opportunities for people of all ages and of all levels of ability, is one organization that is receiving funding this year. I had a chance to hear from the executive director on how important this program is to its success, and how much of a difference it will make for families in Whitby. He told me that, through this Canada summer jobs program, the Abilities Centre was able to hire 26 students this year, who will work a combined 7,000 hours in service to a diverse population. These students will assist the Abilities Centre in providing programming support while they receive on-the-job experience that will help them to continue their studies and enter the workforce.

While we are on the topic of young people, I want to touch on how proud I am that the budget does so much to support students and ensure that post-secondary education is available and affordable.

Budget 2016 enhances the Canada student grants program by increasing the amounts by 50%, thus allowing close to 250,000 low- to middle-income students access to funds for higher education.

My riding is home to the Whitby campus of Durham College, and I have heard how pleased it is with the increased resources that its students will receive in order to support their academic endeavours. If members want to see how talented these young people are, I invite them to visit my office on the Hill or my constituency office and they will see their artwork proudly displayed.

The last point I want to make today is with respect to the historic investments we are making into public transit and infrastructure. Many residents of my riding travel to Toronto and other parts of the GTA for work each day. I have talked to them about their long commutes and the many hours they spend each week idling in traffic or the time they spend on a bus or a train. The time they spend commuting is time they are away from their homes and families. The budget is investing billions of dollars into public transit and infrastructure over the coming years, an investment that will result in more school pickups and drop-offs, family dinners, and bedtime stories for families in Whitby and the Durham region.

Budget 2016 will make a real difference in the lives of Canadians from coast to coast to coast. It is a plan to get the Canadian economy moving again, while taking real action to support the middle class and those working hard to join it. I am very proud to stand here today and support it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will give members a couple of examples.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The House resumed from June 3 consideration of Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures, as reported with amendments from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Motions in amendment

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-15, part of our government's plan to strengthen the middle class and keep Canada's economy strong and growing for the long term.

The measures in the budget implementation act will enable us to move forward on our ambitious economic agenda. It is an agenda that restores hope for the middle class by making smart, necessary investments in our country's future.

It is a plan I was honoured to table in this House on March 22.

Let me begin by emphasizing that we intend to take advantage of a historic opportunity. Thanks to the leadership of governments in the 1990s, Canada's debt position is by far the best in the G7. With interest rates at record lows, now is the time to invest in people and the economy to prepare Canada for a brighter future.

Budget 2016 will support the middle class now by helping Canadian families with important and necessary measures, and it lays the foundation for sustainable, long-term economic growth. In particular, on December 7, 2015, we introduced the middle-class tax cut. Nearly nine million Canadians are now benefiting from lower taxes on every paycheque.

As a second step, budget 2016 introduced the new Canada child benefit. Compared with the existing system, the new Canada child benefit will be simpler, more generous, and tax free. It will also be targeted to those who need it most. With the introduction of the Canada child benefit, about 300,000 fewer children will be living in poverty. In fact, the CCB represents the most significant social policy innovation in a generation. It means real help for real people, and putting more money in the pockets of moms and dads to pay for everything from summer camp to new clothes.

This is only part of what Bill C-15 does to help families directly. In the past, I have spoken in the House about measures that will also help seniors, veterans, and students. Through their efforts, their innovation, and their integrity, Canadians are building a stronger economy for today and for future generations. They rightfully expect their government to work with them in support of those initiatives.

Allow me to highlight a portion of the bill which I have seldom had the chance to address directly in the House.

As members will know, in addition to helping families and making important investments, Bill C-15 also introduces a number of measures in support of our plan to ensure tax fairness and maintain the integrity of the tax system. As we have said many times, we believe all Canadians should be paying their fair share of taxes.

The budget was tabled before this issue dominated the international headlines this spring, but when it did, I am proud to say that Canada was able to stand proud and highlight the action we had just announced in our plan to prevent underground economic activity and tax evasion, as well as aggressive tax planning.

A cornerstone of our action is a $444-million investment over five years for the Canada Revenue Agency to enhance its efforts to crack down on tax evasion and combat tax avoidance. However, we all recognize that assessing tax revenues alone is not enough, and that is why budget 2016 invests an additional $351.6 million over five years to improve the CRA's ability to go after and collect those outstanding tax debts.

In addition, Canada's tax system needs ongoing adjustment to ensure that it is functioning as intended and contributing to the objective of an economy that works for everyone. We believe a stronger revenue base will help support our new investments in education, infrastructure, training, and other programs that will help to secure a better quality of life for Canada's indigenous people, building a stronger, more unified, more prosperous Canada. These are just a few of the measures in the bill.

However, to ensure a brighter future for our kids and grandkids we have to plan much further ahead. As we look out over the horizon we see challenges and we see a world of opportunity.

For starters, Canada’s population is aging. The global economy is volatile. Oil prices are unpredictable. We need to take steps to improve competitiveness and productivity in Canada so that we become drivers of our own success now, and in a generation from now.

As our workforce ages and shrinks, real GDP growth has been forecast to slow from about 3% enjoyed since 1970 to slightly less than 2% over the next 15 years, a one percentage point drop. Productivity is key to a growing economy because when output per worker is higher, firms can pay their employees more, families can work less while earning more, and companies can return larger dividends to their investors or reinvest in their businesses.

I am proud to be working with my cabinet colleagues, the ministers of innovation, trade, labour, and infrastructure, on delivering our long-term growth agenda, but we know that we do not have all of the answers and we are open to innovative new ideas. That is why, a few weeks ago, I hosted my inaugural meeting of the advisory council on economic growth.

Through this growth council, we have brought together some of the best minds, who bring a global perspective and wide-ranging experience that will help us shape the government's growth strategy. The council will help generate the bold and innovative ideas needed to create and sustain long-term economic growth that benefits the middle class and those who are working hard to join it. We want Canadians to be able to afford to send their kids to a quality day care or help their teenagers with a college education and tuition. We want to ensure that every Canadian can put away enough money for a safe and secure retirement.

To conclude, we know the challenges that we face will not be solved overnight or by a single budget, but we also know that good government is not just about today and tomorrow. It is also about the years and decades to come. That is where our focus will be and will continue to be.

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

moved:

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 233.

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 234.

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 235.

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 236.

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 237.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-15 at report stage.

I was a member of the Standing Committee on Finance, which studied the bill. Unfortunately, I have to say that history is repeating itself. I was on the Standing Committee on Finance for three years during the previous Parliament. If I remember correctly, in those three years, during which we studied six budget implementation bills, the committee considered thousands of pages of amendments but adopted only one, and that was only after a government MP amended the amendment.

In this case, although we were told the government would be more open and willing to co-operate with the opposition, once again, even though our amendments were totally reasonable and intended to correct certain shortcomings in the bill, not one of them was accepted. In fact, during the three or four meetings we had with witnesses, the committee heard some very interesting things about the bill's content, and more importantly, about some of its flaws. Unfortunately, although these flaws were pointed out to the government, it chose not to fix them. In the end, the only amendment that was accepted was a Liberal member's amendment that simply corrected an oversight in the bill. That is another common characteristic of omnibus bills.

The government claims this is not an omnibus bill. After all, it is only 179 pages long. After all, only 35 acts are amended, added, or corrected. However, it is undeniably an omnibus bill, and this means that it is impossible for the committee to properly study the bill and thoroughly analyze its content. Goodness knows that this bill contains important elements that deserve our attention, but unfortunately, we were not able to give it that attention.

As the opposition, we managed to draw the government's attention to a flaw in this bill, and the government is trying to rectify that at report stage. As far as employment insurance is concerned, 12 regions are being given the option of extending benefits. Again, that is an arbitrary number chosen by the government. On May 13, the Prime Minister made a statement that caught my attention. He announced that three other regions would be added: Southern Saskatchewan, Edmonton, and British Columbia Southern Interior. During clause-by-clause review of the bill, we were quite surprised to see that those three additions did not actually materialize. The government seemed to have completely forgotten its promise.

We did try to make a correction. Initially, we proposed a bill whereby all regions in the country would be eligible, including those in Quebec, where no regions are currently eligible. This was declared out of order by the Speaker of the House. Then, we tried to add an amendment that added all the eligible regions in the pilot project that was abolished by the Conservatives in 2011-12, which extended benefits by five weeks for regions with high unemployment. That amendment was also declared out of order.

We really tried to reach out to the government by presenting an amendment regarding the three regions that it had already announced would be added to the bill. That amendment was also ruled out of order because we did not have a royal recommendation. The interesting part of all this is that the government did not seem to know what we were talking about. The Liberals were completely confused. We asked the official who was there for more information. She was extremely helpful in answering our questions. However, in the end, we still did not get an answer and we do not know whether the government even realized that there was a problem with the provision or that it was failing to keep the promises it had made not during the election campaign, but two weeks before the committee examined the bill.

Most of this bill seems to be improvised. Some of the decisions set out in it are completely inconsistent with the promises that the current government made during the election campaign. We are now making amendments at report stage.

One of the changes we are recommending at report stage is to have the government respect and fulfill the commitment it made during the last campaign regarding small and medium-sized businesses.

In 2008, for the first time, the NDP brought forward the idea of decreasing the tax rate for small and medium-sized businesses from 11% to 9%. We did the same in 2011, and in 2015. Although there was not much that we supported in the Conservative government's last budget, to its credit, it actually announced a decrease to this tax rate from 11% to 9% over a period of four years. Therefore, it was an NDP commitment that the Conservative government decided to implement. We were thankful, but wanted it to be sped up by having it implemented over two years rather than four years. However, at least the gesture was there.

It is not often that all three major parties agree on a single measure, but that was the case for the small and medium-sized business tax cut. We all agreed on it. We all ran on that, including the Liberals.

However, in the first Liberal budget, it states that the tax cut will be frozen at 10.5%. The Liberals even took credit during the budget speeches for that decrease, which was in the previous budget. They basically took credit for not raising it to 11%. I found that disheartening. We brought this topic forward over and over again because small and medium-sized businesses expected it and really counted on that tax cut. They were planning for it because all three parties had agreed. I can say that not one single small and medium-sized business representative, either from the CFIB, my riding, or even other ridings, has applauded the Liberals for this. On the contrary, the comments were scathing. It is disappointing to see the Liberals trying to justify breaking this key electoral promise by talking about anything else.

Although I do not have much time left, I would like to also point out that the Standing Committee on Finance does not seem to understand the key role it has to play in our democracy. This is no reflection on the individual members of the committee, who have actually worked hard and asked good questions. However, the role of the finance committee, like all committees, is to hold government to account.

The government is proposing new laws and amending others. Unfortunately, as we have already said, this government does not seem to listen to the opposition. By introducing omnibus bills, the government is giving us very little time to examine extremely complex measures. That means that we cannot do our job properly, which seems to suit some government members just fine.

Take for example the recapitalization of banks. This measure is extremely important. Honestly, at first glance, I was in favour of it. However, pages 20 to 25 of the bill are extremely technical and they completely change the way that our banks, their shareholders, and depositors are protected if they run into difficulty. We barely talked about that. No witnesses appeared to talk about it. We heard from one official, Mr. Campbell, who was extremely helpful, but we did not have the opportunity to carefully examine, scrutinize, and analyze the ins and outs of that part of the bill, which is extremely important to the future of our country.

I do not think we have managed to do a good job in such little time. I know that Bill C-15 will pass, even though we are going to oppose it, since the government has a majority. However, I would like to tell the government that if it sincerely wants to keep its election promise to increase transparency, it should introduce budget bills that actually deal with budgetary issues. It should not introduce bills that include measures in another law, like Bill C-15, and that include sections that are 25 to 30 pages long on topics that are very important to our country's future. We hope that this government will learn from its mistakes.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

There are nine motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-15. Motions No. 1 to 9 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 9 to the House.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Veterans

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to participate in the adjournment debate, or what is known in parliamentary jargon as the late show, for the first time. I will learn how this works in the next few minutes.

I am also pleased to see that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence, the hon. member for Kanata—Carleton, is here. I hope that she will be able to give me some answers.

I am here to share some concerns that have been expressed by Canadians in general, not just veterans. The House will understand why. Recently, the minister introduced new financial benefits for veterans under Bill C-12, which unfortunately no longer exists because those measures have now been inserted into omnibus Bill C-15.

These amendments include increasing the disability award, expanding access to the higher grades of the permanent impairment allowance, and increasing the earnings loss benefit. Veterans tell me that these improved benefits are worthwhile, but that the government could have made a better decision. For example, veterans would have liked the government to invest more in mental health clinics, provide more assistance for families, such as military spouses, and improve help for the transition from military to civilian life.

This evening, I will talk about the fact that the disability award was increased and that the increase is retroactive to 2006. We are talking about approximately $3.7 billion that will be spent on these retroactive payments. This expenditure is highly questionable.

I am going to tell a story that explains why I think that we need to ask questions in that regard. One of my constituents came to see me. She earns about $100,000 a year. She was a soldier and she has hearing problems. Although she will not do so, if she were to apply for a disability award from the Department of Veterans Affairs, she would be eligible to receive a cheque for between $5,000 and $10,000. I think that everyone here will agree that this person, who earns $100,000 a year, does not need that money and that her loss of hearing does not prevent her from working.

Imagine how many cases like that there are in Canada and how many people, in the coming months, without thinking of their fellow soldiers, will apply for disability awards for physical injuries that do not necessarily prevent them from working. Under the law, they are eligible for that money and it is good that the government is trying to help them. However, when it comes to veterans, there are urgent needs in many other areas, including those I talked about earlier.

My question for my colleague from Kanata—Carleton is very simple. According to her estimates, how much money will be paid out retroactively to 2006 for hearing-related injuries?

Business of the House

[Kent Hehr, Liberal, Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, today we will continue debate on the NDP opposition motion.

Tomorrow morning we will commence debate on Bill C-15, the budget legislation. Following question period tomorrow, we will begin consideration at third reading of Bill C-6 on citizenship.

On Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday of next week, we will resume debate on the budget bill. We are presently in discussion with the opposition House leaders on the length of debate. Hopefully we will be able to find agreement.

Next Thursday, June 9, shall be an allotted day.

Finally, for next Friday, we will proceed with second reading of Bill C-13, the implementation of the WTO agreement.

Finance

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Finance 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.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you, Mr. Marcil.

I would also rule that in the opinion of the Chair, these amendments, both BQ-2 and BQ-3, are inadmissible. The amendment seeks to add a definition in the Employment Insurance Act in relation to BQ-3 and seeks to amend section 5 of that act. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, states on pages 766-7, “an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill.”

Since section 5 of the Employment Insurance Act is not being amended by Bill C-15, I would rule that the amendments are inadmissible. That applies to both BQ-2 and BQ-3.

(Clauses 207 and 208 agreed to on division)

(On clause 209)

There's an amendment, BQ-4.

Go ahead, Mr. Marcil.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

It is deemed moved, so we do have to deal with it—my mistake.

There's nobody to speak to it.

I would rule the amendment inadmissible. Bill C-15 seeks to amend the Employment Insurance Act by increasing benefits for long-tenured workers. Amendments PV-3, PV-4, and PV-5 attempt to remove all references to “long-tenured workers” from the bill.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, states, on pages 767-8, “Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.” Therefore, in the opinion of the chair, the amendment would impose a charge on the public treasury by relaxing the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible. That ruling also applies to PV-4 and PV-5.

Turning to BQ-2, is there somebody who wants to speak to that?

Mr. Marcil, the floor is yours.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you, Madame Pauzé.

I will have to rule this amendment as inadmissible. Amendment BQ-1 seeks to amend section 11 of the Old Age Security Act. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, states on page 766-7, “an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill.”

Section 11 of the Old Age Security Act is not being amended by Bill C-15, so it's the opinion of the chair that this amendment is inadmissible.

(On clause 189)

We will go to amendment NDP-8.

Mr. Caron.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Chair, last week, we learned that the federal government intends to go ahead with automatic enrolment for the guaranteed income supplement for seniors aged 65 and over, but not until 2018. The minister also confirmed this in the House yesterday, during oral questions.

Under our proposed amendment, automatic enrolment would take effect immediately after Bill C-15 is passed, and not in 2018. Looking back in time, I note that the federal government has known since 1993 that seniors have been shortchanged on their right to GIS benefits, seniors who have slipped through the cracks and ended up at food banks.

For 15 years, the federal government has said it would move forward on automatic enrolment, but that is not what it has done. It has implemented automatic renewal. That's a good step but there are still 19% of seniors who do not receive what they are due.

My amendment says one thing: enough waiting, it's time to take action now to automatically enrol seniors for the guaranteed income supplement to which they are entitled.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you, Mrs. Wagantall.

Similar to CPC-2, I also have to rule this as inadmissible. In this case, I'll not read the passage from House of Commons Procedure and Practice. Since section 76 of the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act is not being amended by Bill C-15, it's the opinion of the chair that this amendment is inadmissible.

Turning to clauses 90 to 106, are there any clauses in that block which members want to make a comment on or have witnesses come forward on?

(Clause 90 to 106 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 107)

We have amendment NDP-7, moved by Mr. Caron.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you, Madam Wagantall.

This amendment is inadmissible. It seeks to add a new section between section 75.2 and section 76 of the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, states on pages 766-7, “an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill.”

Since neither section 75.2 nor section 76 of the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act are amended by Bill C-15, it's the opinion of the chair that this amendment is inadmissible. I declare it inadmissible.

We have a new clause in amendment CPC-3.

You are signed in, Mrs. Wagantall. If you want to move it, you're signed in, I think, for Lisa Raitt.

[Faith McIntyre]

That, sir, is another program. It's the permanent impairment allowance, career impact allowance. That is the proposed title change. It's another one of the amendments that we're proposing under Bill C-15. It's an additional benefit that's available to individuals from an economic loss perspective. There's also the disability award, which again we're increasing to $360,000 as proposed under Bill C-15 for non-economic loss award.

[Faith McIntyre]

This amendment doesn't really cancel them out, but in essence what it would do.... There's nothing that would change without the amendment either, so for what's in play for budget 2016, the increase of the 15% in the earnings loss benefit is there, and that's what's being proposed in Bill C-15 in the legislation—

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

If I could ask for a point of clarification.... Is that under Bill C-15 or before Bill C-15?

Bill C-15 hasn't passed. Are they going to end up with less under Bill C-15? Is that what you are saying, Mrs. Wagantall?

[Faith McIntyre, Director General, Policy and Research Division, Strategic Policy and Commemoration, Department of Veterans Affairs]

Yes, I did. Thank you very much.

The earnings loss benefit provides income support to veterans while they are participating in rehabilitation, as well as support to those who aren't able to be suitably and gainfully employed once rehab is complete. It is part of a suite of programs that Veterans Affairs Canada offers in terms of re-establishment to promote support and encourage wellness, independence, and successful transition to civilian life.

The earnings loss benefit is designed to replace lost income and therefore has always directly corresponded with the veteran's salary at the time of release or the minimum level, whichever is greater. Changes to budget 2016 do not impact this.

With the proposed amendment, if Bill C-15 is passed, veterans who would have previously received 75% of whatever their salary was at the time of release would now receive 90% or the minimum, whichever is greater.

What is paramount in looking at this modification of 75% to 90% is that injured veterans have access to benefits that allow them to focus on recovery, so all veterans will benefit from the increase from 75% to 90%. Again, what is paramount is the support they require during recovery, and with the adjustment, that is pre-release salary or the minimum, whichever is greater.

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

Mr. Chair, in Bill C-15, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures, one of the measures proposes to amend the Income Tax Act to include rules that apply in respect of the continuance of the Canadian Wheat Board under the Canada Business Corporations Act.

The amendment ensures consistency between the English and French versions of clause 38 of the bill by correcting an editorial error in the English version. The correction adds to the English version the words “a Canadian partnership” at line 30 on page 41. The amended text appears in proposed paragraph 135.2(4)(b) of the Income Tax Act. The amendment ensures that a Canadian partnership is not deemed under the paragraph to be a designated beneficiary under an eligible trust.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Could we come to order. Thank you.

Pursuant to order of reference of Tuesday, May 10, 2016, Bill C-15, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016, and other measures, today, we're to start clause-by-clause study.

Before we do that, the third report of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure was passed around to members, as members who were on that subcommittee would know. We met yesterday, and we made some decisions as a subcommittee that we will now put to the committee so this can be dealt with.

Do I need to read it?

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

Thank you. I'm grateful.

Mr. Minister, thank you.

I'm surprised by my opportunity to ask a question. I have many.

I have one that's buried down in the details and I'm preparing an amendment on it for this committee. I'm unhappy that the “long-tenured worker” definition that came out of the last government has been reinserted into changes in this budget for employment insurance. The “long-tenured worker” definition, which this omnibus budget bill brings into the EI act instead of getting rid of it, will prejudice younger workers and newer workers. I'm wondering if the government is open to an amendment to Bill C-15 that would allow the “long-tenured worker” definition to be pulled.

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

I'll deal with something more specific and maybe a little more obtuse.

Bill C-15 deals with bank recapitalization. I was wondering if you can offer a few comments on how the specific measures in the bill continue to strengthen our banking system while ensuring that depositors remain protected.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Welcome, Minister, and thank you for your comments and your continuing leadership.

I have to admit that I found your comments on the innovation and infrastructure side refreshing. The ability to move people, goods, services, and information from both rural and urban Canada to where they need to be is crucial for our long-term prosperity. On the innovation front, we need to be part of those ecosystems that exist and form every day. That's where the high-quality, high-paying jobs are, so we are going in the right direction. I'm glad to be part of a government that recognizes that.

What I would like to ask is more of a broad-based question. I've called Bill C-15 “the blueprint after the budget“. What I would like to know is how this begins a major step forward to enhance Canada's long-term growth profile and to strengthen our middle class, while doing so in a fiscally prudent manner.

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

For clarity, Nick Leswick is assistant deputy minister, economic and fiscal policy, and he's really good at his job too.

I want to thank you, Mr. Chair, and I want to say that I'm pleased to be here today to speak to the distinguished members of the Standing Committee on Finance about Bill C-15 and the investments that our government will make to strengthen the middle class and keep Canada's economy strong and growing for the long term.

The measures in the budget implementation bill will enable us to move forward on our ambitious economic agenda, designed to strengthen the middle class and ensure long-term growth by making smart, necessary investments in our country's future. It's a plan I was honoured to table in the House through our very first budget on March 22. Since that day, I have been telling Canada's story from coast to coast as well as in the United States, Europe, and most recently at the G7 finance ministers' meeting in Sendai, Japan.

Meetings like this one are a great opportunity to demonstrate Canada's leadership on important international issues and to send the message that Canada is back, that we're engaged, and that we're a global leader. In Japan, at the G20, at the IMF spring meetings on Wall Street, as elsewhere over the last two months, people kept telling me the same thing: “We really like what you're doing in Canada.”

Members may have read that the Financial Times called Canada a “glimmer of light”.The Wall Street Journal called Canada the poster child for the International Monetary Fund's global growth strategy. Christine Lagarde, head of the IMF, praised our approach.

Our budget earned these endorsements because, I firmly believe, our government is focused on exactly the right things, and it has answered the call of millions of Canadians, who have told us both before the budget and after that they want real change.

Even before the budget, our government set to work to create the conditions that help middle-class Canadians and their families. On December 7, 2015, we took a significant first step to strengthen the middle class by cutting taxes for nearly nine million Canadians.

In addition to the tax cut, we introduced the new Canada child benefit in budget 2016. This benefit is intended to help parents better support their most precious resource, their children.

The Canada child benefit is a simpler, more generous tax-free benefit for Canadians. It's also better targeted to those who need it most than the previously existing child benefits were.

It's estimated that about 300,000 fewer children will be living in poverty in the 2016-17 fiscal year compared with the 2014-15 fiscal year, once the Canada child benefit is in place. This means that families will have extra funds to help them afford cleats for their kids playing soccer or to attend summer camp. It means the increased likelihood of the numerous little things that make summer in childhood the carefree, refreshing time that it's meant to be.

This is a tangible measure that gives families across this country options, options they may not have had before. It represents the most significant social policy in a generation.

But this isn't the only significant social policy within the pages of this budget implementation bill. Equally important are those that help our most vulnerable citizens find renewed support for the unique challenges they may face.

There are three broad areas in this bill that reflect our actions in this regard.

The first is seniors.

Canada's retirement income system has been successful at reducing the incidence of poverty among Canadian seniors; however, some seniors continue to be at a heightened risk of living in a low-income situation.

The budget will help Canadians retire with security and dignity by making significant new investments that support them throughout their retirement years. These include resetting the age of eligibility for old age security and guaranteed income supplement benefits to 65 from 67, and for allowance benefits to 60 from 62 over the 2023 to 2029 period.

The passage of the bill will also increase the guaranteed income supplement top-up benefit by up to $947 annually for the most vulnerable single seniors, starting in July 2016.

The second area deals with Canadians who've fallen on hard times because of a loss of employment.

This bill proposes immediate action to enhance the employment insurance program so that out-of-work Canadians have the support they need while they look for their next job.

I'd particularly like to highlight that passage of the bill will extend EI regular benefits by five weeks to all eligible claimants in regions of the country that have experienced the sharpest and most severe increases in unemployment. We'll also extend employment insurance regular benefits by up to an additional 20 weeks for long-tenured workers in those regions.

I'd like to highlight another area where we'll provide much-needed support: veterans. We'll give back to those who've given so much in service to our country. Some $1.6 billion over five years will flow directly to veterans and their families in the form of higher direct payments. These enhancements deliver on mandate commitments and respond to recommendations from key stakeholders, including the veterans ombudsman.

Budget 2016 is about supporting the middle class now through helping Canadian families. It will continue to do so in the future by laying the foundation for long-term economic growth.

Canada's population is aging. The global economy is volatile. Oil prices are, of course, unpredictable. We need to take steps to improve competitiveness and productivity in Canada so we become drivers of our own success now and in a generation from now.

We need to ensure that the steps we take now will help our kids and our grandkids. The budget signals a number of areas known to do just that. The largest are in the important areas of infrastructure and innovation. Our $120-billion ten-year infrastructure plan and our innovation agenda will be articulated over the coming year. Once in place, they'll deliver a long-term boost to the Canadian economy. They'll create good jobs now and in the future.

Investments in public transit will also help mom and dad to get to work on time. Investments in green infrastructure will help to keep our water clean, and investments in housing will help entire communities to thrive. Investments in and a commitment to a more innovative economy mean jobs after graduation, a cleaner resource sector, and a strong Canadian presence for the world stage.

Infrastructure and innovation are just part of the underlying objective of the 2016 budget. This objective is the development of a robust growth strategy to create the conditions for long-term sustained and inclusive growth for the middle class and those working hard to join it.

This is a multi-dimensional task, one that brings together a number of growth-related initiatives going on inside and outside government. It's also a team effort. I'm proud to be working with my cabinet colleagues, including Ministers Freeland, Bains, Sohi, and Mihychuk on delivering this agenda.

We know we don't have all the answers. We're open to innovative new ideas. As we look to a long-term growth strategy, we know we have to find ways to do things differently.

Just a few weeks ago, I hosted the inaugural meeting of the new advisory council on economic growth to advise the government on key elements of our strategy. It was the first step toward figuring out what Canada will need to create and sustain long-term economic growth that benefits the middle class and those working hard to join it.

That's why this council has been tasked with finding solutions to some of our biggest challenges, things like how to transform innovative ideas into high-value goods and services that will help Canadians and Canadian businesses, how to ensure that the historic investments in infrastructure make it easier for Canadians to get to work on time or get their products to market, and what can be done today so Canadians can take advantage of the job opportunities of tomorrow.

I expect that budget 2017 will become the blueprint for this next chapter of Canada's economic growth and another step toward ensuring that when you have an economy that works for the middle class, you have a country that works for everyone. By working together, we can ensure all Canadians continue to enjoy a high and rising standard of living.

Mr. Chairman, it's been a highlight and honour to be able to promote our government's vision. I know we all believe that Canada is a place of opportunities where people can dream of a future in which their children can thrive and succeed. Through our budget, we're making investments that will leave Canada, our middle class, our cities, and our economy better off. We promised real change. We owe it to Canadians to make it happen.

Mr. Chair, I look forward to working with members of this committee, Parliament, and all Canadians as we implement our plan and position Canada for a brighter future.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome, Minister. We are running a little late and we appreciate the fact you had a little difficulty getting here.

Appearing before the committee today, pursuant to order of reference of Tuesday, May 10, 2016, on Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures. is Minister Morneau, Minister of Finance. Welcome.

With the minister is Andrew Marsland, who's the senior assistant deputy minister, tax policy branch; Marta Morgan, associate deputy minister; and Nick Leswick. I'm not sure of your title, Nick, but welcome, all.

Minister, you have the floor, and then we'll go to questions.

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

Yes, thank you, Chair.

Before we begin I'd like to put before the committee an issue that has come to light, and I know we were not able to address this effectively in our last meeting or put it on the table, but we've become aware that there are two pages of incorrect translation from English to French in Bill C-15. I'd like to present these to you, Chair, with the corrections to the bill we feel are required because of the improper translation, and we've itemized it by line item. I'm happy to share this list with other committee members. I don't have copies with me in both official languages, but I'd like to be able to submit this so that we can get the bill translated correctly.

