Bill C-15 (Historical)

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1.

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures

Part 1 implements certain income tax measures proposed in the March 22, 2016 budget by
(a) eliminating the education tax credit;
(b) eliminating the textbook tax credit;
(c) exempting from taxable income amounts received as rate assistance under the Ontario Electricity Support Program;
(d) maintaining the small business tax rate at 10.‍5% for the 2016 and subsequent taxation years and making consequential adjustments to the dividend gross-up factor and dividend tax credit;
(e) increasing the maximum deduction available under the northern residents deduction;
(f) eliminating the children’s arts tax credit;
(g) eliminating the family tax cut credit;
(h) replacing the Canada child tax benefit and universal child care benefit with the new Canada child benefit;
(i) eliminating the child fitness tax credit;
(j) introducing the school supplies tax credit;
(k) extending, for one year, the mineral exploration tax credit for flow-through share investors;
(l) restoring the labour-sponsored venture capital corporations tax credit for purchases of shares of provincially registered labour-sponsored venture capital corporations for the 2016 and subsequent taxation years; and
(m) introducing changes consequential to the introduction of the new 33% individual tax rate.
Part 1 implements other income tax measures confirmed in the March 22, 2016 budget by
(a) amending the anti-avoidance rules in the Income Tax Act that prevent the conversion of capital gains into tax-deductible intercorporate dividends;
(b) qualifying certain costs associated with undertaking environmental studies and community consultations as Canadian exploration expenses;
(c) ensuring that profits from the insurance of Canadian risks remain taxable in Canada;
(d) ensuring that the dividend rental arrangement rules under the Income Tax Act apply where there is a synthetic equity arrangement;
(e) providing specific tax rules in respect of the commercialization of the Canadian Wheat Board, including a tax deferral for eligible farmers;
(f) permitting registered charities and registered Canadian amateur athletic associations to hold limited partnership interests;
(g) providing an exemption to the withholding tax requirements for payments by qualifying non-resident employers to qualifying non-resident employees;
(h) limiting the circumstances in which the repeated failure to report income penalty will apply;
(i) permitting the sharing of taxpayer information within the Canada Revenue Agency to facilitate the collection of certain non-tax debts; and
(j) permitting the sharing of taxpayer information with the Office of the Chief Actuary.
Part 2 implements certain goods and services tax/harmonized sales tax (GST/HST) measures proposed in the March 22, 2016 budget by
(a) adding insulin pens, insulin pen needles and intermittent urinary catheters to the list of GST/HST zero-rated medical and assistive devices;
(b) clarifying that GST/HST generally applies to supplies of purely cosmetic procedures provided by all suppliers, including registered charities;
(c) relieving tax to ensure that when a charity makes a taxable supply of property or services in exchange for a donation and an income tax receipt may be issued for a portion of the donation, only the value of the property or services supplied is subject to GST/HST;
(d) ensuring that interest earned in respect of certain deposits is not included in determining whether a person is considered to be a financial institution for GST/HST purposes; and
(e) clarifying the treatment of imported reinsurance services under the GST/HST imported supply rules for financial institutions.
Part 2 also implements other GST/HST measures confirmed in the March 22, 2016 budget by
(a) adding feminine hygiene products to the list of GST/HST zero-rated products; and
(b) permitting the sharing of taxpayer information in respect of non-tax debts within the Canada Revenue Agency under certain federal and provincial government programs and in respect of certain programs where information sharing is currently permitted under the Income Tax Act.
Part 3 implements certain excise measures proposed in the March 22, 2016 budget by
(a) ensuring that excise tax relief for diesel fuel used as heating oil or to generate electricity is targeted to specific instances; and
(b) enhancing certain security and collection provisions in the Excise Act, 2001.
Part 3 also implements other excise measures confirmed in the March 22, 2016 budget by permitting the sharing of taxpayer information in respect of non-tax debts within the Canada Revenue Agency under certain federal and provincial government programs and in respect of certain programs where information sharing is currently permitted under the Income Tax Act.
Division 1 of Part 4 repeals the Federal Balanced Budget Act.
Division 2 of Part 4 amends the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act to, among other things,
(a) replace “permanent impairment allowance” with “career impact allowance”;
(b) replace “totally and permanently incapacitated” with “diminished earning capacity”;
(c) increase the percentage in the formula used to calculate the earnings loss benefit;
(d) specify when a disability award becomes payable and clarify the formula used to calculate the amount of a disability award;
(e) increase the amounts of a disability award; and
(f) increase the amount of a death benefit.
In addition, it contains transitional provisions that provide, among other things, that the Minister of Veterans Affairs must pay, to a person who received a disability award or a death benefit under that Act before April 1, 2017, an amount that represents the increase in the amount of the disability award or the death benefit, as the case may be. It also makes consequential amendments to the Children of Deceased Veterans Education Assistance Act, the Pension Act and the Income Tax Act.
Division 3 of Part 4 amends the sunset provisions of certain Acts governing federal financial institutions to extend by two years, namely, from March 29, 2017 to March 29, 2019, the period during which those institutions may carry on business.
Division 4 of Part 4 amends the Bank Act to facilitate the continuance of local cooperative credit societies as federal credit unions by granting the Minister of Finance the authority to provide transitional procedural exemptions, as well as a loan guarantee.
Division 5 of Part 4 amends the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act to, among other things, broaden the Corporation’s powers to temporarily control or own a domestic systemically important bank and to convert certain shares and liabilities of such a bank into common shares.
It also amends the Bank Act to allow the designation of domestic systemically important banks by the Superintendent of Financial Institutions and to require such banks to maintain a minimum capacity to absorb losses.
Lastly, it makes consequential amendments to the Financial Administration Act, the Winding-up and Restructuring Act and the Payment Clearing and Settlement Act.
Division 6 of Part 4 amends the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act to change the membership of the committee established under that Act so that the Chairperson of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation is replaced by that Corporation’s Chief Executive Officer. It also amends several Acts to replace references to that Chairperson with references to that Chief Executive Officer.
Division 7 of Part 4 amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to authorize an additional payment to be made to a territory, in order to take into account the amount of the territorial formula financing payment that would have been paid to that territory for the fiscal year beginning on April 1, 2016, if that amount had been determined using the recalculated amount determined to be the gross expenditure base for that fiscal year.
Division 8 of Part 4 amends the Financial Administration Act to restrict the circumstances in which the Governor in Council may authorize the borrowing of money without legislative approval.
Division 9 of Part 4 amends the Old Age Security Act to increase the single rate of the guaranteed income supplement for the lowest-income pensioners by up to $947 annually and to repeal section 2.‍2 of that Act, which increases the age of eligibility to receive a benefit.
Division 10 of Part 4 amends the Special Import Measures Act to provide that a finding by the President of the Canada Border Services Agency of an insignificant margin of dumping or an insignificant amount of subsidy in respect of goods imported into Canada will no longer result in the termination of a trade remedy investigation prior to the President’s preliminary determination. It also provides that expiry reviews may be initiated from a date that is closer to the expiry date of an anti-dumping or countervailing measure and makes amendments related to that new time period.
Division 11 of Part 4 amends the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985 to combine the authorities for bilateral agreements and multilateral agreements into one authority for federal-provincial agreements, and to clarify that federal-provincial agreements may permit the application of provincial legislation with respect to a pension plan.
Division 12 of Part 4 amends the Employment Insurance Act to, among other things,
(a) increase, until July 8, 2017, the maximum number of weeks for which benefits may be paid to certain claimants in certain regions;
(b) eliminate the category of claimants who are new entrants and re-entrants; and
(c) reduce to one week the length of the waiting period during which claimants are not entitled to benefits.
Division 13 of Part 4 amends the Canada Marine Act to allow the Minister of Canadian Heritage to make payments to Canada Place Corporation for certain celebrations.
Division 14 of Part 4 amends the Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act to authorize the Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs to acquire the shares of PPP Canada Inc. on behalf of Her Majesty in right of Canada. It also sets out that the appropriate Minister, as defined in the Financial Administration Act, holds those shares and authorizes that appropriate Minister to conduct, with the Governor in Council’s approval, certain transactions relating to PPP Canada Inc. Finally, it authorizes PPP Canada Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiaries to sell, with the Governor in Council’s approval, their assets in certain circumstances.
Division 15 of Part 4 amends the Canada Foundation for Sustainable Development Technology Act to modify the process that leads to the Governor in Council’s appointment of persons to the board of directors of the Canada Foundation for Sustainable Development Technology by eliminating the role of the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of the Environment as well as the consultative role of the Minister of Industry from that process. It also amends the Budget Implementation Act, 2007 to provide that a sum may be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund to the Foundation on the requisition of the Minister of Industry and to clarify the maximum amount of that sum.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1

[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.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in order to grow the economy and pay off the debt and deficits that the government is going to incur, the government needs to create jobs, and in creating jobs, it also needs people to fill the jobs. My question for the minister is very specific, and I want an answer to it.

Policy decisions need to take into consideration not only what the effect is in the short term, but also the impact on the workforce. I would like to know whether or not the minister or his department conducted a policy analysis on the Canada child benefit and what effect that will have on young women entering the workforce.

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we analyzed the measures in our budget exhaustively against a number of issues.

First and foremost, we looked at the measures in our budget and how they are going to impact on our economy in the immediate term. We calculated that the measures in our budget would increase our economy's growth by .5% this year and 1% next year. We looked at the number of jobs that are going to be increased in the economy this year and next year, 43,000 and 100,000, respectively.

Then we looked at measures like the Canada child benefit and what that was going to do for Canadian families. We looked at the number of families that were impacted positively by this measure. We concluded that nine out of ten families with children would be impacted positively, that, on average, they would get $2,300 more per year.

Of course, many of these benefits go to those families that are experiencing the greatest challenges. A single woman with one child, as a good example, earning $30,000 would be able to get $6,400 under our new measures, significantly enhancing her opportunity to be in the workforce while raising her child.

We have looked at the measures. We have considered them, and we believe that they are in the best short-term, medium-term, and long-term benefit of Canadians, including women.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister of Finance for his speech.

The fact that this is an omnibus bill has been raised a number of times in the House. The government denies it. However, O'Brien and Bosc's House of Commons Procedure and Practice, our bible of parliamentary procedure, indicates that an omnibus bill “seeks to amend, repeal or enact several Acts...”.

This 179-page bill amends 35 laws.

O'Brien and Bosc goes on to say that an omnibus bill “is made up of a number of related but separate initiatives”.

The word “initiatives” is an improvement over the previous definition and clarifies the situation.

This bill rolls an entire government bill, Bill C-12, into one measure. This bill contains an entire section on an extremely complex and important measure on the recapitalization of banks. There are measures that affect 35 different laws and nine different departments.

The minister claims that this is not an omnibus bill and that the committee and the House are not being prevented from conducting an in-depth study. How then does he define an omnibus bill? How does his definition differ from the definition in O'Brien and Bosc?

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question.

We want to be open and transparent with Canadians. We know that it is very important for the bill to contain measures that correspond to the ones in our budget. That is why we can say that this bill contains only measures that relate to budget 2016. That is why this is not an omnibus bill. It is a bill on the measures set out in budget 2016. It is clear and transparent.

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

Mr. Speaker, could the Minister of Finance comment further on how Canada's economy will benefit by the substantial decrease in taxes?

We have made reference to the millions of Canadians, Canada's middle class, who will receive a direct tax cut, and that tax cut is coming. By having that extra money in their pockets, communities from every region of our country will benefit.

Could the Minister of Finance elaborate on how enriching the middle class by giving it a tax cut will be healthy for Canada's economy?

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we embarked on our initiative to improve the lives of Canadians with the very first measure that we put in place, which was a tax reduction for middle-class Canadians.

We looked at the second tax bracket of between $45,000 and $90,000 and recognized that by reducing taxes for people in that group by 7%, by moving it from 22% down to 20.5%, we could reduce the taxes for a large number of Canadians. Almost nine million Canadians would be impacted by that tax reduction.

We recognize that middle-class Canadians are finding themselves anxious and challenged to get ahead. By reducing taxes in that cohort, we create a better situation for those Canadians and their families, and we create a heightened sense of optimism and possibility for the future, which will inspire us and Canada's economy to do that much better in the future.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister of Finance for his remarks.

I thank him for the quality of his French. Every time I rise in the House of Commons and ask him a question, he answers me in French. I deeply appreciate that, not because he is speaking French but because what he is saying is right.

I would like to clarify a few things, however. When the minister talks about a better debt-to-GDP ratio, he should acknowledge, as a seasoned executive, that it is the legacy of the previous government.

During the election campaign, the minister promised changes to the tax system that would not cost a penny but are costing us $1.7 billion. He promised changes for children that would not cost a penny but are costing us $1.4 billion. He promised that his deficit would not exceed $10 billion, but it looks more like $30 billion.

This is not question period. I am appealing to the minister's good judgment, good sense, and goodwill. Can we agree on at least one thing and acknowledge that he inherited a budget surplus from the former government?

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when I speak in French, I try to get things right, and I will continue to do that today as always.

With respect to the debt-to-GDP ratio, the balance sheet shows that our country is in a strong position because of actions taken in the 1990s and the early 2000s. Governments led by Mr. Chrétien and Mr. Martin changed the game by dramatically reducing the debt-to-GDP ratio. That is what led us to where we are now. That is what made it possible for us to invest.

Fortunately, our investments will boost our growth rate in the future and help us achieve a balanced budget in about five years while we continue to invest.

That will put us in a better situation than the difficult one the Conservatives left behind. We were in deficit for 10 years, and we will remain in deficit for the 12 months of 2015-16. That is how things stand now, but we are going to fix that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the Minister of Finance that we also welcome the economic stimulus program announced in the budget. I want to echo Ms. Lagarde, who pointed out that economic stimulus is very important when growth is uncertain. Now is the right time, and the announced infrastructure investments are appropriate.

However, I am concerned about the time it will take to transfer the money. The Minister of Finance said that we would proceed immediately. However, the budget says that transfers to the provinces, such as Quebec, will essentially be made through the building Canada model. In the past, it took two and a half years to come up with a framework agreement, and then it took one and a half years to come up with an agreement for each project.

With this economic stimulus model, we need money to come in quickly, but that will not happen.

Why did the minister not use the gas tax transfer model?

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

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

We know that it is very important to make investments and to make them as quickly as possible.

We will start with an $11.9-billion first phase of infrastructure investments. This phase will start very soon. However, we must still remain prudent. We must work with the provinces and municipalities to make sure that the projects are good projects and that they will help communities across the country.

We will try to invest as quickly as possible through the process that is working right now, but we will also be prudent with the money, which is really Canadians' money, to make sure that the investments will truly have a positive impact on our economy, now and in the future.

[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.

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my hon. colleague's comments, because she was describing my life. I am one of those women entrepreneurs who started a number of small businesses while raising my children.

I found it really interesting as I listened. As small businesses first start out, what the tax rate is, frankly, does not matter because owners are cashing their paycheques and putting that money back into the business, because they are growing the business and starting it.

What my small business needed and what the small business owners I talked to as president of the Chamber of Commerce needed were customers. I wonder if the member opposite would comment on whether she believes that growing the economy is the tool that would create customers for small businesses.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that, when individuals run a business, there are two things they care about: revenue and expenses. I do not know whether one is more important than the other. Both definitely have to be looked at in order to ensure that the bottom line does well.

On the expenses side, that is something the government could absolutely control; that is something that it could do right now to alleviate pressure on small businesses, to ensure that they do well, that they do have extra cash to invest in their business. What the government cannot guarantee, and what the government will not do through this legislation, is get more customers for small business, or increase revenue for small business. It is a plan, it is an idea, it is an ideology in some cases that putting money into the hands of the middle class will inevitably end up increasing the economy. Economists have said different things about what is going to happen to the GDP, but how Canadians feel about their security in our economy is going to determine whether or not they will spend that money.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have had the pleasure of sitting with my colleague on the finance committee.

Everybody knows that there is a wide ideological gap between the Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party, but there are some things on which we agree. I do remember, for example, the long crusade of my colleague Pat Martin, the former MP for Winnipeg Centre, for the abolition of the penny. We saw that measure in a previous Conservative budget.

Another element on which we can agree is the tax reduction for small and medium-sized businesses. The NDP introduced this commitment back in its 2008 platform, and in 2011 as well. We also did it in 2015. The Conservatives, once again, in a previous budget announced the gradual decrease of the tax on small businesses from 11% to 9%. The Liberals followed suit during the 2015 campaign. It is never too late to board the train. They said that they would also decrease that tax to 9%. What do we find in this budget? The Liberals have kept the first tax cut to 10.5% and cancelled the rest. This is clearly a broken promise by the Liberal government, and it will cost small and medium-sized businesses $2.2 billion.

I would like to hear my hon. colleague's comments on this.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the great work that the NDP did in asking the parliamentary budget officer for a true quantification of how expensive this would be for small businesses in Canada. It came out to $2.2 billion, a very large number. That is exactly the hit that small businesses are taking across this country as a result of the Liberals breaking their promise.

We do agree on a lot of things together, but we do also agree that we have to keep the government to account for the promises it made. The hon. member and I, through our work on committee, will make sure we do that every single time we meet as a committee.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her thoughtful comments and constructive criticism of this budget. However, a day after the government abruptly shut down debate on Bill C-14 to comply with the Supreme Court order to provide Canadians with the constitutional right to a physician-assisted death, I wonder if she does not find a bit rich the finance minister's comments about avoiding half measures, in that there is not a mention of a penny of the $3 billion promised during the campaign by the Liberals for palliative care, among other things, which would ease Canadians' constitutional right to live a full and complete life. I wonder if my colleague shares my concern about this disappointing delay of priorities.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the great impassioned speech he gave on the topic of assisted death in this House. He was one of the four MPs allowed to do so; three-quarters of us were prohibited from doing so as a result of the shutting down of the debate yesterday.

The hon. member brings up a very good point, which is this. There is no real policy rationale throughout this entire budget. It is half-baked at best. Promises made are promises are kept, depending on whom the Liberals wish to reward for their election last year. The saddest part of this budget is this. When we have a serious issue before this House, such as physician-assisted death, knowing that palliative care has to be that anchor on the other side, the rush on the one side and the complete ignorance to the issue on the other is breathtaking. Therefore, it is a half-baked piece of policy that we will be watching very carefully.

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Youth)]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from across the aisle used words like “cryptically”, and referred to “fine print”, with respect to some parts of the budget. She even used the word “arrogance” to describe the budget from the government. She referenced our government's decision to invest in families, in infrastructure, and in growing the economy. That was hugely problematic to the member opposite. She also referenced the fact that she sees an issue with the Canada child benefit, which would put more money into the pockets of families.

What is difficult to understand is this. When did this shift take place in the mind of the member when she suddenly had a huge issue with deficits, whereas her own government increased our debt by $150 billion? Also, when did she suddenly develop this huge issue with investing in families and providing support to families, whereas her government provided support to families?

What we have simply done is increase that investment and also made it clear for families to understand by making it tax-free.

I would like to know what the date was when this shift occurred in the mind of the member opposite. I am sure it was October 19 at midnight. However, I would like clarification on that.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not quite know how to answer the question and still remain in the chamber. The reality is this. There are wide gaps of policy rationale difference between what the Liberals have done with the child care benefit and what we did with the universal child care benefit. The biggest difference is the term “universal”. Everybody in Canada received it and could choose to do with it what they would. As well, it was costed and within our budget to do so, and it made a lot of sense to give parents the ability to choose.

Since we are taking this walk down memory lane, I would like to ask the member this. When did his party figure out that it is okay to give money directly to parents? When did it stop being afraid they would spend it on popcorn and beer?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a great respect for the hon. member for Milton. I congratulate her on many of the points she made. However, I have something to ask with respect to her speech, which was very confusing. She repeatedly made mention of the importance of assisting women in this country and, in particular, assisting women in entering the workforce. She spent a great deal of her speech on that aspect. She even talked about the particular challenges facing women who are starting small businesses.

The New Democratic Party has championed having a national child care plan that would be the single biggest contributing factor to assisting women to enter the workforce, to contribute to our society, and to start those small businesses. However, the member was part of a government that, for 10 years, studiously and steadfastly resisted bringing in a national child care system that would have exactly the effect and impact that she so passionately advocated for in her speech. I wonder if she can help me understand and bridge that confusion as to why she is opposed to a national child care plan but wants us to encourage women to enter the workforce in every aspect they can.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, where I land on the topic of institutional or national day care is this. It is a fact that the type and timing of child care needed in today's workplace is very different from what it was 30 years ago when we were talking about having one national day care system. Entrepreneurs have different hours, and millennials want to work different ways. I certainly wanted to work different hours that did not fit into the normal day care situation. In fact, I could not choose regular day care for my kids and ended up going to somebody in a house, who took in about five or six kids. That is how I did my child care.

It is the flexibility that I needed in my career that would be more, I would say, beneficial to women in the country, as opposed to a national day care plan. That is why I supported the universal child care benefit, because it would have enabled the mothers and the fathers to decide which way they wanted to deal with child care, which I thought would be the best way, given how technology changes the way we work.

I commend the NDP for all the work it does in ensuring that women enter either politics or the workplace. I appreciate that the member always brings up his point on national day care. I do not agree with him on it, and that is okay. That is what we do in the House, we debate those issues, but I am grateful for the question.

[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.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I have heard the subamendment from the hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques. Normally, a subamendment can only amend the amendment currently before the House. I will therefore consider the proposal of this subamendment and come back to the House with a decision.

The hon. member for Burnaby—Coquitlam on a point of order.

[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.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I thank the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby for his intervention. I apologize for messing up his riding name. I am not accustomed to doing that. I recognize that error.

I appreciate also the clarity of his intervention in respect to this matter, and commit to get back to the House soon in terms of the issue at hand. We will take this under advisement, very carefully, and appreciate the urgency in respect to the debate of the bill and the amendment that is currently before the House.

We will get back to the House as soon as possible.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Intergovernmental Affairs)]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague's analysis of his interpretation of what an omnibus bill is. I have to say there is actually no formal definition in either the rules of the House or in terms of legal definitions of what constitutes an omnibus bill.

However, when one reads his and other assessments of what constitutes an omnibus bill, it requires that the omnibus bill not only group together legislation, which any budget implementation bill does, but it groups together legislation that is not related to the budget.

The very clauses that the member raised concern with as being complex and many—and I appreciate that even though it is not 643 pages, it is only 180-odd pages, a much smaller version of a complex bill than we have seen presented in previous budgets and certainly in the last one I was in the House for—every item the member identified is actually a budget item. In other words, they are of a family of changes to existing bills and legislation that are related not only to each other but are directly related to the budget.

I appreciate that the movement on restoring and growing benefits for veterans is a previous piece of legislation which has been sped up through this process so we can get help to veterans as quickly as possible. I appreciate his concerns on that, even though he seems to support it, that we have included it in the budget, I think is appropriate.

Additionally, the idea that EI reform and expanding EI reform is part of the budget, is part of the legislative agenda, and we are bringing it through at the same time.

A very famous New Democrat by the name of Jack Layton once said at Toronto City Council that when they argue with process, they have conceded defeat on the principle.

I am wondering if the member opposite would like to reflect on the fact that they actually support these measures in the budget, and that what they are complaining about is that they cannot support them individually often enough.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, who is also the member for Spadina—Fort York.

We could debate this issue at length. According to our bible, this bill is an omnibus bill that includes different measures that can be found in the budget. However, just about everything the government does can be found in the budget. One could then make the argument that the budgets introduced by the Conservatives were not omnibus budgets.

We are debating the letter of the bill, but we must also debate the spirit in which the current government and the party made promises to voters during the election campaign.

The Liberals claimed that they would change things and that they would increase transparency and enhance the mechanisms intended to facilitate the work of committees and Parliament. However, that is not what this bill does, because it contains some extremely complex measures that will not be subject to a careful, comprehensive study, even though they will have serious consequences and should be carefully studied.

The committee will not be able to do so. The bill will then come back to the House and we will vote. The Liberals are doing the exact same thing as the Conservatives did before them. They are preventing even independent members from presenting their amendments in the House.

The Liberals' actions may be more subtle than the Conservatives' actions in the past, but we are still talking about introducing omnibus bills and about preventing the committees from working effectively.

In that sense, the process is unfortunately problematic. However, a number of the elements I mentioned in my speech, such as the Liberals' broken promises, will not go unnoticed. These elements could have been included, such as expanding all of the employment insurance measures and extending benefits across the country, not just in 12 regions. Some important elements in my speech should also not be overlooked.

At the end of the day, the point I want to make is that this government is no different from the previous government, despite the promises it made during the election campaign.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, for his trenchant critique of this omnibus budget bill.

I am sure he also remembers that the current government was elected promising a new health accord, yet the budget does not provide any increase in federal transfers to provincial governments, either as a share of the economy, or relative to previous projections. In fact, by 2019-20, this budget will have reduced annual transfers to provinces by $1 billion. To be specific, if we look at table 5.2.6 in budget 2015, it shows major transfers to other levels of government of $76.3 billion in 2019-20; whereas, if we look at table A1.4 in budget 2016, it shows the same figure down to $75.4 billion, again in 2019-20.

I wonder if the member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques would comment on why the Liberal government is cutting health transfers to Canadian provinces.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Regina—Lewvan.

This question is extremely important, and it goes to the very heart of Canadians' expectations following the last election.

On the NDP side, we clearly committed to restoring the 6% increase in health transfers to the provinces. What the Conservatives put forward limited the increase to the cost of living, with a certain minimum that was established at that time.

Clearly, this measure is completely inadequate for the provinces, which need those transfers to deal with the increased pressure being put on their health care budgets, largely due to our aging population.

It strikes me as problematic that the Liberal government is claiming that it is going to negotiate a new health accord. It is talking about negotiating one, not imposing one. However, the budget makes no mention of any increases in health transfers.

These negotiations will not be easy, because we are talking about not only the current situation facing the provinces, but also the situation they will face over the next 5, 10, or 15 years, since the demographic pressures are only going to increase.

What are the government's plans? We have no idea. Tabling the budget and introducing the budget implementation bill would have been a perfect opportunity for us to learn more about the government's intentions, but that remains very mysterious and nebulous at the moment.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech

While we in the official opposition and the NDP disagree on many points and many points relative to this budget, we do have convergence in a number of areas. I wonder if the NDP shares our concern about the absence of any mention of what was an immediate commitment in the Liberal campaign for $3 billion for home care and palliative care at a time when the government is rushing to comply with the Supreme Court order for the constitutional right to physician-assisted death while putting off, we do not know for how long, the commitment to provide palliative care for Canadians' constitutional right to live a full, complete, and comfortable end of life.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for asking that very important question. It touches on a belief that our two parties have in common.

Campaign promises were clear about investments and provincial transfers amounting to $3 billion for home care and palliative care, but there is no mention of it in the budget.

I think that is not all we should invest in immediately. For example, we can talk about restoring the tax credit for labour-sponsored funds, which help raise capital for venture capital firms. The Liberals promised to restore it to 15% right away. This year, when people filed their tax returns, it was 5%. The Liberals made a lot of promises and then shelved them. I suspect they made those promises just to get elected.

The palliative care and home care measure is extremely important because it would have helped so much with the debate we just had and will continue to have on medical assistance in dying. We missed a golden opportunity to connect a conversation about palliative care with the subject before us. The Supreme Court is expecting an answer from Parliament on that subject.

If we had debated home care and palliative care at the same time as medical assistance in dying, that would have been a very helpful perspective. It would have been very useful not only for parliamentarians in the House but also for all Canadians.

[Jim Carr, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this special place with humility and gratitude.

I rise with humility because I represent the 90,000 people of Winnipeg South Centre who, in the most magical moment of all in our democracy, have transferred their trust to me to represent them in the Parliament of Canada. They represent, really, all that is great about Canada, in all of its diversity across all of its neighbourhoods and with all of its sense of place and pride of place, as all of us in the House feel. We bring that pride of place to something that is greater than our own identities or the places in which we live: to the great country that is ours.

I rise with gratitude because I am here due to the courage of my grandparents. They left Russia in 1906, escaping the pogroms of the czar, Jewish people who were not at home in the Pale of Settlement, who could not exercise freedom, who could not own property, who had no sense of opportunity for their children or grandchildren. They came to Canada, where there was a single relative to welcome them. They came with no English, no money, and really no prospects. What they brought with them was a sense of hope, opportunity and the freedom to be who they were. They were displaced Jews from a foreign country. What they found when they came to Canada was limitless opportunity, if not for themselves, for their children and, in my case, their grandchildren.

In my mother's family, only one of the four children could go to university. Three of them went to work so one could learn. His name was David Golden. David Golden was a prisoner of war, who was captured by the Japanese in Hong Kong on Christmas day of 1941. He came back to Canada weighing 120 pounds in August of 1945. He then picked up his Rhodes scholarship and became the youngest deputy minister in Canadian history at the age of 34. His minister was C.D. Howe.

My uncle was one of a handful of public servants who rebuilt the Canadian economy after the war. What he taught my family was that citizenship in a country such as Canada and the nobility of serving that country was the greatest calling of all. I owe to my grandparents and parents a sense of what it means to serve the people of Canada. I am grateful for that opportunity, and I am humbled by it.

I come from a very special province for many reasons. We all think that our home province is special, but I want to talk about a few things that are particularly appropriate to the budget we are debating. We are all immigrants, with the exception of indigenous peoples who have been here for thousands of years.

I remember when I was president of the Business Council of Manitoba, we held a conference called Pioneers 2000. As an icebreaker, we wanted all of the delegates to see if their ancestors would have been allowed into Canada under the circumstances of today. It was remarkable because former premier Duff Roblin, a Progressive Conservative premier of Manitoba, whom I considered to be a mentor, would not have been allowed into Canada. The ancestors of Gary Doer, who was the premier of Manitoba at the time, would not have been allowed into Canada.

Therefore, I am so proud of what the country has done in accepting 25,000 Syrian refugees, with the promise of more. We realize that when we open up our country to those who are fleeing persecution from other places, we provide them the possibility of a lifetime, and that will always be repaid to the generosity of the nation that accepts them. I feel, as a Canadian, so honoured and proud to be part of a nation that understands that, as well as a nation that understands the importance of immigration as a way of building our nation.

We have a sensibility and a sense of generosity, which is really unique in the world. I was struck by the comments of the member for Outremont this morning in reflecting on the tragedy in Fort McMurray. He was probably speaking for many of us when he expressed that where else but in Canada would there have been such an outpouring of generosity, understanding, and a sense of the collective that we had a responsibility to help each other.

As a Manitoban, I also grew up with the understanding that our indigenous populations had been marginalized for decades, for generations. Therefore, I was happy to see the budget announce significant investments so children raised in remote communities would have the same opportunities that my children have for a quality education; that they live in places where the water is clean and does not have to be boiled; that they live in communities where schooling is going to prepare them to live out their lives to fulfill their aspirations, the same way my children are experiencing now. We have a historic challenge to offer indigenous communities what all of us aspire to, regardless of our ethnicity, our religion, our place of birth, and our community. I am particularly happy to be part of a government that has recognized this, not only with words but with action.

I am also very happy that within the first few weeks of us taking on this responsibility, we brought back the long form census. We asserted again the importance of evidence-based decisions and of scientific evidence as we looked at forming and informing public policy.

Then, who can forget November 4 when the cabinet was sworn in on one of those absolutely perfect days? The fall foliage was in all its resplendent colours, with not a cloud in the sky, and a gentle breeze. We walked from 24 Sussex to Rideau Hall. When the cabinet was sworn in, we saw a reflection of the nation itself. Many of us were particularly moved when our colleague, now the Minister of Justice, was sworn in. An indigenous woman, having just been appointed to be the minister of justice for Canada was in its own way a symbol of how far we had come. Remarkably, it was in 1960 when aboriginal people were given the right to vote in Canada. That is in the lifetime of many of us who sit in the House, certainly in my lifetime. Therefore, to see that the very diversity, the very texture of the country was reflected in the cabinet was very moving.

Very shortly after we were sworn into office, we were given our mandate letters by the Prime Minister. However, it was not just that I was given a copy of the mandate letter, so were you, Mr. Speaker, and 36 million Canadians. In fact, anyone around the world with access to a computer has access to what the Prime Minister has asked us to do as members of the cabinet, which is a remarkable departure from any other government.

As Minister of Natural Resources, the Prime Minister has asked me to do many important things. One of them is to work with the provinces to develop a Canadian energy strategy. I have a particular interest in the subject. In 2009, when the President of the United States came here to meet with the prime minister of the day to talk about a continental energy strategy for North America, a few of us scratched our heads and said, “Well, that's a great idea, but what's the Canadian energy strategy?” There was not one.

We decided that we would put the frame around some principles, which ultimately led to the Council of the Federation publishing a Canadian energy strategy in July 2015, but the Government of Canada was not at the table. Therefore, a great national enterprise was not part of the Government of Canada's attention.

This is not the only example of how, over the last 10 years, the country has lost its sense of building national consensus over great national projects. In fact, the previous prime minister did not meet with the premiers for six years until the current Prime Minister called them to Ottawa to meet, first to prepare for the COP21 meeting in Paris, and then subsequently to begin sketching out a pan-Canadian framework on climate change, which most would agree is one of the great issues facing our time.

The whole nature of nation building by bringing leaders together to talk about those issues that were important to all Canadians had been lost. Well, not anymore. Now we are fully engaged in the business of building Canada from the top down and from the bottom up, as we have seen in the way in which the government has gone about doing its business.

Since taking on my responsibility, I have had the pleasure of representing Canada at the meeting of the International Energy Agency in Paris and of representing Canada at the G7 energy ministers' meeting in Japan just last week. My colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, has travelled to China, representing this government on energy and climate issues. Wherever we go there is a tremendous welcoming of Canada re-engaging in the forums of the world to talk about issues that are important not only to Canada, not only to Canadians, but to our partners internationally. This is a responsibility that we take seriously, and it is a responsibility that I discharge with the great humility of knowing that when I am at these places, I speak on behalf of the Government of Canada and on behalf of Canadians.

This is a government with a different approach, with a different tone, with a different way of going about its business, but also, as we see in this budget, with very precise commitments that give meaning to the promises of the campaign, that give substance to the mandate letters given to ministers by the Prime Minister and part of our commitment to the people of Canada.

I will talk about some of the elements of the budget that bear directly on the portfolio of Natural Resources, particularly on our commitment to facing the greatest challenge of our time, climate change. In many ways, Canadians are showing us the way, and I will give colleagues some examples of how Canadians are doing that.

At the north end of Howe Sound, a Canadian company is pulling carbon dioxide from the air and turning it into a fuel that can replace gasoline. In Okotoks, just south of Calgary, a community is heating its homes by collecting energy from the sun, storing it underground, and drawing on it as needed. In northern Ontario, Whitesand First Nation is looking to biomass to provide its electricity. In my own city of Winnipeg, entrepreneurs are providing streetside solar-powered stations so passersby can charge their cellphones and computers for free.

In these communities, and thousands like them across the country, Canadians are using their ingenuity to solve problems, to better their lives, and bring us to the future. They know our world must phase out its reliance on the fossil fuels of the past and embrace the renewable energy of tomorrow. While that transition may be long, its trajectory is clear.

Our government welcomes this new direction. We recognize that as a nation rich in fossil fuels, we need to find greater ways of extracting those resources. We must also accelerate the use of renewable energy.

Some may see these two imperatives as incompatible. They may, for example, view any investments in oil and gas exploration or infrastructure as reinforcing the past rather than building the future. We disagree. We see opportunity in all forms of energy, and as the Prime Minister has said, the choice between pipelines and wind turbines is a false one. We need both to reach our goal. Here is why.

While it is exciting to think about the low-carbon economy of the future, we are not there yet. The truth is that even in light of the Paris agreement, the demand for fossil fuels will actually increase for decades to come. In fact, according to the International Energy Agency, the world will need a third more energy by 2030, and three-quarters of that energy will come from fossil fuels, nor does it end there.

By 2040, a growing middle class in developing countries will consume 26 million more barrels of oil every day. At the same time, the use of natural gas could increase as a transitional fuel, cleaner than coal or oil and more accessible than many renewables. In short, oil and gas are not going away soon.

As Canadians we have a choice. We can say shut down the oil sands and natural gas production and let others meet this global demand, let others have the jobs and reap the benefits. That certainly is one option, or we can say let us use this period of increasing demand to our advantage. Let us build the infrastructure to get our resources to global markets and use the revenues to fund Canada's transition to cleaner forms of energy. In other words, let us leverage the fossil fuel resources we have today to deliver clean energy solutions for tomorrow.

How do we get there? Our government understands that to attract investment and build the infrastructure to move our energy to market, we need to get our environmental house in order and have Canadians behind us. We have to go to work.

The Prime Minister went to Paris with our provincial and territorial colleagues and let the world know that when it came to fighting climate change, Canada would no longer be a bystander. Then he met again with the provinces and territories to craft a new approach to climate change, including the possibility of putting a price on carbon. This budget goes further, providing $50 million to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the oil and gas sector.

We are restoring credibility to the environmental assessment process, and as Grand Chief Perry Bellegarde said so well, “Before you build anything...build a respectful relationship”. We agree. All of these measures are aimed at creating environmental assessments that will carry the confidence of both Canadians and investors. That is what this budget does.

The budget also invests more than $1 billion in clean innovation and technologies, technologies that will transform traditional sectors and open up entire new industries, technologies that can strengthen our economy, preserve our planet, and expand the middle class. Worldwide investment in the clean tech sector grew by 16% in 2014 alone. In less than five years it will be a $2-trillion industry. If Canada were to earn just its fair share of that market, we could create a $50-billion industry by 2020.

This budget goes further, investing billions of dollars in clean energy and technology, energy efficiency, charging stations for electric vehicles and refuelling stations for alternative energy, and a low-carbon economy fund that will support provincial and territorial action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

All of the budget initiatives I have talked about today take us closer to our long-term vision for Canada.

I believe that Canadians are ready to embrace that vision. After all, our history is marked by successive generations dreaming big and achieving greatly. We saw that spirit in a railway that spanned a continent, a broadcasting system that connected a country, and an arm that reached into space.

Today, that same spirit animates Canadians in every corner of our country. Like their forebears, they are tackling big challenges with big ideas, creating a future that will be brighter than we can imagine. This budget brings us closer to that future.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for his elegant speech. I want him to know that I share his pride in our country and look forward to a very bright future. I am paraphrasing, but he said the budget gives meaning to the commitment made by the government. One of the commitments it has made was to palliative care.

I was the parliamentary secretary for the minister of health for many years and I was here in the House during the economic downturn and I fought to make sure that there was no cut in transfers to the provinces. As a matter of fact, we continued to put more new money into health care.

I think Canadians want the priority of the government to be for people who are suffering, but frankly, there was absolutely no new money in the budget for health care, absolutely zero. The Liberals have been saying they have committed to $3 billion for palliative care. Our concern this week is that they have used closure on a bill on assisted suicide, a bill that would support an early death for those Canadians who are suffering and have no other choice without the same commitment or priority to alleviate the suffering of those Canadians while they are still alive.

I know the minister sits on cabinet and I was hoping we could get a commitment for some type of support today. Where is the $3 billion for palliative care? When will it be delivered? How does the government define its vision for palliative care?

[Jim Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, when we tabled the bill, at the same time, ministers spoke about the need and importance of palliative care across the country. As a matter of fact, at one time I was deputy leader of the Liberal Party in Manitoba and my leader was Sharon Carstairs who then became a member of the Canadian Senate and has led the Canadian conversation about the importance of palliative care.

This is a subject that we take seriously. It has been part of the discussion from the Minister of Justice and from the Minister of Health. It is something that I believe deeply to be a very important part of our responsibility as a government and as Canadians. I believe members will see that the government's commitment to palliative care will be real and will endure over time.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member's role as energy minister is important, but I also noticed in the budget that there is some mention of appointments. In my riding of Burnaby South, we have the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline expansion being planned.

I know there has been great talk about changes to the National Energy Board process, which has not been changed, but I know in terms of appointments that the minister has said that he would appoint a ministerial representative to oversee this process. The appointment has not been made and I have also heard that this person's appointment would only pay $1 per year.

I am wondering if the minister could confirm or deny that and also tell me where this representative is that we have not heard from yet.

[Jim Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there will be a panel of ministerial representatives appointed very soon. Their responsibility will be to consult with indigenous and non-indigenous communities up and down the line. The member I am sure is aware of the timetable of the Trans Mountain expansion.

The recommendation to government will come from the National Energy Board on May 20, and that will be followed by a seven-month period in which the government will assess the recommendations and ask the ministerial panel to do more meaningful consultation with indigenous communities up and down the line. There will be a decision taken by cabinet somewhere before the end of 2016.

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

Mr. Speaker, if I may compliment my colleague from Winnipeg who in his humble fashion talked a great deal about Winnipeg, our home city and province. He has been, over the last number of months, an ambassador of goodwill, opening all sorts of thoughts and dialogues on Canada's natural resources.

I have had the opportunity to have some chats with him in that regard and I am wondering if the minister would talk about how important Canada's natural resources are to our country, whether it is the creation of jobs or the contribution to the GDP. Could the minister share with the House these things, which I know he shares well beyond Ottawa and our home province of Manitoba?

[Jim Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, natural resources account for about 20% of the country's GDP. Part of the mandate letter from the Prime Minister stated that I was to understand that our prosperity is linked to the natural resource sector.

On the subject of consulting Canadians, I have had the pleasure of hosting round table conversations from Halifax to Vancouver. At these round tables were industry representatives, environmentalists, and indigenous leaders, who were sitting together, sometimes for the first time, listening to each other's points of view. It is remarkable. After two or three hours of such a conversation, they would suddenly start finishing each other's sentences, and that is because the objectives really are common ones. One of the challenges has been to ensure that people are in rooms listening to each other, not only in a small room with 10 or 20 people, but in the rooms of the nation.

That is why we have established a new way of assessing these projects that will require that a consensus be developed. In terms of a sense of public confidence in the regulatory system, we think the best way to do that is to facilitate these kinds of conversations among Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

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

Mr. Speaker, I commend the Minister of Natural Resources on his inspiring speech. I especially enjoyed the first part of his speech when he talked about his family history, starting with his grandparents' immigration story. I did not know that story. I was very moved by it.

I also appreciated the part where he said that the government supported renewable energy development. I would like him to give the House a concrete example of a measure in the budget through which the government will support the production of renewable energy in Quebec.

[Jim Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the government has made significant investments in renewable energy right across the country. As a matter of fact, the Prime Minister along with 19 other heads of state signed the mission innovation agreement in Paris on November 30 that committed all of those signatory nations to doubling their investments in research and clean growth over a five-year period. The 2016 budget is a significant down payment of that international commitment.

The member brought up the province of Quebec. We know how important natural resources are to that province, the mining industry and particularly the forestry sector. Just within the last two weeks I had a chance to meet with the Forest Products Association of Canada, which is leading the world in sustainable forestry practices.

The Government of Canada will give incentives to these industries, will encourage them to continue down the path of sustainability wherever they happen to do their business in Canada, whether that is in Quebec or in the other provinces.

[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 minister has 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 infrastructure, public transit infrastructure, local road infrastructure, green energy infrastructure, 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.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is fascinating to hear the hon. member's party refer to 9-, 10-, or 11-month results as if they are year-end results. I have never seen that in business. It is curious that those results are being used as measurements in this House.

The Conservative government also added $154 billion to our national debt. Therefore, I would ask the hon. member this. Would she admit that it is really the year-end results that matter when looking at financials?

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

Mr. Speaker, as the member opposite knows, the IMF called on every government in the world to deliver stimulus, in the order of 2% of GDP in additional spending to replace private sector demand during the recession of 2009. When Canada emerged from the recession in better condition than any other G7 nation, the deficit was gradually reduced, until it became a surplus in 2015, which the Liberal government's own finance department has confirmed.

I would remind the members opposite that the Liberal Party was, at the time, asking for a much larger deficit and a slower return to balanced budgets. When Canada posted a deficit in 2009, there was a clear plan to return to balanced budgets, something that the current government is clearly failing to do.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I come from the school of thought that, in Canadian elections, in order for voters to cast a responsible ballot, they should be able to count on the promises that the political parties are making to them at that time, so they can have confidence that what they vote for is what they are going to get.

We are talking about the budget today, and we know that the Liberals told Canadians in their campaign that, if they were elected, they would run budget deficits of $10 billion in three successive years and balance the budget in the fourth year. They told Canadians that the important measure was the percentage of the deficit compared to the GDP, and yet a budget was tabled that includes $120 billion of deficits over the next six years, no plan to balance the budget over four years, and forget about the metric of GDP to deficit.

We have a government that told Canadians it would put $3 billion into home care, and there is not a penny for that in the budget. It told Canadians it would restore home mail delivery and that there would be a national framework for child care within the first 100 days in office. I could go on and on.

I want to ask my hon. colleague this. Does she think that this budget reflects the promises that were made to Canadians, and has there been any cost to Canada's democratic process as a result of the government breaking so many promises within its first seven months of government?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have heard from many constituents since the government tabled this budget. During break weeks, I have had the opportunity to meet with them. I can say that there is a growing concern with the complete lack of leadership being provided by the Prime Minister and the government, combined with the speed with which they have abandoned many of their election promises and an unwillingness to admit the fact of inheriting a surplus.

It would appear that everyone except the Liberal government understands that sooner or later deficits have to be paid back.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Guelph raised some interesting points. He is a nice fellow. I sit on the industry committee with him, and I like him enough to tell him that he is wrong.

I wonder if the member from Saskatchewan could give us a little more insight on the financial statements the member for Guelph was talking about. I am afraid that, at the end of this fiscal year, we are going to have a big addendum on the massive Liberal spending in the final quarter of this fiscal year. Maybe the Liberals would like to table a budget that shows what it would have been if the Conservatives had been still in government and what the financials look like with the Liberals now in government.

I wonder if she would talk about the Conservatives' balanced budget with a surplus and the Liberals' massive spending deficit.

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

Mr. Speaker, very simply put, our financial statements are based on the fiscal year and not the calendar year, so the statements we are referring do refer to the end of the fiscal year.

[An hon. member]

With a surplus.

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

With a surplus, Mr. Speaker.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be on extra good behaviour. I have a pair of eyes looking down on me today belonging to an eight-month-old.

Epiphany is on January 6. I only had my epiphany this week. I actually figured it out. I figured out that the balanced budget promises and the small deficits that the Liberals are proposing, and have proposed in the past, are a work of fiction.

The budget is fiscal fiction. I am sure that the Minister of Finance intends to submit the 2016 Liberal budget for the Giller Prize, a worthy nominee no doubt. I would like to talk about the Giller Prize. The 2016 Scotiabank Giller Prize is for literary works of fiction. The criteria says, “To be eligible, a book must be a first-edition full length novel”, and I think it counts as that, “or short story collection”, if you will, of broken promises, and “written by a Canadian citizen”, of which there is not doubt.

It also says, “No self-published books shall be eligible.” We've covered that. It also says “The decision of the judges as to whether a book is eligible shall be binding.” I think we are on the right track here. The good news is that it can be submitted by September 30, 2016.

If that does not work, the Liberals could also apply for the Shaughnessy Cohen Prize for Political Writing. This being a political document, of course, it could be submitted. The criteria states, “Publishers should note that the prize is for literary excellence; they should only submit books they deem outstanding in this regard.” By far, the fiction in the budget and the budget implementation act is outstanding fiction.

It continues: “Books that are strictly hagiography or political advocacy or which fail to illuminate political trends or issues are unlikely to be shortlisted.” That might be sad news for this budget document. The other sad news is, “No more than 20% of the manuscript can have previously been published in book form.”

That is good news too, because many of the promises in the Liberal red book are not in the budget. The Liberals have broken pretty much every single fiscal promise they had, which again adds to this new theme that this is fiscal fiction. It just does not add up.

I have another one, the Rogers Writers’ Trust Fiction Prize. This is another prize that the Liberals could seek. It would also help to pay down some of the deficits. This may be something that government may want to do, apply to every single literary prize in Canada or the United States to try to pay down the deficit. Again, the sad news is, “No more than 20% of the manuscript can be previously published in book form.” That is very sad to see.

When we talk about a work of fiction, this budget, the budget implementation act, is exactly that. It pretends to be for the middle class when it is actually against the middle class. It does very little for them. What it does do is to saddle future generations with hundreds of billions of dollars of debt.

In this budget, there is absolutely no plan to return to a balanced budget. There is no pretending to return to a balanced budget, hence the fiscal fiction. On one hand, the Liberal government talks about returning someday, potentially, maybe, if it so happens, to a balanced budget. In the actual budget implementation act, there is no such talk. In fact, in the budget document itself, there is no graphic that shows when it intends to return to surplus.

I would like to talk about page 53, “The Path Forward”, where it talks about repealing the Federal Balanced Budget Act. This is one of those fiscal anchors that is quite important to the budget. Instead of amending it in the budget implementation act, the Liberals are completely getting rid of it. Again, it just adds to the fiction. They talk a good game about trying to balance the budget but have no intention to do so in statute. They are actually getting rid of any statute that talks about balancing the budget.

As we talk about this wonderful statute, the Federal Balanced Budget Act, I want to read from the preamble of the act that the government is getting rid of. It says:

Whereas attaining and maintaining a sound fiscal position requires that the Government of Canada achieve annual balanced budgets and reduce debt, other than when a recession or extraordinary situation occurs;

Whereas maintaining balanced budgets and reducing debt helps to keep taxes low, instill confidence in consumers and investors, strengthen Canada’s ability to respond to longer-term economic and fiscal challenges and preserve the sustainability of public services;

And whereas reducing the debt burden will help to ensure fairness for future generations by avoiding future tax increases or reductions in public services;

These are all great things to want to have in the administration of our public finances, but obviously the Liberal government does not think so, which is why it is getting rid of it entirely instead of amending it. This just adds on to the fiscal fiction. I am sure that the judges for the Giller Prize will be most pleased to see that.

When the Minister of Finance was asked about balancing the budget, he brushed it off. He claimed that he did not want to focus on the issue. It was not important to him. In fact, he went on to say that we Conservatives were stuck in this whole balanced budget thing.