Bill C-14—Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, as a new member of the House I am extremely disappointed with respect to the government's actions. Like all new members in the House, the expectation among my residents in supporting me to come to this great place was that I was going to be able to extend my voice in the debates. As we have seen by the actions of the government, what amounts to effectively a basic dictatorship, debates have been stifled in the House.

I want to remind Canadians and I want to remind the government exactly what it said, what it handed to the Governor General in the throne speech. It is proving not to be worth the paper it was written on now. 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.

Further on in the throne speech, it says:

And to give Canadians a stronger voice in the House of Commons, the Government will promote more open debate and free votes, and reform and strengthen committees.

Four times now, with Bills C-6, C-10, C-15 and now C-14, we are seeing debate thwarted. Why the hypocrisy on the part of the government? All Canadians deserve to know.

[Glenn Campbell, Director, Financial Institutions, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance]

Yes, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

While I provided an introductory comment at my previous experience on Tuesday, May 10, I thought a quick recap of part 4, division 5, of Bill C-15 would be helpful.

The proposed amendments in part 4, division 5, provide a legislative framework for a bank recapitalization, or a bail-in regime. Bail-in is the power to convert certain long-term debt of a failing bank into common shares to absorb losses, recapitalize the bank, and allow it to keep operating.

As we clarified in our last discussion, all deposits are excluded. Amendments to the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act would provide CDIC with the power to undertake a bail-in conversion. Implementation of the proposed bail-in regime would give authorities an additional tool to deal with the unlikely failure of a major bank in a manner that protects financial stability as well as taxpayers.

These reforms would strengthen our tool kit for managing bank failures, so that it remains consistent with international best practices and standards endorsed by the G-20 following the financial crisis. We would be pleased to address any additional questions the committee may have.

[Elissa Lieff, Senior General Counsel, Family, Children and Youth Section, Policy Sector, Department of Justice]

I have a statement.

Thank you for inviting us to respond to your questions.

I am here to speak to you about the impact of the new Canada child benefit on the federal child support guidelines.

Bill C-15 proposes to replace the Canada child tax benefit and the universal child care benefit with a new Canada child benefit, which for simplicity, I will refer to as the CCB. The CCB will be a monthly amount paid to help families with the cost of raising children. It will not be considered income for tax purposes. The Department of Justice has been asked to provide information on the impacts, if any, of the CCB on the federal child support guidelines. The current Canada child tax benefit is used for comparison purposes, as from a child support perspective, it's very similar in its application to the new CCB.

Federal, provincial, and territorial governments share responsibility for family law matters. Provincial and territorial governments are responsible for laws that apply to unmarried couples and married couples who separate but do not divorce. The federal government is responsible for marriage and divorce laws. The federal child support guidelines are regulations under the Divorce Act. They consist of a set of rules and tables to apply to determine child support in divorce cases. Provinces and territories have adopted similar guidelines, except the Province of Quebec, which has its own model.

Would the Canada child benefit be considered income under the federal child support guidelines? A key point in understanding the impact on child support is that the CCB would not be considered income for the purpose of the federal guidelines. Under the federal guidelines, the amount of child support paid is determined in part based on a parent's income. The income is used to determine the appropriate basic child support amount under the federal child support tables, which are based on the number of children and the parent's province or territory of residence. The federal guidelines include specific rules to calculate income for child support purposes.

First, you look at the sources of income set out under the heading “total income”, which is line 150 in the T1 general income tax form. Because it will be non-taxable, the CCB will not be included in a person's total income. Second, you adjust the parent's total income in accordance with schedule 3 of the federal child support guidelines. Schedule 3 does not contain adjustments to allow the inclusion in a parent's income used for table purposes of governmental benefits such as the Canada child tax benefit or the new Canada child benefit. This is because these benefits are considered the government's contribution to children and not general income in the hands of parents.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We'll call the meeting to order.

The meeting is related to the order of reference of Tuesday, May 10, 2016 for Bill C-15, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures.

As everyone knows, we're under limited time frames due to votes taking place in the House. There will be a vote at about 4:15 or 4:20, another vote at approximately 5:30, and then one at 6:45.

There are a number of divisions under part 4 of the bill that we haven't heard evidence from officials on as yet.

In the discussion I had with members, we'd like to have Justice come forward. Ms. Raitt and Mr. Caron had questions related to Justice as it relates to this bill. We will start with those questions. If we finish the round, then we could let Justice officials go and we would be back right after the vote.

Without going in any particular order, we'll start with Mr. Liepert who I know has a question for Ms. Raitt.

I might introduce Justice officials first. From the Department of Justice, we have Ms. Lieff and Ms. Hassan.

The floor is yours. I don't know if you have anything to say to start or if you want to go directly to questions.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Hodgson, I'll turn to you. This committee I think always appreciates your insights and advice. I know that as we debate Bill C-15 and subsequent budgets and economic strategies for the country, a number of us feel there are a couple of ways in which we can contribute. You touched on a couple of them.

You speak of the “new normal”, of “anemic” growth, and also of taxation and the need for tax reform in the country. They converge in this way, and I'd like you to expand on this, if you would. What are the regulatory, institutional, fiscal, or other impediments to growth in the country? How might we rearrange those tools and perhaps lighten the load in terms of regulation or taxation in order to achieve or accelerate growth beyond this new normal?

[Lori MacKay, Chair, PEI Coalition For Fair EI]

Of course.

The PEI Coalition For Fair EI would like to thank the members of the committee for hearing from us. I am pleased to be able to appear before you on behalf of the coalition. We formed this coalition with community groups, citizens, and unions as a response to the 2012 changes to the employment insurance program by the previous government.

The 2012 changes were incredibly punitive to workers in the seasonal industries on Prince Edward Island, and largely still remain so after Bill C-15 was introduced. Some improvements were made, but little for seasonal industries.

The PEI Coalition continues to call on the Liberal government to fulfill its election promise to completely reverse all of the 2012 EI changes. This has not yet been done despite the Minister of Labour's comments in the House of Commons.

We welcome the changes to reduce entrance hours and the reduction of one week from the waiting period for some EI recipients, as was announced in Bill C-15, but they do little to help seasonal workers. The reduction of one week from the waiting period will certainly help to get much needed funds into the hands of unemployed workers who do not use their full number of weeks of benefits, but it will not be helpful to the many seasonal workers in Prince Edward Island who do not have enough insurance to last the entire period of unemployment, especially since 2012. This change means that they will run out of benefits one week sooner.

Bill C-15's response to the downturn in the oil industry, in giving an additional five weeks of benefits to regions that have experienced a 2% increase in unemployment in the last year, certainly will help some workers, but definitely not all that are affected. It creates an unfair gap.

The budget completely ignores P.E.I. and our neighbouring provinces, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, who lost the additional five weeks in 2012. Despite the fact that P.E.I. has an 11.5% unemployment rate—the second highest in the country, and up 1% from last year in April—this budget bill did not return the five weeks lost. Now the many displaced oil workers from Prince Edward Island are returning home without the five additional weeks that their co-workers are receiving, despite the fact they are returning to areas of higher unemployment and access to fewer jobs—unless of course they're returning to Newfoundland.

Just as important as the need to return the five weeks of additional benefit to our province is the need to immediately remove the additional zone for Prince Edward Island. P.E.I. was always considered one economic zone for the purposes of EI for a reason. Despite the fact that P.E.I. has two cities, with our population size of only146,000, we are a rural economy when it comes to jobs.

There is no large industry that gives much more access to jobs in one part of the province than another, but in February 2014 our province was divided into two zones: urban and rural. This meant that those living in the urban zone had far fewer weeks and less benefits than those in the rural zone, despite the fact the folks living in the urban zone do not have access to more jobs.

The map used to divide our island makes absolutely no sense. There are two cities in P.E.I. with federal government jobs in both. One city is considered urban and the other city rural.

I'll use an example of an area our chair knows well. One small fishing community, North Rustico, located close to the tourist area of Cavendish, is located in rural Prince Edward Island. Its neighbour, only four kilometres away, Mayfield, with many workers from the fishing industry and the tourist industry, and farther from the city of Charlottetown, is considered urban. Workers working side by side in jobs, and making the same money for the same number of weeks, are getting treated very differently when it comes to EI benefits.

The new zone on P.E.I. must be removed immediately. It doesn't work, and it pits Islander against Islander.

To conclude my opening remarks, seasonal workers have been unfairly treated by the last government, and Bill C-15 does little to rectify the situation. We need a jobs strategy in this country that recognizes that some industries are seasonal, but that workers want full-time year-round work.

The planned reduction of EI premiums must be stopped. The experience of the sudden downturn in the oil industry, and the natural disaster of the wild fires in Fort McMurray, highlight the extreme importance of a fully funded EI program for our capitalist economy.

I will be happy to answer any questions the committee members might have.

Thank you.

[Heather Smith, President, Canadian Teachers' Federation]

Thank you for the opportunity to address you regarding Bill C-15.

My name is Heather Smith, and I am president of the Canadian Teachers' Federation. With me here today is Bob McGahey, CTF director of advocacy and labour rights.

After our comments, we do have a written brief that expands on the points that we are going to make.

CTF is a bilingual, non-partisan alliance of provincial and territorial teachers' organizations in Canada. We represent over 200,000 teachers, and that number is growing. As a unified voice of teacher organizations in Canada on education and related social issues, we promote high-quality public education, the status of the teaching profession, and the freedom to learn.

The CTF is on record as being generally pleased with the progressive nature of the most recent federal budget. Teachers do, however, have some concerns about specific initiatives, especially as they relate to the improvement of mental health for students and teachers, the need for education to be a priority for the government's overseas development assistance, and the alleviation of child poverty.

We believe these issues should be government priorities. Our comments today focus on the alleviation of child poverty, and we look forward to future opportunities to comment more broadly on some of our other issues.

Turning to the child tax benefit, the alleviation of child poverty is of critical importance to teachers. Each day in our classrooms, Canadian teachers engage with children and youth who are hungry, tired, and struggling due to poverty.

The Canada child benefit program is a good first step towards alleviating child poverty. We agree with the rationale of the Dignity for All campaign's national anti-poverty plan, which calls for strong federal leadership in reducing and ultimately eliminating poverty. While the Canadian Teachers' Federation commends the government for taking action, we believe that more needs to be done.

With regard to the Canada child benefit, we recommend that, one, provisions be put in place to ensure the benefit is indexed to inflation and, two, the Government of Canada enter into agreements with the provinces and territories to ensure the benefit does not adversely affect entitlement to other social assistance programs.

I will only briefly mention employment insurance, as I believe colleagues from the Canadian Labour Congress have expanded on this, and more information is contained in our brief.

The recommendations are, though, that categories of workers be eliminated from the EI program and all workers be treated equally under the system, and that claimants be provided with a choice regarding the duration of the waiting period so that they may choose to waive the waiting period entirely, take a one-week waiting period, or take the two-week waiting period.

Lastly, I want to focus on the school supplies tax credit. First, as a bit of context, the Canadian Teachers' Federation firmly believes that governments have a responsibility to fully fund the education system so that all children and youth have access to an equitable, quality, publicly funded public education.

Teachers should not have to subsidize the system, yet we know that chronic underfunding has led to a situation in which teachers are spending significant amounts of money to support student learning. A 2010 CTF national study confirmed that out-of-pocket expenditures by educators for classroom materials or class-related activities averaged $453 per educator, and that figure is increasing.

Given that teachers have been subsidizing the education system for years now, the CTF does appreciate that teachers will now be reimbursed at least for some of their out-of-pocket expenses. To improve the credit, however, the CTF has two main suggestions. The first is that Bill C-15 be amended to remove the requirement of a written certificate from employers. This change would recognize the professional judgment of teachers, who are in the best position to determine what needs to be purchased. It would also prevent the potential blurring of this credit with other taxation provisions provided to goods required as conditions of employment.

Our second suggestion is that the list of prescribed items in Bill C-15 be amended to include a subsection E stating “other non-consumable educational resources“. We suggest this addition, as we do not believe it's possible or helpful to enumerate an exhaustive list of the non-consumable items a professional teacher may deem necessary to support student learning in the diverse K-to-12 classrooms across our country.

Thank you for your attention, and I welcome your questions.

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

Thank you to our panel for your patience this morning as well.

I could probably speak to each witness, ask questions and stuff, but I would like to focus my remarks on Mr. Galimberti from the steel association.

On a personal level, my riding president is a member of the buyers' side, and another good family friend has their own steel company in Brampton. I was speaking to the first individual, who is a buyer of steel, and I asked him this morning, “Are the Chinese dumping steel?” His comment was, in two words, “Big time”, and he gave me an example.

There were 30,000 tonnes of steel destined for our largest trading partner, the United States. The U.S. put duties on steel, so the steel came to Canada and was sitting on our docks. Then the internal price for steel was around $50 cwt, versus what this steel was selling at, which went from roughly $18, from some upward price pressure, to the mid-$30s.

I do get it, I do understand it. The jobs that are generated by all of the steel industry and the ecosystem around are well paying, have good benefits, and are in highly skilled advanced manufacturing, and we need to protect this industry. We know that there are steel producers in the world where there is over-capacity, and they're dumping steel. We know that the steel producers in Canada and the whole ecosystem is much more environmentally friendly than the steel industry back in some of the Asian countries, in China specifically.

Within Bill C-15 there is part 4, division 10, on the Special Import Measures Act. I take it, Joseph, you're familiar with that.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Parent, you spoke about the challenges of evaluating the fairness of the measures and compensation promised in the bill. You're well aware that before, the bill was separate and was known as Bill C-12. It's now integrated into Bill C-15.

These are exactly the kind of questions we could have asked and could have gotten answered if experts had appeared before the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, to which Bill C-12 would have been referred. If we could have heard what came out of a study by the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs on this bill, it would have been better than integrating the bill into another bill that also requires discussions with venture-capital representatives, restaurant owners, and retirees, for example.

[Susan Eng, Counsel, National Pensioners Federation]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

As Herb John has already indicated, the changes in the budget and in the budget bill will go a long way to making sure that no senior ages into poverty. However, a lot more can be done.

For the immediate purposes of this committee study, there is an opportunity to both increase the amount of GIS increase beyond the $78 per month, and to make the change retroactive to January 1 rather than starting that change on July 1. That's an immediate step that this committee can take.

As this committee has mentioned in the past, there's a need to really look at a guaranteed minimum income. I encourage you to start immediately on the research of that. I know that this committee has recommended it in the past. I think there are some positive indications from the government at this point. It should happen as soon as possible. We want every Canadian not to face poverty, at whatever age they happen to be.

One of the measures that would helps us prevent poverty in old age is to make sure people have a good retirement income. As you know, we have been on the record that Canadians support an increase to CPP. At this point, while there has been a lot of talk, there has been very little action. There are a lot of promises at this point, which are also important, but we need to see some kind of action.

At this point, it also seems that the problem is with the provinces. This committee may have full-throated support for the increase to the CPP, but it will mean that each of the committee members and your caucuses will have to ask your provincial counterparts to step up. It has been quite a number of years that we have been talking about this, and even if there were change, it would take at least three years before it could be implemented. We're not getting any younger.

It is important for us to look at these issues when we're talking about the changes that are in the bill. They are targeted, after all, at making sure that people live without poverty at any age, and especially not in retirement.

Thank you very much.

[Herb John, President, National Pensioners Federation]

Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to present on behalf of Canadian seniors, the fastest growing and largest segment of the Canadian population.

My name is Herb John, and I'm the president of the National Pensioners Federation. With me is our counsel, Susan Eng.

The National Pensioners Federation is a national, non-partisan organization of 350 seniors' chapters, clubs, groups, organizations, and individual supporters across Canada, with a collective membership of one million seniors and retirees devoted entirely to the welfare and interests of aging Canadians. Seniors and those who care about them will welcome the measures announced in the federal budget, which are contained in Bill C-15, but more needs to be done.

Bill C-15 returns the OAS eligibility age to 65, which will be welcome news to those who were facing having to wait two extra years for the OAS benefit after struggling in their careers. An estimated 600,000 seniors live under the poverty line today, and this is not expected to change unless more is done to provide better income supports and reduce their critical expenses like home care and drug costs.

Bill C-15 increases the GIS for single seniors beginning in July 2016. Single seniors, especially women, face a far greater rate of poverty compared to their counterparts in couples. That will benefit 900,000 single seniors across Canada. While absolutely welcome, it is a maximum of just $2.60 per day.

Much more needs to be done to prevent poverty among seniors. The budget announced a proposal to introduce a seniors' index for OAS and GIS to help seniors keep pace with their cost of living. While that is a welcome change, the index should help seniors keep pace with the standard of living and should be tied to wage rate increases.

Also welcome is the announcement in the budget of $200 million over two years to fund seniors' affordable housing without requiring a cost match from the provinces, which has been a major barrier in the past. Secure housing, as we know, is a major social determinant of health. The funding of the Canadian Foundation for Healthcare Improvement and the Canadian Institute for Health Information is a welcome investment, provided that the Naylor report's call for a patient-focused approach to innovation is the centrepiece.

Unfortunately, the budget and Bill C-15 do not address several important election promises. There's no mention of the promise to remove the requirement for a terminal diagnosis to qualify for the EI compassionate care benefit, or an increased flexibility in how the benefit may be used. The requirement for a terminal diagnosis has in the past stopped people from applying for the compassionate care benefit. In addition, the flexibility in using the benefit better reflects how chronic illnesses play out.

There's no mention of the promise to invest $3 billion in home care and palliative care. There is an immediate need for sustained funding and national standards on home care. The patchwork of palliative care must be addressed immediately, and this new funding will be a major first step.

The promise to join the pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance will incrementally reduce the cost of many drugs, but a comprehensive national pharmacare system is necessary in order to ensure every Canadian is able to access needed medications regardless of income or postal code.

I will now turn it over to Susan Eng who has further recommendations for the committee.

[Joseph Galimberti, President, Canadian Steel Producers Association]

First and foremost, thank you, honourable members, for the opportunity to present in front of you today on behalf of the Canadian Steel Producers Association.

Our association represents 10 primary steel producers and steel product manufacturers in Canada, with member facilities located in Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta. These operations directly employ over 22,000 Canadians and support an additional 100,000 Canadian jobs through indirect economic impacts associated with our operations.

We welcome the government's budget 2016 commitments to taking steps to improve Canada's ability to effectively remedy dumped and subsidized imports, as this is an area in which steel is particularly exposed. In light of the increased frequency of market-distorting trade in Canada, the CSPA views modernization of Canada's trade remedy system as critical to ensuring that our members and their employees are able to compete fairly in the global marketplace.

I'd like to provide some context, if I may, for the importance of these measures. The global steel sector today is facing an unprecedented overcapacity problem. Put simply, more steel is being produced than is required by the global market. This phenomenon is driven largely by China, where demand has declined while state-supported production has increased significantly. Through the maintenance of more than 425 million metric tons of surplus capacity, which is almost 30 times the size of the entire Canadian steel market, China's state-owned and state-supported steel sector has disrupted established trade patterns and degraded the pricing of steel products globally.

The result is the significant increase in market-distorting dumping and circumvention practices, both from China directly and from a host of other global producers whose home markets have in many cases suffered as a result of Chinese competition. Left with no choice but to export, these nations begin doing so aggressively, dumping yet more product on the global markets and further degrading global prices.

At the recent OECD high-level symposium on excess capacity and structural adjustment in the steel sector, the CSPA was encouraged to see the development of a consensus position from the governments of the European Union, Japan, Mexico, the Republic of Korea, Switzerland, Turkey, the United States, and, importantly, Canada that overcapacity and adjustment challenges facing the steel industry have an important global dimension that needs to be addressed through ongoing international dialogue. Unfortunately, China refused to participate in this joint statement or support its content.

The impasse here underscores Canada's need to fortify our domestic trade remedy system. Increasing instances of market-distorting trade in steel globally have been accompanied by an historic escalation in the number of new anti-dumping and countervailing duty cases initiated in 2015, with a continued escalation foreseen in 2016.

Understanding this trend, Canada should take immediate action to ensure that we do not as a jurisdiction become an attractive place to dump product. Our NAFTA partners in the United States have take significant action through the passage of the Trade Preferences Extension Act in June 2015 and the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act in February 2016 to discourage dumping and circumvention in that market. Canada needs to keep pace.

With this in mind, the CSPA would express our appreciation for the inclusion in Bill C-15 of amendments to the Special Import Measures Act ensuring that investigations will no longer be terminated at the preliminary stage, which will allow investigators to more fully consider whether dumping and subsidizing are harming Canadian producers. We also welcome amendments that will address the timing of and process around expiry reviews, resulting in measures remaining in place for up to ten months longer before a decision is made as to whether to extend or rescind that measure.

Similarly, we're encouraged by the recent initiation, which was also promised in the budget, of a public consultation on potential future changes to the Special Import Measures Act, and we are hopeful of near-term legislative action to address: the calculation of dumping margins in situations where data in a given export market understates the degree to which products are being dumped; the enhancement of enforcement options available to the Government of Canada in instances of circumvention; and clarification in regard to the type and amount of evidence the domestic industry is required to put forward to get cases initiated.

The CSPA supports trade. We believe that with our efficient facilities and innovative workforces we can thrive in a free trade environment, but in order for trade to be free, it also has to be fair. Bill C-15 takes important steps to ensure fairness in Canada's trade remedy system, and we are hopeful that the consultation process will generate additional positive near-term results.

[Angella MacEwen, Senior Economist, Canadian Labour Congress]

I'm here on behalf of the 3.3 million members of the Canadian Labour Congress, and I want to thank you for the opportunity to present our views on this budget implementation act.

The CLC brings together Canada's national and international unions, along with provincial and territorial federations of labour and 130 district labour councils whose members work in virtually all sectors of the Canadian economy and in all occupations in all parts of Canada.

There are many elements of Bill C-15 that will affect our members, but due to the time constraints here, I will focus my comments on old age security and guaranteed income supplement changes, the Employment Insurance Act, and PPP Canada.

We're very glad to see several elements of this bill that will increase simplicity and fairness in taxation, and we expect the Canada child tax benefit to have a very positive impact on lower-income families with children.

With regard to old age security and GIS—I'm sorry I didn't write down their division numbers in the act—Statistics Canada's low-income measure shows that nearly 600,000 Canadian seniors were living on low incomes in 2013. The proposed increase to the guaranteed income supplement top-up for the lowest income seniors will directly help many who are struggling to get by. It's an important part of a wider strategy that includes affordable housing, home care supports, and an expanded Canada Pension Plan. Here I want to thank the government. It looks very much like something we put in the alternative federal budget, and we're glad to see that you're taking our advice.

With regard to employment insurance, we are happy about some things and critical about others. Reducing the 910-hour threshold for new entrants and re-entrants as of July 2016 will be a meaningful change in access for young workers, recent graduates, and new Canadians. Investments in front-line staff will reverse substantial cuts that had been made to administrative staff in EI, and we expect that will reduce delays and confusion for unemployed workers, improving access to the program.

Extending the length of work-sharing programs from 38 weeks to 76 weeks will help workers and employers who are facing tough times or who are going through some kind of structural transition. We encourage the government to work with employer and worker groups to increase awareness of this program because it can be very effective, but the take-up is often low.

Extending benefits to some workers was helpful, but the rationale for limiting benefits, the way that it was done, is difficult to understand. There was sufficient funding in the account to temporarily extend benefits to all unemployed workers in a fair and transparent way and that would have helped more unemployed workers.

Unfortunately some of Harper's changes to employment insurance remain in play. This includes the definition of the long-tenured worker, which Bill C-15 brings into the EI act instead of getting rid of it. Since one of the requirements to be long-tenured is seven years of EI contributions this automatically excludes young workers. The difference between benefits from a long-tenured worker and others is dramatic.

In 2014 the former government created additional regions for Prince Edward Island, Nunavut, Northwest Territories, and the Yukon. These new regions created significant discrepancies in access and duration of benefits for workers who are effectively operating in a single labour market. We would ask that the government immediately reverse these new regions.

I want to take this opportunity to repeat our long-standing call for a single national entrance requirement for employment insurance that will increase fairness of access to EI.

With regard to PPP Canada, we feel transferring responsibility to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities will improve transparency and oversight, and we're encouraged by that move. However, the budget contained further signals that Ottawa intends to open up public infrastructure to private ownership, including through pension funds and asset recycling.

Along with the Ontario government, Ottawa is laying the groundwork for a major expansion of private investment in and ownership of infrastructure assets. We believe that public infrastructure should be publicly financed and operated. Therefore, we call on the federal government to completely eliminate PPP Canada incorporated and redirect its funding to public infrastructure projects.

We would also like to see comprehensive P3 accountability and transparency legislation to protect Canadians from high cost and high risk P3 projects.

Thank you again for your time.

[Guy Parent, Veterans Ombudsman, Office of the Veterans Ombudsman]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, committee members, thank you for giving me the opportunity to share with you my thoughts on Bill C-15, budget implementation act, 2016, No. 1, as it pertains to Canada's veterans.

In my five and a half years as Veterans Ombudsman, I have met with and listened intently to the concerns of thousands of Canadian veterans and their families across Canada.

On October 1, 2013, I released my evidenced-based report on the new Veterans Charter and, for the first time with any report of this nature, it was supported by an independent actuarial analysis that pinpointed exactly where benefits were failing veterans, and would continue to fail them unless changes were made. In addition, on August 19, 2014, I published another evidence-based report on the permanent impairment allowance and the permanent impairment allowance supplement and recommended changes to better support our severely injured veterans.

Bill C-15 addresses several of my key recommendations in both of these reports. Although it is too early to provide you with an evidence-based analysis on the effectiveness or fairness of the proposed legislative changes—because we do not have all of the details yet—it is not too early to say that it is movement in the right direction.

Division 2 of the budget implementation act takes steps to help veterans and their families, first of all, by increasing the earnings loss benefit to 90% of an eligible veteran's military salary. According to Veterans Affairs Canada's numbers, this will provide increased short-term financial support to approximately 3,000 veterans while they participate in the department's rehabilitation programs. It will also provide increased long-term financial support to around 2,000 of the most seriously injured veterans.

The budget implementation act will also change the permanent impairment allowance grade determination. Although I do not as yet have the details of what this change will look like for veterans, I am hopeful that it will better support the more seriously impaired veterans with career-limiting service-related injuries. Also, I am pleased to see the program renamed “career impact allowance” in order to better reflect its original intent.

Moreover, the act will replace “totally and permanently incapacitated” with “diminished earning capacity”. There is no definition yet of “diminished earning capacity”, so it is difficult to assess at this point. However, I am hopeful it will lower the threshold for access to certain benefits.

The disability award will be raised to $360,000. This change will align the disability award for veterans with what Canadians can receive through courts. It will also provide retroactively to approximately 55,000 veterans to receive a one-time increase to the disability award that they have already received.

Another measure will increase the death benefit to $360,000. Once implemented, this will provide better support to the family members of those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice.

These changes, especially those to the disability award, will have a positive impact on all veterans receiving benefits under the new Veterans Charter. Other changes, such as those to the earnings loss benefit and permanent impairment allowance, will provide greater lifetime financial security to relatively few veterans, but they are the veterans who are the most vulnerable and have the greatest need of support.

I believe it is important for you in your deliberations to put veterans programs spending into context. Expenditures on veterans are approximately 1% of current federal expenditures, and current estimates suggest that these these expenditures will decline over the next year due to a decrease in the veterans population.

As the Veterans Ombudsman, my office evaluates fairness through the principles of adequacy. Are the right programs and services in place to meet the needs? In terms of sufficiency, are the right programs and services sufficiently resourced? On accessibility, are eligibility criteria creating unfair barriers? Can the benefits and services provided by VAC be accessed easily and quickly?

While it is difficult to evaluate the fairness of the proposed changes without more detail, as I said earlier in my remarks, they do reflect the recommendations I have previously made regarding the financial benefits in the new Veterans Charter.

In closing, I believe that the proposed changes represent an important step forward in Canada's support of veterans and their families. They deserve no less in return for their service and sacrifice to Canada and Canadians.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Order, please.

We are continuing our discussions under the order of reference of Tuesday, May 10, on Bill C-15, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016, and other measures.

Welcome to our witnesses. We have quite a number this morning.

I'll just mention that the committee will be disrupted by a vote sometime between now and the next hour. When the bells go, I will ask if there is the unanimous consent of the committee to stay until we're down to 15 minutes before the vote. We'll come back after that to continue our hearings. We know that people have travelled a distance and put a lot of work into their presentations, and we certainly want to hear from them.

We'll start with the Fonds de solidarité des travailleurs du Québec. Mr. Gaétan Morin is the president and chief executive officer, and Mario Tremblay is the vice-president.

The floor is yours.

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

To your comment, in my riding we ran some tax clinics. We did have some elderly folks come in, and there was that noticeable trend for specifically women.

Our government has introduced in Bill C-15 an increase to the guaranteed income supplement of up to $947. That will benefit folks who make up to $8,500 in the prescribed income level. I think that's going to benefit 900,000 people, the majority of which are single seniors and women. They tend to outlive us men, for whatever reason.

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

Wonderful. Thank you very much.

Thank you to our witnesses for coming today.