I actually understand his position. If one does not care for it, if it is just talk and fiscal fiction, then one would say to those who disagree that they are stuck on it. Obviously, he is not stuck, because he is about to get rid of it in the budget implementation act. He would get rid of the one fiscal anchor, the legislated anchor, that says we must have a balanced budget, for all the great reasons that are in the preamble. He obviously does not like the preamble, so he is getting rid of that too.

The International Monetary Fund did a study that reported 89 countries had implemented some form of statutory debt restraint through the end of 2014. It reported that, “Such laws are useful in showing skeptical bond investors that a nation is serious about kicking old habits of profligacy. They also allow voters to hold politicians to account.”

There is such a thing called an election and Canadians made a choice, and perhaps we disagree with them. However, on the fiscal side, Canadians were promised something. They were promised tiny little deficits and a return to a balanced budget, which is an expectation by Canadians. It is part of the values we share, that we manage our public finances in the way we manage our household finances. One cannot keep spending money on a credit card. Eventually, one has to return to a balance and create a surplus to pay down the debt. That is how it works. In this budget, though, there is no such plan. There is no talk of it, even. There is no such goal. There is no such pretension anymore. Hence, this fiscal fiction is worthy of the Giller Prize.

When we talk about small business, the tax rate was supposed to go down to 9%, but now it will stay at 10.5%. Again, this is another broken promise from the Liberal government. According to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, that decision will cost small firms $900 million per year, as of 2019.

The parliamentary budget office calculated that it could cost up to $2.2 billion. I asked a question to the Minister of Small Business on this matter, partially, but also on the matter of small professional corporations and how they are treated as a business entity. Basically, I did not get an answer. There is nothing in the budget implementation act that speaks to it. It is a completely avoided subject. The minister, in fact, avoided answering the question entirely. Therefore, what is there for small business in this budget? Nothing. Again, it is fiscal fiction that the Liberals are going to be helping small businesses across Canada. They have no such plan. They have no such intention.

As I have done before, I love to use Yiddish proverbs, and I have one here: “There's plenty of time to bemoan bad fortune once it arrives.” What is going to happen when the next recession hits? What will happen when there is a major disaster? How will the government pay for it? It is already running tens of billions of dollars of deficit with no plan to return to surplus. What will the Liberals do? Will they simply double the deficits? Will they simply increase the national debt even further?

The Liberal plan runs well beyond 2019, beyond the mandate of a Parliament. They simply have no plan or promise to return to a balanced budget. It is a fiction worthy of the Giller Prize.

The parliamentary budget office has done a substantial amount of work to show that the Liberals inherited a surplus. I hear the talk from the other side that we cannot only look at the first 11 months out of a year. That is not how a business would look at things. However, what a business would look at are cost control measures. Ever since October 19, 2015, all cost control measures are basically gone. Therefore, what the Liberals are going to present to us in the last month of the fiscal year is a massive deficit that they will blame on the Conservatives. However, in truth, they are responsible for it. They have had the reins of power since then, and they have been the ones running this country and running the finances. They are responsible for the debt that has been accumulating. It is nobody else but them.

Indeed, the Liberals consistently refer to defending the interests of the middle class, and that is literary fiction. We see in the summary of the budget implementation document that they are eliminating the education tax credit, the text book tax credit, the children's arts tax credit, the family tax cut credit, and the child fitness tax credit. I mentioned at the beginning of my speech that I have a pair of little eyes looking down at me, my eight-month-old. However, there is something in here for teachers. Therefore, we are eliminating everything for middle class families, while introducing something for teachers. Again, this budget was never meant for the middle class; that is entirely fiction.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Intergovernmental Affairs)]

Mr. Speaker, as someone who represents a riding that I think has more bookstores than any other riding in the country, I cannot tell the House how refreshing it is to hear a Conservative actually talk about literature and books.

For ten long years, the cuts to the Canada Council, the cuts to the programs that supported authors and the publishing industry, the damage done by the copyright reforms to publishing and the authors in this country was astonishing, a shameful record on literature.

However, if the member opposite is actually interested in reading more books, I would like to suggest a few titles for him: Beautiful Losers: Essays on the Failure of ...Conservatism, Dismantling Canada: ...New Conservative Agenda, and my favourite one that I could really recommend, The Conservatives Have No Clothes: Why Right-Wing Ideas Keep Failing.

Would the member opposite like to reflect on the fact that the budgets that his party produced prior to the recession, during the recession, after the recession, and, even now, have landed us in more debt than any other government in modern Canadian history? Why do the Conservatives think they have any right to lecture anyone on fiscal management when they put $160 billion of debt on the backs of their children?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question, but that continues the same point as I mentioned before. It is fiction. Small business entrepreneurs, the writers of books, do not need the government's support to basically finance their operations. Good books get recognized. Good books get purchased, no matter where they are. That is why there are e-books. That is how writers get the material, just like musicians. They are entrepreneurs. They know what to do to get the material out to people who want to listen to it, to read it, who want to take advantage of it.

To speak to one point that the member made about spending and how much debt was accumulated by various governments, the government he supports has zero plans to reduce the deficit. It does not even pretend to do it in the budget document. Again, going back to my point, it is a work of literary fiction.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. The Liberals are in denial, when it comes to the fact that they introduced a completely undemocratic bill, an omnibus bill. We will not have the chance to split the bill into a number of separate bills to study some of the areas that are problematic, dense, or very complex and that should be studied by a committee.

The Liberals keep harping on about how they are the best defenders of the middle class, but on April 14, a UNICEF report indicated that Canada was one of the richest countries where child inequality has continued to grow over the past few years. Canada ranks 26 out of 35 countries in that regard. That is nothing to be proud of.

UNICEF proposes such solutions as new investments to stimulate family income and early childhood support programs. However, this budget makes no investments in crime prevention or drug prevention, and there are no investments in mental health or affordable housing. I could name a number of other gaps.

I talked with a number of youth forums, and they all told me that there is a shortage of prevention programs. That is not really the Conservatives' cup of tea. However, since the Liberals said that they would bring about change, I would like to know what my colleague thinks about that.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the NDP member for her question. She touched on a number of subjects and so it will be difficult to answer in 60 seconds.

Nevertheless, I would say that before deciding to run up such deficits over several years and put the future generation into debt, they should think hard about it. That will be the biggest problem that future generations face.

How will they pay for the programs and services they want when they have to pay for the services and programs we are using today?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Trinity—Spadina.

I am very pleased to join the discussion today.

Before I talk about the budget, I want to offer my condolences, and my heart and prayers go out to all of those in Fort McMurray and community who are suffering. I pray for their safety and the safety of the entire community.

Six months ago, I made a promise to the people of Humber River—Black Creek. I promised that a Liberal government would put people first. It is with this promise in mind that I rise to speak to the budget implementation bill.

For the first time in a very long time, I am proud of a budget put forward by a federal government. I say this because in contrast to budgets put forward by previous governments, budget 2016 is both fiscally prudent and socially responsible. It acknowledges that Canada cannot be strong if our families and our households that form our core are not strong. In fact, budget 2016 is an innovative long-term plan that is specifically focused on strengthening the fiscal security and stability of our families living in places like 10 San Romanoway, 7 and 11 Arleta, and in similar working-class homes throughout Canada. The budget contains a range of measures that are intended to grow the economy while helping low-income families, supporting seniors, and expanding affordable housing for those who need it.

When I visit my friends and constituents at Elspeth Heyworth Centre, or at the North Islington seniors group, or at the Jamaican-Canadian Centre, they know that Canada's per capita GDP is important, but that is not what they focus on every day. They struggle to focus on that kind of national number because they are too busy worrying about their next trip to the grocery store, or their next rent payment.

When I spoke to previous budgets over the years, I stressed that national economic prosperity must be felt at the kitchen table, not just the boardroom table. Conservatives would laugh, but the residents along the Jane-Finch corridor in my riding did not laugh. They understood it exactly.

For too long, seniors, students, young families, and those looking for work felt abandoned by their government, but since October 19, my constituents feel more optimistic. This budget is part of that change. Today the people at 3001 Finch, the kids at St. Andre's, and the students at York University can all feel their individual needs are being addressed thoughtfully and compassionately. Canadians gave this government a mandate to help the middle class and those working hard to join it, and that is precisely what we are doing with budget 2016.

Budget 2016 pursues an agenda driven on innovation and investment, which is at the heart of our policies and part of the government's long-term vision for a more inclusive economy. This is in stark contrast to the previous budget of the Conservatives, who not only squandered the $13-billion surplus that was left for them, but also failed to achieve any real sustained economic growth during the course of their 10-year mandate.

As the Minister of Finance stated in his budget speech in March, we are seizing the opportunity to invest in people and the economy, and to prepare Canada for a brighter future. This is the kind of positive outward thinking that will drive our economic focus going forward, and it will help to ensure that families living in my riding and others across Canada will have a real shot at the kind of prosperity the previous government so often promised but consistently failed to deliver.

Despite the political rhetoric, the truth is that the Conservatives overspent to the tune of $160 billion, and they did so without any solid plan or any measurable results. While a certain armchair economist in this House thought that out-of-control spending was a good idea, even the most junior economist knows better.

We must not lose sight of our objective to create an economy that is more inclusive and that benefits everyone involved. The budget is setting us out in that direction. Canadians are asking for help and this government is listening. The days of picking the pockets of low-income seniors, young families, starving students, and the unemployed hopefully have come to an end.

Budget 2016 is about establishing a new fiscal foundation, one that includes everyone. For example, given the high poverty rates and low household incomes facing many residents of Humber River—Black Creek, tackling the fiscal crunch that many are facing on a daily basis is critically important to them. Notably, many low-income seniors living in places like 35 Shoreham Drive or 3680 Keele Street are facing a number of financial strains just to make ends meet. The rising cost of living has already erased any hope of saving for the future, so without meaningful support, any hope of a dignified or secure retirement is gone, and that is wrong.

The budget will dramatically improve the quality of life for seniors by increasing the guaranteed income supplement annually by $947 starting this July. This represents an immediate 10% increase in GIS benefits for low-income seniors.

As well, we will reverse the decision imposed by the previous Conservative government by restoring the eligibility age for old age security from 67 back to 65. That means the hard-working people like those living in the Northwood Apartments will have access to the financial assistance they require to retire with dignity. This was an issue that I fought for while in opposition and I am very happy that our Prime Minister and our government have made the change back to 65, which is where it needs to be.

In addition, the Government of Canada intends on working with its provincial and territorial partners in order to enhance the Canada pension plan with the objective of improving retirement income security for all Canadians. I look forward to the future discussions that will follow on this issue.

No seniors should be forced to decide between paying their monthly bills or going hungry, and the budget goes a long way in helping them achieve a dignified retirement.

The budget will also provide $200.7 million over two years to repair and expand affordable housing units for seniors and others, and $573 million will be directed to tackling repair and energy efficiency issues for the social housing sector. Many of the people at the addresses and units I referred to earlier are struggling tremendously to cope with the cold air coming in and the lack of repairs to many of Toronto's community housing buildings as in many parts of Canada. Anyone who comes and sits in my constituency office for a single day will quickly see that these are areas with a tremendous need.

I am pleased to say that affordable housing is a priority under the $2.4 billion allotted for social infrastructure spending. This will have a positive impact on seniors and others who need an affordable, safe, and respectable place to live.

There will also be $3.4 billion over three years as part of the public transit infrastructure fund that will be of great economic benefit to many communities, particularly those people who are struggling to get to work on time via the Finch bus route in Toronto. This route has been an issue for many years, and I am glad to see it is a priority for our new government.

Just as the seniors of today are struggling, the seniors of tomorrow are feeling the pinch too. We need to address those issues as we run the risk of kicking that can down the road. Canadian families, particularly single parents, are facing mounting personal debt, high living costs, and an inability to pay for their children's education or save for retirement. Our government will make immediate investments to improve the fiscal capacity of families who are planning ahead, as well as those looking for work to support their loved ones.

A key feature of budget 2016 is the launch of the new Canada child benefit, a more simplified program in which families will receive a monthly tax repayment targeted for low-income and middle-income earners. Those who will benefit will see an average increase of almost $2,300. That means nine out of ten families throughout Canada, and especially in ridings like mine, are going to see the benefits of being able to better support their families and their loved ones.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's speech and she forgot to mention that the first two years we were in office, the Conservative government paid down the national debt of $37 billion. She also forgot to mention that while that happened, we lowered taxes, like the GST from 7% to 6% to 5%.

She also forgot to mention that at that time there was an incredible, some called it a world depression, in 2008, when all the G8 countries got together and decided that they would massively infuse cash into the system. Canada, being the only country at that time that did so, had an objective of paying down that debt and coming into a balanced budget position, which we did, leaving the Liberals with a modest increase in the budget, but also, in March, provided the same government with about $7.5 billion in its coffers, which it quickly spent.

Having now heard those facts, could the member explain to the House why the government thought it would be necessary to go back into a deficit position, bringing about all the things that we have heard about today, which would cause so much havoc for our children and grandchildren in the future?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when the Conservatives came into power and replaced the Liberals, they had $13 billion to play with, and they clearly used it over the many years to try to buy every single vote they could from every community throughout Canada. At the end of their time in office, they left us with $160 billion more in debt.

I am really proud that our government is going to invest in people. We are going to invest in people by helping students get a good education. We are going to focus on innovation and job creation. We are going to be focusing on Canadians. That is where our investments are going to be.

It is really important to make sure we are growing the economy. We are not afraid to spend $5 to invest in Canadians, because it is their money, and right now they want us to be investing in them, their families, and making sure that we are opening the doors to opportunity for all of them so they do not have to continue with the struggles they have been dealing with, especially for the last 10 years.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

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

We have been debating the budget since this morning. There are some good measures, such as the reinstatement of the credits for labour-sponsored funds and the elimination of the tax on feminine hygiene products, which is a big expense for women. The Liberals are also eliminating income splitting.

However, there is nothing in the budget about Canada Post and home mail delivery. With respect to employment insurance, which the seasonal workers in my riding of Jonquière need, 12 regions are supposedly more important than my riding. The workers in my riding are being penalized, because they will not be eligible for the five extra weeks of benefits that workers in other areas will receive.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as we move forward with our budget, we are looking at a variety of areas throughout the country that are struggling and we are deciding on the best way to help them. There are challenges facing Fort McMurray. It is an area that we are going to have to pay specific attention to and invest a lot more money than maybe what we had planned, because we need to help those people.

In reference to the Canada Post issue in particular, I believe the minister announced in the last day or two that a committee has been put together that will be doing a review between now and the end of the year. It will consult with Canadians, academics, and professionals on how to maximize the opportunities for Canada Post, because the issue of mail delivery is important to all of us and we would like some of those issues resolved as soon as possible.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Intergovernmental Affairs)]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House to speak to this bill today and, in particular, to follow my colleague, the member for Humber River—Black Creek, who laid the groundwork for a new urban agenda in Ottawa, after all those years, before the lost 10 years of the last decade, where as a city councillor, support for cities disappeared.

The reason I chose to run federally, to leave city council and join Parliament, was for one reason, and one reason only. Beyond the need for a stronger urban agenda, we needed a new national housing program. This budget is the first time in 25 years, the first time in my political life, I have seen a federal government step back in with the strength, the commitment, and the diversity of programs for housing that our country so badly needs, as we watch thousands of people who night after night go homeless.

Compared with the last budget which had $2.7 billion over 10 years, this year's budget provides for $2.3 billion over two. This includes doubling the money flowing to provinces to a total of $500 million to build, subsidize, and repair public housing. It includes $200 million for senior housing. It includes, importantly, $90 million for people escaping family violence. Taken together, this is the most substantive and the most important investment in affordable and public housing we have seen in a generation. It is this budget that delivers it, and it is the most important reason to support the budget.

Cities have also been spoken to. We have moved away from the one-third funding formulas that defined infrastructure programming over the last 20 years. We have moved to a fair system, a flexible system, a system that gets money into the hands of city councils fast.

The fifty-fifty split defines a new relationship that we have established between the federal government and our municipalities, large and small, rural, highly urbanized, in the south, the north, and coast to coast to coast. This is the most important dynamic in our new relationship. We now recognize that cities are where the majority of Canadians live. If we are to improve the lives of the majority of Canadians, we have to invest heavily in the equity, the stability, and the capacity of cities, not only to provide shelter and services to Canadians, but also to generate economic growth.

One of the other critical steps that has been taken in this budget, which has not been present in the last 25 years, is we now recognize that aging infrastructure, not just new infrastructure, needs support. State of good repair and the recapitalizing of urban infrastructure is a fundamental part of the new infrastructure program. Cities have been crying for this for decades. Finally, we have a party and a government in Ottawa that is prepared to listen.

I sat by as a city councillor and watched the province of Prince Edward Island, in particular, see more money spent on billboards about infrastructure than on the actual infrastructure that was advertised on those billboards.

The previous government was very good at putting up the billboards, very good at cutting ribbons for projects that did not exist, but when it came time to cut the cheque, it was missing in action. While it put up the billboards, spending actually went down. That is unacceptable.

Major cities in this country, Vancouver, Calgary, Winnipeg, Regina, Toronto, Mississauga, Ottawa, Montreal, Halifax, St. John's, received zero dollars in the new building Canada fund over the last two years, while citizens in those cities cried out for support. If members talk to the mayors in those very cities, they will find out that is exactly what happened.

The other thing I am proud of is the fact that infrastructure programming goes beyond just transit and housing. It reaches into arts and the social infrastructure which builds stronger neighbourhoods—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Order, please. I am just going to interrupt the hon. member. It is getting noisy. I want to ensure that everybody understands there will be time to ask questions of the hon. member, although now is not the time.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Intergovernmental Affairs).

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the social and cultural infrastructures this government is investing in, including the universities. It is not good enough just to build housing and transit; we need to build complete neighbourhoods. This infrastructure program does just that.

The spending categories for infrastructure, the social, green and transit, also include something else that is critically important. Much of our housing infrastructure stock is aging. Many of the federal programs built in the 1950s and 1960s were built at a time when energy efficiency and high-quality construction was not a priority in the federal government programs of the day. This budget puts $500 million into the revitalization and the retrofitting of those housing units, which not only become more expensive to operate, but also generate a significant amount of greenhouse gas. We can both repair, restore, and also address some of the climate change needs with the infrastructure spending targeted at low-income Canadians living in aging housing stock. This is the smartest infrastructure program related to housing that is in this budget.

We have also committed and lived up to our promise to sustain the subsidies that keep people in affordable housing. Whether it is seniors in Alberta, or single mothers in Toronto or aboriginal and first nations people living in the Maritimes, those subsidies under section 95 will be restored for two years, while we sit down with the provinces and our housing providers and renegotiate a new housing dynamic for the country that goes well beyond the life of any one government into the future so we have a program of which we can all be proud.

The other thing that is part of this budget and this government's action, which underpins all of that is the need for better data on how, where and why Canadians are choosing to live where they live, is the long form census.

I was part of the city council that had to take the previous government to court to get it to admit that it had deliberately under-measured and under-counted people living in high-rise buildings. It said that it could not get into the building. The reason it was unable to get in was because it was not committed to the census and what the census would give cities and communities as they did long-range planning.

Restoring the long form census, doing a proper census, and getting real data and evidence into the hands of cities allows us to spend the money that is now on the table more effectively to produce better results for Canadians, not just economically but socially. That is part of the approach this government has. It is not just about putting resources on the table. It is getting smarter about how we spend them so we spend them into the economy quickly and fairly, meaning equitably, and at the same time in a flexible manner that realizes and understands that smaller provinces no longer have the capacity necessary to participate in the infrastructure programs constructed as they were three decades ago.

The smaller municipalities do not have the opportunity to get public-private partnerships put together because they are asset-based and the size of the project is not big enough to attract the interests of the private sector partners. We have changed those dynamics because we have listened to cities. Most important, we have listened to people living in those cities.

The transformation that this promises for a majority of Canadians is profound. However, at the same time we have not walked away from other parts of the country that do not define themselves as a “large urban centre”. The broadband investment is about economic development and access to the Internet and the larger world for smaller and more remote communities. It is a critical piece of infrastructure investment that once again will not only build and strengthen remote and smaller communities, but will deliver capacity economically to those places so they too can thrive, grow and become strong metropolises.

Additionally, and this is the most important part of the budget, we have stepped up on aboriginal affairs with $8.4 billion in funding. We have declared that the clean water crisis will come to an end, that equity in education and health care outcomes and investments will be there, that education and distance learning will be invested in and made stronger. We have declared and supported the call for an inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women.

I remember sitting here during budget day, looking up into the gallery and seeing the pride, the confidence, and the trust on the face of the chief of the Assembly of First Nations. I remember the particular applause that budget received. We should all be very proud of this. It is one more reason to support this budget.

This budget turns a page on 10 lost years. It projects equity, opportunity, and economic growth into the future for 10 years and beyond, and provides an ability to build a country we can truly be proud of and is truly one that takes care of Canadians no matter where they live, how they live, or why they choose to live the way they do.

It is a critically important time in the history of our country on the aboriginal component alone. However, for cities and municipalities, there has never been a budget that has spoken more directly, more respectfully, and more profoundly to their needs. As someone who comes out of that sector politically, when I talk to mayors across the country, they know that on October 19 the right decision was made. However, more important, they know this budget is the right thing to support as we move forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member's speech and some of the misleading statements made. I am from a community that has the largest first nation in Canada. We built it a $42 million water treatment plant during my term in office over the last four years. In my community we built well over $300,000 worth of new infrastructure such as the Wayne Gretzky Sports Complex, which is a $63 million project. We rebuilt Applegate Co-op housing at Toll Gate Road. We rebuilt social housing right across the community and on Six Nations. We built the Six Nations a new police station because of crumbling infrastructure.

The member is telling Canadians today that we did not make any of those investments. How does he square that to the House of Commons?

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if the member thinks that drinking water and the crisis around clean water has been solved, he is out of his mind. I invite him to go to the northern communities that have had 5, 10, and 20-year boil water alerts that were not addressed in the last 10 years. If he drinks a glass of water, we will see how well he does in answering questions of his colleagues in the House.

On the issue of critical infrastructure, the mayors in the major cities of Vancouver, Calgary, Regina, Winnipeg, Mississauga, Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal, Quebec City have said that not a penny of federal infrastructure has come from the building Canada fund for two years.

If we ask folks in Calgary and Edmonton what that infrastructure money would be doing right now, it would be putting unemployed workers back on the job. Instead we had a previous government that walked away from that province. That is one of the reasons their unemployment challenge is so hard to solve right now.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Spadina—Fort York spoke about the urban agenda and part of that is transit funding. The budget allocates transit funding according to ridership, which is certainly a good formula for jurisdictions that already have well-developed transit systems. When I think of my home city of Regina, last week I had the opportunity to ride on a couple of buses and they are very nice, but we could use more buses and more frequent service.

Regina will not get very much transit funding because ridership is currently low. If we look at the province of Saskatchewan as a whole, we get less than 1% of the transit money in the budget even though we comprise more than 3% of the country's population.

Could the member speak to the fact that the budget really focuses transit funding on jurisdictions that already have a lot of public transit and does not do much to expand it in cities like Regina, which he was fond of mentioning in his speech and question responses?

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things transit planners and transit operators across the country know is that to make transit investments more effective and to deliver the greenhouse gas transformation that is required through investments in transit as well as to get the most riders moving quickest and to deal with gridlock right across the country we build from strength. In other words, we build transit systems out from where they are highly used and highly congested into areas that have less. We move from strength into areas that need the development.

This is phase one of the transit program. As we start to build that stronger transit across the country, communities that are not dealt with specifically, as the member has identified, in the budget this year, phase two is on its way. The second, third, and fourth years of this mandate will show that the system we have chosen to invest in will provide the strength and the capacity as we grow from strength into new areas as part of our strategy.

Transit operators and transit properties across the country have been asking for for this. We have listened, we have responded, and this will deliver the results we all hope to see in our country.

[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 built 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is borderline humorous when I hear member after member from the Conservative Party stand in their places and try to give the impression to Canadians that there was a Conservative surplus budget.

In reality, if the previous government demonstrated anything, it demonstrated that it did not have the ability from within to be able to manage a budget to a surplus. History and the facts clearly demonstrate that.

My question to the member is as follows. Why do the member and his Conservative colleagues believe that they have an ounce of credibility on the issue of deficits, when they have failed so miserably in terms of being able to deliver a balanced budget?

The budget during the election year that they talk about as they stand in their places today is not a balanced budget. No matter how often they try to repeat it. It is a deficit budget. Every budget leading up to that with the Conservative government was a deficit budget. In total, over $150 billion was added to Canada's debt because of the Conservatives and they got a stagnant Canadian economy. Canadians wanted investments but they never received them.

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

Mr. Speaker, talking about humorous, this member obviously does not understand that money coming in in excess of spending is a surplus. We balanced the budget, every month of this past fiscal year, except for one month, March.

What did the finance minister decide to do? He clawed back all of the Liberal spending, over $13 million, into that month so that he could stand up and say that the Liberals were left with a deficit. In October, Conservatives left government with a surplus, right up until the end of February. Now the Liberals want to say that?

Second, the fact is that we went into deficit spending because the global economy was crashing. Every advanced country in this world signed on to spending. In fact, that party wanted us to spend twice as much. They were asking us to spend twice as much as we spent. We brought it back to balance.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it must be nice to be in the House to ask questions and pat oneself on the back. Members on both sides have been saying that they balanced the budget or that they did this or that. In reality—

[Some Hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Order. There seems to be a bit of a problem in the House.

I would like to remind hon. members that we are in session, and screaming across the floor is not part of that session.

I will give the floor back to the hon. member for Jonquière.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you Mr. Speaker. That is what I wanted to point out in my remarks. When members on either side of the House rise to speak, they should always be thinking about workers. I have been listening to the speeches that have been given since this morning and I am thinking about the workers who get up every day, pack their lunches, and go to work. They need employment insurance when jobs are cut.

Given the reform that my colleague's government implemented and that is still in effect, I would like him to tell us what he thinks about the penalty being imposed on workers in certain regions, the workers who are not eligible for the five additional weeks.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am caught off guard here. I was not aware of the question.

Let me just underscore what I said in my speech and the way I have responded every time the deficit question comes up.

A person who has a business that has a balance sheet would watch income coming in and watch the spending. Therefore, it is absolutely unconscionable to me what has happened with the Minister of Finance. He has taken a surplus of $7.5 billion and turned it into what he claims is a deficit that the Conservatives left him. It is because of his spending, putting it into that fiscal year and then claiming that is the case.

It is unfathomable to me that they think Canadians buy this argument. They understand that they get a paycheque and they have expenses. If they want to pile themselves into debt, they can choose to do that at any time. That is what our Minister of Finance has done. He has piled us into debt at the last possible moment to claim that the Conservatives left him a deficit. However, we did not choose that spending. We left a surplus.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I just wonder if the member would comment on some of the things that our previous government did, especially in 2006 to 2008, before the entire planet went into recession.

We paid down close to $40 billion of national debt. We lowered the GST from 7% to 6% to 5%. Throughout the great recession, we led the G8 and G7, the most industrialized countries in the world, with growth. There was over one million jobs created in spite of that recession. Also, we balanced the books and had a surplus a year ahead of the action plan.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think those points have been made through questioning and through my speech. However, the reality is that if we take the empirical data of all of this, taxes were at their lowest rate for Canadians over the last 50 years. Most average Canadian families had gained in excess of $7,000 more in their pockets.

Actually, one member who spoke here from the opposite side today got into politics because of social housing. I got into politics because I was disgusted with the fact that politicians thought it was their money and they could do what they wanted with it. I got into politics because it is not politicians' money. It is the taxpayers' money. It is the money of hard-working people who are honest and pay their taxes. What motivated me, as a businessman, to run, was the government that took our money, gave it to their friends for—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Statements by members, the hon. member for Sydney—Victoria.

Second Reading

[Maxime Bernier, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have a few questions for my Liberal colleagues.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Maxime Bernier, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Maxime Bernier, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Maxime Bernier, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

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

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

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

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

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

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

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

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

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

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

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

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

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

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

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

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

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

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

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

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

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

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

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Part 1 implements certain income tax measures proposed in the March 22, 2016 budget by (a) eliminating the education tax credit; (b) eliminating the textbook tax credit; (c) exempting from taxable income amounts received as rate assistance under the Ontario Electricity Support Program; (d) maintaining the small business tax rate at 10.5% for the 2016 and subsequent taxation years and making consequential adjustments...

Further on, it says:

(f) eliminating the children’s arts tax credit; (g) eliminating the family tax cut credit; (h) replacing the Canada child tax benefit and universal child care benefit with the new Canada child benefit;

There is also the following:

(i) eliminating the child fitness tax credit;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

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

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

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

No, not so-called, a real socialist.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

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

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

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

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

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

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

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

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

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

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

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.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons has seven minutes left for questions and comments.

The hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North made a strong case yesterday for the fact that the Liberal budget would benefit all Canadians. That is who Liberals are; that is what Liberals do.

The New Democrats want us not to post a deficit. They promised austerity. The Conservatives, of course, want us to do as they say, not as they do. Indeed, the Conservatives sank us over $1 billion per month into the hole during a decade in office. If we had something to show for it, I would not object so strenuously.

Borrowing money to invest helps Canadians. Building infrastructure at short-term cost brings us long-term gain. Being an active member of society, as a government, is to the benefit of all and is a key part of our role. However, the Conservatives did not do any of that. The last time they took us from deficit to surplus was in the 19th century, back before they could say that money could be flushed down the toilet because flushing toilets had not been invented, so there was no such analogy.

Indeed, the great majority of Canada's debt is Conservative-incurred debt, but the great majority of Canadian infrastructure is Liberal-built infrastructure. The Conservatives were so bad at managing the country that they left us penniless.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the commentary, and my colleague made a number of valid points.

For me, when I take a look at this particular budget implementation bill, I would suggest that all members of this House should be voting in favour of it. I believe that is the case because what Canadians want is to be able to see a government that truly cares and wants to make a difference.

This budget would make a difference in a very tangible way. Even for the Conservatives who would like to say that they are big fans of tax cuts, there is good news. There is a substantial middle-class tax cut for more than nine million Canadians. For those New Democrats who want to see more progressive social planning, there is good news. Within this budget, they will see the Canada child benefit plan that would assist those individuals who are in need the most: under that $45,000, those single parents would receive literally hundreds of dollars more a month as a direct result of this particular budget. This is a good-news budget.

It is a budget that would invest in Canada's infrastructure in every region of the country. If there is ever a reason to vote yes for a piece of legislation, I would suggest that all members of the House should get on board and support this budget, because we know an overwhelming number of Canadians support this budget. I would encourage all members to vote yes on this budget.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always disappointing for me to hear the hatred and disrespect of parties across the way in this place.

When we look at this budget, we see all the many broken promises: way past the $10 billion deficit at the beginning, never going to balance it in this term, and the things that are misleading Canadians, essentially. The Liberals say there would be tax cuts, but when we add it all up, Canadians see that they would be paying more tax, not less.

My question for the member is this. The Liberals talk about being fact and evidence based. Why are they only fact- and evidence-based with certain facts and not with all of the facts?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that, in this budget implementation bill, we are seeing a tax cut to the middle class. Hundreds of millions of dollars would be put into the pockets of the middle class. People across this great land would benefit from that. Whether they are factory workers or health care workers, so many individuals would get more money as a direct result of this budget. That is important because by investing in Canada's middle class, we are investing in Canada's future and our economy. If we give more disposable income to the middle class, it in essence increases disposable income, which helps drive the economy.

That means that, if they have a small business, for example, they would have more customers going to their business. That creates more opportunities. That is why, if there is an overriding theme of this budget, it is about investing in the middle class, investing in Canada's economy, and providing more hope for all Canadians.

[Rémi Massé, Liberal, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it was a real treat to hear my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, talk about all of the great things in this budget.

I am from a part of the Gaspé that has been hit hard by the economic situation. Businesses have closed their doors, jobs are getting harder and harder to come by, and families are leaving our regions for larger centres to find work and ply their trades. I was therefore very glad to hear the parliamentary secretary talk about how this budget will help the regions.

I would like him to elaborate on the specific elements in our budget that will help the regions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, an aspect of this budget that I think we can really treasure is the fact that the Government of Canada believes in rural Canada. There are a number of initiatives to support rural communities. One of the biggest things is recognizing the importance of the Internet to rural communities, whether for private use or small business use. There are ways we can expand that and look at diversifying rural communities so that they are not as dependent on one or two businesses.

We believe that we need to invest and to be there, and that is one of the reasons the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has spoken so avidly about the importance of supply management. It is one of the reasons for some of the changes in Bill C-10. It is not just the city of Montreal but the entire province that is incorporated in terms of the potential for our aerospace industry, and that same principle applies for Manitoba and Ontario.

It is a different attitude. It is an attitude that shows we understand the importance of rural Canadians and their way of life. We want to be there to support them in a very real and tangible way.

[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.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech, which I found intriguing.

The Canada child benefit that we are introducing will help nine out of 10 Canadian families. It will lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty. The member across the way praised the universal child care benefit, the UCCB, which was the subsidy that the previous government provided to Canadian families.

Can my colleague go into more detail about that and tell us what families in his riding are saying about the new Canada child benefit? Would he rather go back to the old system that even helped the rich but did not help poor children as much?

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, the new child care benefit does have its positive features. It would be remiss for me to say it does not.

However, our plan was universal. I think that is very important. Where our plan differs is that we prefer to give more money back to the people who earned it. We believe that them having more money in their pockets, which would allow them to spend on priorities that would benefit them, is better for the overall economy.

Instead of taking from one group and giving to another, the overall plan should be to reduce taxes, keep a balanced budget, and spend within our means. I think that goes without saying, regardless of whether it is a small business or a family. Spending within our means and allowing people to keep more money in their pockets to spend on their priorities is a good thing. We had that plan. We were moving forward. We saw growth in the economy. That is very important to know. When we have a strong economy and jobs are being created, people have income to spend and keep the economy moving.

Spending for the sake of spending on the government's side sends the wrong message. This bill has to be paid back, and at some point in the future, we will have to pay it back.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for an excellent speech. He was talking about the fact that this budget, although it is spending a lot of money, would not create a lot of jobs. I see from the numbers in budget 2016 that we will only change the unemployment rate by .3% with this $113 billion of spending.

Certainly, we have seen the fossil fuel sector hugely challenged. In my riding, we are very concerned about double layers of carbon taxes. Because of the difficulty with oil prices, we have seen job losses in the west and job losses in the east.

I wonder if my colleague would comment on whether there is anything in this budget that is a bright light for creating jobs.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, there is not much to create jobs. That is the biggest problem here. Although the Liberals committed during the election that the majority of their deficit spending would be on infrastructure—there is some, but there is not much—most of their spending is on program spending, which does not help. We need to be investing. If we are going to make investments, we need to actually make investments and do what we say.

In terms of creating jobs, not lowering the small business tax rate was a mistake. It was promised during the election. It was not done. That is going to hurt small businesses, especially in Ontario. They are already being hammered left, right, and centre, so why not give them a break? Let them create jobs. Let them create wealth in their communities. Unfortunately, that has not happened.

Then there is their so-called middle-class tax cut, which I referred to in my speech. People earning under $45,000 get absolutely zero. How is that helping those who need it the most? They just keep squeezing the people on the lower end, the people they say they want to help.

This is going completely backwards. Taking more and giving people less of their own income to spend, which they worked so hard for, sends the wrong message to Canadians who just want to do better.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to rise again in this House on behalf of the people of Chilliwack—Hope to speak to this budget.

Before I begin, I would like to add my voice, my thoughts and prayers, and those of my wife Lisa, to the people of Fort McMurray, and now northern B.C., as well, near Fort St. John, who are facing the threat of wildfire. We want to once again give our thanks to the first responders who are putting themselves in harm's way to protect property and people. Our thoughts are with them.

Contrary to what we have heard from the Liberal Party today, this budget is bad news for families, small businesses, long-term growth and prosperity, and it is bad for accountability and transparency.

All one has to do is to look at the summary of this bill. If we are being honest, this is an omnibus bill. It includes multiple changes to different pieces of legislation, something which the Liberals and the NDP railed against in the previous government. They always opposed these omnibus bills. This is 176 pages of omnibus legislation that is being changed here today.

It is not good news for Canadians. Again, if we look at the summary, we can see that what the Liberals are proposing to do with the budget is to eliminate the education tax credit and the textbook tax credit. This is bad news for the students in Chilliwack—Hope. We have one of the best universities in British Columbia, the University of the Fraser Valley. It received strategic investments from our Conservative government through the knowledge infrastructure program. It is a great institution and is the first choice for many students who are going to high school in my riding and want to stay near home. It is a great place to go to school. However, now it will be more expensive for families to put their kids through school. They will receive less support with the elimination of the textbook tax credit and the education tax credit.

The greatest betrayal by the Liberal Party in this budget is with respect to small businesses. The member for Sarnia—Lambton asked my colleague who just spoke about the plan for job growth in this budget. We know that governments do not create jobs. It is the small and medium-sized businesses in this country that create jobs.

What has the Liberal government done with this budget and with its broken promise to small business? It has made it harder for those small businesses, those job creators, to hire more people. It has eliminated the hiring credit for small businesses. The Liberals went from business to business and door to door, and promised Canadians they would be lowering the small business tax rate from 10.5% to 9%. They broke that promise in their first budget. What will that do? The parliamentary budget officer made it clear. He said that it will cost small businesses in my riding, in the province of British Columbia and right across the country, over $2.2 billion over the course of this mandate. The government is taking money out of the pockets of small business owners, and we know why. We heard it during the campaign, and we heard it again from the Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business and Tourism this week.

The Liberals believe that small business owners are simply tax avoiders and that they are using their small businesses to avoid paying their fair share. That is an insult to the small business owners in my riding. It is an insult to the small business owners right across this country who work so hard, day in and day out, to put food on the table for their families and to hire other people so they can do the same. They have betrayed small businesses in my riding. Quite frankly, after campaigning for 78 days and promising otherwise, they should be ashamed of that betrayal.

This budget creates more difficulty for families. The Liberals are eliminating the children's art tax credit and the children's fitness tax credit. We know that there is an issue with children needing to be more active. When we were in government, we encouraged Canadian children to be more active, by helping their families put them into sports and programs where they would work up a sweat. That tax credit encouraged families to register their kids in sports, swimming lessons, soccer, and hockey. Now that help has been taken away.

Regarding the arts tax credit, in my riding many families have put their children into dance lessons, piano lessons, things that enrich their lives and make a more well-rounded child. We rewarded that by giving Canadians a little help when they put their families in those sorts of programs. Now the Liberals are taking that away.

As my colleague before me mentioned, the Liberals talked about their tax program in the campaign. The Liberal Party promised Canadians that their tax changes would be revenue neutral, and that has proven to be absolutely false. It is just $3 billion off revenue neutral, so it is close if we think of $3 billion as being close, but of course the cost to the Treasury, which means to taxpayers, is $3 billion higher than the Liberal Party said.

The Liberals have raised taxes on high-income earners, which is what they decided to do. However, they said it would benefit middle-class Canadians. It benefits people with incomes between $45,000 and $200,000 the most. It benefits the rich, as they like to call them, the wealthy 1% the most. It does nothing for the majority of households in my riding with incomes of under $45,000 a year, so how is that helping all Canadians? In fact, it is not. It is leaving out the most vulnerable Canadians with this tax cut. It is a shame, because that is not what the Liberals promised Canadians. That is another broken promise.

Another broken promise in the budget is the promise that the government would be accountable and transparent with its budgeting. The parliamentary budget officer once again has proved that is another broken promise. He said the Liberals were hiding information from Canadians, creating their own economic growth projections, and exaggerating job growth expectations. In fact, he said their job creation numbers, if not completely fabricated, were certainly manipulated to the tune of 40% inflation. The Liberals said they would create 100,000 jobs with the budget, and again I would say it is businesses, not government, that create jobs. However, their job projection numbers were off by 40,000, 40% just pulled out of the air.

For a time, the Liberals refused to give this House five-year financial data. They said they would be open and transparent, and in fact the parliamentary budget officer had to force them to give five-year numbers, which is the standard for all governments across multiple parties for the last decade, so they are not more transparent and open.

I want to talk about that on another issue. One of the budget items I supported was the funding for first nations education. We tried that in the last Parliament. I was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. We brought forward a bill that would have provided $1.9 billion. It would have changed aboriginal education right across the country.

Our bill included provisions for transparency, accountability to taxpayers, accountability to parents, and accountability to the students in first nations schools. I watched the current Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs help to defeat that bill and help to run off National Chief Shawn Atleo, because he wanted to make a difference for indigenous youth in this country.

The government will not enforce the First Nations Financial Transparency Act. It has not had the courage to bring forward a bill to repeal that act, but it is simply not enforcing first nations accountability and transparency any longer. That is a mistake, and once again, it is another broken promise about transparency and accountability.

This is bad for families, bad for taxpayers, and bad for accountability. I would encourage all members of the House to vote against it.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member and his family have a long history of serving the House, so there must be some corporate memory.

Let us talk about 400,000 lost manufacturing jobs during the Conservative reign or the CIBC finding that job quality sunk to its lowest level in 20 years. There are lots of jobs, but really bad ones. The member talked about revenue neutral. There were $14 billion a year lost from government revenue due to the GST cuts, which only really benefited the high rollers who spent a lot of money.

Given that Canadians thoroughly rejected the Conservatives' poor results over a 10-year period, what would he counsel his new leader, whenever he or she is selected, to do differently in order to regain the confidence and trust of Canadians?

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will tell you what we would not do. We would not promise Canadians $10 billion in deficit spending and blow through that by billions of dollars before six months had even passed.

Yes, I do have a good corporate memory. I remember when Paul Martin balanced the budget on the backs of the provinces by cutting $25 billion out of the health care budget. That is something that Conservatives did not do. We increased funding for health care, we cut taxes for Canadians, and we provided the conditions for the creation of 1.3 million net new jobs, 80% of them full time and over three-quarters in high-wage industries.

As for the comment about cutting the GST, we are proud to have cut the GST from 7% to 5% and that benefits low-income Canadians more than anyone else, because often they are paying no taxes. They are not paying incomes taxes, so when they spend money on groceries or a snow suit for their kids, when they put coats on the backs of their children, they are paying less every time. It has resulted in savings of thousands of dollars.

That is the record of the Conservative government: more money in the pockets of Canadian taxpayers. I am proud of that record and any new leader that we elect will be proud of it, too. We will continue to fight for lower taxes and for taxpayers.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for recognizing my community, which is under an evacuation order as we speak. I thank him for his concerns.

The member mentioned concerns about the fitness and arts tax credits and I have received many emails from people concerned about this loss of revenue sources for families. Some families may not be able to put their kids in sports, such as hockey, rugby, or baseball. In the arts, I think of piano or guitar lessons, or just name it. Some of the budgets of these folks are so tight that now they are on the bubble and they may not be able to put their kids in sports or music.

I would like the member to comment on what the future of Canada could hold with the loss of these burgeoning athletes and musicians.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his leadership, not only in his community but in British Columbia. He is the chair of the B.C. Conservative caucus and he does a great job.

I spoke about the loss of the child fitness tax credit and the arts tax credit. Those were good benefits that Canadians really appreciated. They knew that it was going to make a difference. It was going to put some money in their pockets and help them out. That is the difference between the Conservative philosophy and the Liberal philosophy.

Liberals said that they are eliminating the universal child care benefit. That means that some children in this country will now receive no support. Conservatives believe that every child matters, no matter what family he or she is in and no matter what the financial situation of that family is. That is another part of this budget that is so disappointing.

If one wage earner in Chilliwack—Hope is a nurse and another is a teacher, they will get nothing from the Liberal government in terms of child care benefits, because they are too rich. Their children do not matter because they make too much household income. We are talking about a teacher and a nurse. Those are the types of families that are excluded from the Liberal plan. The Conservative plan was universal. This plan excludes Canadian children and that is why Conservatives cannot support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Ottawa South.

I rise today to discuss how our government's budget would benefit rural Canada.

I am very fortunate to chair a strong rural caucus that is working hard to identify key issues and challenges that exist in rural Canada and lobby on behalf of those issues. Our caucus has identified three key issues that we feel are representative of rural Canada: first, digital infrastructure, whether it is cellular or broadband Internet; second, dedicated funding toward small rural communities; and third, economic investment and resources for small rural communities.

A transformation is happening in our society today that is synonymous with the transformation that happened in the late 1800s as we transitioned from the first wave of the industrial revolution to the second wave. Today we are going from the third wave to the fourth wave. Just as the transition at that time was a highly automated transition, it is as well today, where technology and automation are eliminating jobs far more quickly than creating them.

The catalyst at that time to drive entrepreneurialism was the national dream, the railroad. It connected our towns, our communities, our provinces, our country to nations across the world. It increased the level of productivity and it increased accessibility for our small entrepreneurs to be able to sell their products and services beyond their towns and villages.

We need a catalyst today that is similar to that. To me, digital infrastructure and economic development are those two catalysts. Digital infrastructure is important, whether it is providing the children of rural families with access to the Internet so that they can do their homework, or whether it is medicine being delivered through telemedicine facilities in remote regions, or once again, whether it is for our small entrepreneurs to be able to do their business beyond their front doors.

I have travelled a lot in my riding and have visited many innovative and creative individuals. They are passionate and focused on what they do but they are not necessarily all good at selling or marketing or branding themselves or dealing with finances. That is why we really need to be able to provide enterprise facilitation-type services, innovation hubs, incubation hubs, clusters to our entrepreneurs so that they can overcome the intimidation of starting their business or so they can access training and skills that they do not necessarily have, whether it is marketing, sales, or finance.

Our government is listening to individuals like Adrian Ellis and to organizations like the Eastern Ontario Regional Network or the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities. We have delivered $500 million toward the digital infrastructure that all of these organizations and individuals have been clamouring for so they are able to deliver their products and services to a market far broader than just hanging a shingle on their doors.

Our government is listening and our government is getting the job done. We are investing $800 million into innovation centres, clusters, and incubation hubs, so that we can provide those skills and training, those facilitation services that so many of our entrepreneurs in rural areas desperately need.

We are also providing a $70-million investment to agricultural research and innovation. We are providing innovation funds for forestry, mining, and for many other sectors that will benefit in rural areas of our country and that will generate jobs and growth for our rural communities.

Tremendous infrastructure funding challenges exist in rural areas. The application process through the small community fund is daunting. The small community fund today is dedicated toward municipalities that have populations of 100,000 people or less.

In Canada, there are only 50 communities that have more than 100,000 people. There are close to 5,000 communities that have less than 100,000 people. How does a community of 1,000 people compete with a community of 100,000 people?

One of the challenges around the application process is that these communities do not have the internal resources to fill out these complex applications, and they do not have the financial resources to hire professional grant writers to be able to brand these resources.

Our government, once again, is listening to mayors, like Bernice Jenkins, when they say they are having problems putting their asset management plan together. Therefore, we are dedicating $50 million toward the generation of asset management plans to create a level playing field for small municipalities so that they are able to fill out these funding applications and once again be able to communicate the need that they have. At the end of day, these grants are awarded based on perceived need. If one cannot brand that need, then that need will not be perceived to be as high as that of someone who can brand that need.

Another part of the small community fund is the one-third, one-third, one-third: the one-third the municipality pays, the one-third the province pays, and the one-third the federal government pays. Once again, that is very difficult for small rural communities that have had highways downloaded on to them, like the mayor of Hastings Highlands, Vivian Bloom. That community has a piece of Highway 62, but the community had to reject the funding that it had received under the small community fund because it could not afford paying the one-third.

Our government, under this budget, will be relaxing that criteria. Once again, it will be dependent upon the financial situation of a municipality and the need to get the project done. Our government is going to be able to assist them in providing a greater portion of that funding.

Also, there is the problem for most communities of being shovel ready, like Deseronto, when Mayor Norm Clark needed to do a $7 million expansion to the water plant. The community needed to generate a $700,000 report just to be shovel ready. That was more than its whole budget. Once again, our government, in this budget, is relaxing that requirement.

There are so many aspects of this budget that will benefit rural Canada, such as the Canada child benefit, the middle-class tax cut, and the increase in the guaranteed income supplement.

My riding has one of the highest child poverty rates in the province, the second-highest food insecurity rate in the province, and one of the highest unemployment rates. We need to put more money in the pockets of those who need it the most. What happens when we do that? They spend it in our local communities, which benefits our small businesses, which helps to create jobs, which helps to create growth.

If we do not trust that Canadians have the resourcefulness and are hard-working enough to invest in them, to give them the assurance that we trust them to invest in them, then who is going to? If the Government of Canada does not believe in Canadians, then who is going to believe in Canadians?

Now is the time to invest in Canada. The interest rates are low, and the debt-to-GDP rate is low. We need to invest in Canadians today to create the future jobs that will grow our communities and provide that income level to support our families.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very supportive of the rural Internet funding and the infrastructure funding that was put toward that, as well as research and innovation. However, as the co-chair for the parliamentary rail caucus, I was disappointed with the budget when I saw that the high-performance rail from the southwest Ontario corridor to Quebec, which is such a priority and would have been such a help in terms of addressing climate change, was not even funded. There was only money for a study.

I wonder if the member could comment on why that was left out.

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

Mr. Speaker, like the member, I agree on the importance of rail.

Once again, do we just throw money out there and hope that it creates this field of dreams? No, we have to do the reports, and we have to bring evidence and data to support the investment.

We are a growth agenda government. If we do not have the data and cannot quantify the growth that will result from the investment, then the investment is not worth making. Any business would do the same thing.

Our government is putting money into the study of exactly what we need to have in place, and the level of investment that is really going to bring about the change that is necessary to increase rail travel, to move people quicker from one part of the country to another, so that we can increase productivity and growth in our economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, as a former mayor, I really appreciate a lot of the comments the member has made this morning about the needs. Certainly, we need a different formula in municipalities. That one-third, one-third, one-third formula was really difficult for small communities. Those communities also need money up front so they can actually be shovel ready with their projects. A lot of them cannot afford the cost of engineering studies to be shovel ready.

I also think we need to expand our basic definition of infrastructure. Traditionally, it has always been sewer, water, roads, and storm drains. I think we need to be adding dark fibre high-speed Internet as a basic piece of infrastructure in all our communities moving forward. It is really important, particularly to rural areas. Also, we need to move to multi-year funding so they can actually do some planning.

I would be interested in the member's thoughts on adding multi-year funding and dark fibre to his list of priorities.