I want to spend a few moments talking about something that didn't come up in any focused way in the presentations, and that's the changes to EI in Bill C-15. This is obviously something we've heard quite a bit about. While there are some very welcome changes, they don't go far enough in terms of making a difference for many working Canadians.

I'd like to direct my first question to Mr. Battle. I'm familiar with some of Caledon's work around the ineligibility surrounding EI, and the fact that fewer and fewer Canadians are eligible. I'm thinking about the report you put out in December 2011, entitled “Fixing the Hole in EI”. Specific to Bill C-15, the concern has been raised that there are regions that have suffered significant unemployment in the last two years and that are excluded. We hear today that finally the Liberal government is seeing the need to include Edmonton as one of those regions. We're hearing some different reports in terms of southern Saskatchewan, which has also been hit hard by the drop in the extractive sector. But we still know that many regions that depend on seasonal work, including in Quebec and the Atlantic, are still ineligible, and it creates the black hole, or le trou noir, that we know of.

Many Canadians who are hurting have paid into EI and aren't able to access it. In your report you talk about 55% eligibility; I guess that was in 2011. Now we're down to about 40% eligibility. I'm wondering if you could speak to this. Is this a serious issue? Should we be taking it more seriously? Should we be fixing the EI program to make it more responsive to current crises that Canadians are facing but also a shifting job market, particularly the rise of precarious work? Any thoughts on that would be welcome.

[Céline Bak, President, Analytica Advisors Inc.]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Hello ladies and gentlemen, members of the committee.

Madam Clerk, thank you for this invitation and for your team's support.

I'm a fellow at the Centre for International Governance Innovation, and I've published this year two peer-reviewed policy briefs on the global clean technology industry, as well as on matters to do with innovation. I'd like to ask that the two synopses, which we submitted in advance of today's hearings, be read into the record. They have been submitted in both English and French in advance of this meeting.

On April 19, I reported the findings and recommendations of Analytica Advisors' 2016 report on the global and Canadian clean technology industry, our fifth annual report. The global market for clean technology goods reached $1.1 trillion in 2005, up from $555 billion in 2004, representing a 7.5% annual growth rate. The industry is now globally worth two-thirds that of the automotive industry.

From 2005 to 2014, the market for clean technology goods nearly doubled.

Canada is losing global market share. In that same period Canada's ranking as a clean technology goods exporter fell from 14th to 19th place in the table of the top 25 global exporters.

During that period, our market share shrank by 35%, placing us third from last among exporters. For the first time in six years, we have noted a decline in revenues for the industry as a whole.

Up until two years ago we reported growth of four times that of the overall Canadian economy, but that growth has now stopped.

Let me just briefly say that the clean technology industry added another 5,000 jobs last year, and it now directly employs 55,000 people, in almost 800 firms. Many of these people are young people working at the start of their careers in positions that range from finance to engineering to manufacturing and global sales. People in this industry are working in companies that are creating and scaling up technologies that protect our environment.

By 2030, clean technology enterprises will enable Canada to reduce emissions by 30% in relation to 2005 levels, which Canada committed to doing in the Paris Accord.

We'd like to make some specific recommendations in regard to Bill C-15.

We support the addition of $50 million, over four years, allocated to Sustainable Development Technology Canada for the SD tech fund and $82.5 million, over two years, to Natural Resources Canada to support research, development, and demonstration of clean energy technologies. However, we strong urge this government to implement programs for financing clean technologies where support is lacking for the rollout of the first commercial facilities. Addressing this financing gap is essential to stimulate the investments and create significant job opportunities, directly contributing to meeting the government's goal of generating economic growth through expanded green infrastructure while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

We also support the expansion of eligibility criteria for accelerated capital cost allowances to include electric vehicles' charging stations and electric energy storage, but recommend that other sectors, including the advanced biofuels equipment and other carbon-reducing equipment, be included so that there is a level playing field.

We also support the fact that regional development agencies will double their annual aggregate support for clean technology to $100 million per year from existing resources starting in 2016-17 and urge that this government increase the overall funding allocated to these agencies to support clean technology. We'd like to note that the OECD has assessed Canada's subsidies to fossil fuel industries at about $3 billion per year, making quite a significant support to an industry that contributes 27% of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions. We note also that this budget does not establish a date for the phase-out of those subsidies to the fossil fuel industries.

With that, I'd like to conclude my remarks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We'll reconvene. I'd like to welcome the witnesses for the next session. We're scheduled until two o'clock, but I think about 20 to two we're going to have to go to committee business to decide on witnesses.

With us at this session on an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures we have as an individual Ian Lee, an associate professor; from Analytica Advisors Incorporated, Céline Bak; from the Caledon Institute of Social Policy, Ken Battle; and from Fondaction, le Fonds de développement de la CSN pour la coopération et l'emploi, Julien Lampron.

We'll start with you, Mr. Lee; you have five minutes.

[Anders Bruun, Barrister and Solicitor, Canadian Wheat Board Alliance]

Good morning, Mr. Chair and committee members. I thank you, on behalf of the Canadian Wheat Board Alliance, for the opportunity to be here this morning. I can say that it is a special honour for me to appear before a committee that my own member of Parliament, Mr. Ouellette, is on. I appreciate that. Thank you very much.

I make this presentation on behalf of the Canadian Wheat Board Alliance, a voluntary prairie-wide group of farmers, in place of Mr. Ken Sigurdson, who was invited but is unable to attend.

Farmers continue to deal with the fallout from the dismantling of the Wheat Board.

Section 38 of Bill C-15, budget implementation act, 2016, gives us a window into that process. Now, if you have had a look at section 38 and the provisions relating to the tax treatment to be accorded to certain instruments that are being issued in relation to the Wheat Board, you will understand my next comment.

Section 38 is a tangled mess of verbiage, maybe the most tangled I have seen in the 40-plus years since I started law school, and I say that with the greatest respect for the drafters in Justice, the Canada Revenue Agency, and so forth who crafted this. I am sure the provision does what it is intended to do in a competent and efficient way, but I want to get on to talking about the underlying units that whole section deals with.

On November 2, 2011, the then Minister of Agriculture, Gerry Ritz, appeared before the legislative committee on Bill C-18, which had just been introduced in October, and proposed to dismantle the Wheat Board, effective the following August 1.

At that time, Mr. Ritz stated, in answer to a question from Mr. Valeriote, “Mr. Valeriote, I fully believe in the strength of farmers. Yes, they will elect their own board after the interim period. After the interim period, where we control it as a government, yes, they will elect their own board, should they decide to do that.”

I have a copy of the transcript from that portion of that hearing, if anyone wants it.

Much has transpired since that date.

The government removed the farmer-elected directors a few weeks after Mr. Ritz made this statement, in mid-December, 2011, and the former government operated the Wheat Board behind that veil since. No financial information relating to the operations of the Wheat Board after July 31, 2012 has ever been released. Nothing has ever been released.

The government-controlled board even had a hand in finalizing the Wheat Board's annual report for the 2010-11 crop year.

Then, on April 15, 2015, Minister Ritz announced that the Wheat Board was to be transferred to a joint venture of Bunge Canada and Saudi Agricultural and Livestock Investment Company (SALIC), called G3. You can see their website, g3.ca.

This brings us back to section 38 of Bill C-15.

G3 has promised to issue to farmers delivering to it wheat, in addition to the purchase price that is negotiated, $5.00 in trust units for each tonne of grain delivered to it. G3 will pay nothing for the Wheat Board and its many assets to government or to farmers, except for these trust units. That's it. That is all. There is a lot of value there. That is all anyone in Canada is receiving.

Section 38 deals with the applicable tax laws governing these trust units.

Now, what are these trust units?

A portion of order No. 7163, issued by the Manitoba Securities Commission on July 24, 2015, is attached to this submission. I have just taken pages 20 to 23 and attached them to the submission I have made to members. I have a copy of the entire order here, if anyone wants that.

This is all that farmers are getting. Not only are these trust units exempt from security laws, but farmers receiving the units must agree that they “will not have any statutory rights of action in the event of a misrepresentation”.

The only thing we're getting are these pieces of paper and, if there's a misrepresentation made somewhere along the line that induces someone to do business and they get this piece of paper and it doesn't pan out well, they have no statutory rights and no securities law protections with respect to these pieces of paper. The whole thing with these trust units is that they're exempt from registration. See section (j), which is on the second page of that attachment.

It is because of this total veil of secrecy relating to the operations of the Wheat Board—not a single number since August 1, 2012—and the uncertain value of the trust units—remember, you have no right to sue even if you're fooled into a transaction that gives you one of these things—that we recommend and urge in the strongest possible terms recommendation 48 of the final report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance regarding its consultations in advance of the 2016 budget, and that recommendation reads:

The federal government provide Western Canadian grains and oilseed farmers with a full and transparent accounting of the disposition of the Canadian Wheat Board’s assets since the Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act received Royal Assent, and of the effects on the grain handling and marketing system since that time.

I submit to you that this review needs to be done externally, and it needs to be done by people who know what they're looking at. It almost needs to be a forensic sort of review; it cannot be the typical whitewash review.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I would like to call the meeting to order please. Pursuant to the order of reference for Bill C-15, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures, we're here to hear from a number of witnesses in two sessions today. Then we'll go to committee business.

To the witnesses, welcome.

We have from the Canadian Convenience Stores Association, Alex Scholten; from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, Dan Kelly; from the Canadian Wheat Board Alliance, Anders Bruun; and from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, Hendrik Brakel.

We'll start with you, Mr. Scholten. Welcome, you have up to five minutes.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since I have just four minutes, I will try to be brief.

I want to start by saying that the Bloc Québécois will not support Bill C-15. This is probably not a surprise to the government, since we have already expressed our opposition to the bill for many reasons, which I will try to summarize.

Before I talk about the negatives, I do want to mention that the budget does have some positive points. For example, the money invested in infrastructure is positive, but we still do not know how the investments will be made. Will an agreement be signed with the Government of Quebec, and will it be signed fast enough for the Government of Quebec and businesses to benefit? We have some serious questions about this.

Another measure I want to highlight is the return of tax credits for labour-sponsored funds. This savings tool is very important and worthwhile for middle-class Quebeckers.

There is also the universal child care benefit, which will be non-taxable from now on. The government is also combining all of the old benefits because they were so confusing. That is very positive. Unfortunately, however, they did not take the opportunity to eliminate the taxation of enhanced benefits imposed by the Conservatives. That could have been done.

I also want to mention the middle-class tax cut, which is not actually going to help the real middle class, just the upper middle class. Those are the people who are doing relatively well financially but who might run into a few financial troubles. They are not the richest segment of the population, so cutting their taxes is not a bad thing, but the government did not cut taxes for the right people.

There are some things that we strongly condemn, such as the fact that health transfers to the Government of Quebec and the provinces will be indexed at just 3% per year even though we all know that health care costs go up by 5% to 6% per year. That represents an $800-million shortfall for the Government of Quebec, and once again, the federal government will benefit from that shortfall.

We could also talk about the changes, and the lack of changes, to the employment insurance fund. We have been fighting for over 20 years to get the government to stop dipping into the EI surplus. Yet again, however, it plans to take $1.7 billion from the EI fund for the 2014-15 fiscal year.

Using money that belongs to workers to top up the government's coffers is unacceptable, especially given that not everyone pays into the program. After a certain income level, people no longer contribute. Money that belongs to the workers should serve the workers.

There is one piece of good news regarding employment insurance: new measures will increase the potential number of weeks of benefits to 20 in certain regions that have seen a huge increase in unemployment numbers. However, the problem lies in the regions that were chosen. According to our information, the regions chosen are in the Northwest Territories, Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland, and Nunavut.

I am not sure if my colleagues noticed, but Quebec was not included in that list. This is because the unemployment rate was already quite high in Quebec and it did not go up as much as in some other areas. Quebeckers are suffering just as much as everyone else, but they will not benefit from those improvements to EI.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today to this budget bill. Bill C-15 is very important to Canadians, but unfortunately, time allocation was imposed by the Liberals.

My eyes have been tested and I am red-green colour-blind, but I have been in Parliament for over 10 years, and I think I have become red-blue colour-blind, because I see the same things happening over and over again. It is difficult for me to try to make sense of all this.

Hon. members are heckling again, as usual, but that is okay. I know they do not like to hear any criticisms or complaints, despite the sunny ways and despite the ability to have a moment in the House. That is fine, I will give them that, but the reality is that every member will not have the opportunity to participate because of closure that was put on the debate.

When the Liberals were on this side, they would attack the government over and over about the use of closure. There were over 100 closure motions by the Conservatives. Lo and behold, the Liberals got the ring, put it on real quick, and sure enough, down came the hammer of closure of debate on a number of things, including this budget bill. We are talking about $200 billion; no problem. The Liberals do not want to hear from members of their own backbench. In fact, most of them actually will not be speaking. It is too bad.

I am sure their constituents would like to know how important this budget is to their ridings, all the popular things, the things they believe in. Members could talk about it, but apparently, they are not allowed. Closure has been put on it. It is unfortunate. I do not know whether it is because they cannot test their mettle in this place. Maybe they are afraid that the public will understand what is taking place as we move away from the so-called new Parliament that we were supposed to have, to the same old system.

It is interesting that the Liberals defend their use of closure by using the bar of the previous government. I can say that bar is much lower than this one here. That bar is so low there is no way anyone could limbo under it at any point in time. That is no defence. Promises were made and parliamentarians, including some of the Liberal members, want to engage in conversation about issues, whether at committee or in the chamber.

The industry committee does a very good job of having that healthy debate. Witnesses have appeared at committee, people from different departments and ministers, and now there is a new study with regard to manufacturing challenges in our country. That has been done very much in a positive manner. People expressed different opinions, but it was done with respect. There is a set of rules in that committee. We do not see committees closing down debate right now, but unfortunately, that is what is happening here.

There was a time when budgets would pass, but that stopped and became much more evident during the Paul Martin administration. That was the beginning of the era of slipping different pieces of legislation into the overall budget. In the United States, they call them riders, the things that tag along to get a particular budget or other legislation passed. They will attach all kinds of things for their ridings or areas to get it done.

What we have here is critical to democracy and was spoken about many times right here in the last Parliament about how it undermined legislation, democratic reform, the ability for members to have a place to state their cases for their constituents. This is supposed to be a country united, not divided by these tactics. We have lost that.

Here is the problem that we faced with the previous administration regarding some of the processes that it followed. Guess where they are? A lot of those things are in the Supreme Court. A lot of the issues get through here. They do not go to committee for vetting. There are no suggestions, whether the government likes them or not, and then they decide whether to move on, but at least they have had a chance to think about it.

I remember the days when we would find many technical and other errors in bills that even if we did not agree 100% with the bill, the bill was carried at the end of the day, through democracy. It was not held up because we did not do our business.

That is what we have in this bill, between the banking information that is going on, retroactive legislation going back in time to change things, and other areas that are affected significantly.

We look at that, and we have some very serious issues that are taking place in this House. One of ours is veterans. I was particularly perturbed by the finance minister this morning alleging that we did not support veterans because we did not actually support the budget bill.

I rose in this House to challenge that assertion because every single member, whether we like something or not, stands up for our veterans and their perspective. They fought for that. They are people like Earl Scofield, who has passed away. He was one of my heroes and mentors. He was an aboriginal senator. He flew 17 missions in the tail turret. They called him “Boots” Scofield because one time when they were taking off, they hit the trees and crash-landed. He woke up, ran from the plane, and then realized he did not have his boots on anymore. That is what he was known as. Guess what? He believed in his democratic rights and he was at the NDP founding convention because he believed in different things.

Many other people from my community have gone to war, to Afghanistan most recently, but all the way back to the War of 1812. We have personally been touched by this ourselves.

I reject at all times the insinuation, especially from a senior Liberal cabinet minister, that we do not support our veterans whether we are NDP, Liberal, or Conservative, just because we disagree on an issue. That is not going to be the case on our watch here. Our veterans are offended when they are put in that perspective.

This budget bill is going to cause a lot of significant problems.

I want to touch on a couple of things that are dear to my local community. The first is, most importantly, what we see taking place with the Gordie Howe International Bridge. It was in Conservative budgets previously. They are now approximately six months behind in the request for proposals for the consortiums that would build the bridge. They are blaming incompetence, mismanagement, and all those things, but at the same time, they are now the decision-makers. I am really concerned what message is being sent to industry and others about Canadian manufacturing, agriculture, and other types of investments that are very important to the busiest border crossing in North America. Basically, in my riding, 35% of our daily trade with the United States takes place every single day along two kilometres of our border. Very often Parliament has been united in getting this new border facility done, but we have not seen advancement for the RFPs.

We fought a lot for innovation, especially for manufacturing and other types of work. AUTO21 is one of those things. It's a network for excellence. It is being sunsetted and is not going to get the funding, despite bringing in over $1 billion of value-added revenue for innovation and financing from other institutions and also jobs for Canadians,. Basically, from 2001 to 2015, it has received funding of around $81 million but received about $70 million in actual net benefit derivatives directly attributed to it, plus $1 billion for the secondary work that is done. What has it done? Two thousand four hundred student researchers are trained. There are some 685 industry and public sector partners, 500 researchers across Canada, 200 research and technology transfer projects. Some 48 academic institutions evolved. There have been 6,700 publications and reports, 320 patents, licences, and commercialization agreements, and $141 million invested in auto research alone from this institution.

Unfortuntely, AUTO21 is being run into the ground because of an ideology set up by a previous administration which said that after 14 years and despite all of the building, it is done.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to take this opportunity to send my thoughts to the people of Fort McMurray. A close friend of my husband lives there, and we all watched in terror as this happened, worrying about the well-being of all the people who were fleeing. It is moments like this that remind us to be grateful for all those we hold dear. It is a reminder of the privilege it is to give when the need arises, and to receive when the hard parts of life happen. I thank all those who have given during this painful time.

Today, the House stands to debate Bill C-15. Budgets are about setting priorities and confirming commitments made, and today I want to discuss some serious concerns I have about the budget.

Bill C-15 is 179 pages long. It amends more than 30 statutes and contains another bill, Bill C-12, which is on the Order Paper before the House of Commons. Now, the time of debate has been shortened. A promise of the Liberal government was transparency and openness. The bill before us has multiple complexities, which include repealing an entire act, retroactive legislation changes, and much more. This alone lessens the capacity for focused discussion in the House, and with a shortened timeline, there is less time for discussion of these important issues.

The people of North Island—Powell River have shared with me their concerns with omnibus bills, and with Bill C-15, the government is going in a direction that concerns many Canadians. I hope this is not what real change looks like.

I know that many people in my riding will feel some relief with the child tax benefit. It is a start; however, I also know that many of my constituents are looking for a real child care strategy.

When I travel in my riding, I am sad to hear the stories of many women who have had to leave their work, because they cannot afford day care. They shared with me their concern that they would miss out on opportunities for their careers. One woman said to me that she just wanted to feel she had a choice in the matter. She loves her children, wants to spend meaningful time with them, and wants to have a career that promises a future for her family. However, the budget does not provide any support for the affordability of child care, nor does it address the reality that there are few day care spaces available.

I talk with single parents who are stranded without the supports for the child care they desperately need. More money in their pocket would provide some support, but if there are no child care spaces available, that is not a solution. Canadians are looking for a comprehensive strategy around child care, and the budget before us does not give it to them.

Veterans are also being shortchanged by the lack of mental health support, and there is nothing for suicide prevention. Veterans affairs have been badly mishandled by the past Conservative and Liberal governments. Pensions have been clawed back, and front-line service cuts have increased wait times for help and access to quality home care, while long-term care is shrinking. Soldiers with PTSD face months of delays before even getting referred for help, and even then, that help is hard to get.

A man from my riding, Dan Thomas, came to see me several weeks ago. A retired soldier with severe PTSD, he talked about how invisible he felt with his long-term issues. He shared with me the helplessness of not being able to receive the support he so desperately requires for his day-to-day life. When people serve their country, they should not feel invisible.

Bill C-12 was tabled in the House of Commons on March 24. The way veterans were treated by the previous government was indeed shameful. They deserve to have this legislation that would affect them discussed in the House, and not a unilateral decision by the current government. By killing Bill C-12 and incorporating it in this omnibus bill, the Liberals have chosen not to make space to listen to veterans' grievances and are playing politics.

Opening the service centres is one step, but it is not the only step required. What concerns me is that Bill C-12 largely fails to provide much-needed supports for mental health or increase support for spouses or caregivers of injured veterans.

We owe it to the men and women who have served our country courageously and honourably to ensure a proper study of these benefit changes to make sure they will address the needs of our veterans. We do not want to see veterans continue to be forced to prove that the leg they lost has not grown back.

This omnibus bill should be split up so that the changes to veterans' benefits receive proper study by Parliament. It is important that we serve those people who have served us so well.

After nearly a decade of Conservative economic mismanagement, middle-class families are working harder than ever yet falling further and further behind. At at time when Canada needs a government that will combat rising inequality, the Liberals' first budget is inadequate.

The Liberals are breaking their promise to reduce the tax rate for small and medium-sized enterprises, the biggest job creators in Canada. They are cancelling the legislation that allowed for any subsequent reductions provided in the bill. However, they made a commitment to lower the rate to 9% by 2019. New Democrats have been fighting for a long time for tax cuts for small businesses, which are the real job creators in Canada.

The Liberals have rejected our proposals to cap transaction fees for credit cards, and are doing nothing to facilitate the transfer of family businesses between generations. This is a direct betrayal of small business owners and will significantly reduce job creation in Canada. The parliamentary budget officer estimates that this cancellation would cost SMEs more than $2.1 billion over the next four years. Meanwhile, consecutive Liberal and Conservative governments have given massive tax giveaways to Canada's most profitable corporations. The Liberals should keep their promise to small businesses by withdrawing the proposal to cancel legislated reductions in the small business tax rate.

More than a quarter of seniors are living in poverty, and some Canadians are wondering whether they will have a secure income when they retire. We welcome the Liberals' recommitment to returning the age of eligibility for old age security and the guaranteed income supplement to 65. We also welcome their recommitment to increase the GIS for single seniors. However, we are disappointed that seniors have to wait until July, despite the Liberals' promise to help them immediately.

This is a useful start, but more can be done. Increasing the GIS by 10% for all seniors would lift nearly 150,000 additional people out of poverty. Income data shows that the median income for single seniors without employer pension income is below $20,000. With the low income measure for a single senior at $22,000 per year, this is unacceptable. I can tell members that there are many seniors in my riding who are living well below $20,000 a year. I have seniors in my riding who, in January, debate whether to purchase medication or keep their heat on. That is not a good debate for seniors who have worked so hard to create this beautiful country we have. These changes should be closely studied to see how we can improve them to help even more seniors, not pushed through in an omnibus bill. The government needs to keep its promise to immediately enhance the CPP.

Last week in this House I spoke to Bill C-14, medical assistance in dying. The bill refers to palliative care in its preamble, yet while introducing this bill the government made no new commitments to palliative care. We have a critically important opportunity to enhance services across the country, yet the government was missing in action on palliative care in the budget, even after promising $3 billion for home care during the campaign. Holding the government to account on the promise of that motion remains one of our top priorities as we assist in the legislative response to the Carter decision.

In my riding, there are many seniors. Home care and palliative care are of huge concern. Seniors living in remote communities want to hear from the government that they matter, that staying in their home is a priority. Many constituents have shared stories of feeling pushed to leave not only their home but their community for health concerns. Accessible services in my remote communities are important.

I cannot support this budget. It does not fulfill the promises made to Canadians. It has some positive steps, but leaves out too many key concerns that would make the lives of my constituents better. Whether it be actual dollars or respecting the process, this budget fails to follow through.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to debate Bill C-15, the Liberal government's budget implementation act. I doubt it will come as much of a surprise to the House that I will be voting against this budget implementation act.

When I examine any piece of legislation, first and foremost, I look at how it will impact the citizens, taxpayers, and employers in my riding. I can say right off the top that this budget amounts to a tax increase on the hard-working families and taxpayers in my riding of Perth—Wellington.

If we examine part 1 alone of this budget implementation act, we see tax increases. We see the elimination of the education tax credit, the elimination of the textbook tax credit, the cancellation of the children's arts tax credit, the cancellation of the children's fitness tax credit, gone is income splitting for families and with it the family tax cut, gone is the universal child care benefit, gone are so many programs that helped, benefited, and provided real value to hard-working Canadian families.

It is tax increase after tax increase after tax increase. With each of these increases, the Liberal government is making it harder and harder for families to make ends meet.

If I look at my own community of Perth—Wellington, it is home to some of this country's premier cultural and artistic attractions. It is home to the Stratford Festival, North America's largest classical repertory theatre. It has Drayton Entertainment, which has seven venues across the region, providing excellent entertainment options. It has Stratford Summer Music, which over six weeks will provide a wide variety of diverse talent, ranging from the Harlem Gospel Choir to Whisky Jack.

It is an honour to live in such a diverse, culturally rich community and I want more young people to get involved in the arts and culture. I want more young people to have the opportunity to take piano or dance lessons or learn the art of the stage. Under the former Conservative government, they could do that through the children's arts tax credit. In 10, 15, 20 years from now, I hope we will see some of the great artists and actors who grace our stages, some of the great musicians who perform in venues across the country. I hope to see these great talents and be able to say that they exist because we as a country and a community encouraged them to excel in the arts.

I have some of my own vivid memories from my childhood. Granted, my childhood was not quite as long ago as some of my colleagues' were, but I do have some vivid memories of my childhood. Among those great memories was learning to play a variety of musical instruments as a member of the Mitchell Legion Band. Learning to play a musical instrument was one of my great passions in life and being able to do that as a member of the band was a great opportunity.

I remember playing soccer behind Upper Thames Elementary School. I remember taking swimming lessons at the Mitchell Lions Pool. I can now more fully appreciate the sacrifices that my own parents made in ensuring that all four of their children learned to play a musical instrument and had the opportunity to participate in fitness and sports activities, like swimming lessons.

Now, as a father myself, with one young daughter and a second kid on the way in a matter of days or weeks, I want to some day see my kids play soccer, learn to swim, and participate in these culturally rich activities. In an era where we see an alarming rise in childhood obesity, I truly think this Liberal bill is taking us down the wrong road. Let us, as a community and a country, encourage a healthy future generation, not work against one.

This bill would also represents a tax hike for small businesses. For each of the next three years the tax rate on small businesses will be increased by half of a percentage point. By 2018, small businesses will be paying 1.5% more in taxes.

We all know the importance of small businesses to the Canadian economy. In 2011, small businesses represented roughly 30% of Canada’s GDP. Small businesses are not tax havens for the rich. Small business owners are simply trying to pay their fair share and provide jobs for our communities. The Minister of Small Business and Tourism was even instructed in her mandate letter to lower the small business tax rate. Instead, we see just another broken promise.

The government's own finance department says this tax increase on small businesses will cost them $2.2 billion over the next four years. Their own officials acknowledge this tax increase will only further burden small businesses in Canada.

I am proud that the Conservative government created 1.3 million net new jobs after the recession. Most of those jobs were full-time and in the private sector and were created despite the worst economic recession since the 1930s.

Another element of Bill C-15 that is very concerning is the repeal of the Federal Balanced Budget Act. This act was brought in to protect Canadian taxpayers by ensuring that federal governments do not return to the days of unnecessary deficits, as in the 1970s.

The Prime Minister might not understand the importance of a balanced budget, but Canadian families do. Canadians know how to live within their means. Working Canadians have mortgages, transportation costs, day care expenses, and many other expenses. They are responsible for ensuring that these expenses stay in line with their income.

Unfortunately, the government is not reflecting these values and is spending far beyond its means. This is unsustainable, this is irresponsible, and this will have serious long-term impacts. Quite frankly, it is galling that the Liberals take such glee in returning to deficit.

The facts are against this government. The parliamentary budget officer has confirmed that the Liberals were left with a surplus, and their own officials at Finance Canada have confirmed that they were left with a surplus. Every credible authority has accepted this. The only people who have not accepted this are the Liberals across the way.

Only months into its mandate, the Liberal government broke a major campaign promise to limit the deficit. The leader of the Liberal Party said they would run modest deficits of $10 billion. However, in his first budget, the Minister of Finance introduced a deficit of $30 billion. There is no other way to put it: this is another broken promise.

What makes this even more concerning is that the government has no plan to return to balanced budgets. During the campaign, the Liberals told Canadians that they would return to balanced budgets within their term.

The Minister of Finance is projecting deficits for at least the next five years. The government has shown no plan to return to balanced budgets.

The Minister of Finance has said one thing that is entirely accurate and that is that we as Conservatives on this side of the House are stuck on this balanced budget thing. Who else is stuck on this balanced budget thing? It is Canadian taxpayers, my constituents in Perth—Wellington, those who on a monthly basis have to budget and balance their own pocketbooks, their own monthly expenses and revenues, so they do not spend more than they take in. They know that in the long run they cannot spend more than they bring in.

I am proud to be voting against the budget. It takes away valuable tax credits. It breaks the Liberals' own promise to lower taxes on small business. It takes on billions in unnecessary and long-term debt. This is the wrong budget for the people of Perth—Wellington, and it is not the budget that Canadians need.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to debate Bill C-15, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament.

As many of my colleagues have already mentioned, this is yet another omnibus bill. Unfortunately, we came to expect omnibus bills under the Conservatives. At the time, the Liberals were highly critical of this practice. Nevertheless, they did the exact same thing with their very first budget bill. This is truly disappointing. This bill affects 30 individual acts.

For example, there will be significant changes to some acts, such as the Employment Insurance Act, which is extremely important. We spoke extensively about this act after the Conservatives unfortunately made some bad changes to it. These changes should be reversed. We also need to review the Employment Insurance Act. Unfortunately, we will not be able to study it properly, since it is part of this omnibus bill. That is very disappointing.

There are a few good things in this budget implementation bill, but there is a serious problem when it comes to fighting inequality. The budget does nothing to address major inequality issues. That is why we think it is important to split the bill. We have asked for that a number of times. We have to split the bill so that we can properly study many of its measures, such as the one on employment insurance. Unfortunately, the Liberals do not seem to be listening.

Of course, we are pleased that the Liberals took some of the NDP's good ideas that we came up with ages ago. For one thing, they agreed to restore the tax credit for labour-sponsored funds. That is extremely important because the credit enables workers to save money, and the labour-sponsored funds reinvest in the local economy. This is very good news for Quebec, and it is very good for regional economies. We are very pleased that they have included this NDP idea.

The NDP also worked very hard for several years to eliminate the tax on feminine hygiene products. We all know that tax was unfair and kind of sexist. We are therefore very pleased that the Liberals adopted our idea to eliminate the tax on feminine hygiene products. That is really very good news, and I know that everyone in greater Drummond will be very happy about it. This is good progress in the fight against inequality.

As members said earlier, this bill implements the budget. Canadians were really expecting real change. Unfortunately, there are a lot of broken promises in this bill. In typical Liberal fashion, the government flip-flopped on decisions and promises it had already made. I would like to share one shocking example.

Last week the Liberals voted against our motion to stop diafiltered milk from entering Canada illegally, which is hurting our dairy producers. I held a press conference on this about 10 days ago. I went to see some dairy producers in South Durham. People from Saint-Germain and right across central Quebec came to see me and told me about the financial problems this is causing. They are losing between $15,000 and $20,000 a year right now because of the illegal import of milk through this back-door method. Unfortunately, the Liberals did not stand up for them at all and did not vote with us to put an end to this, even though they promised during the election campaign that they would put an end to it within the first 100 days of being in power. They have been in power for over six months now.

Another thing that we are quite disappointed in is of course health care reinvestment.

The people of Drummond expected a significant reinvestment in health care. Unfortunately, the Liberals, just like the Conservatives, did not invest in health transfers, which is what the NDP called for and what needs to be done.

The Drummond region is getting a centre for families and children. We are investing in that. We are also working on improving palliative care. We have a centre that we are very proud of. We have this asset thanks to the generosity of the people of Drummond. We are fortunate to have the Maison René-Verrier, a palliative care facility. There are significant needs in the area of health care. Fortunately, the Drummondville community is very generous. We somehow manage to enjoy excellent care, despite everything, but we need more investments. We still have problems accessing primary care. It is really important to invest in that area. Unfortunately, we have been let down by the Liberals once again.

We asked for one thing that we really wanted, that the government invest in social housing. That is important to the people of Drummond. Right now, there is a shortage of social housing in Drummondville. Members of the executive of the municipal housing authority in Drummondville and people throughout the region have told me many times that there is a blatant lack of investment in social housing. Right now, we need housing for seniors. We need to build new social housing for seniors in Drummondville. That is why this is extremely important. I have already asked the Liberal government about this, but I am doing it again. The government needs to quickly invest in social housing in the months and years to come because it is a very important need.

The same thing goes for green infrastructure. The Liberals have made a lot of promises regarding green infrastructure, but the communities have not yet received any money. The greater Drummond area needs money to invest in its infrastructure. This infrastructure needs to meet the criteria of tomorrow. For example, a new library is being built in Drummondville. Everyone is very happy about that. Federal funding from the excise tax transfer will be used for the new library. It will be a library of the future and, if memory serves, it will be LEED silver certified. This library will be a piece of green infrastructure. More incentives must be given so that we can continue to invest in our infrastructure.

For example, we would like to invest in a multidisciplinary centre in Saint-Germain. Once again, it would be nice if we had the funding to energy retrofit this infrastructure and make it a building for the future. We are still waiting for the programs and criteria to invest in this area.

As far as seniors are concerned, we are quite pleased. The Liberals really did a good job. They brought the age of eligibility for old age security back down to 65. That is very good. They also increased the guaranteed income supplement for single seniors. Unfortunately, we are still waiting for that to come into effect. It will happen in July, even though the Liberals said it would happen immediately. We would have liked to see that happen more quickly. Nonetheless, we are happy about it. I think it is a very good thing.

Although there are a few good measures in this bill, it is disappointing to see that it is an omnibus bill. There are a number of bills that we will not be able to debate properly because they will not be studied by the appropriate committees. They are all going to the Standing Committee on Finance. We would have liked the bill to be split. That is what we find regrettable.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague about some of the substance of Bill C-15. I am shocked that the government missed its mark in terms of what it identified during the election campaign. There is badly needed EI reform, which all Canadians pay into and deserve, regardless of their address.

Also, I am very disappointed with regard to the content about our veterans and how they are respected. Every year, veterans who have lost their limbs are required to prove that they have not reappeared. I am wondering if the member agrees that this was a shocking omission from the budget.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to participate in this particular debate today. Before I do so, I will say that I know there has been a lot said in this House and elsewhere about the situation in Alberta. However, it would be clearly inappropriate to not make a few comments about the heroes of Fort McMurray and northern Alberta, and also the heroes of all of Canada who have come forward with donations and with expressions of good will. It is important to recognize that at every opportunity we have.

I had the opportunity to speak to the budget debate about three weeks ago. I talked a bit about the situation in Alberta and about my constituents and how they were feeling at that particular time, three weeks ago. It is not a good time in Alberta. They were wondering how it could get any worse. I can say that, in the last week, it has gotten a lot worse.

However, what I did say in that particular address was that Albertans were looking for hope. I still believe that Alberta is an entrepreneurial province. We will recover, and we will in many ways use what we have been going through in the last year and certainly in the last week as a learning experience. I know we will be better for it. However, along the theme that I used in my previous remarks, I can say that in no time in our history in Alberta do I believe that there was a time when we were looking for more hope.

In preparing what I was going to say today, I like to think about things in terms of one word. What one word can describe the particular bill we are talking about, the budget that was introduced recently, and that first six months of the current government? After some thought, the one word that really came to mind was hypocrisy. When we Google hypocrisy, we see that it says “the behavior of people who do things that they tell other people not to do...” and “...people who say...thing[s] but do [something else]”. So much of what has gone on in the last six months has been exactly that, and much of it has been reflected in this particular budget and in this particular bill.

We had a campaign in October in which Canadians were promised that, first, there would be a slight deficit that the current government would run of about $10 billion. We have seen in the budget and all of the projections that it is certainly going to be much worse than that. Second, the promise was that the books would be balanced by the end of the particular term, and we now know that has gone by the boards. Third, there was a promise to reduce the small-business tax rate. Again, the Minister of Small Business and Tourism today proudly stood in the House and talked about the small-business tax rate on January 1 being reduced. Guess who reduced that small-business tax rate. It was the previous government that put in place the bill that reduced small-business taxes on January 1, but it was the current government that reneged on its promise to reduce taxes further. Regarding Bill C-15, hypocrisy really describes where we are.

Then I move on to how the government has acted in the last six months, and again the word hypocrisy came to mind. We have seen, as has been mentioned on many occasions in this particular short session, that the government has chosen to use closure. I know that, if the member for Winnipeg North has the opportunity to ask me a question, he will rant on about all of the times the previous government used closure. I am not suggesting for a moment that closure does not have to be used at certain instances, but what is hypocritical is that the same member for Winnipeg North, when in opposition, used to rail at the previous government about using closure; and now here we have some six months later, within a period of a few weeks, the new government using the same mechanism. I can only use that same word again, hypocrisy.

We also hear Liberals talking about things like openness and transparency and, again, I would say we could attribute that to hypocrisy.

I said in a speech earlier in the House that I was getting the feeling that the Minister of Natural Resources was getting a little uncomfortable because he was having to deliver a message that he probably did not necessarily believe in. When it came to pipeline discussions and the future of the energy industry, he was being directed by many environmentalists within his caucus. I did not get the feeling that he was all that comfortable delivering the message, and I still feel that way.

I would say the same thing about the Minister of Finance. I do not get the impression that the Minister of Finance is that all comfortable delivering the budget he had to deliver, with some of the things in the budget and in this particular bill, including the decision by the government to repeal what the previous government had done in terms of the age of eligibility for old age security, returning it to 65 from 67. The reason I say I do not think he feels all that good about it is that, before he was elected, he wrote a book called The Real Retirement. Within that book, the finance minister, before he was elected, advocated on the necessity to move old age security eligibility from 65 to 67, and here we have the same individual now delivering a budget that would repeal that.

I have a feeling that in many cases the government is sending mixed messages. Certain ministers are sending messages that I do not believe even they believe. I guess it will be a matter of time before it catches up to them.

I want to talk about one other part of the budget, which is infrastructure. We hear so much about infrastructure spending and how all of this borrowing is going to fix all of our infrastructure problems. When I look at this budget, and I mentioned this several weeks ago and will repeat it, I see we have a commitment by the government for some $10 billion over the next two years in infrastructure spending across this country. That might sound like a lot of money when people do not know the difference between $1 million and $1 billion, but let me put it into context.

It has been a few years, but I served in the Alberta legislature for eight years, and in almost every one of those years, the provincial budget in Alberta for infrastructure was $5 billion. It was $5 billion for Alberta alone. We have a federal government that is allocating $5 billion for all of Canada and is somehow taking great credit for this budget, which would plunge Canadians into debt, $150 billion over the next four years, to not build infrastructure, because the evidence is not there. It is simply, as one of my colleagues said when the previous member was speaking, that we are putting our groceries on our credit card. That is concerning.

With those few comments, I would say that the government has invoked closure on this particular bill and when it goes to committee, as all of the bills that the government introduces do, we know Liberals will use their majority at committee to ensure there are no amendments to the bill. Being a member of the finance committee—and it will be interesting to see if the parliamentary secretary can challenge me on that—I am not expecting to see much change in this particular bill.

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

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to stand in the House today and speak to Bill C-15, the budget implementation act. I am extremely happy because the budget would deliver for constituents in my riding as well as people all across Canada. It is a budget that would help all Canadians in various capacities.

I would like to begin by speaking about Eastern Passage, an area in my riding on the north side of Halifax harbour. Eastern Passage is a vibrant community that is home to many local entrepreneurs, a small craft harbour, great restaurants, and a healthy dose of east coast hospitality. This community is proud of its neighbourhoods and its people. Many tourists from Nova Scotia, from all across Canada, and from outside of Canada visit this small but vibrant area.

The fishery and tourist industries in Eastern Passage would be much improved if the upgrading included the extension of the wharf and dredging of the harbour. This would not only help the fishermen to enter an existing harbour, but it would also stimulate the economy for the tourist industry. These two projects would create much-needed prosperity.

Some members may not know that about 250,000 visitors on cruise ships stop in Halifax harbour in the summer, spring, and fall. These people could access Eastern Passage in 15 or 20 minutes by boat. This would allow them to enjoy the hospitality of this small village and other parts of my riding.

I would love to be able to stand here today and make those official announcements but I am unable to do that. However, I am proud to say that the budget would create opportunities for many communities across Canada and enable them to access funding for many infrastructure projects. It is our responsibility to work hard and closely with various organizations and communities to help them apply and hopefully receive funding for their very important projects.

It is obvious that the last 10 years were very difficult for many communities across Canada. There was very little co-operation and very little investment in many communities over the last 10 years with the last government. This budget is evidence that we listened well to Canadians across Canada throughout our campaign and since then.

The budget not only address infrastructure, but it also addresses many other important areas that we need to talk about. It ensures that we are respecting our obligation to support our veterans who served so proudly for Canadians to ensure that we maintain peace. They fought for our freedom around the world. It is extremely important to talk about the involvement and the support of veterans.

I have a copy of a book entitled Further Than Yesterday: That's All That Counts by retired Captain Medric Cousineau, a resident of my riding in Nova Scotia. He is all too familiar with the risk of defending our country abroad. Medric was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder several years ago and suffered from depression. Luckily, he had access to a service dog named Thai that was constantly by his side. Today, Medric is in a much better place and this is reflected in his inspiring book.

Budget 2016 invests in veterans like Captain Cousineau by reopening the nine veterans offices that were closed by the previous government. This will help those veterans who in service to Canada, returned from war to Canada with various issues. We need to make sure they have these services. Reopening these offices will provide much-needed help. The budget also proposes to reduce the client-to-case manager ratio to 25:1. That means veterans across Canada will receive quality, efficient, and personalized service. These and many other measures, including the increase in earnings loss benefits, the increase in disability awards, and the expanding access to the higher grades of the permanent impairment allowance amount to one of the most significant investments in our veterans in a generation.

Just as our veterans have defended our future, our youth will build it. This is why budget 2016 also makes innovative investments in young Canadians. Also serving as minister of youth, our Prime Minister has shown strong leadership in having a government that will include the points of view of young Canadians from across the country.

That is why I am so excited about the Prime Minister's proposed youth advisory council announced in this budget. This youth advisory council will consist of young Canadians from all walks of life and will advise the Prime Minister in a non-partisan way on the issues and challenges that youth face in their day-to-day lives and on how we can maybe help address those issues.

I know there are many worthy candidates in various villages in my riding who could contribute to this advisory council. I would encourage them to put their names forward.

I would also like to emphasize our government's commitment to our country's official languages. As a proud Acadian, I am well aware of the importance of ensuring that francophones across the country have access to the services they need in their community in the language of their choice.

In Nova Scotia, we fought long and hard for the right to have high-quality education in French. We got our wish thanks to the hard work of francophone Acadian representatives and activists. Unfortunately, over the past 10 years, they saw inexcusable cuts to the services offered to the francophone and Acadian minority.

More than 400 positions at the Translation Bureau disappeared; the court challenges program was cut; the budget of the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages remained more or less the same for far too long; and the Commissioner's recommendations were ignored.

I will also point out that there was no real funding increase to the roadmap over the past eight years. This created numerous challenges for the associations and organizations in our rural communities throughout the country. Our government is going to turn the page on that.

Following a motion moved in committee by my colleague from Ottawa—Vanier, we are currently developing some recommendations to improve and support the Translation Bureau. We have already relaunched the court challenges program, and we will be reviewing the Commissioner's recommendations.

That being said, we will not stop there. We know that francophone immigration will be a key element in sustaining those communities and ensuring their vitality.

We will also launch consultations with communities regarding the road map, in order to make the necessary changes.

In conclusion, I would like to repeat something that I have said often in this House. I am very proud to be a part of this government, a government that is delivering for Canadians.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to mention to my hon. colleague that indeed, Bill C-15, an omnibus bill, does not make any sense. It will change some 30 statutes, including the Employment Insurance Act and other such legislation.

That being said, it is rather ironic, because the Liberals always criticized the Conservatives for all their omnibus bills in 2011, 2012, and other years.

What does my hon. colleague make of the fact that the Liberals are now making the same anti-democratic move?

A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates (A) for the financial year ending March 31, 2017, was presented by the President of the Treasury Board and read by the Speaker to the House.

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.

[Glenn Campbell, Director, Financial Institutions, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The proposed legislation contained in part 4, division 4, of Bill C-15 amends certain provisions of the Bank Act relating to federal credit unions. The government is acting to address the unique transitional risks credit unions entering the federal framework may face due to the differences between federal and provincial regimes. The federal credit union framework within the Bank Act was put in place to offer the sector an option to grow regionally or nationally if they so choose. The framework is neutral and does not incent federal entry.

There are three main amendments. The first amendment provides the Minister of Finance authority to exempt an applicant from a federal technical procedural entry requirement so long as the applicant substantively meets the intent of the requirement. In short, in certain circumstances there are federal requirements and provincial requirements and to avoid a problem at the end of an application period there is, with a compelling reason, flexibility there to follow a provincial rule.

The second amendment provides the Minister of Finance authority to exempt federal credit unions from certain technical procedural requirements relating to voting up to three years after they have entered so long as they have substantially met the intent of the requirement. This gives some flexibility to electronic voting, in particular where there are some differences between various provinces and federal. Again, this flexibility exists providing they substantially meet the federal requirement.

The third amendment provides the Minister of Finance authority to offer a transitional loan guarantee to a federal credit union for the purpose of supporting it through its first three years. Credit unions could face uncertainty during transition. The loan guarantee would be a safety net providing insurance value. It would also potentially provide a stable source of funding if funding challenges exist and credit unions need it.

The measures are in addition to transitional support that already exists in the federal credit union framework and provide targeted protection against transitional risk. The measures continue to refine the federal credit union framework in response to demands from the credit union sector. There was also a small technical housekeeping amendment on French concordance that has no policy effect.

Thank you.

[Trevor McGowan]

That's correct. Those tax credits would be able to be carried forward and claimed, alongside the tuition tax credit, which is not being affected by Bill C-15.

Second Reading

[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.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, I would like to thank the officials for being here, as well as the individuals who will appear later.

The briefing was indeed interesting and useful, even with these delays, but it raises other questions. Obviously, I will not ask all of you to comment on what I'm going to say.

Although the government denies that this is an omnibus bill, it is clear to us that this is, indeed, what we have once again.

This bill is 179 pages long, amends 35 acts and affects nine departments. It also contains Bill C-12, which had been tabled by the government. In fact, it was included in Bill C-15, which implements certain provisions of the budget. It also retroactively repeals the Federal Balanced Budget Act. I say “retroactively”, given that the government would have committed an offence under this act as of June 1, 2016. Lastly, the bill amends the act to make it as if it had never existed, even if there was an offence. But it is contrary to law.

Furthermore, it includes other extremely important elements. I will have an opportunity to come back to many issues relating to the recapitalization of banks. A large number of officials are going to speak about many topics.

In fact, when Bill C-12 was tabled, it was clear that it would be studied by the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, but in the end it's the Standing Committee on Finance that's looking at it. I think this clearly shows that even if a provision or line is announced in the budget, it shouldn't necessarily be studied in the context of the budget. It should be studied by the appropriate committees. Bill C-12 is a patent case of that.

Having said that, I would like to move a motion. I am fully willing to discuss it at the end of this presentation. I will even do the committee a favour by not reading it, since it is rather long.

I'll simply say that the purpose of this motion is to return to the House of Commons Bill C-15, which implemented certain provisions of the budget, so that clauses relating to the re-establishment and compensation of Canadian Forces members and veterans—from Bill C-12, which was inserted—to bank bail-ins and the bank recapitalization regime, to the Old Age Security Act, and to the Employment Insurance Act. The motion also proposes separate bills so that they can be studied by their respective committee.

I won't read the motion because it takes up a full page. But we will be able to discuss it in committee.

[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.

[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 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.

[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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We'll call the meeting to order, members.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are studying the subject matter of Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016, and other measures.

I thank the witnesses for coming.

Before we start, I'm going to table the subcommittee on agenda. It is before you. The subcommittee on agenda met on Monday to consider the business of the committee and agreed to make recommendations. Do I need to read this or are we okay?

[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.

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.

Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion

[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.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you might find unanimous consent for the following motion.

I move that, notwithstanding any standing order, special order, or usual practice of the House, Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures be divided into two bills, namely Bill C-15A and Bill C-15B, as follows:

(1) Bill C-15A shall contain all the provisions of the bill respecting 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; (f) increase the amount of a death benefit; and all the provisions that provide, among other things, that the Minister of Veterans Affairs must pay to a person who received a disability award or death benefit under that act before April 1, 2017, an amount that represents the increase in the amount for the disability award or the death benefit, as the case may be, and the consequential amendments to the Children of Deceased Veterans Education Assistance Act, the Pension Act, and the Income Tax Act.

(2) Bill C-15B shall contain all the remaining provisions of Bill C-15 and retain the status on the Order Paper that it had prior to the adoption of this order, and that Bill C-15A be deemed read a second time and referred to committee of the whole, deemed considered in committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage, and deemed read a third time and passed, and that the law clerk and parliamentary counsel be authorized to make any technical changes or corrections as may be necessary, and that the bills be reprinted.

I wonder if I could find unanimous consent for that motion, so we can show our veterans that we support them and appreciate the service they have made for our country.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1

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

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

The much-needed budget 2016 is an essential step to growing the middle class and revitalizing the Canadian economy. Budget 2016 has received positive responses from my constituents.

I have received some questions, and I will address these to begin.

The first measure I will be speaking to is the elimination of the children's arts tax credit and child fitness tax credit. These tax credits only benefit families who can afford to enrol their children in arts and fitness programs. It is that simple. This is not the case for many Canadians, including many of those in my constituency. When families do not have money, the tax credit does not matter. We are committed to taking an approach that will help working families. The cost of raising a family was the top issue during the campaign, and it continues to be the top priority in my riding. The bill offers true help to nine out of 10 families.

I will now speak to some of the positive elements of the bill that resonate with my constituents. The Canada child benefit is one of those key positive pieces of the budget. It is a new measure that will begin in July 2016 and will provide simpler, tax-free monthly financial benefits to eligible families. The Canada child benefit will help those who cannot afford to put their children in extracurricular programs. It will give them the option of enrolling the children in programs that would otherwise be financially out of reach. Families who could not enrol their children in arts and fitness programs will now have that chance.

Our government's measures for families with children, combined with the middle-class tax cut, will provide these families with additional net after-tax benefits of approximately $14 billion during the 2015-16 to 2020-21 period. The Canada child benefit will replace existing federal child benefits to provide Canadian families with the additional help that is required with the high cost of raising children. The Canada child benefit will provide a maximum benefit of up to $6,400 per child under the age of six, and up to $5,400 per child aged six through 17, for families who need it the most.

High-income earners will have their assistance reduced, even eliminated. This is good public policy. Approximately nine out of 10 families will receive more under the Canada child benefit than under the current system of child benefits. Ultimately, about 3.5 million families will benefit from this new Canada child benefit, with an average increase of approximately $2,300 annually.

As stated by Rob Carrick of The Globe and Mail, “The new Canada Child Benefit is a solid win over existing programs in both dollar terms and ease of use. The money is tax-free, so it won’t have to be accounted for when completing your income tax return every year.” The is good news.

In addition, the Canada child benefit will help raise nearly 300,000 children out of poverty by 2017. However, it does not end there. Budget 2016 will continue to support poverty reduction in future years. As stated by Anita Khanna, the national coordinator of Campaign 2000, “This is a historic step forward in the battle against child poverty in Canada that is long overdue and long called-for by Campaign 2000 and other groups.”

In line with providing support for the majority of Canadians, budget 2016 proposes to eliminate the income-splitting credit for families. This initiative provides a better solution for helping those who need it the most. We learned during the campaign that many couples did not benefit from this initiative. Our programs are more equitable, and I must note that income splitting for seniors remains.

The second aspect of budget 2016 that I will be speaking to is the introduction of the school supplies tax credit. Educators, often at their own expense, purchase supplies for the benefit of our children, so it is only fair that they are compensated for it. Budget 2016 introduces a 15% refundable income tax credit that will apply on up to $1,000 of eligible supplies. Teachers and early childhood educators will be able to use this credit for the purchase of eligible supplies for use in a school or a regulated child care facility for the purpose of teaching or otherwise enhancing students learning in the classroom or learning environment. This initiative will provide a benefit of about $140 million over a five-year period.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, never accuse Liberals of not having any sense of irony. I just heard my friend say that the Liberals are proud that they never impose their will just minutes after their House leader stood in his place to shut down debate, not on one bill but on two bills that have been introduced. He suggested that because opposition House leaders could not get along he was going to punish the Conservatives with one of their opposition days and stick it on a Friday, which is a short day. No, the Liberals do not impose their will.

What is more ironic is that when the House leader for the Liberals stood up to do this, the Liberals actually cheered and laughed. They found it funny that they were shutting down debate on Bill C-15 and Bill C-7, which precludes future negotiations with the RCMP allowing RCMP members to talk about things like sexual harassment. That is what the Liberals just did.

With respect to this procedure that we just saw introduced, the member said she was proud to be part of a government that at just this moment invoked a form of closure that will come tomorrow. Is she proud of this? That is exactly what the Liberals campaigned against seven months ago when the Conservatives were doing it.

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.

Business of the House

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to inform the House that because we could not arrive at a conclusion to Bill C-15, the supply day designated for tomorrow, Tuesday, May 10, unfortunately has to be redesignated to Friday, May 13.

Bill C-15—Notice of time allocation motion

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I know colleagues were impressed with my colleague from Pickering—Uxbridge's speech and will want to make positive comments and ask questions. However, before we get to that I would like to advise that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-15, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, let me also offer, as my colleagues have, my thoughts and prayers for the residents and community of Fort McMurray, Alberta.

It is an honour to rise in this House today to speak on our government's first budget bill, Bill C-15, on behalf of my community of Pickering Uxbridge.

I am very proud to support budget 2016, because this is a budget that is making investments in Canada and Canadians. The investments outlined in budget 2016 focus on growing the economy and ensuring that we are making decisions that not only help Canadians in the short and medium term, but with a focus on also securing long-term growth for future generations.

After 10 years of working on budgets at the municipal level, I can proudly say that, not only is this a budget for middle class and working Canadians, it is a budget that finally provides support for cities and towns across the country.

Our immediate infrastructure investment of $11.9 billion will build roads, improve waste water facilities, and ensure that municipalities are ready to withstand the new challenges that climate change present. These investments will create tens of thousands of jobs, boost the economy, and send a strong message to municipalities that after a decade of having their issues and priorities ignored, they have a strong partner in this federal government.

Budget 2016 delivers on so many areas that will help our communities and residents. As a community with a high number of young families, the new Canada child benefit will help thousands of my constituents back home, and millions of Canadians across the country, with the high and rising costs of raising a family. The CCB will provide more money, is tax free, and income based. This is important because it means more money for families that really need the help.

Budget 2016 will also invest in social infrastructure projects, which include child care centres that will improve access to high-quality child care spaces for Canadians. In my region, this investment is critical, as we have thousands of residents on waiting lists for child care. Investments in this type of infrastructure is long overdue.

Budget 2016 is also better at weaving rural Canada into our shared economy. Our government is making a $500-million investment to bring in high-speed Internet to rural communities like Uxbridge and north Pickering.

We know that in our ever globalized economy, reliable Internet service is critical to every business, and that includes farming. A broken piece of equipment, like an alternator or a propeller shaft, could shut down production and cause economic losses. However, with reliable, high-speed Internet access, those losses can be minimized, as acquiring that new part could be as easy as one click away.

A stable Internet connection is needed not only for businesses in our rural communities, but it is critical to our everyday lives, from paying bills online to students doing homework assignments, or someone applying for a new job. We often take for granted how much our daily lives rely on the Internet. For rural communities, this lack of a reliable connection can mean missed business opportunities or time away from family.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Finance, we heard testimony last week from representatives of KPMG, as well as Commissioner Treusch of the Canada Revenue Agency, in regard to the Isle of Man tax avoidance scheme. I am proud that budget 2016 is making a historic investment, of over $440 million, to the CRA to combat such tax evasion and avoidance schemes. Testimony last week in committee showed why that investment is so important.

During Mr. Treusch's testimony, while referring to the previous decade under the last government, he stated that “Obviously, we have come through a period of considerable fiscal restraint, but during that period, we redeployed as best we could..”.

This period of considerable restraint is highlighted in a November 16, 2012 press release from the Treasury Board, which said that nearly 3,000 jobs were eliminated under the former government. In the 2013 budget, there was $259 million, over five years, of cuts from the CRA.

I am sure we have all heard the horror stories from constituents who needed some questions answered but had to wait months for a response. It is no wonder that the service levels suffered, with such massive cuts. This also affected the CRA's ability to go after tax avoidance schemes, like the Isle of Man program offered by KPMG.

In October 2010, an internal audit by Canada Revenue Agency expressed concerns that:

Cases that could potentially represent significant criminal non-compliance can be rejected by a specific TSO enforcement group because of limited resources.... ...offices are choosing smaller cases of a lower dollar value that do not necessarily represent the greatest risk.... This supports the observations by some program staff that offices are choosing smaller cases that represent “quick hits”.

I believe these budget pressures from the previous government led to an unfair enforcement system, where Canadians owing money who happened to be wealthy and could afford accountants and lawyers were less likely to be pursued than those Canadians who owed much smaller amounts but were viewed as easy to collect from because they could not hire lawyers or professionals to work on their behalf with CRA. I think we can all agree on both sides of this House that every Canadian needs to pay his or her fair share in taxes, and that the choices CRA makes in enforcing these collections should not be determined by who can pay the litigator. However, the CRA can only operate in a fair manner if it has the tools and resources to do so. This is why I fully support the investment in budget 2016 that would provide these tools and resources to the CRA.

Speaking about this investment, Commissioner Treusch stated:

The new budget gives us an enormous reinvestment that will be a return for the Crown and will...move us forward in addressing the concern that I know Canadians have...