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

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more. As part of the funding formula, we really need to look at whenever there is an infrastructure project to be done, when a road is being dug up for example, at least the conduit for fibre should be laid when that road is being done.

The member made a great point. We need that long-term funding. That is why there is $500 million over five years. That does give the sustained funding. Do we need more? Absolutely. I could not agree more. I think our government recognizes that.

This would be the largest government investment made in broadband Internet. Moving forward, we would continue to make those investments because we recognize that the growth is there. If we invest, this technology is the catalyst. If we are going to compete in this highly technological, highly globalized competitive world, we need to have the infrastructure in place that is going to create a level playing field for everyone to benefit and for everyone to bring their products and services.

Canadians are so innovative and creative. We just need to give them the tools to allow that entrepreneurial spirit that exists in all of us to explode, just as it did back in the late 1800s when all of our towns and cities boomed because of the railroad.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, through you, I wish a good morning to my colleagues on all sides of the House.

This is a continuing and foundational debate for the country. I have always believed that budgets are about choices, and they really do reflect how a government lends shape to its specific priorities.

I have heard feedback from hundreds of constituents about this budget, and most aptly it has been described as a people's budget. It is a people's budget that addresses the real needs of working Canadians in the here and now dealing with the challenges in the Canadian economy and the challenges in Canadians' daily lives. At the same time, I describe this budget as an agenda for growth. Those are big words: agenda for growth.

What it really means is that over the last decade or so, we have seen a flat-lining in terms of the growth in the Canadian economy, and that is as a result of the deliberate choices made by a previous government. All of us respect the fact that the previous government had the right to do so, but we would not find unanimity or agreement here in terms of how that government pursued some of those priorities. For that matter, I do not think we would find agreement on its priorities among its members themselves.

The very first thing we did in order to help everyday Canadians was to cut their taxes. The first act brought here by our government, the Prime Minister, our caucus, was to cut individual personal income taxes, which kicked in on January 1, 2016. It is important to remind Canadians of that because we know from economists that one of the most impactful measures that can be brought to bear in a budget is to cut personal income taxes and thereby free up more income for spending, or saving, or investing. We made that deliberate choice on the basis of very sound economic evidence.

The second thing we did that is foundational in this budget is we invested in our families. We invested through the Canada child benefit. Yes, we did eliminate a number of small tax measures that were being used, in our view, by the previous government to a certain extent as trinkets. Instead, we actually enhanced the Canada child benefit for working families in a dramatic fashion. Nine out of ten Canadian families are getting increases in benefits for their kids. The interesting thing about those benefits is that they are now tax-free. That is important because again, we wanted to put support into the hands of our everyday middle-class Canadian families, while at the same time working to lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty.

Poverty, as we would all agree, is a scourge. One of the values that informs our government, our party, is the powerful but simple notion that we leave no one behind, that every child has the same opportunity to be able to succeed. Yes, play by the rules, and yes, work hard, but that is hard to do when one is living in and surrounded by poverty. That is why the Canada child benefit is such a powerful contribution to helping our families and their children move forward.

Given the fact that the most important and powerful investment a nation can make is in learning, we invested heavily in post-secondary education. We have made it more affordable. We have changed the Canada student loan program. We have increased the grants. We have allowed students who are graduating from college and university with debt to have a threshold of income of $25,000 a year before they have to begin paying back their Canada student loan. That is going to help.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to continuing this debate after question period, and I look forward to questions from my colleagues.

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.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

When the House last considered this question, the hon. member for Ottawa South had five minutes remaining in the time for his comments.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Ottawa South.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise again for a few minutes to provide some comments about the important budget we brought down in the country recently.

When I last left off, I was speaking about the need for countries to make investments in learning. In fact, I argue, still argue, have always argued, that the most important investment any country can make is in learning.

I was talking about some of the changes in the budget that dealt with modest and low-income students from families of modest and low-income backgrounds, and the assistance we are providing to help them reach up and break through. We know the single greatest determinant for post-secondary learning of one form or another is whether or not a young person's parents went on past high school.

We are obviously working in lockstep with many of our provincial counterparts. For example, in the province of Ontario, my home province, the government there recently, in its wisdom, decided to cut tuition fees by 50% for families with collective incomes of $150,000 a year or less. That is a major contribution to making post-secondary education more affordable. Again, in this party and this government, we recognize that learning is paramount if we are going to succeed and continue to succeed in a global economy that is in rapid transition.

A few of the themes I want to talk about that I think are deserving of being addressed are the following. First is seniors. With an aging and rapidly aging population, our government has recognized the need to invest there as well. This is why we have increased the guaranteed income supplement, for example, up to $947 a year for single seniors. That is income tested, of course.

We are making huge and new investments in retirement, particularly when it comes to infrastructure related to seniors and seniors' housing. It is very important with an aging population. We maintained, of course, pension splitting to help so many senior couples meet the daily challenges of paying bills and staying afloat, living independently and with dignity.

We are working towards enhancing the Canada pension plan. We are working in conjunction with our provincial counterparts, again, co-operating there to try to lift more Canadians going forward to ensure that we do not deal with some of the pension challenges we are facing now in all of our ridings. All of us here have knocked on doors where we face many hundreds, if not thousands of families and individuals who are rightly worried about their retirement and whether they will be able to afford to live with that independence and the dignity I spoke about a moment ago.

We have also restored the eligibility age for the OAS, taking it rightfully, in my view, back to 65 years old from the arbitrary age of 67, a measure brought in by the last government without a single shred of evidence to substantiate the need to do so.

I want to touch upon a few issues. This is an issue that has great bearing on our national capital region. I happen to have the pleasure and the privilege of being chair of the national capital region caucus for the government, embracing some 16 electoral districts and 12 MPs.

We have invested heavily in our national museums. This is an important part of Canada's cultural identity. It is an important part of Canada's future going forward. We have, of course, invested in rail safety. I am also very proud of the work going on right now, led by our Minister of Health in backfilling our national health accord.

We are investing heavily in innovative and new clean economy measures, so that we are the most efficient economy in the world and the cleanest economy in the world.

Last, I would remind Canadians of the $120 billion over 10 years going into major infrastructure projects, projects that are determined with our local municipal partners and provinces, projects that are ready to go and will have a direct bearing on our quality of life, and of course create that growth that we have not seen in roughly a decade, leveraging money from both provinces and municipalities to enhance our lifestyle, our quality of life, and to create more jobs.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that the member did not touch on was the specific decision by the government to eliminate the children's fitness tax credit.

This was a tax credit created that benefited every Canadian child, not just nine out of 10 Canadian children, but actually every child in my riding and every child across the country. It is something that was shown, with evidence, to augment the opportunities for children to be fitter and healthier, and obviously decrease the obesity rate in the country.

I would like to ask the member why the Liberal government, why his government, why he has chosen to eliminate the children's fitness tax credit?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would say to my colleague that budgets are about choices. They are about allocating scarce resources. In its wisdom, our government decided to eliminate a small number of tax measures in order to bring in a much more generous Canada child benefit. Families making anywhere from $30,000 to $90,000 a year in gross income will see major increases in the support they will get for their children.

The difference between our support and the previous government's support for children through our Canada child benefit is that it is tax-free. Therefore, it will be a major increase in available income to support children through sports, homework, clothing, backpacks, school supplies, food, and all of the things that will really help so many kids. That is why I said earlier that we are very proud of these investments because they will help lift hundreds of thousands of kids out of poverty.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know when I was walking among many communities in my riding and knocking on doors, one of the things that my constituents spoke to me about again and again was their serious concerns about omnibus bills filled with lots of information that was not adequately debated in the House of Commons.

We now have another one. It is 179 pages long, contains 30 separate statutes, refers to nine different ministries, impacts several others, and contains Bill C-12, which is already on the Order Paper before the House of Commons.

The people in my riding are concerned. How would you respond to them?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how you would respond to these concerns. However, our government is responding to these concerns by making absolutely sure that this debate is fulsome, that it continues, and that we talk about the very details that the member highlights. This budget will be taken back to the finance committee where we will be hearing from dozens of witnesses on the specifics and the merits of all of these provisions. It is all there in the light of day. It is all transparent. People can raise issues and concerns with their MPs.

I invite the member, if she has any specific concerns on behalf of her constituents on any of these measures, to approach either the relevant minister, the Minister of Finance, or any of her parliamentary colleagues on this side of the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if my colleague could speak to the genuine investments that will be made into Canada's infrastructure, and what this budget will do in terms of helping to build a stronger, healthier Canada through infrastructure spending. I know that he is very familiar with the file, and I thought that he could provide some comment on how important it is to invest in infrastructure.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, infrastructure is foundational to our ability to compete.

We will be having a debate in this House shortly about a particular motion brought by a colleague with respect to imposing some, if I can call it, green conditionality to backstop our infrastructure spending. We have a chance in this country to lead a race. The race is all about becoming the most efficient economy in the world. The German authorities know it, the American government knows it, and the Israeli government knows it. We're embroiled in a race, and our infrastructure investments are critical to making sure that we can compete, particularly as a rapidly urbanizing country, which Canada is, alongside for that matter pretty much every other nation-state in the world.

We have a real opportunity to invest in the foundational infrastructure that we need: light rail, housing, support for our seniors, and water and waste water systems. These assets are the pillars, the foundation, upon which we build. They provide us the support to go on, for example, to conquer global markets. Just yesterday I had the privilege of announcing a $525,000 grant for a major company located in my riding. It is doing incredible software and hardware work around the world with respect to hotel management systems.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Before resuming debate, I would like to inform hon. members that there have been more than five hours of debate on this motion during this first round. Consequently, the maximum time allocated for all subsequent interventions shall be ten minutes for speeches and five minutes for questions and comments.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Simcoe—Grey.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I would like to express my deepest sympathies to the thousands of families who have lost their homes and businesses and are currently displaced from Fort McMurray, Alberta. Our thoughts and prayers are with them. I ask all Canadians to support the relief efforts by the Red Cross at www.redcross.ca. It is at these times when I think Canadians' generosity and our Canadian unity are exemplified. The people of Fort McMurray are resilient, and I know they will rebuild. I want to thank the Government of Canada and the Government of Alberta for offering their matching dollars in the time of need for these Canadians. As I say, this is the time when we see Canadian generosity and Canadian unity truly exemplified.

I rise in the House today to speak about an important issue for the people of Simcoe—Grey. The budget of the Government of Canada is the centrepiece of the government's agenda and policies. With the new Liberal government, this budget represents a sharp contrast between the Liberal promises and the day-to-day reality of Canadians.

During the election, there were many commitments made, and promises that were made along the way. However, the reality of this budget, and most important its impact on Canadians, leaves many of us quite baffled.

Election campaigns, parliamentary debates, selfies, and state dinners are one thing, but this budget is another. This budget will have a significant negative impact on the lives of Canadians. The Liberals are spending freely, borrowing billions of dollars, and taking benefits away from families and small businesses. In short, the Liberals are jeopardizing our future.

On March 22, the Liberals announced their budget. They are now borrowing and spending over $29.4 billion while they have eliminated benefits to families, students, and small businesses. This is simply not responsible, and at some point in time someone will be paying for all this. Quite frankly, whether it is us today or the next several generations of Canadians, someone will have to pay off this debt.

Why we as Conservatives actually care about this borrowing and spending and the creation of this debt is that, for us, lowering taxes, balancing budgets, and having less debt, the type of government that we ran, is not an end in itself but rather a means to a greater end. The end is more freedom and prosperity for Canadians overall. It is more freedom to support programs that helped our veterans and seniors, like the tax-free savings account; to support programs that supported students and young Canadians; and to support small-business owners to harness their entrepreneurial spirit and the great opportunities to help grow their communities. We believe in hard work on this side of the House, and we also believe that hard work should be rewarded.

When we are free, we have an ability to provide for others. When we are free from taxation and free from a burden of debt, which the current government will create, we are able to go out and help others. Helping others at home and abroad is what unifies us as Canadians. Our Canadian history is rooted in that generosity for individuals. It is this Canadian identity that we must work hard to preserve, particularly as we debate this important piece of legislation.

I can say in contrast that the current Liberal government is not focused on that. The current Liberal government is not focused on reducing that burden on Canadians. The current Liberal government is actually mortgaging the future of our nation.

I have always been concerned about children. I am therefore disappointed in the government's decision to eliminate the children's fitness tax credit. This decision means that Canadian families will have less money in their pockets.

In 2006, I was asked by the federal Conservative government to chair a panel on the children's fitness tax credit, to make recommendations on how to improve the health and physical fitness of Canadian kids. The tax credit encouraged families to help their kids become more physically active, actually having a direct impact on reducing the obesity rates of Canadian kids. I am exceptionally disappointed that the current government would decide to get rid of an initiative that improved the health of Canadian children, one that impacted all Canadian kids. That is not just 9 out of ten Canadian kids, as the Liberals like to speak about, with their benefits being for 9 out of ten Canadian families, but every Canadian child.

For me, this is exceptionally important. They have eliminated the children's arts tax credit, income splitting, the textbooks tax credit, the education tax credit, and the small business tax credit.

For small business owners, saying that they are tax avoiders is simply wrong. In my riding of Simcoe—Grey, the small business people go out and work hard so they can give back to our communities generously. Whether that be Charlie Tatham or Simon Ainley or Chris Crozier, they have all built our communities in my riding.

In addition, the Liberals have not focused on Canadian farmers. In my riding, it is important. They feed our Canadian families.

Finally, with regard to Canadian Forces Base Borden, another decade of darkness will be faced, with the reduction of $3.7 billion in defence spending.

Canadians deserve better. We actually have an opportunity to do better. I encourage individuals to review the bill and vote against it, because it is not in the best interests of Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member is actually serious when she says that the Conservatives left us with less debt than when they arrived. That is one of the more entertaining comments I have heard so far today.

The Conservatives have not managed to balance a budget in over 130 or 140 years, after having entered office with a deficit. They have never taken us from deficit to surplus, not once since the 1900s. Last year, the government left us with a significant deficit, and it is getting worse. I would like to hear the opposition's explanation.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member opposite. The deficit is getting much worse. The government promised a $10-billion deficit, which I found quite concerning to begin with, but it is actually $29.4 billion.

Ours was a government that the parliamentary budget officer has already reported had us in the black. In fact, we were over $7 billion in the black, as reported in February. However, our now Liberal Minister of Finance says that is just a thing to consider.

Let us be serious. The Liberal government is mortgaging the future of Canadian families and the future of younger Canadians. I encourage them to think again and actually put young Canadians first.

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

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

However, I have a question for her about the children's fitness tax credit. I agree with her that it is not a good thing that the Liberals are eliminating that tax credit without replacing it with another plan to encourage physical activity.

At the same time, I placed several written questions on the Order Paper about that tax credit in the previous Parliament to ask the Conservative government at the time whether it had studies to show that the tax credit had actually helped young people who were not already participating in sports to do so. Unfortunately, every time I asked the question, I was told that no such studies existed.

Can the member tell me on what grounds she is claiming that this tax credit actually encouraged young people, poor young people or those who were not already participating in sports, to do so?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, actually there is data. I encourage him to go on PubMed and look it up. It shows that the implementation of these kinds of tax-free or positive incentives to have families and children participate show that more children participate. That is why it is so disappointing that the Liberal government has eliminated the children's fitness tax credit. Not only was it a tax credit for some families, but it was a subsidy for other families who were not eligible for a tax credit. Every Canadian child benefited from it.

I am happy to instruct the member that if he would like to look it up on PubMed, there are several articles published on this. However, let us be frank. This is actually about Canadian kids and the Liberal government abandoning them at a time when they need encouragement to get out there and play, to get on the playground. We know that is good for Canadian children's health.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a bit of a contradiction in the Conservative's approach. We have heard from time to time, on other matters, that parents should be left to decide for themselves how to spend their money. That was the argument they had against any kind of mandated child care. Certainly, one would have to agree that the Canada child benefit, by replacing all of these very directive boutique tax cuts, in fact does precisely that. Not only that, it does it tax-free, and it puts more money in the pockets of Canadians.

Therefore, given that people could use the Canada child benefit to replace all of these boutique tax cuts, would the hon. member not agree that families are actually better off with more flexibility and more money in their pockets?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I guess what I have issue with is that our initiatives actually impacted every Canadian family and every Canadian child. As the Liberals will say again and again themselves, only 9 out of ten actually benefit from what they are doing.

As my colleague earlier mentioned, one can be in a family, maybe a nurse or a teacher, and these individuals do not even benefit from what the Liberal government is doing now.

What our party focused on was making sure that every single Canadian family benefited. Every single Canadian family had more money back in their pockets, as opposed to what the Liberal government is doing, which is augmenting our debt and deficit, taking that money out of their pockets and giving it to the Government of Canada.

I think Canadians should have that money back in their pockets so that they can make great decisions for their families.

[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 know 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.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member for Newmarket—Aurora. He indicated that tax credits like the sports and fitness tax credit had to be eliminated in order to pay for the fiscal measures, the tax plan, of the Liberal Party. However, during the last election campaign when Liberals went to Canadians to ask for their votes, that is not what they told them. They told them that they were going to pay for it through a number of specified measures: the elimination of the universal child care benefit, which they are doing, the establishment of a new high tax bracket, which they have done, and the elimination of income splitting, which is also happening. All of those tax grabs were going to take place. That was going to finance their plan, and that was it.

Nowhere in their platform did they say anything about eliminating the sports and fitness tax credit for children or eliminating the children's arts credit. No, they did not tell Canadians that. They did not tell Canadians that they planned to eliminate the textbook tax credit. They did not tell Canadians they planned to eliminate the education tax credit. All of those things were to be untouched. They were not necessary to pay for this plan. However, today we are hearing a new tune, that they actually were necessary to pay for their plan.

Why is it that they told Canadians something totally different about the tax hikes they had in mind during the election campaign and then hit them with a surprise whole second set of tax hikes after the election to pay for promises Conservatives had said were not affordable?

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member's riding is just north of my riding of Newmarket—Aurora. If he wants to talk about the election and what was said, let me tell the House what I heard when I was knocking on doors in Newmarket—Aurora. I heard families complaining that they could not afford to put their children in sports. How is the tax benefit going to help them? People with children six, seven, and eight years old could not even afford to put their kids in basketball or hockey or baseball.

The member said here is a tax credit. All of us know that tax credits do not work if we do not have any money in our pockets to pay for a service to begin with. That is the problem with the member's way of thinking. That is the problem with his former government's way of thinking. The Conservatives think a tax credit will solve everything. We all know that the Conservative government's boutique tax credits were political gimmicks that helped no one but the Conservative Party.

I was happy to talk to the people of Newmarket—Aurora. I was happy to tell them that what we need more than tax credit gimmicks is money for young families so their children can play the same sports as other families' children play. Just because they do not have enough money, their children should not be denied that opportunity and the joy of being a child.

I am happy to stand with a government that will make that more possible when this government—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I get started, I want to send our condolences and our thoughts to the people of Fort McMurray. There are many people in Courtenay—Alberni who have family members there and who are affected by that horrible situation. I want to thank the members who have come from Alberta to make sure those people are represented today.

I want to thank the member for talking about inequality and those who need a hand and a lift up. We talk about gimmicks. I worry about the promises of tax breaks for the middle class, gimmick tax cuts that 17.9 million Canadians would not benefit from, and a promise to reduce taxes for small business from 11% to 9%.

Today I heard members across the floor say things like small business owners are not good fiscal money managers and they are tax cheats. It worries me when I hear things like that. These are our neighbours. These are the economic drivers of our communities. That is not how we should be talking about the people who built our communities, who donate to our local community organizations, who volunteer, like volunteer firefighters or auxiliary coast guard people. If we make promises to support small business, then we should follow through with those promises. We cannot have a healthy community with a weak business community.

Would the member apologize to the small business people in his community for the broken promise the Liberals made to small business people? Will the other members go home to their communities and apologize for that broken promise?

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me tell the member about the small businesses in my riding. I was a member of the Newmarket Chamber of Commerce long before I had political dreams or aspirations, so I know many small businesses in Newmarket and Aurora. The chambers of commerce support this budget.

The member should not tell me that we do not support small business. We on this side of the House do not need to take lectures about supporting small business from anybody. We support small businesses. We support family businesses. We also support anybody who is working hard.

Nine million Canadians will receive the middle class tax cuts. That is not insignificant.

We can all agree that small and medium-size enterprises are the backbone of our economy. There are so many great entrepreneurs all over Canada, especially in Newmarket—Aurora, and we are pleased to support them.

[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.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talked about seniors, and certainly when I went door to door, I saw a lot of seniors really struggling. They did not have enough savings to live comfortably, so I do appreciate the increase of 10% in the GIS, but $18 a week is not as much as they need.

I wonder if the member could comment on why the government has cut the amount of money we could put into a TFSA, which 11 million Canadians were taking advantage of in order to save for their future. Could she comment on that?

[Leona Alleslev, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this government is committed to improving the conditions of seniors in this country. We do not want any seniors to be living in poverty, and particularly, not only are we increasing the GIS, but we are also investing in ways that we can change the tax policy.

When two people are living, perhaps one in a nursing home and one wants to stay in their home, we are addressing mechanisms to support them as well.

Furthermore, we are also looking at ensuring that seniors have a better opportunity for their retirement. We are committed to seniors in that regard.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member touched on a number of different things in her speech, certainly inequality and helping to support the growth of the economy.

Previously I was the executive director of a very successful chamber of commerce on the west coast of British Columbia. There were 350 chamber members and I cannot think of one of them being a tax cheat or any who were not good fiscal managers. They were contributors to our economy. They always complained that they felt things were not fair in Canada around taxes.

Under Liberal and Conservative governments for decades we have seen tax breaks for Canada's largest corporations and nothing for small business people.

Does the member feel that Canada's largest corporations are paying their fair share, and does she think small business owners should be getting a reduction in their taxes as promised by the Liberals in their campaign?

[Leona Alleslev, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think that it is a philosophical question in many respects.

We need to look at what we are doing to invest in the economy, and what the critical foundations are at any given point in time. We have a significant infrastructure deficit in this country. Without having that foundation, many large and small corporations are choosing not to grow and expand in our country. What that means is we are losing jobs, and we are not benefiting from any kind of opportunity going forward.

By investing in infrastructure, we are ensuring that there is a strong foundation, not only immediately in the short term by creating jobs for those people who are going to provide that infrastructure, but for the mid and long terms by creating an environment where companies are going to want to come to Canada to grow and expand their businesses.

This is beneficial not only for large corporations but for small and medium-sized corporations as well, because they benefit from the local dollars in their communities and from the revenue generation that those larger organizations provide.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, could the member talk a little about Canada's child benefit, and some of the boutique tax credits the former government used to have in place?

I remember being in the military, with three young children, and not making a lot of money. It was around $50,000. My wife was at home, working with the children at home. We used to laugh at the tax credits in that they were actually not going to make a huge difference in the lives of a lot of our fellow citizens. They were not going to make a difference in our lives.

Could the member talk about what she thinks streamlining this process, making it more efficient, will do not only for government operations but also perhaps for the lives of average Canadians?

[Leona Alleslev, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was also fortunate to serve in the Canadian Forces. As an officer, I was responsible for many of the people who worked for me who came to me asking for my assistance with their taxes and often asking for help with their finances. That is what the military family does.

Certainly, for the tax credits, they had to have spent a certain amount of money on sports programs, art programs, dance programs. For those families that do not have money to put food on their table, they do not have the money to invest in those sports programs and those dance programs. Therefore, giving them a tax credit and benefit on their taxes for the money that they spent to offset it is of no value to them.

These families needed an opportunity to have money in their pockets right from day one through lower taxes, as we have lowered the middle-class taxes, and through a child benefit that is directed at them, based on their income.

A monthly cheque is going to overwhelmingly provide additional support to those families in Canada with children who absolutely need it the most.

[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.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the opposition member's speech.

I have a few comments to make in that regard. When I served in the army, I found that all governments have nice things to say about veterans. Veterans are seen as sacred people who must be protected. However, when the time comes to truly protect those veterans and do something for them, these governments do nothing.

It was the same thing with the Conservative government. It cut 800 public service jobs. These employees were offering direct services to veterans. I am proud that we are currently making investments to help veterans. The Conservatives also made cuts to pensions that gave veterans a fixed amount each month. We are talking to veterans so that we can try to fix that.

I am very disappointed that members are talking about this today without really taking into account the actions of the previous government, which was unable to turn its words into action. I am proud that we are doing that with our veterans today.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

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

What I was trying to say in my speech is that the Liberals are implementing measures to increase financial benefits, which we did. It must be done because that is what veterans' advocacy groups want.

I am going farther than that today. I am saying that although the system that has been in place in Canada for the past 15 years is important because benefits have to be there, it must do more. We have to tackle one of the other problems veterans are facing, and that is their everyday relationship with Veterans Affairs Canada officials. Not only is the transition problematic, but there is a problem with having to fill in forms and the department's attitude toward veterans.

We have no choice but to tackle this issue. We are doing so in committee, and that is why I am talking about it today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I share my colleague's indignation at the fact that Bill C-12 was put into an omnibus bill. However, I would like to remind him that the Conservatives also introduced undemocratic bills like this one that evince disrespect for Parliament.