After all, the unpaid taxes that are owed are a loss to all Canadians, as it means lost revenue to invest in things that would strengthen our economy, like infrastructure and transit improvements, as well as innovative health care research.

Budget 2016 would also ensure that seniors are able to retire with financial security. This includes providing increased benefits that would allow more seniors in Pickering and Uxbridge to have a dignified, comfortable, and secure retirement. This budget would follow through on a number of commitments we made to seniors during the last election. We promised to roll back the age at which seniors can access their OAS and GIS from 67 to 65, and we have delivered on that pledge. Our government also recognized the importance of ensuring seniors have access to high-quality affordable housing. That is why we would boost funds for construction, repair, and adaptation of affordable housing for seniors across the country. Canadians work hard their entire lives with the expectation that they will retire in comfort and security. I am proud to say that budget 2016 would make that goal a reality for thousands more seniors.

Although my riding of Pickering—Uxbridge does not have a large indigenous population, the investments in budget 2016 regarding this issue are important to all communities. We are all aware of the living conditions some of our indigenous populations face, and it is outrageous that some communities do not have access to clean drinking water. I am proud that this budget would invest $2.2 billion in clean-water infrastructure to finally end on-reserve boil-water advisories. This is on top of other investments, including $2.6 billion that would boost first nations K-12 education, and $40 million to ensure that an inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women and children is as comprehensive and thorough as possible.

I recognize that this budget would not fix all the wrongs of the past, but as a parliamentarian and as a Canadian, I am proud that we have a Prime Minister who is deeply committed to ensuring a better future for indigenous peoples and fostering better relationships, nation to nation. To be part of a government focused on bettering the lives of our indigenous populations is extremely meaningful to me. Budget 2016 and, by extension, Bill C-15 would fulfill the commitments we made to Canadians. This is why I am so proud to rise today in this House on behalf of my constituents to lend it my support.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this place on behalf of the people of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke 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.

On behalf of the over 3,000 CNL employees in the upper Ottawa Valley, their families, and the communities they live in, as well as the small businesses that rely upon the economic activity that happens when those employees spend locally, I would like to thank the Minister of Natural Resources for the science-based decision that was made in announcing an $800-million investment over five years in the Canadian nuclear industry, specifically, in the ongoing refurbishment and modernization of the capital assets at the Chalk River location of Canadian Nuclear Laboratories.

While I would like to be hopeful about the construction of a new version of Canada's success story, and I am referring, of course, to the NRU, Canada's nuclear research reactor, the longest successfully operating research reactor in the world, I understand that with this $800-million announcement Canadians will see more infrastructure construction like the $60-million hydrogen lab our Conservative government built.

What was most encouraging when I read the Minister of Natural Resources's comments with the $800-million announcement was the support for all the work our Conservative government did in building a new business model for the nuclear industry in Canada.

Canadians can see the $800 million being invested over five years as an expression of confidence in the future of the nuclear industry in Canada. I am referring to the government-owned privately managed GOCO model that has currently been in place since September 2015 at Chalk River Laboratories' site at Chalk River.

When our government first came to power, there were two immediate challenges that directly affected the constituents of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke: the decade of darkness of underfunding our military, which we witnessed every day at Garrison Petawawa, and the neglect of Canada's research assets at our world-class nuclear research facility in Chalk River.

I am appreciative of the employees at Chalk River who responded positively to my call to create a grassroots bottom-up effort to provide a new vision for Canada's nuclear industry. The CREATE committee issued a report that I had the privilege of personally presenting to guide our deliberations to support the 50,000 workers in Ontario who work in Canada's nuclear industry.

As thoughtful Canadians who are informed about the environment understand, nuclear plays an important role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions as being a reliable economic way to generate electricity without producing greenhouse gas emissions. Today, nuclear accounts for 62% of the electricity generated in the province of Ontario. Nuclear is the only bright spot in an another otherwise failing and corrupt Ontario energy policy.

The fear among many of my constituents was that with a Liberal budget Canada's nuclear industry would return to the decade of darkness they experienced under Paul Martin. AECL operated for years without a budget from the government.

It is publicly known that a number of the political refugees from the corrupt government of Kathleen Wynne in Toronto have fled to hide in government offices in Ottawa. These include environmental extremists like the Prime Minister's principal secretary, who played the same role for Dalton McGuinty to earn the nickname of Rasputin from the Ottawa press as an author of the Green Energy Act. Their left-wing, ideological policy has gutted the manufacturing sector in Ontario with the highest electricity prices in North America. The carbon tax on electricity is called a delivery charge on hydro customers' bill statements in Ontario.

Environmental extremists like the principal secretary choose to deny science-based facts about clean, greenhouse-gas free nuclear-generated electricity. The European experience has shown massive job losses for every so-called green job with no tangible benefit to the environment. Still the Liberals push their extreme left-wing agenda on unsuspecting Canadians.

What was surprising about the April 11, 2016, $800-million announcement was that it was not in the federal budget. There was silence from the Minister of Finance on budget day. It was not in the main estimates. Canadians learned about the $800 million in a planted question by a government member, which was asked in a parliamentary committee. What is that all about?

Canadians can only assume that the $800 million over five years is accounted for in the government infrastructure line of public spending. I was told it was an accounting trick, sort of like when one cuts $3.7 billion in military capital spending and pretends it is not a cut. The fact is that Canadians do not know.

This goes back to the problem of transparency, which has become a real and growing problem with the government. According to the former non-partisan parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page, the budget is heavy on spending programs for government consumption and lacking in details, including when the federal budget would return to balance, which is how the Conservative government left the nation's finances. “It could be better in transparency. It’s kind of a budget without a fiscal plan”, according to Page. “I think there’s going to be pressure to raise taxes with this kind of spending in the budget”, he said.

The budget office went on to observe this was the least transparent budget, certainly when compared to Conservative budgets or even the previous Paul Martin budgets. As an example of that lack of transparency, the bank recapitalization bail-in scheme being proposed on page 223 of the federal budget should have seniors worried. It would allow the government to convert a bank's eligible long-term debt into common shares in order to recapitalize the bank. In addition to being concerned about bank deposits, any retirement savings that included bank shares would be exposed also.

Canadian chartered banks would be expected to lend some of the money required to cover the projected $30-billion annual deficits announced in the March 22 federal budget. In addition to financing the federal spending spree, Canada's banks are holding billions of dollars of debts from the oil sands. The depressed price of oil has already caused tens of thousands of jobs to be lost. Internationally, there are at least five countries teetering on insolvency due to low oil prices.

There is a lack of confidence that started the day after the federal election. According to Statistics Canada, since the 2015 federal election, billions of dollars have been transferred out of the country by Canadian investors, the largest recorded flight of capital since records began to be kept. Maybe we will find some of that money in Panama or on one of the Caribbean islands so favoured by the Liberal inner circle. It would appear well-connected insiders got all their cash out in time.

Canada, in contrast with other countries that have seen central banks become net buyers of gold since 2010, has sold off all its official gold holdings. The Bank of Canada, on February 23, 2016, showed gold reserves at zero. Canada now stands as the only G7 nation that does not hold at least 100 tonnes of gold in its official reserves. Out of 188 member countries of the International Monetary Fund, 100 countries hold gold as part of their monetary assets. Canada is now among the 88 countries that have no gold, countries such as Angola, Belize, and Tonga.

As the member of Parliament for Garrison Petawawa, I share the pride we all feel when we see our soldiers in action. Our women and men in uniform put their lives on the line every day for us. We need to ensure that members of the Canadian Armed Forces have the tools, training, and equipment they need whenever we require them to go into harm's way. It is therefore very disturbing to see the Liberal government reallocating, postponing, or cutting $3.7 billion over the next five years for necessary equipment procurement.

Canadians remember what happened the last time a Liberal government interfered in equipment acquisition processes. In Afghanistan, the casualties would have been lower had the EH-101 contract not been cancelled. We do not know what tomorrow will bring. It is a dangerous world. We need to be prepared. Large-scale purchases are not a simple process. We need to ensure funding is available, not taken away. Is Canada preparing for financial disaster? Are savings protected? Those are the questions being asked of this first budget since the last federal election.

Not since the disastrous budget of former finance minister Allan J. MacEachen, when five-year mortgage rates spiked to over 21%, have Canadians been more apprehensive about their own personal financial security. It has to be a Canadian record for breaking campaign promises. The first budget deficit is not $10 billion each of the first three years of the mandate, as promised; it has jumped to $30 billion each of the first three years, with no plan to get out of debt.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I get started, I want to acknowledge my mother since it was Mother's Day yesterday and I was not able to join her. I also want to acknowledge all the mothers in Fort McMurray and Alberta who could not be with their families yesterday. We need to honour them.

As the NDP spokesperson for small business and tourism, it gives me great pleasure to bring our voice and concerns about Bill C-15. Primarily, I will focus on the Liberal promise to reduce taxes for small business from 11% to 9%, and to help those who are not in the middle class to join the middle class.

Before I talk about the tax for small business, I want to touch a little on incorporate taxes in Canada, and the history of that.

Consecutive Liberal and Conservative governments have been reducing taxes over the last few decades. We have seen corporate taxes go from 28% in the late 1990s and 2000s to 15% today, which is a significant tax decrease. During that time, it has shifted the tax burden to the people. It is a reckless way to promote a healthy economy, and it is a failed experiment. It failed in Japan and Hong Kong, and it has resulted in what I believe is an unfairness in delivering taxes.

The result has created huge inequality in our society. The gulf between the wealthy and the majority is growing faster and more widely in Canada than in any other developed nation. The richest 100 Canadians now hold as much wealth as the bottom 10 million combined. However, when we look at small business taxes in comparison, they have remained at about 11% since the 1980s. While Canada's largest corporations have had record profits, they have a lot of dead money. We talk about dead money that is leaving our communities, sitting, and not circulating in our economy.

Recently, over the last few days, while we have been debating the bill, and on Friday notably, there was a lot of Liberal rhetoric about small business. The Liberals painted small business as tax cheats. They talked about small business as being bad fiscal money managers. However, these are the volunteers in our community. These are the people who donate to our local charities. They are the people who serve on our boards. They are the cultural innovators of our communities in Canada. Therefore, it is really disappointing to hear this rhetoric from a government that went across Canada and promised a small business tax break from 11% to 9%.

This proposal was put forward by the NDP in the last parliament, which the Conservatives supported and on which the Liberals ran. All parties ran on a platform to help small business, and this is a group of individual businesses and a business community that are the job creators in our country. They are the economic drivers of our country, and the government has failed them. Promises have be made for decades and we have constantly failed them. As a result, there is a lot of mistrust with small business.

This is a very important time. This is an opportunity for Ottawa to create trust with small business, to create that intimate relationship with it. Small business people are at the front line of our communities. They know when the economy is changing quicker than any other business group in our community.

I will link back to my experience as a previous executive director of a very successful chamber of commerce and as a business owner. I remember in 2008 when the greatest economic downturn since the 1930s happened in our country. There was a huge bailout for Canada's largest corporations, but small business people were left behind. They were left with no bailout and no help from the federal government. They felt betrayed. The distrust with Ottawa was apparent.

I was picked up by a taxi driver the other day and he brought up his story about how he had a car dealership. As he ran his business, he watched all these corporations being bailed out while he struggled to make ends meet. Finally, just a year ago, he lost his business as a result of the recession. He was hanging in there, trying to get behind the big mess that was created, and the government did nothing to help him. He felt no one in Ottawa, in the House, was standing up for him. We had failed to deliver promises to small business, and we are doing it again.

The cost of not delivering this tax break to small business, as we know from the parliamentary budget officer's report, is $2.2 billion over the next four years. On average, that is approximately $3,529 per small business. People were counting on this. I talked a little earlier about how 78% of all new jobs were created by small business. Medium-size businesses create 12.5% of all new jobs, while big business creates less than 10%.

When we talk about their role in economic development, small business plays a key role. We really need to start talking about what kind of economy we want. We want local ownership, we want local jobs, and we want to keep money in our communities.

There's an organization in British Columbia called LOCO BC. It does some great work. It has talked about money recirculating in the communities. It did some research and found that if $100 was spent at a business in the local community, $46 would be recycled in the community versus $18 at a multinational corporation.

We talk about economic development and doing it differently. If we invest the $2.2 billion that were promised for small business, that money will circulate 2.6 times, rather than what is spent on giving tax breaks to multinational corporations. This is an opportunity.

Instead the government has chosen to do the reverse. It told small business that it would get a tax break, then failed to deliver on that promise. This, instead of plugging the economic leakage in every riding across the country, and really keeping money in our communities.

Many small business owners were counting on that tax break. They were relying on it to buy new equipment so they could grow, maybe even give someone a raise in their. This is an opportunity right now for us to build trust with small business people, show them that Ottawa is listening, and start tackling inequality.

We keep hearing about the middle class, helping to grow the middle class, helping those who are not in the middle class to join the middle class. We saw in Bill C-2 that anyone earning less than $45,000 would get nothing. We know that a lot of small business people do not earn $45,000 a year. While we talk about helping those to join the middle class, it is not being delivered by the Liberal government.

I read a quote from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, from the vice-president for B.C. and Alberta. He calls the budget about as close as it can come to a betrayal as is humanly possible. He said that the Canadian Federation of Independent Business was hoping and expecting to see the tax cut, and the fact that the government had put it on hold was extremely disappointing.

This is, again, a tax break that was promised, door to door, city to city, community by community across the country. The government is failing to deliver on this promise, but it is clear that it is doing what Liberal Parties have done in the past. It is about big business and about protecting CEO stock options instead of taking care of the people who have built our communities.

Are the government members in the House willing to go home and ask their small business owners if they are okay that the government is not going to deliver the tax cut promised, 11% to 9%? I would like them to ask them how they feel about that broken promise.

In survey after survey, the number one thing small businesses have asked for is fairness in tax breaks, so they can get the same fairness that big corporations have been getting for decades.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I recall some of the speeches that our colleague Jack Harris used to make in this place about employment insurance, which was an issue of grave concern to many in Newfoundland and right across the country.

One of the fundamental flaws with the way the program had been tweaked, ripped off, or stolen from over the years was that the federal government could raid the fund anytime it wanted, and previous governments did, to the tune of more than $50 billion. The federal government took money that one could easily argue never belonged to it in the first place. The EI fund is paid into by workers, with employers contributing as well. It is insurance for individuals who lose their jobs. There are some proposed changes to employment insurance in Bill C-15 but not that fundamental change, not that change that says that the fund can no longer be ripped off by a federal government. The government is always dipping its hand into the EI jar and taking but rarely ever giving, and this is a constant concern for the seasonal fishery on the west coast and other groups.

Would my colleague advocate for such a change to prevent that from happening ever again in the future? Why is it not in Bill C-15?

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to stand and support this fiscal plan that would strengthen the middle class, help the most vulnerable seniors, and build stronger communities to meet their future demands and opportunities.

I want to speak for a moment about my riding and my home province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I want to thank my family, friends, and supporters who gave me this wonderful opportunity to represent them in this prestigious House and in the great riding of Avalon. I am thankful and remain humble to represent the residents in the riding of Avalon. I am so lucky to represent very diverse communities in my riding, which have diverse and unique backgrounds and economies. I am proud to represent my home town of Conception Bay South, the largest town in the province, and the town of Paradise, the fastest growing community in Atlantic Canada.

I also have the pleasure to represent smaller rural communities that have populations of less than 100, like Patrick's Cove, St. Shotts, and Aquaforte, and larger rural communities like Bay Roberts, Harbour Grace, and Carbonear. Many of these communities depend on the fishing industry, tourism, and small and medium-sized businesses.

I also have the relatively new Vale Long Harbour processing plant, which began operations in 2014 and employs about 475 people at peak production. The plant and the Voisey's Bay mine and concentrator are an integrated operation. Nickel concentrate from Voisey's Bay will be shipped to Long Harbour to be processed into finished nickel and associated copper and cobalt products.

Just recently, I distributed a Newfoundland and Labrador tourism guide to all members of the House, and the amount of feedback from my colleagues has been remarkable; some looking for an extra copy for friends, and others expressing an interest to visit soon. We are proud of our heritage, proud of our people, and proud of our tourism showcase.

As a result of the well-known decrease in the oil and gas markets, Newfoundland and Labrador is in the middle of significant financial challenges, and no doubt residents will be negatively impacted. We can argue that it is from years of mismanagement and overspending, or that the current fiscal restraints go too far for low-income families. No matter what, the situation is unprecedented and all my federal colleagues from the province are attentive to the immediate needs. I want to especially thank the regional minister for her help and ongoing co-operation on this very important matter.

As a former municipal mayor, I understand the importance of and need for community infrastructure, improved and new infrastructure that is affordable to communities. That is why I am delighted that this government's infrastructure plan proposes to provide $11.9 billion over five years starting right away. Budget 2016 would put this plan into action with an immediate down payment for the plan, including $3.4 billion over three years to upgrade and improve public transit systems across Canada; $5 billion over five years for investments in water, waste water, and green infrastructure projects across Canada; and $3.4 billion over five years for social infrastructure including affordable housing, early learning and child care, cultural and recreational infrastructure, and community health care facilities.

This government is also taking action to ensure that Canadians benefit from the better services that modern, efficient, and sustainable federal infrastructure can provide. Budget 2016 proposes to provide $3.4 billion over the next five years on a cash basis to maintain and upgrade federal infrastructure assets in ridings like mine, including such things as national parks and small-craft harbours.

In addition to the new funding announced in budget 2016, the government would support the infrastructure priorities of communities across Canada. The government would continue to make available approximately $3 billion each year in dedicated funding for municipal infrastructure projects through the gas tax fund and the incremental goods and services tax rebate for municipalities.

As a former mayor, I know how important it is for our government to work with provincial, territorial, and municipal partners. We are committed to get projects under way by accelerating spending from the $9 billion available under the new building Canada fund's provincial-territorial infrastructure component.

I am very happy to say that we are working co-operatively with Newfoundland and Labrador to ensure it is able to maximize its infrastructure investments. The Minister of Infrastructure and Communities has listened and has taken action. We are pleased with the improvements to the 2014 new building Canada fund, which provide provinces and territories greater flexibility to commit all remain funding within the next two years.

The minister heard from municipal leaders about concerns with how the previous government designed the new building Canada fund. He listened and is now committed to ensuring the programs work for Canadians and has made important changes.

Under the provincial-territorial infrastructure component, we have modified the highways and roads category to eliminate the small communities fund minimum traffic volume thresholds in order to reflect varying needs in provinces and communities across Canada.

In addition, we have added five new categories: tourism, culture, recreation, passenger ferry services infrastructure, and civic assets and municipal buildings. Budget 2016 also announced funding for local governments to support stronger stewardship through asset management planning activities and climate change resilience investments.

The following two programs would be managed by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to provide funding for capacity-building directly to municipalities: $50 million to increase municipal capacity for asset management, including funding to develop and implement infrastructure asset management planning practices and support more reliable and comprehensive data collection on infrastructure assets; and $75 million to support enhanced municipal planning for climate change resilience, including funding to support municipal projects to identify and implement greenhouse gas reduction opportunities, assess local climate risks, and integrate climate change impacts into asset management planning practices.

I am very proud of our investment in community infrastructure, but I am equally proud of our investment in improving the well-being of the middle class. As we have always known, a strong economy starts with a strong middle class. Our constituents understand this, and I am so pleased this government does as well. That is why building an economy that works for middle-class Canadians and their families continues to be the government's top priority.

I am delighted with our investment in the Canada child benefit. This is a new benefit that would be paid monthly to eligible families. This initiative would see nine out of 10 families receiving more under the Canada child benefit than under the current system of child benefits.

Overall, about 3.5 million families would be receiving the Canada child benefit. These families would have more money to help with the high cost of raising their children, by replacing the current complicated system. The Canada child benefit would be simpler, tax-free, better targeted to those who need it most, and much more generous. This tremendous initiative would see 300,000 fewer children living in poverty compared with 2014-15 numbers. Most importantly, the Canada child benefit would continue to support poverty reduction in future years.

Six months ago, our government was elected by Canadians to bring change for our youth, the middle class, and vulnerable seniors. Canadians want a change in openness and accountability, and they want a government that will listen and care. I am pleased that Bill C-15 contains key initiatives and benefits that further our commitment to Canadians, commitments that would further grow the middle class and help strengthen our economy.

It has been my pleasure to speak on Bill C-15 and stand in support of all the positive initiatives that it contains today.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I first want to remember all those who have been impacted by the fires in Fort McMurray. We have many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians living and working in Alberta, and our thoughts and prayers are with them all.

I welcome the opportunity the speak on budget 2016, and more specifically, Bill C-15, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first, on behalf of my constituents in Richmond Centre, I wish to send our thoughts and prayers to those affected by the wildfires in Fort McMurray and the surrounding area. We are grateful to the firefighters and first responders who are tirelessly working together to control the fire and ensure the safety of those involved. The residents of Richmond Centre stand behind them.

Today, I rise to discuss Bill C-15, the budget implementation act. I wish to articulate my concerns with the bill. There are many troubling aspects of the bill, but I will be focusing on two primary ones. First, I will discuss the small business and employment provisions and changes outlined in the budget. Second, I will comment on the changes to small business hiring. Both of these areas are of great importance to me and my riding of Richmond Centre.

This being my eighth year serving as an MP, I have had the opportunity to work alongside our previous Conservative government and witness strong fiscal responsibility. Not only were we able to leave a surplus at the end of our term, but the debt-to-GDP ratio was lower than it had been when we took office. In addition, during the economic downturn and global recession, our Conservative government created 1.2 million net new jobs. However, such success is quickly being squandered by the new Liberal government.

Before my work in politics, I spent many years as a small business owner. I have experienced first-hand the hard work and dedication required of individuals to operate a small business.

Over 10 years ago, I worked with other business leaders to develop the Women's Enterprise Society of British Columbia, which has been supporting women entrepreneurs. I also founded the Ethno Business Council to encourage and engage business from various cultural groups.

Over the years, I have been hearing the same message: small and medium-sized businesses need lower taxes and support from the government.

Since small business is close to my heart, members can understand why the budget is so concerning for me. The Liberal government has decided to break its promise to continue the outlined small business tax cuts. This broken promise will cost the small business sector $2.2 billion over the next four years. What this broken promise demonstrates is that the Liberal government believes our small business owners should be the ones to pay for its deficits, which is simply unacceptable.

Under this new budget and the proposed tax increases, the top tax bracket for over half of our provinces will be more than 50% of an individual's income. It is tax increases like this which will be punishing some of the most productive workers in our society.

What is worse is that the Liberals are accusing small business owners of manipulating the system to avoid paying higher taxes. This could not be further from the truth.

Two-thirds of small and medium-sized businesses fall directly into the middle class. In fact, there are nearly four times as many owners earning less than $40,000 than those earning more than $250,000.

By eliminating the proposed tax cuts, the Liberals are directly targeting our middle class and making its financial situation more difficult.

Over the past few months, I have met with numerous organizations and individuals who represent small business owners from across the nation. Every time I hear the same concern, that small business owners are being neglected by the government. The Liberals' abandoned promise of lowering the small business tax rate is affecting all small businesses. What is more, the government is increasing red tape and making it more difficult for owners to qualify for the small business tax rate. They claim these changes are to close loopholes, but in fact, the changes are affecting all kinds of small businesses, even though their revenues are well below the $500,000 cap.

Dan Kelly, president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, summed up the budget well. I will quote from a news release:

“Small business owners across the country are deeply troubled by the ballooning deficit. What was proposed to Canadians as a short-term $10 billion deficit plan to invest in critical infrastructure is now $29 billion with no plan to get back to balance,” Kelly said. Most of the deficit is to cover a massive 7.6 per cent increase in program spending, which will do next to nothing to grow the economy. “Small business owners know that today’s deficits are tomorrow’s taxes,” added Kelly.

The budget and Bill C-15 have one clear loser, and that is our small businesses. As a result, I will be supporting the motion put forward by our colleague from Nepean—Carleton to strike clause 34 from Bill C-15 altogether. I encourage all members of the House to support the motion as well.

Nowhere in Bill C-15 do we see a commitment to renew the small business job credit next year. In fact, what we see instead is another broken promise to reduce employment insurance rates to $1.52. The new El spending would put pressure on the premiums paid by both employers and employees and would cost $2.4 billion over two years. We should be working to ease the premiums and hiring costs placed on employers rather than making it more difficult for them to hire workers. Once again, our small businesses are bearing the worst of all the Liberal government's irresponsible spending.

In conclusion, one thing is clear throughout budget 2016: the Liberals have demonstrated their utter disregard for responsible fiscal management and they have no plan to repay their extreme deficits. They have chosen to turn their backs on the job creators, our small businesses. The Liberals do not understand that borrowed money needs to be paid back, and instead of taking that responsibility upon themselves, they are placing it on our children and grandchildren.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of sadness that I rise in the House today. I speak for the people of London, Ontario, when I tell the people of Fort McMurray that we are thinking of them and that our prayers are with them. We in London and Canadians across the country are also thinking of any members opposite, specifically those members who represent Alberta ridings, who have friends and families who might be impacted.

Today I am pleased to rise in support of Bill C-15. Simply put, budget 2016 is a significant step in the right direction.

During the election our party promised to grow the middle class by working hard to deliver much-needed help immediately, instead of several years down the road. Canadians asked for assistance now in order to make life a bit easier, and that is exactly what the budget is delivering.

Different plans were put forward by the other parties during the past election campaign, plans that would have seen balanced budgets at all costs. These plans would have resulted in cuts instead of investments, stagnation instead of growth. Ultimately the proposals of the other parties would have left the middle class and those working hard to join the middle class struggling.

The results of October's election showed the idea of balanced budgets at all costs was clearly not supported by Canadians. Instead, Canadians voted for investment, growth, revitalization of the Canadian economy, and help for today instead of tomorrow.

Since being elected this past October, the government has implemented a great deal of positive change that will make the lives of everyday Canadians that much better. However, the program introduced in budget 2016 that I am most proud of is the Canada child benefit.

In my community of London North Centre, numerous constituents have told me that it is becoming harder to make ends meet. With prices increasing on a wide variety of everyday items and wages not keeping up, it is now more difficult to afford the extras in life. Whether it is sending their children to camp, affording a new pair of shoes for their son or daughter, or enrolling their children in organized sports, there is simply not enough money left at the end of the month to make these important purchases. The Canada child benefit would work to rectify this problem.

The benefit is an exciting change for several reasons. First, families who are eligible would receive a maximum annual benefit of up to $6,400 per child under the age of six and up to $5,400 per child aged six through seventeen. Payments moreover will happen monthly and start this July. Families who are eligible for this new program will see an average increase to their current child benefits of almost $2,300 per year.

The Canada child benefit would ensure that nine out of 10 families would receive more money in their pockets than under the current system. This innovative and forward-thinking benefit would assist approximately 3.5 million families. Moreover, the benefit, and I emphasize this, would not be taxable.

Most importantly, the Canada child benefit would ensure that in 2016-17 approximately 300,000 fewer children would be living in poverty compared to 2014-15. In the London and surrounding area that would equate to approximately 9,000 fewer children living in poverty. These numbers will only continue to decline in the years to come thanks to benefits like this.

The path to a strong economy is to have a robust and vibrant middle class. By introducing the innovative, bold, and desperately needed Canada child benefit, the government will ensure that the middle class and those families working hard to join the middle class would have more money in their pockets. With that extra money these Canadians would have the opportunity to save, invest, and grow the economy. Canadians would be able to look forward to a better standard of living, one that will allow their children more opportunities for success. As previously stated, I am extremely excited about this benefit. My constituents have told me this will make an immediate difference in their lives, and I am here to fight for those constituents each and every day.

Another area identified in the budget that would have a significant impact on my community of London North Centre is support for seniors. The government has committed to increasing the guaranteed income supplement top-up by up to $947 per year. This change would help 900,000 of the most vulnerable seniors. Four in five seniors in Canada live on low incomes and live alone.

The government will also help seniors by repealing section 2.2 of the Old Age Security Act, which increases the age of eligibility to receive this benefit.

We are also leaving in place pension income splitting. There has been much confusion surrounding this topic in my community. However, the government is committed to helping seniors with their finances. We know that they have worked hard their entire lives, and the government has a responsibility to ensure that they are not placed into a vulnerable financial situation. We are therefore aiming to ensure that during their retirement years Canadian seniors are given the sense of security, dignity, and comfort they deserve.

I am proud to have a strong contingent of Canadian veterans in London North Centre. Since being elected this past October, I have met with many of them at various events throughout the city and at meetings in my office. The amount of respect I have for their courage, patriotism, and sacrifice cannot be properly expressed in words. The freedom we enjoy today to have debates such as this in the House of Commons is because of the incredible sacrifices made by our veterans. As such, the government has a sacred obligation to ensure that these individuals have access to the programs and services they require. We owe them our sincere gratitude and respect. We must work to ensure that there is a relationship built on trust and collaboration.

With that in mind, the government will make changes to the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act. These changes have been initiated due to concerns expressed by the government, the veterans ombudsman, Canadian Armed Forces members, veterans, and other stakeholders. It has been indicated that veterans who have been seriously disabled are not guaranteed financial security with the benefits currently in place. Therefore, those Canadian Armed Forces members and veterans who have severe and permanent service-related disabilities will see an increase to their benefits. This is a change that I think we can all be proud of in the House and beyond.

Before being elected to represent the community of London North Centre, I taught at King's University College at Western University. During that time, I watched the number of students who were struggling to make ends meet rise each year. I instructed students who were extremely intelligent, compassionate, and driven young people. However, they were graduating university with a crushing amount of student debt. These students worried about how they would pay back the money they owed, and it was becoming increasingly difficult to find meaningful work. This type of stress and burden is not what we want for our younger generation who have just finished post-secondary education and are looking to make important contributions to the workforce.

With that in mind, I am pleased that budget 2016 will help students from low and middle-income families by making post-secondary education more affordable. In addition, the government will establish a system that makes it fairer and easier for students to repay their debt. I am pleased to see that students will not have to make any repayment on their Canada student loans until they are making at least $25,000 per year.

However, the help for students will not stop there. This budget has also made investments to ensure that young Canadians can earn extra income, gain experience, and find quality jobs upon graduation. These changes have been lobbied for by Canadian student advocate groups for many years. I have met with these student advocates, and I am glad to see these changes coming to fruition within this budget. Help with student debt, providing access to funds to help with the rising costs of post-secondary education, and providing more opportunities for employment while in school and following graduation are measures we can all be proud of. The budget addresses these requests.

Finally, I have received a great deal of correspondence in my office asking that necessary steps be taken by the government to ensure more tax fairness in Canada. Constituents have told me that they are more than willing to pay their taxes and follow the rules. However, they want to ensure that all Canadians pay their fair share. They currently feel as though there are two different sets of rules in place.

With that in mind, it is exciting to see budget 2016 taking significant steps to ensure tax integrity and tax fairness for all Canadians.

I look forward to the debate on the budget to follow.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government campaigned on a promise to help the middle class, and now speaks about helping the group that is hoping to be part of the middle class.

In my riding of North Island—Powell River, there are a lot of challenges in this new economy, which is without as much resource development as we have seen historically. Everyone agrees that the Liberals' so-called middle-class tax cut will benefit people earning more than $200,000 a year the most. There are six out of ten Canadians who will get nothing from this plan.

Bill C-15 will not offer anything to help those who need it the most, like the people in my riding who are working hard every day.

Can the member explain how the Liberals can defend these policies?

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about the budget implementation act.

Before I do so, I would really like to express my sympathies to the people of Alberta who are going through a terrible natural tragedy with the fire at Fort McMurray. I would also like to express my thanks to the Government of Alberta and our government here, which are extending help, as well as Canadians who are pitching in in ways we have never seen before to help people who have been dislocated and affected by this fire. Again, thanks to all involved and may it end quickly.

I stand today to speak about the Bill C-15, the budget implementation act. I would like to focus on my role here in the House, assigned by my caucus, which is to look after the issues of science.

There is not a lot of science in the bill, I must say. Bill C-15 clarifies funding and appointment processes for the Foundation for Sustainable Development Technology. There is some reference to science, and of course there is some funding and measures in the main budget when it comes to science, but there remains a big gap to fill when it comes to science in the act.

Although this is an omnibus bill and it does have many measures, I think that if the government is going to make a bill this size, perhaps it should have included a few more measures about science. In fact, I have to say that science is not even mentioned once in Bill C-15, which is surprising to me, since it is a 179-page omnibus bill, amending over 30 separate statutes and referring to nine different ministries.

Again, the government claims that science is front and centre in its agenda, yet it has not really said much about it in this implementation act, where one would think we would see it.

There are some positive things that the government has been doing in regard to science. I would like to touch on those before I move to things that I think it should do.

First, the government has shown some positive inclinations in terms of science so far in its mandate. There has been a substantive reinvestment in science-based departments. We see that in the budget, although, again, there is no mention specifically of how this money should be used in the implementation act.

Important stakeholders, like the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, have said that many years of intense cuts under the previous government were so far-reaching that even more investment is needed to fully restore and position Canada as a global leader in science and research.

I did send a letter to the minister in charge of this file requesting that more funding be included in the budget for science. There was some extra funding included, but I do think that a lot more is needed when it comes to moving us ahead as a global leader, especially for the tri-councils, SSHRC, NSERC, and CIHR.

In fact, when we look at our investment in research and development, which is a good indicator of how a country is doing, our competitor countries, like the United States and most European countries, set a target of 3% of GDP to be invested in research and development. Here, our investment in R and D is around 1.5%, which is really pitiful, and dropping.

In the past, in the 1990s, we used to spend 2% of GDP on research and development, but now it has dropped to 1.5%. The government has not set a target in regard to GERD investment, which I think would have been a good idea. For example, it could have taken place in the bill, where at least we would have had a discussion of targets for investment in research and development.

Let us talk about the National Research Council. Again, there is a lot of speculation about what is happening with the National Research Council in Canada, one of our most well-known scientific institutions. It is a $1-billion institution. We have had recent news in the media about the National Research Council, but again, nothing in the bill.

If the government is going to put forward an omnibus bill and it is going to pretend to be a champion for science, then this would have been a very good place to put this.

After being nearly dismantled by the Conservatives, I am disheartened to see that chaos still continues at the NRC. Even in this large bill, there is no pathway forward for this major institution. I am disappointed that this is not included in the bill.

The National Research Council president is on leave with no explanation, and morale continues to be low. I have talked to scientists who are either within the NRC or have left recently. They say that there has been a lot of confusion in the National Research Council and this is not going to help at all. Again, what I was hoping to see in the budget implementation act was more specific measures when it came to the National Research Council, but there is nothing at all.

What worries me is that we are now past six months into the Liberal government's mandate. We were promised 100 days of action when a lot of things would happen, but there really has been no mention of our most important scientific institution in Canada, which is the National Research Council. We owe our scientists much more than that and if we are going to send a positive signal to the world, the government has to show them that science is foremost in its mind, but again, there is nothing in the bill about that.

Regarding muzzling, there was a lot of debate in the House in 2011. Being charged with the science file for the NDP, as the official opposition, I spoke about muzzling about 100 times in the House. During the election campaign, the Liberals spoke a lot about unmuzzling scientists. However, there has been no concrete change in policy in science-based departments, and it could have been in the budget implementation act.

I do not think scientists will be fully unmuzzled until there is something in writing, either a policy directive within a department or perhaps something more broad that the government puts into the public service, which could easily be fitted into an budget implementation act to accompany some of the extra funding that the government has put in place for science. However, there is nothing.

Therefore, until there is an actual change in policy, I do not think the government has really acted on its pledge to unmuzzle scientists. It says it has unmuzzled scientists, but there has been no action and nothing in writing to say that this will not happen again in the future.

Another thing I was hoping to see in the budget implementation act that I do not see is the promise to establish a new chief science officer. There is no talk about funding for this new position. There are no new rules in place. My suggestion for the last five years has been that we have a legislated parliamentary science officer who would be an independent officer for science in Parliament and would be like an auditor general for science. In order to do that, it would have to be legislated, and a bill such as this would be a great place for that kind of legislation, but again, there is nothing from the government.

We hear that it may appoint somebody, but this is not an improvement on what we have had in the past. It is just the same old thing. Without any new measures to unmuzzle scientists, to make sure they can speak freely, and nothing about legislating a science officer, it does not seem like the Liberal government is taking science seriously, and I am disappointed to see that.

In terms of science, like I said, it is not mentioned once in the budget implementation act. From what we heard during the election campaign, we always kind of thought that science was a sub-theme in the campaign. There were promises of unmuzzling, there were promises of a new science officer, there were promises that the National Research Council would be revamped, there were promises for funding, and this was the place to do it. The bill was the place for the Liberal government to say that it was not just talk during the election campaign and it would actually put something in writing. We have not seen that.

We heard a lot in the throne speech and there were some extra funds put in the budget, which I think scientists are grateful for, but in terms of long-term protections that would come through my idea of a parliamentary science officer or a directive issued by the government for protecting not just the voices of natural scientists but of social scientists, there was nothing.

I am quite disappointed. There is a lot of stuff shovelled into this omnibus bill, but not the things I was looking for. Perhaps the government can revisit that as we debate this. I look forward to hearing Liberal members' thoughts as to how we can move forward.

The House resumed from May 6 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.

Infrastructure

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

Mr. Speaker, the only reference to PPP Canada in Bill C-15 states that the Minister of Infrastructure can dispose or sell off assets and shares of PPP Canada. Yet when I was in the House last week and asked whether the minister plans to sell off PPP Canada, he refused to answer the question.

Therefore, I will ask it again. Will the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities tell the House whether the Liberals are planning to sell off this crown corporation, yes or no?

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, a very important day is being celebrated this Sunday, Mother's Day. I want to take this opportunity to wish a happy Mother's Day to all mothers in the world, but especially my mother, my mother-in-law, and my wife for our two beautiful daughters.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1. and its important role in helping revitalize the economy and provide greater support to middle-class Canadians.

This bill, Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1., enables us to take a very important step towards ensuring the long-term prosperity of Canadians, and our government is proud to sponsor it.

With budget 2016, the Government of Canada is taking an essential step towards growing the middle class and revitalizing the Canadian economy.

Budget 2016 puts people first and provides Canadians the help they need now, not 10 years from now.

The budget reflects a new approach for the government, an approach that provides immediate help to those who need it most and clears the way for the kind of growth that all Canadians will benefit from.

Budget 2016 is an ambitious long-term plan to reinforce the heart of the Canadian economy, namely the middle class. With this budget, the Government of Canada is investing for years and decades to come. We are investing for our children and our grandchildren so that they can inherit a more prosperous Canada, full of hope and optimism.

With smart investments and its focus on fairness, the government will ensure that the best is yet to come for Canada. Canada's best days are in front of us.

We introduced a new Canada child benefit in budget 2016. This benefit will help parents better support what is most precious to them, their children. The Canada child benefit is a simpler, more generous tax-free benefit for Canadians. It is also better targeted than current benefits to those who need it most. It will help hundreds of thousands of children living in poverty.

With the passage of this bill, families with children under 18 will receive a maximum annual benefit of up to $6,400 per child under the age of six, and up to $5,400 per child aged six through 17, beginning in July. Nine out of ten families will receive more money than they do now. This benefit will help parents with the high cost of raising their children.

If members support the budget implementation bill, they will be providing direct support to Canadian parents and will help them save for their children's futures. At the core of our plan is the idea that when you have an economy that works for the middle class, you have a country that works for everyone.

However, one factor that is just as important is Canadians' hopes for their later years. Our seniors have worked hard their whole lives. They started businesses, raised children, contributed to their communities, and paid their taxes.

The Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1. provides for significant new investments to support seniors in their retirement. Canada's retirement income system has been successful in reducing the incidence of poverty among Canadian seniors. However, some seniors continue to be at heightened risk of living in low income, particularly single seniors.

Our country's compassion should be judged by how we treat our most vulnerable. Therefore, it is very important that we help our seniors have a comfortable and dignified retirement.

This budget will help seniors have a comfortable and dignified retirement by making significant new investments to support these seniors in their retirement. The passage of this bill will cancel the provisions in the Old Age Security Act that increase the age of eligibility for old age security and guaranteed income supplement benefits from 65 to 67.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on her military service.

I think it is important to speak to members in this House about the specific measures in budget 2016 for veterans and how those measures will affect them. Nevertheless, before I address the more specific aspects of the budget, I want to note that my colleagues, the people of my riding of Beauport—Limoilou, and I all share concerns that the Liberal government is planning some exorbitant spending for this year and the years to come.

In light of Canada's current economic climate, the Liberal government's plan to run large deficits over many years is unjustified. Unfortunately, the government is essentially handing out money that has been borrowed instead of earned.

Furthermore, the government is breaking a number of its election promises, and we are just a few months in. This is surprising, since some of these promises were key planks in the Liberal platform. First, there was the promise to restrict deficit spending to a maximum of $10 billion, which has changed. I would remind members that the deficit spending was supposed to be used to invest in infrastructure, not to subsidize new recurring programs.

Then, the government promised to focus upcoming financial efforts on balancing the budget by the end of its term, which is no longer achievable. The other disappointment was the broken promise to lower the tax rate for small and medium-sized businesses, which create wealth for everyone.

I will set these concerns aside and get to the essence of my speech, which is the budget measures put forward to address the needs of our veterans.

I want to note that these measures were first presented separately from the federal 2016 budget, in Bill C-12, an act to amend the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts. This bill was introduced barely one month ago. I thought it was a good sign that the Liberals introduced this legislation, since there was no notion of partisanship on veterans' issues.

As a result, as the official opposition veterans' critic, I was planning to support Bill C-12 and vote in favour of it to help this government take positive action for our veterans, even though I felt that some amendments were necessary to fix certain technical issues.

This is also why I worked enthusiastically and passionately to urge my Conservative colleagues to do the same and vote in favour of Bill C-12, since, overall, it seemed that this bill would improve the well-being of our veterans.

Right now, though, that bill no longer exists. It is part of Bill C-15, the 2016 federal budget, an omnibus bill. As a result, since I will be opposing the 2016 federal budget for reasons of both content and form, and since the measures for veterans have been absorbed by that bill because of inappropriate partisanship, I will have to bear the burden of voting against those measures.

I would like to tell the veterans who are watching that my support for them is unwavering and that my vote against the budget in no way means that I am voting against measures that are good for them.

I will promise veterans this: raw, ruthless honesty that holds nothing back when necessary.

That is why I will be loud and clear today about which of these measures are acceptable to me and which ones are problematic and counterproductive.

No, the government’s approach to veterans’ issues is not perfect, and yes, it is my duty as the official opposition critic to identify major flaws.

Together, then, let us identify the measures put forward in the 2016 federal budget that will help veterans, measures that pertain to financial benefits in particular.

The budget proposes increasing the disability award, expanding access to higher grades of the permanent impairment allowance, and increasing the earnings loss benefit.

One observation immediately comes to mind regarding the political will and, in this case, the legislative will of the Liberal government to move forward with these improvements to allowances and benefits.

They are consistent with the approach that the Conservative Party of Canada had been taking since 2006, an approach that involves constantly improving the financial benefits that veterans are entitled to under the new veterans charter. The charter must be interpreted and amended through the lens of the living tree doctrine, which allows for changes in how our laws are worded and interpreted.

That is why, in recent years, in accordance with this philosophical approach, we in the Conservative Party brought forward various modifications and new measures with respect to this charter that have had a positive impact on veterans. Those measures include things like improvements to the permanent impairment allowance, the new retirement income security benefit, the new family caregiver relief benefit, and the new critical injury benefit.

Like us, the Liberals are adding benefits and allowances to the charter, in other words, increasing financial benefits here and there as the needs of our veterans evolve.

By all accounts, that is commendable. However, I think there are a few glaring problems arising from the Minister of Veterans Affairs's determination to proceed down this path. The improvements in budget 2016 do not address the urgent issues that individual veterans have brought to my attention.

As far as the disability award is concerned, the retroactive increase to the maximum payout draws on considerable financial resources, roughly $3.7 billion that could have been used more effectively. For example, that money could have been used to improve the assistance provided to family members of a veteran who is suffering, to enhance mental health services, and to implement a completely renewed approach to the transition from military life to civilian life and to the bureaucratic services provided to our veterans.

When it comes to these transition services, I very sincerely believe that we are currently at a crossroads regarding our veterans and the help we would like to give them.

Either we continue increasing the benefits, since that is the easiest thing to do, or we cut through the Gordian knot at the root of the problem that veterans are experiencing in their everyday lives. This is the next battle in their lives, the one they must wage in order to get help and an attentive ear at Veterans Affairs Canada, where they unfortunately face a systematically rigid and calculating bureaucracy.

The minister says he wants to help veterans, and that is a good thing. Therefore, he must get rid of the department's sometimes abusive bureaucracy once and for all, as it is characterized by a structure that too often dismisses veterans' requests and needs.

We must acknowledge one irrefutable fact: our veterans suffered in battle and they often return with problems that give rise to terrible mental health issues or physical conditions. These men and women in uniform not only made personal sacrifices. Above all, they dedicated their lives to serving Canada by defending our political principles, which from time to time vacillate even here in the House.

That is why those who are forced to leave the Canadian Armed Forces for medical reasons more often than not feel bitter and betrayed and as though they have lost their country's support for their commitment and ultimately for themselves.

The current veterans' movement includes a multitude of groups and claims often involving an increase in financial benefits.

I truly believe that these financial claims are motivated by injuries that go much deeper and require systemic help that goes far beyond any specific amount of money.

Veterans want respect from their own department, Veterans Affairs Canada. This department, which is the main source of assistance for our veterans in need, has to make major changes to its administrative approach and its established culture. The government needs to take real action on this, not just make announcements with no real meaning.

I believe that the Minister of Veterans Affairs needs to launch a comprehensive review of his department's administrative culture, including a review of staff conduct and of the regulations and structures that determine employees' everyday practices as well as the type and nature of services offered to veterans.

The minister needs to change the status quo. That is the real task he needs to undertake.

[Leona Alleslev, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement]

Mr. Speaker, our government has tabled its first budget, and as you have seen, we are following through on the commitments we have made to Canadians. The budget implementation act no. 1 is a critical step toward revitalizing the economy and to providing support to the middle class and creating the conditions for long-term growth.

We would do this by making significant investments in infrastructure, with over $60 billion over the next 10 years in public transit, green infrastructure, and social infrastructure. We would do this through the introduction of the Canada child benefit. We would do this by providing help to our most vulnerable seniors.

Canada is facing a difficult economic situation. We know that. We also know that Canada is coming off 10 years of weak economic growth, and we are taking steps to address that at the same time as we are creating opportunities for the middle class and for all Canadians, for jobs, for affordable living arrangements, and for new places to work and rehabilitative places to play. As we lay the foundation for long-term and sustained growth, we are also looking at the immediate needs of the country and its citizens, which our budget addresses.

As we have committed, we would be investing in three strategic areas: public transit, green infrastructure, and social infrastructure. Everyone in this room knows that there are significant benefits to infrastructure investments in the short, medium, and long term. Well-planned investments in infrastructure generate economic growth, create jobs, and leave a lasting legacy for Canadians. Infrastructure is the foundation that shapes our communities making them more liveable and sustainable, and providing the places where we want to live, work, and play.

Our infrastructure investments must be made strategically, collaboratively, and with a long-term vision. They need to focus on projects that are not only shovel-ready, but also shovel-worthy. All orders of government have a role to play in building strong communities and a strong country.

The Minister of Infrastructure and Communities worked collaboratively with government partners and indigenous communities, as well as stakeholder and municipal association partners. Thanks to their input and their work, we have an infrastructure plan that would support the long-term and short-term needs of the country. As we implement the short-term aspects of this plan, it would be through collaboration with these same partners that we would be successful at rehabilitating, recapitalizing, and renewing the infrastructure we have.

By focusing on repairing our existing infrastructure, we can fix what we have now instead of delaying and paying more to fix it later. These investments are critically important to improving the lives of middle-class Canadians. They would make it easier to get around our country, to find jobs, and to build a future. However, it is far from the only thing we would do to help the middle class.

The Canada child benefit, which I mentioned earlier, would be the most significant development in this country's social policy in a generation. It would be far more generous than the universal child care benefit it replaces, giving nine in 10 Canadian families more money in their pockets each month. On average, families would receive $2,300 more per year. That is more money to spend on sports programs, school supplies, music lessons, and trips to the museums. Unlike the universal child care benefit, our new Canada child benefit would be tax-free.

Our government believes strongly that Canadians should not have to pay taxes on benefits given to them by their government to help improve their children's lives. The CCB would also be simpler than the universal child care benefit. The previous government's hodgepodge of child care benefits was confusing, and that made it difficult to access for far too many families. Now families can look forward to a cheque in the mail each and every month.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the new Canada child benefit would be fairer than the program it replaces. Why? It is because, unlike the UCCB, the benefit is means-tested. It would deliver the maximum benefit to those who need it the most and be gradually reduced according to income. This means that the government would no longer be sending cheques to millionaires and instead would be able to provide more significant, much-needed relief to those who need it most, to help them as they work to build a better future for themselves and for their children.

A single mom with one child under the age of six and earning $30,000 a year will receive an annual benefit of $6,400 tax-free, while a family with two children, one six or older and one under six, earning approximately $90,000 will receive $5,600, or $2,500 more than they get today under the current system.

This is about more than just extra pocket money. It is about empowering middle-class families, boosting local economies and giving parents a little extra confidence when planning for the future.

Equally important, however, is how Canadians expect to spend their later years. Our seniors have worked their entire lives, started businesses, raised children, contributed to their communities, and paid their taxes. Bill C-15 makes significant new investments to support seniors in their retirement years.

Canada's retirement income system has generally been successful in reducing the incidence of poverty among Canadian seniors over time, but some seniors continue to be at a heightened risk of living on a low income, especially seniors who live alone.

Single seniors are nearly three times more likely to live in low income, and that seems like a particularly unfair set of circumstances. That is why today's legislation will increase the guaranteed income supplement top-up benefit by more than $947 annually for the most vulnerable single seniors, starting in July 2016. This will help support those seniors who are most at risk of experiencing financial difficulties. This enhancement more than doubles the current maximum top-up and will improve the financial security of about 900,000 single seniors across Canada.

Our government has an ambitious plan to support the middle class and those working hard to join it. Each and every member from this party is invested in seeing this agenda realized. With the introduction of budget 2016 and the budget implementation act, we are one step closer to fulfilling our promise to Canadians, but we will not stop there. This government will work each and every day to better the lives of Canadians. We will never stop and we will not be satisfied until each and every person in this country has a fair shot at success.

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in favour of budget 2016, and specifically Bill C-15.

At the outset, I want to let this House now how proud I am of this budget, and how proud I am to be part of a government that believes in Canada, believes in Canadians, and believes in restoring hope and rewarding hard work.

This government is taking on what the past government could not, which is giving Canadians relief where it is needed most and removing measures that provided little to no help to many Canadians.

Investment is desperately needed, and it is needed now. Canada has the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio of any G7 country, and interest rates are at historic lows. Now is the ideal time for Canada to invest in its future success.

The strategic and smart investments in budget 2016 will strengthen and expand the middle class, reduce inequality among Canadians, and what I think is especially important, position Canada for sustained economic growth for years to come.

There are five important points that I would like to make in the House today about Bill C-15. One is the elimination of the boutique tax credits. Second is the Canada child tax benefit, which will help more people, tax free. Third, I will talk a little about much-needed help for seniors. Fourth, I will talk about connecting people with their tax benefits more efficiently and, last but not least, support for veterans.

We speak a lot about fairness in this House: fairness in our marketplace, for our constituents, and fairness throughout this great country. However, in the past, this fairness was hindered by promises that were just an illusion for many Canadian families.

The past government created a series of boutique tax credits. These were many small, seemingly significant benefits that were designed to help Canadians, but frankly were simply smoke and mirrors. There were tax credits, like the children's fitness tax credit and the children's art tax credit, which appear at first glance to help all families. However, families quickly realized that they only provided a 15% tax credit on the first $500 for families who could already afford these activities. It did nothing for those families who could not afford the activities in the first place.

For many Canadian families, the reality is that after food, shelter, and all other necessities, little is left over to help their children become more involved in the community through extracurricular activities. This means that those who needed it most were unable to garner that support.

Bill C-15 is one of the first steps this government is taking to better distribute benefits and programs more fairly to those who need it the most. That means removing the boutique tax credits and ensuring that support does go to those who need it, the low and medium-income families of Canada.

I think we can all agree that it is essential that Canada invest in its children. This government is also working hard to distribute money to those who need it most through the new Canada child benefit.

Canada's existing child benefit system is complicated, and it is not tax free nor income tested. The system set forth by the previous government is flawed and ultimately inadequate in meeting the demands of so many Canadian families. Once again, it does not target those who need it the most.

Our government will focus on giving Canadian families more money to help with the high cost of raising their children by replacing the current complicated system with the new CCB. This new system will provide a maximum annual benefit of up to $6,400 per child under the age of six, and up to $5,400 per child for those aged six through 17. Families with less than $30,000 in net income will receive the maximum benefit.

With the introduction of this much better targeted Canada child benefit, about 300,000 fewer children will be living in poverty by 2017. There will be 300,000 young Canadians with greater opportunity and greater hope for their future.

This government has also made a clear commitment to improving the lives of seniors. A key element of this commitment is improving the quality of life for seniors through strengthening public pensions and increasing social infrastructure funding for seniors living.

The government would make significant new investments to support seniors in their retirement years. These increased benefits would ensure that Canadian seniors have a dignified, comfortable, and secure retirement. While Canada's retirement income system has been successful in reducing the incidence of poverty among Canadian seniors, many seniors continue to be at risk of living in poverty.

Budget 2016 has committed to increasing the guaranteed income supplement top-up benefit to $947 annually for the most vulnerable single seniors, which would support those seniors who rely almost exclusively on old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. Our senior population is growing, and this government understands that every individual deserves a retirement that is safe, affordable, and ultimately, sustainable for years to come.

Not only would these benefits be available to those who need it most, but this government has also made it clear that it wants all Canadians to be aware of tax benefits for which they qualify. While the tax system seems overwhelming and daunting to so many Canadians, this government would increase accessibility through outreach and simplified tax return processes. Through proactive outreach, Canadians are more likely to know of and collect the benefits they deserve.

With fewer slips and credits to claim, Canadians' tax returns would be simpler. This reflects a new approach for government, one that offers immediate help for those who need it most and helps to set the course for growth for all Canadians.

Budget 2016 is an ambitious long-term plan to strengthen the heart of Canada's economy, but I also want to highlight the commitment to veterans that is found in this implementation bill. I think we can all agree in the House that the government has a sacred obligation to veterans, an obligation we must meet with respect, gratitude, and appreciation. Our brave veterans have dedicated their lives to the defence of our great nation, and they are worthy of our unwavering support. We will give back to our veterans, who have given so much in service to all Canadians. The budget would restore critical access to services for veterans and ensure the long-term financial success of disabled veterans.

Once again, I am proud to support this budget and encourage all members of the House to vote in favour of Bill C-15. By investing in those who need it most, we will make vast improvements in the lives of so many Canadians. Support for our children, support for our seniors, and support for our veterans are important to all Canadians.

Further, budget 2016 is a clear step toward a prosperous future. It offers immediate help to those who need it most and lays the groundwork for sustained, inclusive economic growth that will benefit Canadian families for years to come. When Canadians have more money to save, more money to invest, and more money to grow our economy, everyone benefits.

Making investments in these critical areas will be great for all Canadians. I urge all members in the House to support Bill C-15.

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.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about Bill C-15.

First, I would like to begin by congratulating my colleague the hon. member for Milton for leading Canada's official opposition on this finance portfolio. I would also like to thank my other colleagues who have spoken about this very important topic for their informative speeches.

As we all know, this is a bill that would affect all Canadians. Before I get going, I would like to say I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Chilliwack—Hope.

As the department of finance and parliamentary budget officer have shown, and despite what my friends across the aisle continue to say, when the Liberal government was elected in October, the previous government had left it with a surplus. This has been confirmed time and time again.

It was also left with a balanced budget. However, in the first few months, the Liberals not only burned through the surplus that was left to them, but they also drafted a budget that would run a deficit of at least $20 billion in the first fiscal year alone. Over the next five years, about $100 billion would be added to Canada's national debt. That would also mean billions more just to service the interest on that national debt.

This is all despite an election promise to deficit-spend on infrastructure. However, the significant portion of that funding would be on program spending. That means it is permanent and locked in. That also means future tax increases or deep spending cuts later on down the line.

This plan would ruin any chance of Canada returning to a balanced budget, despite the Liberals promising that in the last federal election.

As everyday Canadians know, we cannot live outside our means. That is exactly what the government is doing. At some point, the bill needs to be paid back. How is the government planning on paying that back? Which programs and services would be cut? Let us take a look at the specifics of this bill.

My riding is full of small businesses, and as we all know, small businesses are the backbone of the Canadian economy. Small business owners know that they cannot spend money they do not have. In order to survive as a business, they must make money.

It is for that reason that, in my riding, they just do not understand why the government continues to squeeze every last cent from the hands of these valuable job creators. It is perplexing that the Liberals would decide not to help them out. Our government laid the groundwork for a decrease in taxes on small businesses, a decrease the Liberals themselves committed to in the last federal election campaign.

Once again, the Liberals have reneged on a promise, another commitment during that election campaign. According to Finance Canada, this broken promise would cost small business owners an estimated $2.2 billion over the next four years. That is $2.2 billion that these businesses could be using to expand their operations, invest in research and development, hire more staff, contribute to the economy, and growth wealth. Unfortunately, the Liberals do not seem to be too concerned about burdening small businesses.

As well, agriculture is a crucial industry across Canada, including in Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock. It provides the livelihoods of many Canadians, coast to coast to coast. Yet, with all the money the government is dishing out, it neglected to offer any new support to the agricultural industry. The livelihoods of many constituents in my riding are based on agriculture, and this budget completely ignores them.

The budget has no plans to improve the movement of grain, and the Liberals have delayed ratifying the trans-Pacific partnership. When a budget ignores agriculture, it ignores a huge portion of Canadians.