Also under the Conservatives, wounded veterans were forced to prove, year after year, that the legs they lost in the line of duty had not magically reappeared. That is utterly unacceptable, and it literally adds insult to injury. Unfortunately, that practice will not change under the new government.

Is the member concerned about the fact that this bill fails to ensure that practice will end?

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member is quite right; the bill is hardly all-inclusive.

I want to say to my colleague that I have no qualms about answering this in regard to omnibus bills. The problem with the Liberals is that they refuse to take personal responsibility. We never said that omnibus bills are necessarily bad; meanwhile, the Liberals say they are against them, but then turn around and use them barely six months later.

An omnibus bill might be introduced for partisan or rational reasons, for instance, to pass measures quickly before the end of a parliamentary session.

In this instance, I am convinced that the government included measures for veterans in this omnibus bill not for pragmatic or rational reasons, but rather for partisan reasons.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech. It is great to have him on our team.

Earlier today, one of my colleagues in the Liberal Party indicated that this budget will leave a last legacy for Canadians, and I could not agree more. Unfortunately, the lasting legacy is mountains and mountains of debt. If we look at the debt charges alone on page 234, we will see that between 2015 to 2020, the interest charges alone increase by almost $10 billion.

I would like my colleague to comment on what the impact of this extra debt charge will do to the future economic prosperity of our country.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

It is a lasting legacy, indeed, Mr. Speaker.

My colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska used an excellent metaphor.

When a couple goes to the bank to get a mortgage for their home, measures are taken to ensure that the couple's children will not be left to pay for the house later on, and that is exactly what a federal budget should do.

Unfortunately, we can see today that the Liberals are not making sure that the mortgage will be paid off before the kids get the house.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Before I recognize the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst to resume debate, I must inform him that he will have only about eight minutes for his speech.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard.

[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.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order. We have about two more minutes to go.

The hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, 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 begin looking forward to their retirement.

This measure will help vulnerable seniors who depend on old age security benefits. Without those benefits, seniors run an even greater risk of living in poverty, and that is unacceptable.

The passage of this 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, which will support 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 more than doubles 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 the people who will benefit from this increase are single women.

I will close by saying that we know that the problems we are facing will not be solved overnight or in just one budget. However, we know that good governance does not focus just on today and tomorrow, but also on the years and decades to come. The goal is to build a better life for our children and move forward with optimism, knowing that we can reach our goal. That is why I encourage all members of the House to support this bill.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard will have three minutes to finish his speech when the House resumes debate on this motion.

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.

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.

[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 a 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am a little surprised that the member is advocating that we should have put more into the budget implementation bill. I would suggest that if his concern is with respect to the muzzling of science in Canada, I can tell the member that he can be rest assured that through our Minister of Science and this government, we have seen more freedom given to our scientists in the Government of Canada. The Liberal Party is very much supportive of our scientists, and one can see that realization in the budget itself.

The question I have for the member is specific to the budget implementation bill, which contains some fundamental principles that will benefit Canadians. I would ask the member if he would reflect on those principles. The principles I am referring to are the tax cuts to the middle class, the enhancement of the Canada child benefit, and the investments in infrastructure, all of which are very strong, progressive moves by this government through this budget implementation act.

Would the member not agree in principle that these are the types of measures the Canadian economy needs and what Canadians as a whole want to see?

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what we see there is the rhetoric we have heard around science: scientists have been more free than ever, and there has been more done for scientists by the current government than any other government. However, nothing has been written down. There are no ethics directives for departments to ensure that muzzling will not occur in the future. Therefore, scientists and researchers are still ambivalent with respect to what is and what is not okay to do. We have heard a lot of comments about chief science officers from that side, but nothing has been written down. There are appointments and a mysterious appointment process, yet nothing is transparent. I thought that is what the Liberals said they would deliver, but so far, I am still waiting.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question with respect to the indirect costs of research. This typically refers to the fact that when researchers in Canada apply for grants and whatnot, there is often a lot of work that is associated with having to get that money. In my career prior to entering politics, I was a research administrator. In my office at the University of Calgary, I had scores of auditors all the time. I heard from researchers that they would spend up to half of their time filling out forms, and that there was a lot of redundancy. This is a big complaint with respect to research productivity in our country.

I note that in a previous science and technology strategy document by the former government, it committed to reducing the administrative burden on researchers through a very comprehensive review. I think that is really important. We should have accountability for public funds, but we should also be cognizant of the fact that our researchers should be doing what we pay them to do, which is to perform research rather than push paper across their desks.

I am wondering if the member would comment on whether or not he would support a review of the research compliance burden in Canada, and support subsequent amendments to make life easier for our researchers.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question and for her past work. In terms of the indirect costs, new research done by natural or social scientists would necessarily have to go through ethics reviews in universities. However, the indirect costs are usually operating costs, such as keeping the lights on in labs. Therefore, for that to have the same kind of burden seems unreasonable. I would definitely support a review of these costs.

The one thing that we are not seeing from the other side is any kind of comprehensive approach to science funding. It was promised throughout the election and we have not heard much about it. We heard that this mysterious chief science officer might do it. However, we really do not know how this person is being appointed, who he or she might be, or what his or her capacity is. I was hoping to see more of this in the budget implementation act, but there has been nothing. I hope there will be something coming this year because scientists are waiting.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks, I would like to personally express my profound sadness for the tragedy in Fort McMurray. My heart goes out to all the people who have been affected by the forest fires that are still raging.

I also want to thank all Canadians who have offered their prayers and support to our fellow Canadians at this time. I also want to thank all of the first responders, citizens, and officials who are working day and night to confront this terrible situation.

The generosity of Canadians is never in doubt, and as a country we will do our best to support all of those who have been affected.

I want to begin my remarks by thanking the kind and generous people of Kitchener Centre for giving me the opportunity to be their voice in Ottawa. This opportunity has humbled me, and allowed me to grow as a person and become more aware of how beautiful my constituency is. It is beautiful because of the hard-working people who contribute to its vitality and growth.

I was elected to work for the advancement and betterment of my community. Our budget sets the tone and the framework for my community to achieve its potential without fear, limitation, or hesitation.

Budget 2016 is very clear in its approach. Our budget is for the middle class and those wishing to join it. Let me begin by sharing some highlights.

Firstly, our government, at its very outset, introduced a middle-class tax cut to help Canadians make their lives easier. Our approach will help nine million Canadians who will see an average tax reduction of $330 for single Canadians and $540 for couples.

This tax cut will put more money in the pockets of Canadians, who will be able to invest in the things that are important to them. Whether it be investing in their financial security or investing in their children, this middle-class tax cut will boost economic activity in the short term and put us on a more sure footing for the long term

Second, our Canada child benefit plan represents a generational shift in social policy. The hallmark of our plan is that it will be better targeted to those who need it the most.

Low- and middle-income families will receive more benefits and those with higher incomes will receive lower benefits.

Our plan is fairer, more targeted, and much simpler. The strength of our plan is built on fairness. Any family that receives a benefit will not have to fear a clawback, because our plan is tax-free.

We know that raising children is expensive. Many families have to juggle their finances to make sure they can raise their children in the manner they choose. The child benefit plan will allow parents to make decisions that are best for their children. Our plan will lift almost 300,000 children out of poverty. That, in and of itself, is a pursuit that we must take.

Third, our infrastructure plan in budget 2016 will invest $11.9 million right away to build roads, bridges, improve public transit, improve water and waste water facilities, and refurbish affordable housing.

This will create thousands of jobs and boost our economy.

We will invest $3.4 billion over the next three years in public transit. We will invest $5 billion over the next five years in green infrastructure, and over $3.4 billion in social infrastructure, including affordable housing.

This will benefit seniors housing, community centres, and child care centres. This will also aid in the refurbishment of 100,000 affordable homes.

I cannot tell the House how happy the affordable housing community is in my riding. For the first time in a generation, we will see the homeless in our communities finally have a place to call home.

Housing is not the problem. It is the solution.

Fourthly, we have made specific proposals to help our most vulnerable seniors. We will roll back the age at which seniors can access old age security and guaranteed income supplement benefits from 67 to 65. We are also going to boost the guaranteed income supplement for 900,000 low-income seniors.

Our budget is about bringing dignity to those who have spent their lives making our country strong and prosperous. We are all beneficiaries of their hard work and our plan will help them live their lives with financial security, because we owe them our respect, appreciation, and loyalty.

I am fortunate to have begun my professional life in one of the most innovative and progressive communities in Canada. My region, Kitchener, Waterloo, and Cambridge, known as the golden triangle, is considered to be the heart of the innovation community in Canada.

With our collaborative nature and innovative ecosystem, the Perimeter Institute, the Quantum-Nano Centre, Communitech, Google, two universities and one community college, and our numerous start-up companies, our region has led the country in innovation. For us, it is in our DNA. Our clusters and our advanced ecosystem have distinguished us on the world stage. We are a key component in a new economic driver, the Quantum Valley corridor.

Our budget is defining a new approach for Canada's economy.

We know that other countries in the world are searching for ways to improve their societies. We must meet the challenge of a new economy.

Our citizens, who are the most educated and the most technologically advanced in the history of our country, are asking us to give them the tools to succeed. That is why in our budget, we have earmarked $2 billion for post-secondary institutions. Making sure that our leaders of tomorrow have the best resources to study and innovate will help chart a course for future growth.

Research and innovation will be at the heart of our country’s progress.

That is why we will invest $30 million for the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, $30 million for NSERC, and $16 million for Social Sciences and the Humanities Research Council.

We know that helping our researchers will not only benefit our young, but it will strengthen our economy and make for a more progressive society.

We know that small and medium-sized businesses also need the tools to succeed.

That is why we will be strengthening Canada's network of accelerators and incubators. My region will definitely benefit from this visionary approach. We will also be supporting a strong and innovative automotive sector.

One company in my riding is already benefiting from this approach. Pravala Networks, in Kitchener, has received $9.7 million to develop a platform that will provide uninterrupted Internet connectively in vehicles.

We know that by helping small firms to innovate and grow, and by helping high-impact firms scale up, it will only strengthen our economy and provide the high-quality and high-paying jobs that our citizens need.

Finally, our budget sets the stage for the renewal and the re-emergence of our country.

The role of any government is to create the conditions for its people to succeed and prosper. However, a visionary government inspires its people to use their skills and advantages to help the world succeed. We are blessed to live in this wonderful country and that blessing comes with responsibility. Many have said that with power comes great responsibility. In my view, power comes with a greater responsibility to be generous.

My Canada does not seek comfort and wealth for itself; it seeks opportunity to help the world.

Whenever we discover a new medical breakthrough, we share it with the world. When our researchers discover new green technologies, the world will benefit. When we take care of our most vulnerable, we show the world how to live in peace and tolerance.

My Canada strives to make the world a better place. Our budget will not only make our country better, it will allow us to share our knowledge, research, and technology with the rest of the world. My statement may sound bold, and it is.

The 21st century is before us and belongs to us. Canada must claim its rightful place and lead the world in peace and development.

What we say matters on the world stage. How we take care of our most vulnerable will be noticed. How we navigate the complexities of the future will be emulated.

My Canada will be at the forefront and will not shrink from any challenge.

My Canada will lead the world in tolerance, innovation, generosity, and fairness, because better is not only possible, it is within our reach.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Kitchener Centre. We are neighbours in our ridings and have had the privilege of attending many events in the area on behalf of the Waterloo region. My colleague mentioned many of the issues and programs that his government is behind and in which it is investing.

There are two areas that my colleague failed to mention, and I think they are important. One is particularly important, based on his comments about caring for vulnerable Canadians. We have heard promises in the Liberals' platform about $3 billion for palliative care, yet there is nothing in the budget for palliative care. That is certainly an area that we need to address in terms of vulnerable Canadians.

The other area that is missing from the budget is any mention of support for our agriculture sector. We know that agriculture is important for one in eight jobs in Canada, and certainly the Waterloo region is among the leaders in agriculture.

My colleague has the privilege of being a member of Parliament for the Waterloo region. I am wondering if he would urge his government to be sure that we fund palliative care, to the tune of $3 billion, and explain why it is not in the budget. Second, why we are so silent on agriculture when it plays such an important part in the future of our country?

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member, because in our community, he does a lot of work on suicide prevention. I congratulate him for the work he has done.

He has raised two points. On the first point, palliative care, he knows that the health accord has expired and our Minister of Health is now negotiating with the provinces and territories. We do not want to prejudge those negotiations, but we will do the best we can for the health and safety of Canadians.

Second, for rural and agricultural Canada, we have made specific recommendations in terms of research, but more important, we will invest $500 million to expand broadband.

[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?

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is very easy to defend these policies. With our middle-class tax cut, we know that 9 out of ten families will get a benefit. We know, through our child benefit plan, that more than 300,000 children will be lifted out of poverty.

I am very happy to stand by this budget, because I know that it will be effective and will truly help the middle class and those hoping to join the middle class.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has spoken passionately about the Canada child benefit. I wonder if he could elaborate on how he expects the benefit to support people in Kitchener—Waterloo.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, right now the world economy is facing the prospect of slow growth. Right now, the one way we can help the middle class in our communities is to make sure that we put more money in their pockets.

We know that raising children is very expensive. This is the best time to invest in our economy, and this is the best time to invest in our citizens. I know that for my region and my riding, helping middle-class families by increasing their child benefit will be more targeted, more focused, and more simple. More importantly, it will be tax-free and will help all Canadian children rise above the poverty level.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in the House today on behalf of all the residents of my riding who have reached out to my office and spoken to me personally about their dissatisfaction with the first budget of the Liberal government.

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. Out of the responses I have received, over 90% of my constituents do not support these ballooning deficits and unnecessary spending.

Canadians know best, that we need to live within our means and take out loans or increase spending only in urgent situations. There will always be emergencies that require extraordinary measures such as major roof repairs, new pump in a rural water system or the replacement of a car that died without warning.

While most Canadians would agree that these might be good reasons to borrow, I doubt that many would consider it good money management to take out a new loan to pave the driveway or buy a new flat screen TV, especially if already paying down a hefty mortgage.

Along with many members on this side of the House, this is my first budget while sitting in opposition. I am not impressed that the government has already started to tear down the hard work that our Conservative government did to build a strong economy that Canada enjoyed. Nor are my constituents impressed.

The Liberals talk about slow growth in the past. They fail to recognize that Canada led the G7 in economic growth through some of the most challenging times the world has seen since the Great Depression. The current government will not even admit that we left it with a surplus of over $7 billion. The Department of Finance, the parliamentary budget officer, and experts across Canada repeatedly remind the Liberals that they are wrong, but they simply continue to ignore the facts.

This is important because the almost $30 billion the Liberals have decided to borrow is borrowed not out of necessity, but out of a desire to take the hard-earned money made by Canadians and spend it on pet projects for special interest groups. They have ensured that they can continue this out-of-control spending by including in their omnibus budget bill a clause that repeals our balanced budget legislation.

This balanced budget legislation, passed by the previous Parliament, would force future governments to restrict spending so we would not be borrowing on the backs of our future generations and we could incrementally pay down our national debt. However, the Liberals are now removing the hope we had of reducing our debt. Instead, they plan to increase it by another $119 billion.

Many of us in the House have been blessed with children and some of us even with grandchildren. I am blessed with nine grandchildren, but these out-of-control spending budgets accumulated over time will gravely affect them. I want to ensure that the Liberals know that there will be consequences to their poor decisions today.

If we consider just debt charges alone over the course of the government's mandate, interest charges alone increase by almost $10 billion. This is money that could be spent on more important infrastructure projects or increased health transfers. It could also be spent on funding a small business tax cut, or fulfilling the Liberal's promise to increase home care spending and invest in palliative care. Yet there is not one dollar earmarked in this budget for palliative care or increased home care.

Over the next five years, the interest costs alone rise from $25.7 billion to $35.5 billion. That is an increase of almost $10 billion just to pay interest on the increased national debt.

The three topics that have been brought to my attention most often by my constituents are: first, the Liberals' broken promise to lower small business tax rate; second, giving hard-working farmers a cold shoulder; and third, no money given toward increasing access to palliative care for Canadians.

First are the Liberals' broken promises to small businesses. Waterloo region is home to thousands of small businesses and they were all excited to hear that every party in the campaign was going to lower the small business tax rate to 9%. Unfortunately, this promise, like many other promises made by the Liberals, was completely broken in their very first budget.

On top of that, the Minister of Small Business and Tourism, from the Waterloo region herself, has been defending this broken promise throughout the region and across Canada for the past number of weeks. The finance department has estimated that this broken promise will cost the small business sector $2.2 billion over four years.

It is clear that when it really comes down to it, the Liberals fail to understand the crucial role that small business has to play in Canada. One has to wonder if the entire Liberal government agrees with the Prime Minister who stated publicly that small businesses were just “tax havens” for the wealthy.

The Prime Minister really is out of touch with Canadians. We know that roughly two-thirds of small and medium-sized business owners fall directly into the middle class. Employers are about four times more likely to be earning less than $40,000 than they are to be earning more than $250,000.

On top of the broken promise of lowering the tax rate for small business owners, small business owners know that we do not keep on spending money we do not have and are very worried about the direction the government is going.

Speaking on behalf of these small business owners, the president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, Dan Kelly, says:

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...Small business owners know that today’s deficits are tomorrow’s taxes.

Second, the budget is a complete disaster for all the farmers in my riding.

Growing up on a farm myself, I have a pretty good idea of the amount of work that these men and women put in every day to feed their families and thousands of other families across Canada. We should be supporting these people. However, the budget completely forgets about them. In fact, the only support for the agriculture industry in Canada is extra funding for bureaucrats in Ottawa, none for moms and dads who are up before the sun rises and finish work well after the sun sets.

In my riding, where there are over 1,200 farms, approximately 1,400 in all of Waterloo region accounting for $473 million in gross receipts in 2010, farmers are professionals. They want to meet their social obligations in protecting the environment, in protecting the health of their animals, and in providing the best quality products for their families, for their communities, and for the world.

The Canadian agriculture and agri-food sectors account for more than $100 billion in economic activity every year and employ more than two million Canadians. The importance of agriculture to our national interests cannot be overstated. In fact, one in eight jobs in Canada depends upon agriculture, those in primary agriculture, food processing, horticulture, and farm markets.

Under the previous Conservative government, farming families saw their taxes drop to the lowest level in 50 years and farmers gained access to more international markets than ever. However, today, with this budget, Canadian farm families are being left behind. The Liberals are borrowing $30 billion to spend in other sectors. The Liberal government must make our farm families a priority.

Third is the government's failure to meet its commitment to increasing home care and palliative care.

As we in this chamber are considering Bill C-14, it is now more important than ever that the government make good on its promise to increase funding for home care and palliative care services. I have said it many times already during second reading of Bill C-14, but let me repeat it. Without proper palliative care options to give Canadians considering assisted suicide, they are not making a fully informed decision. We have all failed in protecting vulnerable Canadians.

Therefore, I would suggest that the Liberal government make four changes to the budget immediately, as it would be in the best interests of all Canadians.

First, the government needs to limit the size of its deficit and re-implement the balanced budget legislation that our government introduced. It needs to start realizing the money it is spending is not its money to spend without reserve, but is taxpayer money and belongs to taxpayers.

Second, the government should make good on its promise to lower the small business tax rate. This would be one of the single-best methods to help out the middle class and to grow our economy. These businesses would be able to expand, innovate and hire more workers, immediately helping our economy.

Third, the Liberals should rekindle their relationship with Canadian farmers and immediately include measures in the budget that would lower taxes for these hard-working Canadians who are the heart of our country.

Last, the Liberal government needs to provide funding for home and palliative care across Canada. Over 70% of Canadians who need this form of care do not have access to it. This is something that absolutely needs to be changed. Now, more than ever, we need to protect and care for the most vulnerable among us.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is talking about deficits with the authority of someone who is intimately acquainted with them.

In fact, it has been almost 150 years since the Conservatives posted a surplus. The Conservatives left us poorer and more in debt than when they came to power. Furthermore, they attacked supply management, which we are defending. They did not invest in most of the programs that my colleague mentioned today.

My colleague said that we must make more budget cuts, spend less and invest only if it does not create debt.

If he could go back to the Conservative Party's term in 2006, what would he do differently?

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

Mr. Speaker, concerning investing for the future, the big difference in what the Conservative government did was we invested in infrastructure projects that would actually improve our economy. We did not not invest in program spending. We did not invest in niche markets, like the CBC or other things, that would not increase our economy.

The Liberals talk about the fact that the Conservatives increased the deficit. When we went into deficit, it was spending that was injected into the economy, and the Liberals wanted us to spend more. Now they say we increased the deficit too much. They are talking out of both sides of their mouths and they cannot have it both ways.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member should provide some clarity on the issue of deficits. The member knows full well that the former Conservative government added $150 billion of debt on future taxpayers. When it inherited power back in 2006, it was handed a multi-billion dollar surplus and turned it into a deficit of billions of dollars. Why should a Liberal government take advice from the previous government that failed so miserably in managing the finances of our country? It makes no sense.

The member is putting forward recommendations for supporting family farms. Think about it. A tax break for Canada's middle class is very real and the member and his colleagues are voting against that. They are voting against the enrichment of the child benefit program. That is going to put hundreds of millions of dollars into communities in every region, including prairie farms and farms all over Canada. Why would he oppose that? Why did he support the Conservatives' massive deficit?

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

Mr. Speaker, what I am voting against is found on page 234 of the budget. I would ask members to look at the figures. When we look at the public debt charges alone between 2015 and 2020, they rise from $25.7 billion to $35.5 billion. That is virtually a $10-billion increase in debt charges alone. That is not even talking about starting to pay down the debt.

Only a Liberal would say that paying down $40 billion of national debt in the first two years the Conservatives were in office is somehow squandering the surplus. The fact that the Conservative government injected money into the economy and then balanced the budget at the end of its mandate is a crucial difference from what we see now of deficit after deficit, with no plan to pay it down at the end of the Liberal mandate.

In their platform, the Liberals clearly promised a maximum deficit of $10 billion per year and at the end of a four-year mandate, we would have a balanced budget. We are nowhere close to that, and Canadians know it. The constituents in my riding are not happy about the fact that we are spending money today that my children and grandchildren, and their children and grandchildren are going to have to pay back.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to stand in the House today and talk about the budget, which I am extremely proud to support.

Before becoming an MP, I was the mayor of the great city of Kingston. In this role, I learned quickly the importance of having strong, thriving local communities. This is why I fought tirelessly for increased investment in municipal infrastructure and social services, something I am thrilled to see would come to fruition in this budget.

Some Canadian families and communities are struggling right now, and infrastructure investments are desperately needed. As some of my colleagues have pointed out in the past, spending on infrastructure when interest rates are low yields more in return of economic activity.

The legislation being debated today would do just that. Interest rates are at historic lows, and this budget would make meaningful and substantive infrastructure investments from coast to coast to coast. This government has committed to building our communities by implementing a historic plan to invest more than $120 billion over the next 10 years. These investments would help Canadian families by creating well-paying jobs and fostering long-term growth in Canada.

This budget would help Canadian communities by providing approximately $3 billion each year for municipal infrastructure projects through the gas tax fund and the incremental goods and services tax rebate for municipalities.

Not only that, but the government would also transfer the remaining uncommitted funds from the older federal infrastructure programs to municipalities through the gas tax fund. This would ensure funds are directed toward high-priority municipal infrastructure projects.

These investments would not only help Canadians now, but the benefits would be felt by Canadians well into the future. Across Canada, more than $3 billion would be invested in social infrastructure. This includes affordable housing, early learning and child care, and recreational facilities.

This budget also introduces the Canada child benefit. This new benefit would put more money directly into the pockets of the Canadian families that need it the most. The Canada child benefit would give Canadian families much-needed help with the high cost of raising children. Children are our future, and we cannot ignore their needs.

It cannot be denied that replacing the existing federal child benefits with a simpler, tax-free child benefit is the right way forward, as nine out of 10 families would now receive higher monthly benefits. More money in the pockets of Canadian families can translate into the ability to buy back-to-school supplies, or the ability to afford summer camp or hockey registration. It means healthier food on the dinner table, and lunch bags that are not empty. With the Canada child benefit, hundreds of thousands of children would be lifted out of poverty.

For our young Canadians like the students of the three outstanding post-secondary institutions in my riding of Kingston and the Islands—Queen's University, the Royal Military College, and St. Lawrence College—this budget would make post-secondary education more affordable.

It is no secret that the costs of post-secondary education have become burdensome, with school debt becoming a crippling factor for some Canadian students. This budget would boost grants for low- and middle-income college and university students by 50%, helping with the affordability of textbooks, residence, food, and other important expenditures that come with being a student.

More than 350,000 full-time students would receive more help as a result of these measures. This could be the difference between graduating and dropping out.

Furthermore, graduation day would no longer have to be tainted by the worries about student loan payments. I am sure many of us know students who are preparing to graduate in the coming weeks. The time around graduation should be exciting. These students have worked hard for their diplomas and degrees. This legislation would improve the ability for students to get a fair start.

With the new measures in this budget, students would not have to repay Government of Canada student loans until their income hits at least $25,000 per year. These are some of the changes that are helping Canadian families and local communities thrive. These are the investments I worked hard to see when I was mayor. They would help grow our middle class, see more children lifted out of poverty, and provide the supports for young Canadians ready to enter the workforce.