While there are many problems with the budget bill, I would be remiss not to mention that there are sections that would be good for Canada. One of those is the government's promise to continue to expand access to broadband Internet for rural and remote Canadians. In ridings like mine, many Canadians do not have access to high-speed Internet. As we all know, in today's global economy, not having reliable high-speed Internet costs Canadians jobs and business.

The investment of $500 million would go a long way to connecting even more Canadians with reliable high-speed Internet, and build on the progress made by the previous Conservative government, which expanded access to high-speed Internet right across rural Canada, including my riding. Again, there are still gaps, and every party committed to fixing those, and we do appreciate that.

Our men and women in uniform put their lives on the line every day for our values and freedoms. We, as legislators, need to ensure that members of the Canadian Armed Forces have all the tools, training, and equipment they need to carry out their assignments. It is therefore very troubling to see the Liberal government reallocating $3.7 billion over the next five years for future purchases. Large-scale purchases are not a simple process, as we all know, but we need to ensure that the funding is available instead of taking that away.

This budget did provide some funds to the infrastructure needs of the Canadian Armed Forces. I believe this is not enough to ensure the long-term viability of our forces.

Our previous government was responsible for signing trade agreements right across the globe. I was very pleased to see that the Liberal government is continuing our work and expanding access to markets all across the world. This will be good for Canadian businesses, absolutely. I hope that the government ratifies the TPP and continues to help Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Trade agreements like the TPP will give Canadians access to about 800 million potential new customers. These types of agreements are crucial in ridings like mine.

I have already spoken on the effect that the bill will have on small businesses, specifically because their taxes will not be going down as was promised.

The bill will directly hurt families. Families in Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock are very active. I think we all agree that it is important to keep families active, busy, and having fun. It is a theme that I am sure is similar in every riding, no matter where we are from in this great country. It is not only a trend in sports like hockey, swimming, soccer, baseball, and basketball, but also activities like music, art, and dance classes.

Many of these are very important to people in my riding, but with the Liberals cancelling the tax cuts for fitness and arts, families will not be able to cope. It makes it harder for them. Costs related to many of these activities can rise very quickly, as we know. Anyone who has children enrolled in minor hockey knows that all too well.

We all know that families work hard for their money. They deserve a helping hand.

I will note that while the Canada child tax benefit will help some Canadian families, unfortunately, it will support fewer middle-class families than the previous universal child care benefit.

The bill is eliminating income splitting for families with children, cancelling plans to expand tax-free savings accounts, while at the same time claiming to be helping Canadians.

Even the Liberals' so-called middle-class tax cut will hurt the families that they say they want to help. Given that a large number of families in my riding earn less than $45,000 a year, they will receive absolutely zero from that so-called middle-class tax cut.

Since 2008, the Government of Canada has invested over $200 million in my riding for infrastructure. These were important investments, in programs from new horizons for seniors to municipal infrastructure. Arenas were built. Airports were expanded. Libraries and sports fields were built. Road and bridges were refurbished, and the list goes on.

These investments benefited people from all walks of life. I sincerely hope that the government will continue this strong record in investments, not only in my riding, but right across Canada.

The Liberal budget is very concerning for all Canadians. As I have said before, they know that governments cannot spend their way into prosperity. If that were the case, Ontario would be the economic engine of Canada. We all know it is far from that: over a decade of deficit spending, and where did it get us? That is where we are now.

The bill offers high taxes, billions of dollars in new debt, no plan for creating jobs, and all of this despite being left with a balanced budget and a surplus. When we left office, Canadians had the lowest taxes in 50 years and the best job-creation record in the G7. In just a few months, the Liberals had squandered all of that.

Mr. Speaker, I know my time is running out, and I look forward to questions from my colleagues.

The House resumed from May 5 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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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, 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.

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.

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.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question, as always.

This afternoon, as everyone knows, we will continue our debate at second reading of Bill C-15, the budget. We will continue this important debate tomorrow.

On Monday, I know members are really looking forward to this. We are going to commence report stage and third reading debate on Bill C-7, the RCMP labour relations bill, until 2 p.m. In the afternoon, we will resume debate on Bill C-15.

I am hoping and working hard to reach an agreement with my colleagues in the House to be able to conclude the debate on Bill C-15 on Monday evening. That certainly would be my hope. I think Canadians would benefit from that legislation being in committee. Those conversations are ongoing.

On Wednesday, we will resume debate on Bill C-7.

Finally, next Tuesday and next Thursday will be opposition days, something I know members are looking forward to a lot.

Infrastructure

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

Mr. Speaker, first the Liberals removed the requirement for the P3 screen, then they transferred responsibility from the Minister of Finance to the Minister of Infrastructure, and now they introduced Bill C-15, which gives the infrastructure minister the power to sell off shares and assets of PPP Canada.

Something here does not add up. Are the Liberals intending to shut down PPP Canada and sell off its assets in order to pay for their out of control spending?

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to participate in the debate on Bill C-15. It is an important debate, because the bill implements a budget that does long-term harm to our country. It sets Canada down a path of reckless spending, over $100 billion in debt, and higher taxes, and leaves a massive burden for future generations.

First, let me address some of the specific items in the bill that are not particularly well thought through. Despite the Liberals' clear promise to small businesses on the campaign trail, this budget hikes taxes on small business owners. That means that hard-working small businesses, the driving force of Canada's economy, are being forced to cough up a staggering $2.2 billion to help pay for the budget spending spree of the Minister of Finance.

I did forget at the start of my speech to inform the House I would be sharing my time with the member for Beauce, so I'm doing that now.

Bill C-15 will further damage the economy because it levels some Canadians with an overall income tax rate of over 50%. Experts across the board predict that this will cause some of our country's most talented people to look elsewhere to pursue their ideas and their businesses.

That is not all. The bill targets charities and ends children's fitness and arts tax credits, but even with all of these ill-considered tax hikes, budget 2016 still leaves Canada with a $30-billion debt. That cuts to the heart of the broader problem of Bill C-15.

Bill C-15 implements a reckless budget for this country. It is completely non-transparent and is built on a set of misleading and questionable numbers. The Minister of Finance arrived in Ottawa telling Canadians that the books were in worse shape than he had anticipated. He outlined a set of fiscal assumptions that have since been completely debunked, and he used them as the foundation for his budget. He ignored the evidence from his own finance department and from the PBO that both said the budget was in surplus. He repeatedly told members of this House that he inherited a deficit, and he built his budget on that assumption. However, we now know he has inherited a surplus of $7.5 billion.

We also know that he jammed as much new Liberal spending as possible into the last month of the past fiscal year to get rid of that surplus. He has not been transparent about his efforts to spend his way out of surplus, and he has been completely non-transparent about the state of Canada's finances. Then he went against the independent advice of private sector economists and against the advice of his own department and unilaterally downgraded Canada's growth forecast.

He build his budget on economic assumptions made without any explanation. Here again, the Minister of Finance was called out by the PBO for his lack of transparency. Then the Minister of Finance had to be forced to reveal his five-year budget figures by the PBO, which he was trying to keep hidden from the public. If that is not enough, the 2016 budget is filled with wild assumptions of job creation, all of which have been repudiated by the PBO and other experts.

Fiscal prudence matters. Managing taxpayers' dollars responsibly matters. Being transparent about managing public money matters, but this Minister of Finance continues to play games with the budget, hide the numbers, and damage his own credibility.

The Liberals received a mandate from Canadians to go into deficit, but it was a very specific mandate. Canadians were promised that the Liberals would discipline themselves by sticking to three core fiscal anchors: deficits of no more than $10 billion, an annual falling debt-to-GDP ratio, and a balanced budget by 2019. These were all articulated in writing and posted for all Canadians to see in the mandate letter the Prime Minister gave to the Minister of Finance. The 2016 federal budget betrays every one of these promises.

Somewhere along the line, the finance minister decided that rather than exercising discipline and delivering what he had promised to Canadians, it would be a lot easier to interpret the election results as a mandate to borrow and spend as much money as he wants, for as long as he wants, on whatever he wants.

Let me be very clear, Canadians did not give the finance minister a blank cheque to go on such a spending spree.

Budget 2016 will saddle Canadians with $100 billion in new debt, which will have to be paid back through higher taxes. Budget 2016 plans for massive deficits and borrowing indefinitely into the future, with no plan whatsoever to return to balance. The budget barely mentions business. It will not create jobs and it throws away Canada's competitive advantage.

I also come from a riding that has a substantial agricultural component to it. It is about 65% urban, 35% rural. There is not one mention in the budget about enhancements to any of the communities in the small rural centres, and no talk about agriculture at all. These are the people who are heart-blood of many ridings, many communities. They are the ones who, daily, toil so that we can have the benefits of living the bountiful life we do from their agricultural pursuits and their risk-taking.

I can speak as a small business entrepreneur, having owned my own company over 25 years. One of the most important things for governments to do for small businesses is to make sure that they do not have the highest tax rates imposed upon citizens who are creating jobs, like small business owners.

I happened to be in the building industry, an industry that is the bellwether of the Canadian economy. We are talking about businesses that employ more than 800,000 workers in this country. This budget does absolutely nothing to improve and enhance the livelihoods of those small builders in my community who are building maybe five, six, or seven houses. All it is doing is adding to their red tape costs and the costs of their taxes and employee remittances.

These are the people who drive our economy. This budget and this budget implementation bill do nothing to help them out.

I urge all members of the House to vote against this reckless Liberal spending spree.

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

I don't object to doing it on Tuesday, but I nevertheless want to, once again, express my dismay at the government's haste in dealing with this bill. We know the Senate has already studied it, and debate at second reading only began today.

So I sincerely hope this isn't the beginning of a government habit to deal with bills before any meaningful debate has taken place at second reading. Debate at second reading serves a purpose: to inform committee study. Therefore, I would like the record to reflect my unease with the government's chosen approach. There is no reason to rush.

I'd also like to ask the government members how long the study is going to last. How many meetings are planned? Will it be possible to hear from other witnesses as part of our study of Bill C-15?

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Calgary Shepard.

A budget is a demonstration of a government's priorities, a reflection of its vision, so to speak. Yet, despite borrowing almost $30 billion this year, budget 2016 is missing a pronounced emphasis on putting in place the conditions that support long-term growth in the wealth and prosperity of all Canadians.

In less than six months, the Liberals have taken Canada from a budget surplus to a massive deficit. The finance ministerhas been asked countless times whether running a deficit three times larger than what he campaigned on is a breach of his contract with Canadians, but the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, and his parliamentary secretary have simply refused to answer the question.

If the finance minister is so proud of this budget and the massive deficit experiment he has taken Canada into, he should be willing to tell Canadians that his campaign promise was not worth the paper it was written on, and why.

Once again Finance Canada confirmed that, from April 2015 to February 2016, the Government of Canada ran a budgetary surplus of $7.5 billion.

It is worth repeating over and over.

The Liberals inherited a balanced budget and an economy that was growing. Thus, the over-$113 billion in additional debt that Canada will incur over the next four years is entirely the choice of the Prime Minister and his Minister of Finance. It is their duty to explain this decision to break their promises and the additional debt charges that Canadian taxpayers will have to pay, going forward. The “Canada is back” statement that the Prime Minister likes to pronounce just about everywhere he goes is certainly true. Canada is back—back to the 1970s and the early 1980s where the Liberal government of Pierre Elliott Trudeau ran deficits, in adjusted dollars, starting in 1975: $27 billion; $28 billion; $41 billion; $46 billion; $43 billion; $41 billion; $29 billion; and, finally, $72 billion in his final budget of 1983.

If deficit spending is indeed the path to long-term economic growth, as the government claims it is, former prime minister Chrétien would not have had to cut transfer payments to my home province of Saskatchewan by 15% in 1995 because 33¢ of every dollar collected had to go to public debt charges, and the government could not afford to do anything else.

While it is true that the budget was finally balanced again in 1997-1998, it took deep cuts in transfers to the provinces to do so. The budget did not balance itself; revenues did not grow at a faster rate than spending.

Bill C-15 also represents the return to an activist federal government that believes it has all the solutions; in other words, big government that knows best. The Liberal plan to create jobs is to increase direct payments to individuals and then pay for these transfers by borrowing money. The plan for the struggling sectors of western Canada's economy is to provide a temporary bump in employment insurance, rather than removing barriers to getting resources to market, which would create real new jobs; and the Liberals did not even get that right.

More to the point, western Canadians do not want a government handout. They want a federal government that supports the west because we have a dynamic and innovative economy that is temporarily struggling due to a drop in demand for goods.

The Liberal government could, at the very least, attempt to do no harm to the energy sector, but instead, it plans to impose additional regulatory red tape.

On another front, the government did not even bother to hide its dislike of small business, or any business for that matter, in this budget. In the finance minister's budget speech, the word “government” was mentioned nearly 40 times, while “business” received just six mentions.

The finance minister's actions have, unfortunately, matched his talk. He is reversing a four-year phased decline of the small business tax rate, which will cost small businesses nearly $900 million per year.

The Minister of Small Business and Tourism has attempted to justify this tax hike by trying to make the implausible claim that small businesses will benefit from the government's new social programs because, presumably, folks will have more money to spend.

The Minister of Small Business and Tourism should know that taxes are an expense that is passed on to the consumer through higher prices. Higher prices make Canadian goods less competitive, should a company try to find new customers outside Canada. More and more, small businesses are competing continentally and internationally, and this tax hike ignores that reality. It makes good sense to give small businesses every chance to succeed at home and abroad by reducing their tax burden.

I know that many Liberal members are excited about their first budget. However, I would caution those members that governments cannot borrow money in perpetuity to pay for their spending sprees. As I noted earlier, over the next four years the Liberals intend to borrow over $110 billion. Over that same period, the Government of Canada will have to pay approximately that same amount in interest on its debt. While this Liberal government likes to say that now is the time to spend money because interest rates are low and Canada's debt-to-GDP ratio is among the lowest in the world, this statement is fraught with problems for a number of reasons.

First, despite Canada having comparably low federal government debt levels compared to other countries, at present nearly 10¢ of every dollar spent by the federal government goes toward paying the interest on our debt, which was largely accrued during the 1970s and 1980s. That 10% of every dollar spent by the federal government going to pay interest on debt is money that does absolutely nothing for Canadians today.

Second, when combined with provincial debt, total government debt in Canada is at $1.2 trillion, or over $34,000 for every man, woman, and child living in Canada.

Third, Canada's population is aging. Every year, more Canadians are retiring than are joining the workforce. In a few short years, as the baby boom generation retires, Canada will face a shortage of taxpayers to support the pensions and benefits of retirees. Consequently, the fact that Canada is in a sound fiscal position is not a reason to step back and return to the 1990s, when The Wall Street Journal called Canada an honorary member of the third world. Rather, we should continue to lessen our debt burden, which will reduce our monthly public debt charges, and then either pass those savings on to Canadians or put that money back into our economy in the form of long-term durable infrastructure without having to raise taxes. Unfortunately, we are seeing the exact opposite.

Bill C-15 would make substantive changes to PPP Canada by allowing this crown corporation to sell or otherwise dispose of all or substantially all of its assets. As the government has already moved PPP Canada from Finance Canada to Infrastructure Canada, I can only speculate that the Liberal Party is planning to get rid of this corporation and transfer its funding to Infrastructure Canada. PPP Canada has received $2.4 billion in funding since 2007, and it has disbursed this in an efficient manner for water, public transit, local road, and green energy infrastructures, and so on. Funded projects include a new bus depot in Saskatoon, a biosolids energy centre in Victoria, a road expansion in Winnipeg, and a housing renewal project in Vancouver, just to name a few. These are exactly the types of infrastructure projects the Liberals say they support; yet it appears they are about to gut a program that is getting money out the door for good projects, simply because they are not able to dictate which ones will be funded. I hope one of the Liberal members across the way can provide more clarity on the intent of allowing PPP Canada to dispose of all its assets, during our opportunity to question them.

In conclusion, together with my colleagues on this side of the House, I will continue to demand a real plan to create jobs, and fight to keep more money in the pockets of hard-working Canadians

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

Mr. Speaker, it was Burnaby—New Westminster and had been since 2004, but Elections Canada saw fit to change the riding and it is now the riding of New Westminster—Burnaby. It was Burnaby—New Westminster and now it is New Westminster—Burnaby, so go figure.

I want to follow up on the subamendment by asking you to consider the subamendment on the following basis. The actual amendment that the official opposition submitted a little while ago is “this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures...”.

Then there is a modification that has been offered by my colleague, the member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, which does not change in any way the principle of the amendment that was offered by the official opposition, but does omit and add some words. The principle that the House declines to give second reading to Bill C-15 is very clearly maintained in the subamendment.

Also, if we refer to our bible, which is O'Brien and Bosc, on page 534, when it comes to subamendments, it is very clear:

Each subamendment must be strictly relevant to...the corresponding amendment and must seek to modify the amendment, and not the original question;

That is what has happened here with the subamendment that was offered by my colleague. It goes on to say:

A subamendment cannot strike out all of the words in an amendment thereby nullifying it;

As I have already mentioned, the principle is maintained that the House declines to give second reading to Bill C-15. Finally, it states:

Debate on a subamendment is restricted to the words added to or omitted from the original motion by the amendment.

This is exactly what the subamendment from my colleague does.

It is important in this House that we look at the precedents from this Parliament. I would like to cite a precedent from last month, April 11. In this House, the official opposition offered an amendment, that “this House not approve the budgetary policy of the government...”.

The subamendment that was accepted by you, Mr. Speaker, offered again from my very active and hard-working colleague, the member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, was to maintain the principle of the amendment and add and omit some words that did not interfere with the principle of the amendment, but certainly sought in the subamendment to omit and add some words.

Very clearly within our bible, O'Brien and Bosc, very clearly in terms of precedents, including in the debates just last month, and very clearly from the wording that our colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, the subamendment should be considered in order.

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

Mr. Speaker, the first budget implementation bill was really the first test of the new Liberal government in terms of the economy. Of course, there have been some ways and means motions, but, since the budget was tabled on March 22, 2016, this is the first concrete expression of the approach that the Liberal government plans to take.

I am saddened to say that this first test has been a failure. It has been a failure on many counts, especially with regard to the promises that the Liberal Party made during the campaign.

It has been a failure because the Liberal government promised to do things differently. I was a member here during the previous Parliament. Time and time again, twice a year, the Conservatives introduced omnibus bills that included many different elements. The omnibus bills were often 300, 400, or 500 pages long, and the Standing Committee on Finance had to study them within impossibly tight timelines, which prevented the committee from doing its work. In other words, it could not study matters that were extremely important to the social and economic well-being of this country in a careful, rigorous, and analytical manner.

During the election campaign, the Liberals promised the following in their platform:

We will not resort to legislative tricks to avoid scrutiny.

[The previous prime minister] has used prorogation to avoid difficult political circumstances. We will not.

Let us wait and see what happens.

[The previous prime minister] has also used omnibus bills to prevent Parliament from properly reviewing and debating his proposals. We will change the House of Commons Standing Orders to bring an end to this undemocratic practice.

We are still waiting for that.

Let us now talk about the definition of the word “omnibus”. The Minister of Finance is denying that this is an omnibus bill. I will go back to the question I asked him. According to O'Brien and Bosc, our parliamentary procedure bible, an omnibus bill “seeks to amend, repeal or enact several Acts”. That is true of this 179-page bill: it seeks to amend 35 laws, it includes specific laws in their entirety, and it repeals other laws. It affects nine different departments. With that in mind, I think we can agree that Bill C-15 is an omnibus bill. It is characterized by the fact that it “is made up of a number of related but separate initiatives”.

The Minister of Finance himself said that these measures are related because they are in the budget. Instead of really doing what Canadians expect them to do, which is to take a different, transparent, and more responsible approach, the Liberals have decided to play with words by saying that all these measures are in the budget.

The budget is often 300, 400, or 500 pages long. If the Liberals now want to include all the measures in an omnibus bill by saying that they were in the budget, they are going to start changing the budget to reflect the legislative changes they want to make. That makes no sense.

This makes no sense because the size of the bills and the limited time we have to carefully study them preclude transparency. In order for the committee to do a proper job, it needs time and bills, especially when they are technical, that will allow it to conduct an analysis and present a proper report to Parliament.

It is not the case because there are many highly technical aspects of this bill that should be studied separately.

For example, the bail-in plan in the bill aims to solidify the banking system and reassure Canadians that if there is a failure in the banking system, taxpayers will not be on the hook for it. Often we are between the choices of letting the banks fail and having large consequences for the economy, or bailing them out with taxpayer money. This would bring a third possibility, which is currently being studied through OECD countries.

Why include this 20 to 25-page highly technical bill of its own modification of the Bank Act to be studied with hundreds of other measures that touch things as diverse as the Canadian Wheat Board, veterans, modifications to the GST, and so on?

This creates uncertainty right now among the Canadian population. I am not opposed to the idea of the bill. It should be studied. It actually might be a good way to protect the economy and at the same time protect the taxpayers. It is possible we will go in that direction. However, I am sure the government members, and all of the members of the House, have already received emails and communications from concerned citizens that this might touch their deposits, that the money they have invested in banks could be affected.

It would have been wise for the government to take this part and study it separately to reassure Canadians that this would not be the case, that this would not be like Cyprus, for example. However, the Liberals decided to put everything in this 179-page bill. It does not make sense.

What was the rationale of including a full bill that had been tabled in the House, Bill C-12, which aims at the reinsertion and the compensation for veterans? Honestly, I think we are all in agreement that we need to study this bill carefully. It would have been studied carefully if it had stood as its own bill.

If that had stood on its own as a bill, it would have warranted a study in committee over three or four meetings of two or more hours each, to ensure that the concerns of veterans were heard. What is going to happen now? The Standing Committee on Finance is going to review the provisions of this bill with the very few witnesses we will have for the entire study. To share their concerns and opinions veterans will have to compete with bankers and tax experts who will come to talk about other measures in the bill, including the bail-in regime.

Why draft a bill that we would debate here? We can discuss the details, but I think the House generally agrees that we should at least find a way to provide compensation to the veterans.

Do not tell me that this is not an omnibus bill, when it includes all these measures that could have and should have been studied differently.

Some of the other measures are highly questionable. Once again, they are going to have to share the stage with a myriad of other completely unrelated measures. I am thinking about employment insurance in particular. The government once again misled the House by saying that the EI surplus would be kept separate from the consolidated revenue fund and would not be used to fund government activities. However, we can clearly see in the budget that the EI surplus will be used as part of the consolidated fund.

Although the government may pat itself on the back for introducing measures to partly reverse the Conservatives' 2012 EI reform, those measures do not really meet the needs of workers and do not give them the protection they expect from the EI program.

There are measures to eliminate the discrimination between the different classes of workers, which forced frequent claimants, who are often seasonal workers, to accept jobs at 70% of their salaries and more than 100 kilometres away from their homes. We applaud those measures. We agree with them. We fought for that. Our party was the first to oppose those restrictions. Since I come from a riding where seasonal work is still important and still a major part of the economy, I am certainly in favour of eliminating those two requirements.

However, there are other very important measures that the Conservatives got rid of. I am thinking about what was known as the pilot project, which sought to bridge the gap between the end of EI benefits and the beginning of the working season. That measure was available to all workers in areas of high unemployment. For reasons that I cannot understand, the Liberals decided to restore that program but only for exactly 12 regions of Canada.

I do not take issue with these 12 regions getting an extra five weeks of employment insurance benefits. However, this measure should be available to all workers, as it was before 2012.

When I look at the Liberal members from the Atlantic provinces, with the exception of Newfoundland and Labrador, which is really the only province to benefit from this extension, I sincerely wonder what they think of these measures. What do their workers in seasonal industries such as the fishery, tourism, and agriculture think of these measures that exclude them from the extended benefits that they were entitled to before 2012, when they had seasonal industry status? The Liberals are turning a deaf ear despite the fact that they currently have all 32 seats in Atlantic Canada. As my party's critic for the Atlantic provinces, rest assured that I will be asking them this question many times.

I still did not get an adequate answer to something else I asked the official opposition finance critic about. Why did the Liberals break their solemn promise to follow the NDP example and then that of the Conservatives who lowered taxes for SMEs? That promise has vanished.

Then they have the nerve to claim through the parliamentary secretary that they did lower the SMEs' tax rate because it has gone from 11% to 10.5%. It was not the Liberals who did that. Those measures were in place in the Conservatives' previous budget. Nonetheless, we would have liked the measure that we supported in the Conservatives' budget to be applied more quickly. It was a gradual reduction from 11% to 9%. The measure to lower the tax rate to 10.5% did not come from the Liberal government. It was a previously made decision.

I find it appalling that the Liberals want to take credit for a measure that has nothing to do with them, and that they are trying to divert attention away from the fact that they cancelled the gradual reduction that would have lowered the tax rate to 9%. This measure will cost $2.2 billion, and was harshly criticized by the small business community. The government has provided no justification whatsoever for failing to adopt that measure. It was one of the most important and most popular measures of the 2015 Liberal election platform.

The Standing Committee on Finance will have to pay particular attention to certain other measures. For instance, some elements are problematic and are causing concern and uncertainty regarding the potential disclosure of personal information to the Canada Revenue Agency. I am not saying whether that is a good or a bad idea. I am saying that, any time we are dealing with such sensitive issues, especially in light of what we have learned over the past few months regarding tax evasion and other problems that seem to abound at CRA, clearly we need to be able to take our time studying these measures. Once again, it is not my intention to block or obstruct the process, but I want to reassure Canadians that these measures are necessary and they will protect their privacy.

The government does not seem to understand that that is what should happen. It would rather bundle everything together in one big package. Then it will ask the Standing Committee on Finance to proceed as quickly as possible so the bill can be passed and we can stop talking about it. That approach flies in the face of the Liberals' commitment to transparency and to restoring the watchdog role to Parliament and committees and giving them the time they need to study and scrutinize bills.

We do not use our names in the House. I am the member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques. All members of the House are identified by their title or their riding. In committee, we use people's names. Why is that? Because even though our presence is determined according to the number of seats we have, we are not there on behalf of the government, the official opposition, or the third, fourth, or fifth opposition party. We are there to study the government's bills and ensure that they pass the test of legislation that will ensure well-being and progress for Canada, its economy, and its people.

We cannot do this with bills that are 179 pages long. Why is the number of pages important? The answer to this question can be found in another quote, this time from a study by Louis Massicotte published in the Canadian Parliamentary Review.

It has been computed that between 1994 and 2005, budget implementation bills averaged 73.6 pages, while since 2006 they averaged 308.9—four times longer. But the increase is even more huge than it looks. While during the first period a single budget implementation bill was presented each year (there were none in 2002 and two in 2004), bills of that nature have since then been presented twice a year except in 2008, when there was a single one. The yearly average of budget implementation legislation in recent years is therefore closer to 550 pages—this is seven times longer!

We should note that the period between 1994 and 2005 corresponds to a time when the Liberals held power. That was the last time that the Liberals were in power. Their budget implementation bills were on average 79 pages long. They sought to legislate tax measures affecting income tax, the GST, and excise taxes.

Now, we have just been casually told that a 179-page bill that affects a myriad of other measures, which may have been mentioned in the budget but are still extremely complex and should be examined separately, is not an omnibus bill.

I am not convinced by the explanation given by the Minister of Finance. I do not think the House or Canadians are either. They are not being fooled. This government, which promised to be more transparent and more accountable, is failing its first test miserably.

I would like to end my speech by talking about a point that was raised by one of my Conservative colleagues, and that is the fact that this bill repeals an entire law, the Federal Balanced Budget Act. I will admit that we did not particularly like that law, but the way the Liberals have chosen to repeal it is highly reprehensible. They are retroactively repealing an act that is currently in force and that, as of June 1, they will technically be violating.

Apparently that is not a problem for them because they are just going to retroactively repeal the law. It will be like it never existed.

We live in a country governed by the rule of law. The government cannot and must not start changing laws retroactively to exempt themselves from them. However, that is exactly what this government has done twice in three weeks.

The government wants to repeal a law, but as we are debating whether to repeal it, the act may have already been violated and the case could end up before the courts. That is completely at odds with the principles of a country governed by the rule of law and the principles of the rule of law.

For all of those reasons and others that I do not have time to get into, even though I hope to have the opportunity to answer questions from my colleagues, I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the words “since the bill” and substituting the following:

(a) is an omnibus bill that amends or repeals 35 acts and regulations, that retroactively repeals an act of Parliament, and that contains a bill that has already been introduced in the House;

(b) breaks the promise to lower taxes for small businesses;

(c) does not significantly improve access to employment insurance; and

(d) contains significant changes to benefits for veterans, changes to the guaranteed income supplement for seniors, and a new banking regulation without any review or proper parliamentary debate.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this past weekend, I came across a very telling quote in the National Post. It said, “election promises are like babies: fun to make, hell to deliver”. It seems that the government is learning this lesson every day in the House.

It is kind of shocking the speed at which the Liberals have actually broken the election promises they made to the electorate during the campaign in August and September. It is almost uncanny to think about. They made a commitment to modest deficits, capping at $10 billion. They said that they would reduce the ratio of debt-to-GDP. They also had that goal of returning to a balanced budget. However, after taking power, they changed their minds.

They have nearly tripled the deficits now. They have admitted that they cannot control debt-to-GDP ratios. Finally, they decided that balancing a budget was a position that should be mocked. Needless to say, we know they probably have no intention on fulfilling that commitment to a balanced budget.

However, throughout all these changes proposed in the budget implementation legislation, the Liberals are deceiving Canadians about what the real facts are.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister took a moment to commemorate his first six months in office, but I am not quite sure what he can celebrate. After all, much of what the Liberals have done since taking office has been nothing more than simply undo the progress that we made as the Conservative government.

It does bear some time to talk about what we accomplished.

When the Liberals took office, taxes on the Canadian public were at their lowest point in 50 years. By the end of our mandate, the average family of four was saving almost $7,000 a year. The Conservatives took a $55 billion deficit, which we entered into on agreement with parties in the House in order to come out of the great recession, and in five years we had a surplus. Even during the global recession, the Conservatives ensured that we moved the economy on by creating 1.3 million net new jobs. The majority of them were in the private sector and full-time.

In fact, Canada was recognized globally as having the best job creation and economic growth records in the G7. What do we have today? Well, we have officials from the Department of Finance, the minister's own department, indicating a surplus has been left, yet the Minister of Finance stands every day in the House and denies the reality of a surplus.

The most recent “Fiscal Monitor”, which we continuously try to table as information in the House and are rejected, confirmed that there was a surplus over the first 11 months of the year of $7.5 billion. However, the government wishes to pretend that this does not exist.

The National Post again hit the nail on the head with it said that this “may be the first surplus a finance minister doesn’t want to talk about”. Earlier this week, I asked the finance minister a question on the “Fiscal Monitor” and in frustration perhaps, he said that the Conservatives would do well to get past “this whole balanced budget thing”.

I find it very surprising, and it is almost a bit baffling, that the Minister of Finance for our great country can take our economy so lightly in saying those words in this place.

My perspective of the budget is this. It is bad for Canadians and, as such, we must vote against this budget implementation act. Contrary to what the government asserts, this budget would stifle growth in our country. The excess spending that it sets out is not targeted and it will end up hurting Canadians in the long run because it will show up as future tax increases. That will nothing but saddle my kids, my grandkids and my family's kids with debt and deficits.

Even the Canadian Federation of Independent Business was not left alone in this budget. It had been promised small business tax cuts, and the Liberals have now decided to mysteriously defer this.

The parliamentary budget officer has indicated that this is going to cost small business $2.2 billion, which is a significant cost on the backs of hard-working men and women across this country who are trying to help us grow the economy.

This budget is fundamentally a betrayal of Canadians who trusted the Liberal Party to keep the promises they made in a campaign where a Liberal government breaks those promises. It is a betrayal of the middle class. They get it. They know that eventually, with the debt and deficits, they are going to have to pay for it through higher taxes themselves. It is a betrayal of families, because what family in Canada does not understand that they have to live within their means?

Right before the release of his budget, the finance minister's economic outlook showed that revenues were actually holding up better than expected. GDP growth in the last quarter of 2015 was actually higher than what was anticipated. However, here we are still on track with the Liberal government to borrow billions and billions of dollars that it does not need, to fight a recession that we are not in.

Conservatives believe fundamentally that we should always try our best to run the country like we would run our own households: not by living off credit cards, especially when the circumstances do not justify the spending, but living within our means. That is why, when we were in power, we mandated that balanced budgets be the law, not the exception to the rule.

Page 51 of the Liberal budget says, “The Government remains committed to returning to balanced budget”, but on the very next page, the budget says “The balanced budget legislation enacted under the previous Government is inconsistent with the Government’s plan to return to balanced budgets”.

The budget implementation act not only repeals the Federal Balanced Budget Act, it actually projects deficits extending longer than five years, with no plan to return to balance. This is a very curious quote. It is not just a projection to show another broken promise to Canadians, but it is an uncanny demonstration of the arrogance of the government, assuming that Canadians will re-elect them. That is not going to be an easy task after four years of the fiscal mess that the Liberals are about to plunge us into.

I would like to shine some light on other parts of this bill that set out to change the old age supplement eligibility from 67 to 65. As we know, this measure would have eliminated an estimated $11 billion in annual spending up to the year 2030. The decision was not made lightly, but it was made in keeping with OECD recommendations.

An expert on the issue said this in 2012:

The cost of OAS represents about 2.3% of GDP but the chief actuary for the Canada pension plan forecasts it would have risen to about 3.1% by 2030 had the retirement age not been increased.

That expert was none other than the now Liberal finance minister, yet Liberals are now moving to reverse this measure, even though the evidence suggests that it was better to keep it in place.

It is interesting to see what else the finance minister has said on the issue of OAS. Prior to becoming the candidate and then the minister, he wrote a book called The Real Retirement. We have given it a good read. Again, some of the things he said were quite interesting. Here is a quote from the book:

If we were to retire three years later than we do now, any concerns about having adequate retirement income would practically vanish. It would also alleviate any shortages in the workforce due to the aging...population.

These are very interesting remarks. He also wrote, “there must be moderate cutbacks in social spending phased in over time”. He also said that phasing in the eligibility age for OAS and GIS from 65 to 67 was a step in that direction. Evidently he disagrees with his own government's budgetary measures, by virtue of what he wrote not more than two years previous to that.

These are just a few examples of the Liberals' refusal to accept expert research, evidence and hard facts. Their platform is based on deception. On behalf of Canadians, I am deeply concerned.

In the budget document that was produced, there is a chart on page 63. The chart is often pointed to as showing examples of why Canadian families would be better off with the Liberals' child benefit, as opposed to the system we had in place under the Conservative government. However, if we read very closely, there is a bit of fine print at the bottom. What the fine print says is that the examples do not take into account the former measures we had, like income splitting, fitness tax credits, education tax credits, and tuition tax credits. These are all of the benefits that would be available in exactly those circumstances, which would then show that maybe not everyone is doing as well as they would under their Canada child benefit. It admits, rather cryptically, that Liberal evidence was being pulled out of thin air.

I have spent a lot of time in my career making sure that women have the opportunity and ability to enter the workplace and achieve great things. I fundamentally believe that if we want to grow our economy, we want to make sure we have great productivity and innovation, we cannot leave an entire part of our population behind. In many places in the budget, while the Liberals talk a good talk in how they are helping women, I fear it is going to be the exact opposite. I asked the finance minister in questions whether there is any hard data on what effects these measures would have on choices that women make in going into the workplace, how long they stay, and what they do there.

One of the areas I find very curious and interesting is the decision the Liberals took in small business that it was a sham set-up to allow people to avoid paying a higher level of personal tax. Why is this a problem? One of the areas I discovered in my time as a minister in the past, and in the workforce, for a lot of time now, is that women want to make different choices on where they work based on flexibility.

It is Mother's Day on Sunday, a day that we all look forward to. Being a mother is possibly the greatest job a woman could ever have, should she choose to do so. However, we also want to be active in our community and in the workplace, because we have great contributions to make. Sometimes a woman may make a choice that opening a small business or becoming an entrepreneur would allow her to balance what she wants to do in life, in terms of raising a family and also contributing to our economy. It is offensive for the government to indicate in its opinion that a lot of these cases are tax loopholes because husbands set their wives up in sham corporations.

More than that, it is a chill. It is saying that we do not really need to have them in the workplace, that we do not believe when they attempt to become small business entrepreneurs that they are doing it with great purpose. The tax cuts that were meant to go to small business, which have been deferred to the future, are another step along that continuum of chill.

It is very difficult, first, to have the courage to start a small business if someone is balancing a couple of kids at home. Second, we never want to make things happen that put the economic prosperity of our family unit in danger. Taxes do matter. It matters how much women make in their business. It matters how much they make in their life.

The reality is that getting through that threshold to take a decision to start a small business can be a very difficult one, for a lot of reasons. Now the Liberals will make it even harder, because that diminishing return will not be there for a lot of women. First they are told it is not a real business, and second they are told they will make it harder for them instead of making it easier.

It is not necessarily women-friendly. Why do I talk so much about small business and about women? It is because that is the area where women are entering the workplace in a disproportionate amount: 50% of small business start-ups are coming from women; two-thirds are from majority-owned women businesses. This is an area in which women can exceed and excel, and the door is being shut on it. They are putting a gloss over it, saying that it is not real work. I find that to be very disturbing, because after all, it is 2016.

One other aspect of the child benefit that I find of concern is one that not a lot of people will be talking about, but I will give it a go.

I grew up on Cape Breton Island. Cape Breton is a very unique and special place. I am grateful that the minister went to Sydney so he could see what it is like to be part of Cape Breton. I think it is important for people to see what it is like now, because things are not better on Cape Breton Island, despite enjoying a bit of a bump from the oil patch doing well. We sent a lot of our brothers and cousins and fathers, and a lot of our mothers as well, out there to work.

The reality is that in the eighties, when the steel plant closed, the fisheries closed, the coal mines closed, there was not a lot of work. As a result, and I am one of the examples, families split up and left.

The decision taken at the time by a series of governments was that the best way to deal with Cape Bretoners was to write them a cheque and make it easier for them to get government help. It was perhaps done with great intention, but it did not work, because the reality is that today the unemployment rate in Cape Breton is still atrocious.

Today, the saddest place in the world is Sydney airport. When kids come home from Ontario, Alberta, and B.C., or wherever they ended up, it is the grandmothers waiting for the babies to come off the plane.

I fear that when we set up a program that realistically is there to help, it can become a crutch. It will not be doing great things for women either, with entering into the workplace, taking tough decisions about being single mothers, or having the help from the government become more of a noose around their necks.

I ask the government to do very careful analysis going into the future on what effect the child care benefit will have upon decisions of young women to enter the workplace. Whether it is having an effect, detrimental or positive, I would like to see both. However, anecdotally from my past experience, being paid by the mailbox, as my friend from Saskatchewan has always said, is certainly not as good as being paid by a cheque. That is definitely the better way to deal with people's prosperity.

I appreciate the opportunity to stand in this place to talk about difficult things and the effects that policies may have on people's life choices. I appreciate very much that it is a touchy subject, and I hope that members of the House understand that it is not necessarily coming from a negative place. It is coming from an honest place of what I have experienced in my life and who I am as a result.

The budget implementation act has given a lot of great words and platitudes for Canadians to consider, but at the end of the day, the great concern I have is that Canadians will also be responsible for the billions of dollars in debt.

The Minister of Finance did say in his book, and it is very true, that debt prevents us from doing things such as sleeping well at night. Right now, knowing the kind of debt that we will be saddling our kids with, combined with the debt of the provinces across this great country, I fear that not a lot of us will be sleeping very well at night.

Conservatives will not forget the Canadians who voted for responsible fiscal management on election day. We will not forget those who voted Liberal either, because the plan that those people voted for, the plan that they were actually promised, is a far departure from what the Liberals have delivered in this legislation today. We will continue to hold the government accountable. We will continue to ask questions.

We are going to continue to fight for lower taxes. We are going to continue to fight for a balanced budget. We want to see a plan that will keep Canada growing and thriving.

At this point, I would like to move an amendment. I move:

That the motion be amended by replacing all the words after the word “that” with

“this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures, since the bill does not support the principles of lower taxes, balanced budgets and job creation, exemplified, by among other things, repealing the Federal Balanced Budget Act.

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

moved 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.

Mr. Speaker, esteemed members of the House, I would like to start by acknowledging the enormous human and economic challenge in Fort McMurray, and say that all of our government stands at attention, looking to see how we can be of most assistance to people in this time of need.

It is a pleasure for me to rise today in this chamber to speak about the investments that our government will make to keep Canada's economy strong and growing for the long term. We bring a fundamentally new and optimistic approach to managing Canada's economy, one that is focused squarely on the middle class and on those working hard to join it.

The measures in the budget implementation bill will enable us to move forward with the main measures of our very first budget, which I tabled in the House on March 22.

I am particularly proud of this budget. It makes people the priority and sets out investments that will ensure the growth of the middle class and our economy.

This budget takes major steps towards the implementation of a long-term plan that will re-establish hope and ensure economic growth to the benefit of all Canadians.

I can say that our plan for the middle class is resonating with Canadians. Since the day after I tabled budget 2016, I have been travelling across Canada from the Maritimes to Quebec City, Waterloo, and west to Vancouver. Canadians are telling us that we are on the right path to long-term growth. I have also taken our message internationally to Chicago, New York, Paris, London, and Washington. I have met with economists, representatives of the financial sector, and investors. Everywhere I go, people are telling us the same thing, “We really like what you are doing up in Canada”.

Members may have read that the Financial Times called Canada a glimmer of light. The Wall Street Journal called Canada the “poster child” for the International Monetary Fund's global growth strategy, and Christine Lagarde, head of the IMF, praised our approach. Our budget earned these endorsements because, I firmly believe, our government is focused on exactly the right things.

The legislation we are debating today would be a significant step in revitalizing the economy by providing better support for the members of the middle class and their families. Budget implementation act, 2016, no. 1, includes measures that would give Canadians the opportunity to build better lives for themselves. For some, that would mean being able to afford to send their kids to a quality day care or helping their teenagers with college tuition. For others, it would mean a secure and dignified retirement.

We have chosen to invest in Canadians because they are this country's most precious resource. They are among the most highly skilled and educated people in the world. As a result, we are poised to lead on many fronts, owing to our collective strength and the soundness of the policy direction and decisions outlined in this budget. The responsible way forward is to seize the opportunity in front of us, an opportunity to embrace the future and make targeted investments to grow our economy. We have the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. Interest rates are at record lows. This allows the Government of Canada to borrow on favourable terms and boost the economy over the long term.

Canadians can take heart that, much like the turnaround of the country's finances back in the 1990s, our plan of investing in long-term growth is pivotal and transformative. This is a budget that would offer a fresh boost to the core of this economy, Canada's middle class.

The bill we are debating today will help build a strong economy in Canada and will give Canadians in the middle class, and those who are working hard to join it, more money to save, invest, and help grow our economy.

We want to act quickly on as many budget measures as possible, to give immediate support to Canadians and lay the foundation for long-term growth. That is why this bill contains measures that will help seniors retire with dignity, support workers and businesses, and give veterans the benefits they deserve.

The overall health of our country and economy can be gauged by how our middle class is doing. Middle-class people need a government that acts to restore hope and brings opportunities. What they need is more than temporary half measures.

That is why the new Government of Canada introduced the middle-class tax cut as its first order of business last December. Because of this measure, nearly nine million people across the country have seen their tax burden shrink. They are getting a break on each and every paycheque so they can better help themselves and better plan their family's future. In order to help pay for this middle-class tax cut, a new income tax rate of 33% was introduced for the wealthiest Canadians with more than $200,000 in taxable income each year.

In addition to the tax cut, we introduced the new Canada child benefit in budget 2016. This benefit is intended to help parents better support their most precious resource, their children. The Canada child benefit is a simpler, more generous tax-free benefit for Canadians. It is also better targeted to those who need it most than the existing child benefits. It is estimated that about 300,000 fewer children would be living in poverty in 2016-17 compared with 2014-15, once the Canada child benefit is in place.

With the passage of this bill, starting this July, families with children under 18 will be provided a maximum annual benefit of up to $6,400 per child under the age of six and up to $5,400 per child for those age six through seventeen. Nine out of ten families will receive more money than they do now. Whether the extra money is used for things such as signing up their children for summer camp, helping cover the family grocery bill, or buying warm coats for the winter, the CCB will help parents with the high costs of raising their children.

By supporting the budget implementation bill, members will be helping more Canadian parents breathe a little easier at month's end, and help them save for their children's future.

The educational opportunities for young Canadians lie at the core of a creative and entrepreneurial economy. Budget 2016 recognizes the costs educators often incur at their own expense for supplies that enrich our children's learning environment. The passage of the bill will implement a new teacher and early childhood educator school supply tax credit, in recognition of out-of-pocket expenses for supplies such as paper, glue, paint, games, puzzles, and supplementary books for their students.

This 15% refundable income tax credit will apply on up to $1,000 of eligible supplies in the 2016 and subsequent tax years. It will provide a benefit worth about $140 million over the 2015-16 to 2020-21 period.

Canada's compassion ought to be judged on how it treats its most vulnerable. A crucial part of this is to help our seniors to retire in comfort and dignity. One of the most important social contracts since the mid-20th century in Canada is the ability to enjoy a secure and dignified retirement. Canada's retirement income system has been successful at reducing the incidence of poverty among Canadian seniors. However, some seniors continue to be at a heightened risk of living in a low-income situation. In particular, single seniors are nearly three times more likely to live in low-income situations than seniors generally.

The budget will help seniors retire comfortably and with dignity by making significant new investments that support them in their retirement years.

The passage of this bill will cancel the provisions in the Old Age Security Act that increase the age of eligibility for old age security and guaranteed income supplement benefits from 65 to 67 and allowance benefits from 60 to 62 over the 2023 to 2029 period.

The passage of the bill will also increase the guaranteed income supplement top-up benefit by up to $947 annually for the most vulnerable single seniors, starting in July 2016. This will help those seniors who rely almost exclusively on old age security and guaranteed income supplement benefits and may therefore be at risk of experiencing financial difficulties.

This enhancement will more than double the current maximum guaranteed income supplement top-up benefit, and represents a 10% increase in the total maximum guaranteed income supplement benefits available to the lowest income single seniors. This measure represents an investment of over $670 million per year, and will improve the financial security of about 900,000 single seniors across Canada. Over two-thirds of those who will benefit from this increase are women living alone.

Budget implementation act, 2016, no. 1, includes measures to facilitate access to venture capital for small and medium-sized businesses and support saving by the middle class. Its passage will restore the labour-sponsored venture capital corporations, or LSVCC, tax credit to 15% for share purchases of provincially registered LSVCCs for 2016 and subsequent tax years. This measure will provide federal tax relief of about $815 million over the 2015-16 to 2020-21 period.

Budget 2016 takes immediate action to enhance the employment insurance benefits program so that out-of-work Canadians have the support they need while they need to look for their next job. After the passage of this legislation, new entrants and re-entrants to the labour market will face the same eligibility requirements as other claimants in the region where they live. An estimated 50,000 additional Canadians will become eligible for EI benefits as a result of this measure, which will take effect in July 2016.

The bill will also reduce the EI waiting period from two weeks to one week, starting January 1, 2017, in order to help ease the financial pressure on those individuals who find themselves between jobs.

Passage of the bill will also extend EI regular benefits by five weeks to all eligible claimants in affected regions of the country and provide up to an additional 20 weeks of EI regular benefits to long-tenured workers who have experienced the sharpest and most severe increases in unemployment in those regions.

We are making significant investments to ensure the financial security and independence of disabled veterans and their families as they make the transition to civilian life. Veterans and their families have earned the deepest respect and gratitude from all Canadians.

Budget 2016 invests to give back to those who have given so much in service to our country. It proposes to restore critical access to services for veterans and ensures the long-term financial security of those who are severely injured, physically or mentally, in the line of duty.

The bill will amend the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act to increase, both retroactively and going forward, the disability award and associated benefits, such as the death benefit, and to adjust the orientation and terminology of the permanent impairment allowance while also increasing the earnings loss benefit to 90%.

Some $1.6 billion over five years will flow directly to veterans and their families in the form of higher direct payments.

Specifically, this bill will be increasing the value of the disability award for injuries and illnesses caused by service to a maximum of $360,000 and ensuring payment of higher benefits retroactively to all veterans who received a disability award since 2006; increasing the earnings loss benefit to replace 90% of an eligible veteran's gross pre-release military salary; and changing the name of the permanent impairment allowance to the career impact allowance, to reflect the intent of the program, consistent with changes announced in the budget to better compensate victims who had their career options limited by a service-related injury or illness.

These enhancements deliver on mandate commitments and respond to recommendations from key stakeholders, including the veterans ombudsman.

Investing in infrastructure creates good well-paying jobs that can help the middle class grow and prosper today. Budget 2016 lays the groundwork for future growth by making immediate investments of $11.9 billion over five years, starting right away, in public transit, green infrastructure, and social infrastructure. Over 10 years, the government will invest more than $120 billion in infrastructure to better meet the needs of Canadians and position Canada's economy for the future.

The passage of the bill will help ensure that government institutions are aligned to best support infrastructure and innovation by transferring responsibility for PPP Canada Inc. from the Minister of Finance to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities.

In conclusion, our government is committed to openness, transparency, and collaboration. Respect for Parliament is an essential part of this commitment.

That is why our government is restoring Parliament's oversight of the government's borrowing plans: to provide greater accountability and transparency for how the government finances its activities.

I would like to highlight the hard work of former senator Lowell Murray, one of the most distinguished parliamentarians of the last century, and his advocacy over many years on this important measure. I would also like to thank Senator Moore for carrying on that tireless advocacy in the years since his colleague's retirement. He worked with others, like retired senator Tommy Banks and Senator Day, making sure Canadians understood the importance of this issue.

Budget 2016 represents a giant step forward in our plan to put those in the middle class first and to deliver the help they need now, while investing for the years and decades to come. It is about creating the necessary conditions to ensure that hope and hard work will not be wasted but will be rewarded, where our children and our children's children can flourish.

With these investments, inspired by a sense of fairness, we are ensuring that Canada's best days lie ahead. I therefore encourage all members in the House to support this bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

They're coming Tuesday morning.

If we meet with officials on the Tuesday on the subject of the bill, we can meet Wednesday and Thursday if you like with witnesses. I know there are witnesses who have come forward from all parties. That would get us some way down the road to dealing with Bill C-15. We can't deal with the bill as a whole until it goes through the House, but we can deal with the subject matter prior to it coming out of the House.

Mr. Caron.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Could we just set this aside for the moment? You think about it, whether you want to change that word. There might be unanimous consent to change it. While you're thinking about that, we will deal with some of these other issues.

We have two budget proposals before the committee. One is the study into the Canada Revenue Agency's efforts to combat tax avoidance and evasion. The amount requested is for $3,500.

Moved by Mr. MacKinnon.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The second one is the budget matter request for the 2016-17 main estimates, votes 1 and 5 under the Canada Revenue Agency. The amount requested is $500.

Moved by Mr. MacKinnon.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We do have some other motions to deal with, but before we get to that we need to deal with scheduling to assist the clerk.

We're dealing with the CRA in committee business on May 5. We're also dealing with CRA, the study into tax avoidance and evasion from 11 to 1. During the first hour, we're dealing with the commissioner and the chief executive officer of CRA and then following that, the officials are staying to deal with Bill C-15.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, today, we will complete the debate on the New Democratic Party's opposition day on the Canadian dairy industry.

Tomorrow we will begin an important debate at second reading on Bill C-14, medical assistance in dying.

Next week, as my friend pointed out, we will be back in our ridings working hard to meet the people who elected us and sent us here.

When the House returns on Monday, May 2, we will continue our second reading debate of Bill C-14. I hope that we can sit late on Monday and Tuesday of that week so that all members who want to speak to this important bill can do so.

On Wednesday, the House will begin second reading debate on Bill C-15, the budget implementation act, 2016, No. 1. We will continue that important debate on Thursday.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will allow me to take this opportunity to wish Her Majesty the Queen a very happy 90th birthday.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Dr. Patti Tamara Lenard, Associate Professor, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Ottawa, As an Individual]

Hi, and thank you for inviting me to speak to you again. As the chair just said, I'm an associate professor in the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa. My areas of expertise are in political theory and practice in immigration policy, and also multiculturalism.

I have focused the last two years of my research on the so-called power to revoke citizenship across democratic states in Europe and in Australia, and of course, in Canada. Bill C-6 proposes to undo the most controversial change, in my view, to the Citizenship Act adopted during the Conservative government's time in power. That is, the power to revoke the citizenship of those who commit a long list of crimes, including treason, spying, and terrorism.

When the Conservatives opened debate on Bill C-24 at this committee, I was invited to speak, and I spoke against it. I said that the power to revoke citizenship has absolutely no place in democratic states. I believe I used an expression that my colleague used, “a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian”. I believe that. I said that citizens in a democratic state have the absolute right not to be expelled against their will.

It is only slightly an exaggeration that I have held my breath since the election of the Liberal Party, waiting for them to fulfill their promise to revoke the revocation bill. I am gratified by the content of Bill C-6.

I want to respond here briefly to three defences of the power to revoke offered by Conservative MPs in the House when this Bill C-6 was open for discussion. Then I'd like to offer a piece of advice to the Liberal Party about how to announce this bill when it finally passes into law.

The three Conservative objections that I'd like to consider are these: that revocation protects democracies and makes citizens safer; that in adopting a revocation law, we were finally catching up to states that permit revocation, mainly European ones; and that this has large-scale public support.

First, does revocation protect democracy and make a citizen safer? There is no evidence that is true—not one iota of evidence. The Canadian criminal justice system is an excellent one. I think we all agree with that, and it possesses the resources necessary to punish individuals who are convicted of all kinds of heinous crimes.

More generally, and this is important, there is no evidence that states that presently possess the power to revoke citizenship are safer than those who do not. Indeed, recent events in Europe, for example, in Belgium, where the state possesses the right to revoke citizenship, including the right to render its citizens stateless, suggests the opposite. The fact that revocation would have targeted dual citizens only fundamentally undermines the equality to which the Canadian democratic state is committed, in ways in which I'm happy to elaborate in our discussion, and which in my view fundamentally undermines the security of Canadians.

Second, is it true that we were catching up to other states by adopting a revocation law? I have two things to say about this. First, it is profoundly relevant that where European states do permit revocation, these laws have been on the books for decades. In most cases, they were adopted before or after the two world wars.

Second, they are almost, with the exception of the U.K., entirely in disuse. The trend is toward abandoning these laws, not in adopting them, in spite of recent public discourse that makes the contrary appear true. We all know now that France has just recognized this and has backed down from adopting a revocation bill, having acknowledged that it is fundamentally democratic. Of course, it did so in the face of a devastating terrorist attack on its soil.

Truly, the advantage of the Liberal bill before us now is that it can be at the forefront of an international commitment, a recommitment to the right of individuals to their own nationality. It is a commitment adopted in international law to respond to the massive human rights violations, to put it mildly, that followed denationalizations during World War II, which my colleague spoke about earlier.

Three, what should we make of the claim that there's public support for revoking citizenship? It's not surprising that a bill like this would have widespread support. Punishing perceived criminals is very popular, but it is a feature of democratic states that the rights of minorities, especially unpopular ones, are not subjected to majority vote. The strength of the Canadian Constitution, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, are that they protect the rights of all Canadians regardless of how others feel about them.

I teach this in my introductory course on democratic theory. The people who are at issue here are individuals who have committed heinous crimes. They are the most hated of Canadians, but they're still entitled to have their rights protected. The strength of the criminal justice system in a democratic state is determined by whether it protects the rights of the criminal.

Regarding my advice, here is the context. For the past three years, like my colleague, and with the financial support of the Kanishka project at the Department of Public Safety, I have been studying the effects of counterterrorism policies on the Muslim community in Canada. In particular, I have been evaluating their responses to a whole range of policies that have been adopted in the counterterrorism era.

We have interviewed over 100 prominent Muslims from five major Canadian cities about a range of specific policies, including the recent use of security certificates, the expanded range of CSIS investigative powers, the passenger protect list, and of course Bill C-24, which permitted the revocation of citizenship.

We also asked questions about the experience of being a Muslim in Canada right now in this era of counterterrorism. So many of our respondents spoke of being devastated—and that is the language that they used, devastated—by the ways in which the pursuit of these policies has served to undermine the trust of Muslim citizens in the Canadian state.

Further, in their view, these policies, and just as much the discourse surrounding the adoption of these policies, has seemed to them to perpetuate an idea of Muslims as dangerous and disloyal citizens, and that they can and should be treated with suspicion and distress by others. They believe this discourse has created a climate in which discrimination against them has been made legitimate and in which it goes unpunished. They believe their charter rights are not protected.

Fundamentally Muslim Canadians believe the intent of Bill C-24's revocation clause was to permit and encourage discrimination against them. They believed that it would be used only against Muslims, and they could point to public discussions of people considered as possibly eligible for revocation, all of whom were Muslim, and they pointed to that as evidence of their claim.

The revocation of the so-called revocation bill presents the Liberal government with an opportunity to continue its mission to protect and rebuild an inclusive Canadian identity that can again underpin trust among citizens of all religions, races, and colours.

The language that it has chosen to announce this bill is just as important as the fact of it, if not more. When the Liberal government explains why it has gone forward in this case, it must stand up to declare that Muslim Canadians are full and loyal citizens. The language must be the lofty language of inclusion deployed throughout the entire Liberal election campaign.

I look forward to when the power to revoke has been put to rest.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Knowing that we'll have Bill C-10 coming to us very quickly, and in order to continue to be as efficient as we have been with our time so far, can I suggest that committee members submit their witness lists by this coming Friday?

I'm sorry, Mr. Fraser. I will get to you.

Second, I suggest that we direct the clerk to invite the minister and departmental officials to come before committee at the first meeting on Bill C-10. This way, if it comes on Thursday, we'll still have a motion that we can get all of this started as soon we come back on May 2. Is everybody in agreement?

We'll give direction to the clerk to notify the minister that we'd like to see him at our first opportunity when we're dealing with Bill C-10 and that the committee members will submit by this coming Friday a list of any witnesses that they would like to have come before committee.