Budget 2016 would ensure Canadians have enough opportunity to succeed. For too long, Canadians have been working hard without seeing any results. Like hamsters on a wheel, they have been running themselves weary without getting any further ahead. This is unacceptable, and this budget aims to fix this because, when middle-class Canadians have more money to save, invest, and grow the economy, everyone benefits. It is time for Canada to have a government that focuses on citizens of our country, a realistic government that is passionate and committed and based on evidence and optimism, not ideology and fear.

Before budget 2016 was released, I hosted a pre-budget consultation as part of a nationwide discussion launched by the Minister of Finance in January. I was able to meet with many members of my community and discuss how the government can make the right investments to ensure long-term growth in Kingston and the Islands. Members of my community brought forward a number of key concerns for Kingston and the Islands, including affordable housing and municipal infrastructure funding. I was happy to share their local feedback with the Minister of Finance, and I am even happier to see these concerns addressed in this budget.

This budget proves that government is working for all Canadians and is committed to making investments in infrastructure to grow the economy and help the middle class save and invest more. It is an ambitious plan that would strengthen the heart of Canada's economy, the middle class. It would set Canadians up for a prosperous and successful future.

In conclusion, it is clear that the realities of today are vastly different from those 50 years ago. Back then, an individual could graduate from high school and have a realistic expectation of finding well-paying, stable work that could comfortably support a family. Today, Canadians are graduating from post-secondary school laden with debt without any security of finding a well-paying, stable job. This budget addresses these realities. The measures I have mentioned would help Canadians meet the challenges of today. By putting money in the pockets of Canadian families, growing the middle class, and ensuring Canadian students get a fair start, this budget would equip Canadians for success and invest in Canada's future.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague used the term “hamsters on a wheel” as it related to students paying back student debt. I do not think there could be any more appropriate metaphor than a hamster on a wheel when it comes to paying down the debt that the current government is taking on.

I have just a comment here from the National Post by Kevin Libin. He said:

At this rate of deficit and debt accumulation, it can only be a matter of time before the Liberals tax and spend all of us, the rich and middle class inclusively, into equal levels of misery.

On page 234 of the budget, it clearly outlines the increase in debt charges alone of $10 billion per year. I would like my colleague to explain how we can possibly get out of this hamster-on-a-wheel rotation when we continue to add to the deficit year after year with no credible plan to come back to balance.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let us not forget who put us on that wheel. It was the previous government, with $160 billion of debt that we are paying back. The previous member talked about how we have to try to get out of this deficit situation. It is a deficit situation that his previous government put us into.

Furthermore, this particular member just spent 10 minutes speaking about changes that we need to make, and suggested further areas where we need to be spending more money. I beg the question of him. How do we possibly spend more on the projects that he supports, but at the same time lower the deficit?

I believe would invest the money in the right places in this budget, and at the end of the day we would see meaningful changes for Canadians that would build our economy and grow in the way we need to grow for the future.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have two specific questions.

The member spent a fair amount of his time talking about affordability of education and the prospects particularly for young Canadians coming into the workforce.

There was a very specific commitment that we as New Democrats made, and the Conservatives made it, and the Liberals as well in the previous election, just six or seven months ago, about ensuring that small business taxes would be lowered. The Minister of Finance was asked about it, after he delivered the budget and reneged on that very specific promise. It was not nuanced, it was not contextual, it was exact. He said that he looked at it again and thought it was a bad idea.

Well, that is a somewhat flippant answer, because the changing of that one policy by the Liberals for small businesses in Canada, which many of those young people will be seeking jobs in or themselves starting, will cost small businesses about $2.1 billion over the next four years.

I was in small business before politics. However, it was not our suggestion as New Democrats that lowering the small business tax rate was to be considered a silver bullet, as there are many factors that go in, but it was an important gesture. We had seen the corporate or large business tax rate drop dramatically while the Conservatives racked up huge deficits, which we will be paying for many decades to come.

My question is specifically this. If it was not such a good idea, why campaign and promise to do it?

Now that the Liberals have broken that promise, not spoken the truth to Canadians about what they were actually going to do, when can we see the promise delivered, because if it was such a good idea to campaign on, clearly it must be a good idea to actually govern on as well?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, for clarification, the government has adjusted the way it is going to be handling the particular small business tax. It might not be as aggressive as my colleague would like to see, but let us not forget where we are investing and reducing taxes, and that is for the middle class.

We know that small business is the backbone of our economy. Therefore, if we want to grow an economy, we are going to do that by putting more money back into the hands of the consumers, which is what we would do by lowering taxes for the middle class. We are putting money back in their hands so that they can go out and spend it with these small businesses.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. I was especially interested in two things he touched on: the situation of Canadian students and that of seniors.

I want to ask the member a question about that. Increasing the guaranteed income supplement for our seniors is a good thing and a positive step, but would it not be preferable to automatically sign up people when their income is below a certain amount? In that way they would not lose out on any money because they did not receive the information telling them to apply for the guaranteed income supplement.

Could his government seriously consider increasing public pension plans? For example, the Canada pension plan, which is the most robust and solid plan, could lift many seniors out of poverty and ensure that they live their golden years with dignity.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Certainly, Mr. Speaker, this government has spoken about the need to take pensions seriously, once and for all, in this country. We are looking at this in collaboration with the provinces and I would expect to see action on these sorts of measures.

In addition, I would emphasize that while it would be useful and helpful to have information circulated to seniors on how they can receive the guaranteed income supplement increase if they are eligible, it is also the job of members of Parliament to spread that message. It is part of our job to reach out to our constituents in that regard and I look forward to keep on doing so. I have been doing so up until this point.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are again ignoring the promise in the Liberal platform of reducing the small business tax rate.

I will quote the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, which stated:

We are disappointed at the government’s decision to push back the small business tax reduction and we question the idea of contemplating increases to CPP at this point. As businesses struggle, this added pressure could slow down job creation and investment....

While it is fine to talk about the reduction in costs for student tuition and lower debt when students graduate, what help is it to students to graduate with a bit lower debt if there are no jobs to go to once they have graduated?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as someone who saw his parents work 12 or 15 hours a day sometimes, I can say that what small businesses need most are customers. Therefore, this budget puts forward measures that would actually grow our economy and help small businesses grow their consumer base.

It is interesting to me how, on the one hand, members who were in the previous government can now suddenly be champions of small business, but not ones of actually improving the economy in such a way that it would grow the customer base of small businesses, and therefore, benefit the Canadian economy.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my friend seems to confuse the idea that he can only do one or the other in helping small businesses. I do not know why this is such a shocking idea. Liberals in a campaign six or seven months ago promised to do something, and the official opposition and the opposition are asking them to do it. If it was such a good idea then, why not now? I have yet to hear, in all the speeches by Liberals about the bill, why they think it is such a bad idea.

The parliamentary budget officer has estimated that this one broken promise is going to cost small businesses a little north of $2 billion over the next four years. Some rationalization or justification for this would be welcome. The Liberals are spending all kinds of money on all sorts of things. Why not the small business sector? It is a simple question.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting to hear New Democrats present themselves as the champions for small businesses.

That said, I will say, as I just mentioned to the previous speaker, we are intent on making sure that small businesses have the customer base they need to grow. I would invite hon. members opposite to look at our infrastructure investments, our commitments to public transit, and all of the other measures, particularly on growing the innovation economy that we are going to need to make Canada a global leader once again.

I would underline those points to my hon. friend and say that, once again, as the son of small business owners, I am ready to help the government in whatever way I can in that regard.

[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.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I noted in my colleague's speech that at one point she said that small business owners fall in the middle class. Would she not agree then that because we are giving a tax break to the middle class, in fact we are helping small businesses and not hurting them, as she suggested?

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately these are not the people who would benefit from the Liberals' so-called tax cuts for the middle class. Their broken promise to reduce the taxes actually would be creating unemployment instead of employment. This is exactly what we are fighting against.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's speech was interesting.

Something about it took me a little by surprise, however: the Conservative Party's sudden interest in helping small and medium-sized businesses. During its time in power, it did absolutely nothing to cut small business taxes as the NDP requested. It did, however, give hundreds of millions in tax breaks to banks, oil companies, and big corporations. Now, all of a sudden, the Conservatives are taking an interest in small businesses even though all they cared about before were huge corporations, not our small merchants.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it was the Conservative government which created 1.2 million net new jobs during the downsizing of the economy and it was the Conservative government that reduced personal taxes 120 times, putting more money into the pockets of families who then spent their money on building our economy. That is what our government did, but the broken promises by the Liberals have created $2.2 billion of costs to our small businesses. That is not the way to do business.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on a great speech and a great analysis on the economic and tax fronts. I hope the member would share the same view on the subject of the middle class. Most Canadians are middle class. The Liberals use the term “middle class” as a political term to win votes here and there. We understand that the Liberals played that game.

How will the borrowing habits that are going to become an ongoing thing in the next four years by the Liberal government be such a dangerous thing for the Canadian economy and for Canadian businesses?

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate what the president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business said. He said, “Small business owners across the country are deeply troubled by the ballooning deficit”. At the end of his quote he said, “Small business owners know that today's deficits are tomorrow's taxes”. Instead of bearing the responsibility, the Liberals are now putting their responsibilities on our children and our grandchildren.

I know that the Minister of Finance said it is good for his children and his grandchildren, but I am afraid it is not to the benefit of all our children and our grandchildren.

[Gudie Hutchings, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I both share a passion for small business. I am sure she would agree with me when I say that many small businesses are in the tourism industry. I was in the tourism industry and I would have appreciated lots of marketing money being invested in the economy to bring in more customers.

Does the member not think that the investment we are making in destination Canada, the investment we are making into broadband, the investment in infrastructure which is all going to support businesses, does that all not support small business at the end of the day? We all know how important tourism is for every riding in our country.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the member opposite that it was our government that got the approved destination status from China which brought in lots of tourists and helped us to grow tourism. It is our government that did the job, not the Liberal government. It took them 30 years and failed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Innovation, Science and Economic Development; the hon. member for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, Employment Insurance; the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway, Health.

Resuming debate. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by telling our brothers and sisters in Alberta that the people of Honoré-Mercier stand with them. They have our support.

I am very pleased to have an opportunity to participate in this debate on a budget that clearly shows that we plan to honour our commitments. These commitments will make Canada more prosperous, fairer, greener, and more open to the world. These commitments were at the heart of our election platform and are now at the heart of our budget.

In other words, we are doing exactly what we promised to do. We promised real change, and we are keeping that promise. To do so, we must strengthen the middle class and revitalize our economy. These two issues go hand in hand. They are inextricably linked.

Our approach is clear: support those who need it most, while laying the foundation for sustainable economic growth. That is exactly what we are doing with our budget. For example, we are lowering the tax rate, which will benefit nine million Canadians. This measure will improve the quality of life of millions of people who work hard every day to earn a living. These men and women do their best every single day, and they deserve this support. This measure will put more money in their pockets, which will then help them contribute more to our economy.

I would also like to talk about our support for families and young children. We are introducing the Canada child benefit, the largest-ever family benefit. Unlike the previous benefit, our benefit is tax-free. Gone are the days of giving with one hand and taking away with the other.

This benefit will help lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty. This is exactly how to fight for a just society. If we truly believe in equal opportunity, then we need to start in early childhood.

It is also important to support those who want to study, and for as long as possible. In that regard, the measure of success is clear: education should be available and accessible based on each student's determination, desire, discipline, talent, and dreams, and not based on the size of their parents' wallets.

That is why our budget proposes to considerably increase Canada student grant amounts. This measure is especially directed to students from low-income families. It is a fair, generous, responsible, and forward-looking measure that gives young people a better chance, for they represent the Canada of the future.

At the same time, we also owe so much to our seniors. They are the ones who built the society we enjoy today. We are here thanks to them. Unfortunately, however, far too many seniors are still living in poverty. We must be there for them, and we will be. That is why we are increasing the guaranteed income supplement top-up benefit by up to $947 annually. This tangible measure will improve the quality of life of over 900,000 seniors living in every province of the country.

We will also invest in upgrading, renovating, and building affordable housing for our seniors because we know that quality of life has a lot to do with the dignity of access to decent housing. That is fundamental, and we know it. That is why we are going to take action right now.

That brings me to a key component of our budget: infrastructure investment. Our government promised to double infrastructure spending over the next 10 years. We are planning to spend over $120 billion, which is an absolutely historic commitment. That includes $60 billion in new money for public transit, green infrastructure, and social infrastructure. Sixty billion in new investments out of a total of $120 billion over the next 10 years is absolutely unprecedented.

These investments will happen in two phases. Phase one starts right away, today, with $11.9 billion: $3.4 billion for public transit, $5 billion for green infrastructure, and $3.4 billion for social infrastructure. That is happening today. Those are major investments.

In the coming months, our government will work closely with our provincial, territorial, and municipal partners to present phase two of our long-term plan. We want this phase to begin as quickly as possible. We do not need to wait for phase one to end before phase two begins. Why are we doing this? We believe that investing in infrastructure means investing in our future; it means building the Canada of tomorrow. It means taking action today for a better tomorrow.

Maintaining and improving our roads, public transit, and water systems are crucial aspects of what we are doing. This is what we are doing, and we are doing it right.

However, there is a lot more to infrastructure than just that. It is also about protecting our environment, building recreation and cultural centres where people can learn, have fun, and grow. It is about providing affordable housing to those who need it. Investing in infrastructure also means building quality facilities for our children. It is about providing a safe shelter for women and children who need to flee domestic violence. In other words, our infrastructure plays an absolutely crucial role in supporting our communities.

Let us think about everything we can do and everything we can do together. With our partners, we are going to invest significantly in public transit. An additional $20 billion is going to public transit. That will help us reduce commuting time, take cars off the road, and reduce pollution. We are going to make our communities more sustainable through environmental infrastructure. We are going to make communities more inclusive by adding more affordable housing and facilities for our children. We are also going to improve and speed up the approval process for projects to ensure that the money is released as soon as possible.

As hon. members can see, our government has big ambitions for our country. We offered real change to Canadians, and that is what we are delivering. We are going to strengthen the middle class, improve Canadians' quality of life, create jobs, and stimulate the economy to make Canada more prosperous and inclusive.

I could go on, but I will stop there and simply say that our budget is more than just an economic statement. It is a beacon that guides our commitment to a Canada that is more prosperous, fairer, greener, and more open to the world.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the member about the comment “supporting those who need it most” with regard to the middle-class tax cut. Statistics show that 66% of Canadians who pay income tax make below $45,000, which is not at all addressed in the middle-class tax cut.

How would it help those who need it most if the government is excluding two-thirds of Canadians?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleague to read the entire budget, which outlines tax cuts, of course, but also the Canada child benefit. Infrastructure investments for social housing are also included in the budget.

I said earlier that the budget is a substantive and inclusive document that allows us to reach out to all Canadians and improve their quality of life by implementing a series of measures.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech, which was full of hope and enthusiasm for the future.

With regard to the fight against inequality and lifting people out of poverty, the NDP proposed setting the minimum wage at $15 an hour. A recent study by IRIS in Quebec showed that this would allow people working full time to rise above the poverty line. It is a simple measure that would show leadership on the part of the federal government. However, this measure is not in the budget, and I do not understand why.

My colleague will remember that in September 2014, the NDP moved a motion in the House to set the federal minimum wage at $15 an hour. The Liberal Party supported the motion, but it does not seem to have any recollection of it today. Why is this not in the budget?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell my colleague that the government has shown leadership in this budget. It has made courageous decisions, and they include making historic investments in infrastructure, increasing the guaranteed income supplement for seniors, and lowering taxes for the middle class. Once again, this budget sets out a series of progressive measures to give our children and our workers a better quality of life than they had before.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I heard some great words from the member for Honoré-Mercier. He talked about building the type of Canada that we all want, a more just society. He talked about the Canada child benefit. He talked about student grants. He talked about a fair society for our seniors, affordable housing, infrastructure.

All of these promises, for the type of Canada we want to build today, cost a lot of money. We had the courage during the election to ask Canadians if they would be prepared for Canada to run deficits to afford the type of Canada that we want today.

I would ask the member if he believes that one of the most important things we are doing in this budget is repealing the Federal Balanced Budget Act. It will allow us to move forward, assume some of the responsibility for building the Canada that we want now, without putting the burden of growth solely on the taxpayers. It will allow the Government of Canada, in its better position, with its better borrowing rate, its ability to step forward and find some low commodity prices, to finance the type of productive infrastructure that we need today.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

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

He is correct in saying that sometimes, it is important to invest in social programs and our economy, in addition to supporting job creation, through controlled deficits.

What is important when running a deficit is to ensure that the deficit has a productive impact on the economy. The Conservatives ran six consecutive deficits, and that number will soon be seven. They added $150 billion to the debt, with no impact on the economy. All they left us were two gazebos, one fake lake, and a few fake ducks.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Before resuming debate, I would like to remind members again, if they are going to talk among themselves or make comments, please try to whisper. It is not very nice to have that loud noise when a member is trying to answer questions. We really do want to hear the answers or comments coming from either side.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Avalon.

[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 to 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.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

We have a point of order. The microphone was not working, but it is working now.

The hon. member for Avalon.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured today to fill in on House duty for the hon. member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake as he is working with his community, trying to bring things under control there. It gives me great pleasure to rise in his place today and ask a question that might be appropriate.

With all of the spending that this budget is promising and the debt we are going into, have there been any discussions regarding additional funds going into infrastructure? “Infrastructure” was a big word during the campaign. We saw that word change in the throne speech to “transit”. They need more than transit in Fort McMurray now.

I am wondering if the member might be able to shed a little light on what might be going back into infrastructure on the ground for communities such as Fort McMurray.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, if I recall properly, the hon. Prime Minister just a few days ago here in the House mentioned that the government was looking at every aspect of help that is needed for Fort McMurray in the devastation by matching donations to the Red Cross and as well by looking at direct infrastructure needs that will follow. There will be meetings continuously with Premier Notley of Alberta, as well, to discuss those very initiatives.

I am sure the country and all parties are on side to see that proper funding is provided to make sure Fort McMurray and the surrounding areas are rebuilt properly.

[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, as a member on this side of the House, I am pleased with the proposed changes to the EI program announced in our budget, especially the increase in the length of time that people can get employment insurance, which is an additional five weeks in many areas, as well as the wait time being cut to one week instead of two.

With regard to the funding, it is always interesting to hear somebody say that money was taken from the fund. I would be more concerned if there were no money in the fund to pay out a claim. I have never heard of one incident yet, regardless of what government was in power, where claimants were told the government was broke and could not pay their unemployment claim.

I look forward to future changes and improvements to the EI system as we go forward.

[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 been 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 small business. 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight the last point on small business owners. I am working closely with small business owners. I am deeply concerned and working closely with Canada's nearly two million small and medium-sized enterprises across the nation. They want tax fairness, and the government is doing that. We believe in tax fairness, and we believe in tax fairness for all Canadians. It is important that we create the conditions for small business owners to succeed.

This budget would do that. Budget 2016 puts investments into infrastructure, into incubators and accelerators, into the IRA program, $15 million to Destination Canada. We know the backbone of the tourism industry is small business. We know that small businesses are the job creators.

Does the member agree that small businesses need a long-term plan, that they need a robust economy to succeed, that they need strong customers, so they can sell the good products and services they have to offer? We know they deserve better.

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

Mr. Speaker, yes, we need healthy communities. We know we need conditions for healthy communities to build a robust economy, things such a national child care plan. This does not deliver enough support for people to have child care. The Liberals take pride in the child tax offer they are making.

However, what I brought forward today is that the Liberals made a promise to Canadians that they were going to cut taxes from 11% to 9% for small business. There is not one member who has said, yes, we apologize for breaking our promise.

It is one thing to talk about building healthy communities, ensuring infrastructure is in place. However, did the Liberals make the promise and planned never to deliver on it, or did they make the promise and they still cannot figure out how to deliver it? I can give them some ideas.

Maybe you could take a look at corporate taxes, increase them by 0.6% and shift that over to cover the $2.2 billion shortfall for small business. Because that is an easy solution. We need fairness and balance. People are waiting for it. Small business people in our country are ready, and they need that help.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I just want to remind the hon. members to speak through the Speaker, not directly across. This is just a rule that was put in place 150 years ago.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Edmonton Manning.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for a great speech that speaks for small business and speaks to the concerns of Canadians who own businesses, which are the backbone of our economy and will be the backbone for the future economy.

I would like to comment on the statement made by the hon. Minister of Small Business and Tourism about short term versus long term.

Small businesses need short-term and long-term strategies. Long-term strategies will not give them the survival they need. We may see a shutdown of those many businesses due to a policy the government presented in the budget, which takes away the extra percentage of tax cuts at which small businesses were looking.

Has the hon. member found mention anywhere in the budget about the number of jobs the budget will create?

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree that we cannot have a healthy economy without healthy business. We need to put forward initiatives that will create jobs and help drive the economy.

I talked earlier about the multiplier effect of spending money locally and keeping money in the hands of small business. This is proven. We need to do everything we can to keep money in our communities.

Rather than approaching this through an omnibus bill, it should be separated out because it is such an important topic. Many members in the House have talked about the failed Liberal promise to deliver the tax cut to small business. This should be separated out so it can be looked at, at committee because there are solutions to ensure we can deliver on this promise, as a House, as members.

I hope the government is listening and government members will go back to their communities and consult with the owners of small businesses.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I would like to thank the people of Gatineau for placing their trust in me and sending me here to represent them. It will always be an honour. Quite humbly, as the member for the most beautiful riding in Canada, I am very pleased to be here to talk about current and future developments in my riding.

Of course, I too would like to acknowledge the situation in Alberta and send my thoughts and prayers to the people of Fort McMurray and surrounding areas.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to talk about the wonderful things in the 2016 budget. After 10 years of a government that apparently had no interest in solving problems, we, a Liberal government, are tackling many problems at once. That is what we promised in our election platform, the throne speech, and the budget speech delivered by my colleague, the Minister of Finance.

We are choosing to invest in the future. We are choosing to invest in huge segments of Canadian society.

First, the measures in this budget will help those who need it most. Second, this is a long-term plan based on wise investment. Third, this is a step forward for huge segments of Canadian society and takes a decisive and visionary approach to problems we will be facing.

I am proud to be part of a government that made growth and a stronger middle class its priority. I am also proud to see a budget that reflects the reality of Gatineau families who are having a hard time making ends meet.

During the election campaign, I knocked on the doors of many families who told me about the countless challenges they are facing: diminishing job security, salaries that are not keeping pace with the cost of living, or exorbitant child care fees. We listened to their concerns and that is why budget 2016 provides direct help to Canadian families through the Canada child benefit.

Under this new benefit, nine out of 10 Canadian families will receive more money than they would under the previous government's system. Canadian families will receive up to $6,400 per child under six and up to $5,400 per child aged 6 to 17. Furthermore, this benefit is not taxable at the federal or provincial levels. This is a real change in our country's social policy that will lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty.

A strong economy starts with a strong middle class. This government has already taken steps to help the middle class make ends meet. We have already reduced the middle income tax rate from 22% to 20.5%. We will continue by investing in the effective administration and enforcement of tax laws. We will propose actions to improve the integrity of Canada's tax system. These changes will give middle-class Canadians more money on their paycheque and provide a fairer tax system. No Canadian should struggle to get the assistance he or she desperately needs.

Changes to eligibility rules to Canada's EI program will make it easier for new workers and those re-entering the workforce to claim benefits. Changes to Canada's employment insurance program will provide economic security to Canadians when they need it most.

This is a choice. Whether it is investing in the middle class, investing in our parents, parents of children, or investing in Canadians who need the help because of a change in circumstance in their employment status or whatever, these are choices that this government is making. These are choices that we are able to make because Canada is now in the business of looking forward, of attacking the inequalities we have seen sprout up all over the world, and making the kind of choices that will favour the Canadian population well into the future.

As far as the future is concerned, I am the proud father of three teenagers, so I am well aware of the challenges that young Canadians are facing. We must invest in the future.

Now more than ever, it is important that post-secondary education remains affordable and accessible, and that young Canadians have access to meaningful work at the beginning of their careers. They should not have to bear the burden of crippling student debt.

Budget 2016 will make post-secondary education more affordable for students from low-income families and will make it easier for them to pay back their student debt. Canada student grants will be enhanced, which will help students cover the costs of their education while keeping student debt loads manageable.

A flat-rate student contribution will be introduced, which will allow students to work and gain valuable labour market experience without having to worry about a reduction in their level of financial assistance.

Finally, the loan repayment threshold under the repayment assistance plan will now be $25,000.

Moreover, budget 2016 proposes to invest an additional $165.4 million in the youth employment strategy, for a total investment of $495.4 million. That is almost $500 million invested in our future, invested in the youth of Canada. The funding would be used to create new green jobs for youth, increase the number of youth who access the skills link program, and increase job opportunities for young Canadians in the heritage sector under the Young Canada Works program.

This funding is in addition to the $339 million for the Canada summer jobs program, to be delivered over three years, starting in 2016-17.

In the riding of Gatineau alone, these investments in the Canada summer jobs program total over $730,000. Budget 2016 will allow for the creation of 229 student jobs this summer. I therefore thank the government for this wise investment.

We must not forget those who contributed to our country for many years, our seniors. Budget 2016 provides for a 10% increase in the total maximum guaranteed income supplement benefits available, which will help more than 900,000 low-income seniors. That is another measure that will help fight poverty in Canada.

The age of eligibility for old age security and guaranteed income supplement benefits will go from 67 back to 65. The budget also provides for increased funding to support the construction, repair, and adaption of housing for seniors in order to improve access to safe and affordable housing. These are significant new investments that will improve the quality of life of seniors.

The relationship between the Canadian government and indigenous peoples is in need of renewal. Budget 2016 proposes to invest $83.4 billion over five years to expand opportunities for indigenous peoples. These are unprecedented investments in education, infrastructure, training, and other programs, and would help to secure a better quality of life for indigenous peoples and build a stronger, more unified, and more prosperous Canada.

Lastly, budget 2016 makes historic investments in infrastructure and innovation. Investments totalling over $120 billion in public transit, green infrastructure and social infrastructure will transform Canadian communities.

My riding, Gatineau, could really use a little help when it comes to infrastructure. As I have explained in the past, Gatineau's population grew by nearly 10% from 2005 to 2011. With growth comes certain challenges. Gatineau estimates its infrastructure needs at $1.3 billion. This deficit is undermining our growth and our quality of life. Gatineau needs support for basic infrastructure, such as water and sewer systems, public transit, and roads.

I am confident that Gatineau will get its fair share, thanks to our co-operative efforts and the agreement that now exists between our municipal and provincial partners regarding public transit.

In closing, I am confident that the Liberal government's budget is the best plan to help the people of Gatineau, as well as all Canadians.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, it seems that the government is in the money printing business. The Liberals cannot give all these goodies to everyone. They cannot satisfy everyone. It is too early to be buying votes. We need investment. This is not an investment. This is a buying votes strategy.

Investment, by any business means, is not like this. Investments take money. There is a plan on how to pay it back, and to tell Canadians truthfully how many jobs are to be created out of it.

Money does not grow on trees. It is an irresponsible act. The government must stop trying to take advantage of people or insulting the intelligence of people across Canada.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member talks about investment. Does he know what was not an investment? It was the $150 billion, $160 billion, $170 billion, $180 billion that was borrowed over the close to 10 years prior to this government being elected. It gave us the anaemic economic growth that we have inherited, the infrastructure deficit, such as the $1.3 billion infrastructure deficit that my community faces, and so many communities across this country face.

There was a lack of economic result, and the kind of unemployment and so on, that got this country to the point where it needs the kinds of strategic investments that I outlined in my speech. These are investments in our human resources, our youth, our communities, our infrastructure, in the environment, and in aboriginal peoples.

Those are investments, and those are things that will pay off.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I was a bit worried about my Liberal colleague there for a moment. It sounded like he was in an auction about the debts they were running: $150 billion, $160 billion. I was getting terrified because the Liberals are kind of doing that right now. It will be a $10-billion deficit, or maybe $20 billion, $30 billion. It is like the worst kind of auction, after 10 years of these guys running up massive debts that have left us with a weak economy.

My question is for my friend. Liberals seem somehow shocked in the House when we are asking them about their promise to cut the small business tax. They somehow feel offended that we would dare hold this up. They have all of these other answers, so the question will again be simple for them.

Budgets are always about making choices. It is still about making choices. The Liberals chose to keep a $750-million tax loophole for stock options for CEOs. I do not know about the rest of the middle class in Canada, but most of my friends who are middle class do not get paid in stock options.

The Liberals chose to keep that stock option loophole for CEOs, yet said to small businesses that they choose not to give them the $2 billion over four years that they promised them. They thought that there were better uses for the money, whatever that happens to be.

It is a simple question. Did the Liberals sit down and say that this is not worth it, that this is a bad idea? Was cutting the small business tax rate in Canada a bad idea and they chose not to do it, yes or no?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, I know it was hard from outside this place, and probably from inside this place, to keep track of Conservative borrowing over the years, so the member will forgive me for not being able to peg it.

Indeed, we have outlined a very solid plan to grow this economy, to grow the ability for Canadian consumers to have confidence in the economy, to help grow our small businesses, and to innovate.

I find it particularly ironic that the member, in the same breath, asks about a tool that venture capital companies use to ask employees to invest to get equity and growth, so we can have new and innovative companies in our economy that will create jobs, create the kinds of jobs that Canada will need in the future. It seems that he would have us amputate that very necessary tool for companies to use as they grow and incubate. The Ottawa-Gatineau area is one of Canada's high-tech hubs, so it is a particularly important place.

More generally, we propose to help Canadian consumers, help the Canadian middle class. Small businesses are telling us that is what will help them succeed into the future.

[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 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.

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

Madam Speaker, I will try to lead her back to the matter we are discussing today.

She seems to be ignoring the fact that it was her government that sold Atomic Energy of Canada Limited at a loss. I really do not know what she is talking about. It really makes no sense whatsoever. At least the other Conservatives stay on topic when falsely criticizing us and ignoring the Conservative deficit that we inherited and that we have still not eliminated, as we have all the other times that the Conservatives left us a deficit.

Despite all these debts, they did not make the investments needed to improve our regions. I would like to know whether my colleague is aware of the fact that the Conservatives have not managed to eliminate a deficit since the 19th century, and that they have never left a surplus even once upon ceding power, whereas all Liberal prime ministers who tabled a budget have managed to balance at least one.

Therefore, historically, which party has been able to manage national budgets, stimulate economic growth, help the middle class, and address the infrastructure deficit?

The only real wealth the Conservatives left us is the rather rich description of their legacy.

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

Madam Speaker, I can well understand why the member is confused. There is so much missing out of the 2016 budget that it is difficult to track down. There is a lack of transparency. The Liberals do not know the difference between transparency and being invisible. In fact, most of the new spending in the federal budget has very little or anything to do with economic growth or promoting it. Any spending on infrastructure is a holdover from Conservative budgets.

It is a budget intended to buy votes with the money of Canadians based on election promises in 2016, promises that were made to be broken by the Liberal government.

To be clear, there is a debt, and there is debt. However, the Conservatives left the Canadian treasury with a surplus of several billion dollars. No amount of saying otherwise in this chamber will change that fact.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure where to start. There was a moment in the member's speech, specifically the aspect that was just talked about, with respect to governments running debt, where listening to the Conservatives talk about debt was like listening to an arsonist lecture us on fire safety. The amount of debt that the Conservatives mounted on top of this country under their watch was $160 billion. They then come in and properly lecture, I suppose, the Liberals because the Conservatives, having run so much debt, are well-practised at it and know what bad debt looks like. They would be authorities on what the Liberals are now doing, so perhaps that is a healthy criticism.

My question for my friend is this. She has this conspiracy scheme put together that the plight of the world is due, in her words, to “extreme environmentalism”, which tries to do such radical things as bring in the polluter-pay principle and notions that we should have a cleaner, greener economy, which all of the studies from Europe, the United States, and Canada show are more productive, less wasteful, and bring about more employment, not less. Therefore, I am wondering how she is able to square that particularly strange circle she has drawn to suggest that having a less polluting economy is somehow bad for Canadians and our economy.

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

Madam Speaker, certainly with respect to the economy and the Green Energy Act that we have in Ontario, blissfully, the member is from a province that has not experienced what we have in Ontario, such as putting up wind turbine farms and generating more electricity than Ontario can possibly use, to the point where it is selling it to the United States at a discounted cost. It is costing Ontario consumers more to generate electricity that is provided to our competitors at a lower cost.

I am very proud that when we experienced the economic world financial distress, the worst economic depression since the Great Depression, our government forged ahead, and by the time the 2015 election came we were in a surplus situation. Even by the end of the financial year, with all of the billions that were spent by the new government after election day, we still remained in a surplus.

[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. It 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.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The government House leader is rising on a point of order.

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.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to clear up something about the CRA. The biggest drop and the lowest number of CRA employees in the last 15 years came under the Liberal government of Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin many years back. They slashed it 24% in the last two years of their mandate.

The budget is full of broken promises with the biggest one being a promise of $3 billion added for at-home health care, which was regurgitated as $3 billion for palliative care. This came up during the debate that ended in closure for the assisted suicide legislation.

Where is this money? The Liberals promised it in the election. They promised it during the debate on assisted dying. Could the member please tell me where this money is?

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, this government is doing things differently than the previous government in that we work with the provinces and we respect their jurisdiction.

Our minister has been clear—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, if members are interested in the answer I am providing it.

Our minister has been clear that she is working with the provinces to uphold the health accord and make improvements. Our government is committed to that. It is important to all Canadians.

Unlike the previous government, we do not impose our will on other jurisdictions. We work with people.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind individuals here in the House that if they want to ask a question to please stand up as opposed to yelling the questions or yelling across the way.

The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

[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.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, very clearly, I am proud of my government. In fact, we were elected in October to deliver legislation. If my hon. colleagues wish to hold up the government and make every effort to not work with us when it comes to the appropriate amount of time for debate, at the end of the day, we were elected to bring forward legislation, and that is exactly what we intend to do.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Once again, I would just ask members to please respect others who are speaking.

I have time for a very brief question. The hon. member for London North Centre.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, on the matter of pride, I am extremely proud to have a colleague who has served in local government and has served her community proudly.

I would ask my hon. colleague if she could comment on infrastructure and the investments our government is making in infrastructure, and how they will help municipalities.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, at the end of the day, there is only one taxpayer. By investing in infrastructure, that is going to help municipalities, and the taxpayers will pay lower taxes. This will benefit small businesses and the community at large.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, six or seven months ago, we were all busy campaigning, and the Liberal candidates were visiting all of the ridings with suitcases full of promises. Then, in the throne speech, they tried to give us what seemed like a wide range of measures.

In the budget, the next step, they started being more specific and they realized that they would likely be unable to keep all of their promises or even most of them. As a result, today, we find ourselves dealing with what is quite frankly a rather sad budget implementation bill. What makes the whole situation even sadder is that we have just learned, this minute, that time allocation will once again be imposed on the House. I am having an increasingly difficult time distinguishing between the Conservatives and the Liberals. Good God. If only we could go back to the polls, but I know that that is not going to happen any time soon. In the meantime, I would like to make a few comments about this budget implementation bill.

Not everything about the budget implementation bill is bad. The Liberals are taking the Conservatives' usual approach, and so once again I am having a hard time distinguishing between them. The Liberals introduced an omnibus bill that forces us to vote either yes or no. There is not really any other name for this sort of bill. I would like to give an example of one of the dilemmas I am facing, which will ultimately force me to vote against this bill.

Let us talk about employment insurance, for example. I fully support getting rid of the old 910-hour eligibility requirement for new workers eligible for employment insurance benefits. However, considering that fewer than four out of 10 workers who have contributed to the plan end up being eligible when disaster strikes, such an insubstantial measure is just not enough. I am also disappointed that there is nothing in the budget, the implementation bill, or even the Liberal promises about the universal 360-hour threshold that all stakeholders have called for. The Liberals seem to be taking a piecemeal approach by scattering bits of funding here and there to give people the impression that everyone is going to be happy. Most likely, nobody will be happy.

Seniors are a particularly important segment of the population in Trois-Rivières because the proportion of people over the age of 65 there is significantly higher than in Quebec ridings as a whole. When it comes to seniors, I can say that enhancing the guaranteed income supplement has my full support. However, strangely, even though this measure should be a priority, it will only come into effect on July 1 of next year, which is a bit late considering that seniors' needs have been pressing for quite some time now.

If the government truly believes that the solution is to improve the guaranteed income supplement, restore the age of eligibility for old age security to 65 from 67, and maintain income splitting for seniors, then it must also work with the provinces to improve the Quebec pension plan and the Canada pension plan.

According to a recent Broadbent Institute study, the programs designed to provide some relief for vulnerable seniors are woefully inadequate. To combat marginalization and poverty among single seniors, the guaranteed income supplement needs to be increased by more than 10%.

As in many regions in Quebec, the populations in Mauricie and Trois-Rivières are aging. According to a projection by the City of Trois-Rivières, by 2031, the number of seniors will increase by 52.2%, which means that there will be 23,469 people aged 65 and over. The median income, not the average income, of seniors in Trois-Rivières is estimated at $18,702. Needless to say, the tax cuts promised and implemented by the Liberal government will do nothing for them. Statistics aside, during my term, I came to meet with hundreds of seniors and I witnessed for myself how vulnerable many of them are.

We could also talk about the promise made regarding Canada Post, which was fulfilled late or only partially fulfilled. Postal service was supposed to be restored in certain areas that were considered among the most important ones. All of that is on hold, waiting for the findings of a task force that was just created.

Once again, not only did a great deal of time pass after the election campaign before the promise was kept, but the promise itself was watered down. Given the Machiavellian choices the Liberals want to impose on us, there can be only one clear answer when the time comes to vote: a resounding no.

Furthermore, except for a few miserly measures, this budget does nothing to help the pyrrhotite victims or Canadian workers, and it will hurt our regional economies, especially in the Trois-Rivières area.

Although I applauded the appointment of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance as the government spokesperson for the pyrrhotite file, I must admit that the disappointment I feel today is just as deep as that of the victims. Let us be clear: the final offer is $10 million a year for three years.

During the election campaign, the Prime Minister, a candidate at the time, told us that the Liberals understood the human and financial plight of Mauricie families, who account for roughly 4,000 homes. He later said that the Liberals' final offer was $10 million a year for three years, for a total of $30 million. We might hope to support approximately 75 victims a year, or 225 by the end of the term. What about the thousands of others? The answer is simple: the government is shirking its responsibility.

Clearly the Liberals are truly out of touch with the human and financial distress that the families in Mauricie are experiencing daily. For five years, the NDP has been calling on the federal government to acknowledge its share of responsibility, and after four and a half years of categorical refusal by the Conservatives, the Liberals are going a step further and contradicting themselves.

Here are some examples that are very clear and very easy to understand. The Liberal member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain recently said that pyrrhotite was a provincial concern. We have heard that one before.

However, a few weeks after the election, he said the exact opposite. I quote: “We will help the victims because human misery knows no borders or jurisdictions.”

How can we trust a politician who changes his mind like he changes his clothes? Therefore, I will continue to point out the contradictions in the positions of the Liberal member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain and his government.

SMEs are the economic heart of all of Canada's regions, including the Trois-Rivières and Quebec City areas. After promising SMEs that they would reduce their tax rate, the Liberals are breaking their promise. However, this government is keeping its costly and unnecessary subsidies for its friends, the big banks and major corporations.

Is the Liberals' disdain for SMEs really surprising? After stating that small businesses are tax shelters for the wealthiest Canadians who want to pay less taxes, the Prime Minister could also have added that that also holds true for large corporations such as Bionest in my region, which approved payments to a shareholder through a tax haven.

The current Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, who sat on Bionest's board of directors, approved these legal but, to say the least, questionable practices. There is more to come.

In my region, SMEs are vital to job creation. I would have liked to talk about a small business in my riding, Innovations Voltflex. Unfortunately, I do not have enough time left to speak to such a broad topic.

I hope to have the opportunity to continue during questions and answers.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise to take this moment to talk about small businesses.

I hear a lot of points being raised when it comes to our job creators. We know that we support our small and medium-sized business owners.

Do the investments in budget 2016, the $11.9 billion in infrastructure that we are hearing about, actually support and benefit our small business owners? The $500 million in broadband, for rural and remote areas, to allow them to be competitive; the $800 million for innovation; the $50 million to the industrial research assistance program; the $50 million to Destination Canada; and the list goes on: do these investments support our small and medium-sized businesses?

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, the fact that Internet infrastructure is included in the measures to help SMEs shows how little the government understands their immediate needs. Of course that is important, but it will not directly help SMEs balance their budgets. I would also like to quickly mention that a study conducted by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business indicated that one-third of small business owners earn less than $33,000 a year. That means that even the tax cuts and other measures for the middle class will not affect small business owners and will not support that industry.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Trois-Rivières for his excellent speech. He still had more to say, but he was not able to do so.

Every budget is a matter of choice. I would like to talk about one of the choices that the Liberals did not make, and that is the choice to seriously address the problem of tax evasion and tax havens. We have a Liberal government that regularly pats itself on the back in the House by saying that it is investing money in the Canada Revenue Agency to uncover fraud.

What the Liberal government never says, however, is that all the bilateral agreements that Canada has with tax havens are still in effect. That means that most tax avoidance and tax evasion is not committed by fraudsters but by people who are backed by laws and protected by the Liberal government.

Does my colleague think that the government should seriously tackle this problem and put an end to the bilateral agreements that Canada has with tax havens?

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his extremely relevant question, which essentially answered itself. The answer is in the question, but if I could take it one step further, I would bet that we will soon hear the government telling us that this is a virtually impossible situation, that we need to look at it from an international perspective, and that every country would have to be on the same page.

For every country to agree, we need a leader, and we do not seem to have found one yet.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to know whether the member for Trois-Rivières, who spoke about the importance of keeping promises, which I am proud to tell him is what we are doing, still agrees with his party's position that governments should not run deficits and that austerity is the solution to our economic problems.

NDP members talk about their ideal and about their idealistic promises, which are not right, left, or forward. Their promises are nothing but dreams and symbolic gestures, but at the end of the day, they promised austerity, which does not work. It involves telling the most vulnerable that they must do more with less and that they must not invest. They are talking about what they will do in five or ten years and hope that their policies will have perhaps helped us.

Does the member still stand by his promise of austerity, or is that a broken NDP promise?

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

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

I understand where he is coming from because, during his election campaign, he had to focus on his platform and never read ours. We never said anything about austerity. We talked about balancing the budget for one very good reason that he forgot to mention, unfortunately: in the NDP's budget, our revenue column included new revenue sources that the Liberal government would never dare contemplate, such as getting big corporations to pay their fair share of taxes.

Our plan was to raise taxes on big corporations by a few points, which would have covered the cost of our promises.

[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.” That 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.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I regret that I have to cut your debate short at this point, but you will have a little over five minutes when the issue is brought back before the House for debate.

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

Second Reading

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

It seems that the interpretation was not working there.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

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

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

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

How is that honest and frank?

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The previous Conservative speaker for Louis-Saint-Laurent spent a great deal of his time talking about small and medium-sized enterprises, which is what Canada needs to create wealth in order to provide the social services that this country needs.

My specific question to my colleague across the way is this. Why does the Liberal Party never talk about creating a business climate for investment that will create the wealth, as a first step to creating a prosperous and healthy society?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question, but I am not sure he understands what it means to build a prosperous society and encourage investment in our communities.

It requires a commitment to protect our environment. It requires a commitment to affordable post-secondary education. It requires a commitment to innovation. It requires a commitment to lowering taxes for the middle class. It requires a commitment to making sure that everyone in the community feels included and does not fundamentally live in poverty.

I encourage the member to support the budget if he truly believes in encouraging business to invest in our community.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by the member across with regard to the budget.

We on this side have expressed our deep concern that in fact the budget, while yes, it does have some positive components, does not actually get at dealing with the growing inequality in our country. One of the ways in which nowhere near enough ground is covered is the changes to EI. Right now many Canadians are hurting as a result of the downturn in the extractive sector. People in Alberta and Saskatchewan in particular as a result are hurting.

While this budget does include 12 regions in expanding the length of time where people can receive a benefit, it actually excludes areas like Edmonton and southern Saskatchewan where we know people desperately need that same kind of treatment.

Why does this budget not actually reflect the immediate needs of people in these parts of the country?

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree that we could do more to ensure that people have support when they lose their jobs. Even when we look at the cities that do have coverage, the coverage for individuals is simply not adequate, which is why I spoke to the importance of a basic income guarantee.

I do not think our current EI system is fundamentally sufficient. When we look at the coverage it provides, the experts say it is insufficient. When we look at the administration of the system, it really does not provide the service that we should expect as Canadians.

I would encourage my government to do more and to expand the programs we do have, GIS, Canada child benefit, that prove a basic income support program works.

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

Mr. Speaker, what is happening across the aisle, across the House? It is like me running my hockey team, ruining my hockey team, and then blaming the person who took if over.

We see what 10 years of regressive policies have done. We have seen what trickle-down economics have done: seven straight deficits, two recessions, and bad policy after bad policy

What the Liberals are doing is governing for the many, not the few. We have progressive policies that will make a difference in the lives of many people.

The members opposite talked about the cutback of the sports credit and the arts credit. There are people in my riding who cannot afford to pay for hockey. That is why our policies are for the many, not the few. I ask my colleague about the Canada child benefit and how that will redistribute wealth among people who need it, and how it will affect his riding.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Canada child benefit consolidates existing child benefits and it ensures that folks who make $500,000 a year do not receive a government benefit. They do not need it. They should not have it. It should go to folks who do need the help.

This benefit, targeted as it is, means-tested as it is, will bring over 300,000 kids out of poverty. It will address income inequality in a serious way.

To my colleague's point with respect to boutique tax credits, the economic consensus on these is that they do not encourage these activities. They are effectively a handout to folks who do not need a handout and government revenue can be distributed more efficiently and more fairly.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting to hear the member across talking about $500,000-income families, yet a Prime Minister who is a millionaire, and earns over $300,000 a year, gets two taxpayer-funded nannies. What about the families who cannot afford the day care, and therefore cannot go to their jobs?

I stand today to address the House regarding the first budget presented by the government. This is a budget that was set to either meet the promises made by the Liberal Party or to show that the expectations set by the government are not in line with reality. Each promise to Canadians was broken, one after another.

From ballooning deficits to increases in taxes that they must have forgotten to mention to families, to an infrastructure spending plan of $10 billion that did not result in the budget, to a bold plan for the Canadian economy that included tax cuts for small businesses that were not given, the government has failed Canadians.

It is incredible what three months will do in politics, from the time the government delivered a positive, enthusiastic throne speech, to the delivery of its first budget, which is riddled with debt and broken promises, and void of hope and opportunity.

The throne speech said:

The Government will undertake these and other initiatives while pursuing a fiscal plan that is responsible, transparent and suited to challenging economic times.

This is a government that delivered a $20-billion to $30-billion deficit, depending on whether we believe the parliamentary budget officer or the government. It raised taxes, failed small businesses, and left families with children in arts and recreation activities without. This is a budget that has left the country wondering what happened to the optimism, to the opportunity that the Liberal Party promised to Canadians. What happened to the responsible transparent fiscal plan that was promised just three months earlier in this very House, with the throne speech?

When campaigning throughout the election, the Liberal Party frequently mentioned its tax increases to the top 1%, with the supposed corresponding tax cuts to the middle class. What it did not mention were two very important details. First is that the Liberal government was going to introduce a middle-class tax cut that benefited those in the top 10% of earners in Canada more than anybody else. Second is that the Liberal government would cancel tax cuts for families and children. These are tax cuts used by families to support healthy living and to fight obesity. They were used by moms and dads for hockey, soccer, basketball, volleyball, swimming, and many other activities.

My wife and I used the child fitness tax credit for mommy-and-me classes after my son was born and my wife was on maternity leave. They provided a financial incentive for new parents. Those are the same new parents that the government promised and vowed to support, only to remove their benefits just six months later.

The arts tax credit was used to introduce children and teenagers to the arts community, to grow the arts community from the grassroots. It was used by arts companies to develop day camps and other activities throughout the summer and March break weeks. These were credits that not only helped children hone in on already blossoming talents, but to discover new ones, new interests, new skills, new ideas that they never knew they had.

If that was not enough, the Liberals not only cut credits to families but they failed to deliver on the infrastructure dollars for municipalities, which they promised. The entire election, the Liberal leader campaigned across Canada on a small $10-billion deficit for investment in Canada's infrastructure, a large one of $10 billion. Not only did the deficit go up, but the investment shrank to less than half of what was promised to Canadians.

If we believe that the Liberals are going to create jobs through investing in infrastructure, our economy is going to receive less than 50% of the amount that we were promised. At the same time, the deficit is two to three times higher, again depending on who one believes, the parliamentary budget officer or the government, and that, my fellow Canadians, is about as close to a plan as the Liberal government has gotten for our economy.

Liberals love to talk about a plan in the House during question period, especially the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development. In fact, the minister talks about the Liberal plan all the time.

On February 1, the minister told the House that the government had a plan. On February 3, he said, “We have a plan”. On February 18, he said, “We have a plan”. On February 23, does anybody know what he said? He said, “We have a plan”. On February 25, he said, “We have a plan”. On March 7 and 8, he said, “We have a plan”. Therefore, it is obviously surprising that in the budget there was no mention of an existing plan, not one to create jobs, not one to help families that are ailing, and not one to expand our economy.

It says on page 109 of the budget document that, the government will create “a bold new plan” over the coming years. That means no plan exists. It was merely a plan to create a plan. How could the minister consistently lead the House to believe that he had a plan for the economy when all he had was a timeline to create a plan?

His mandate letter reiterates what the Prime Minister said in southern Ontario about transitioning away from manufacturing. Since December 2015, I can honestly say that this government has followed through on that promise. Over 51,000 jobs have been lost in the manufacturing sector and it leaves us asking if this is according to plan. Obviously, one would hope not, but it leaves us with the next question, which is, exactly what is this plan?

While the minister did not provide a detailed copy of the plan to committee, we are left with only the little language provided in the budget document that a plan will be created over the coming years. In the meantime, the minister, the Prime Minister, and the government are spending tax dollars on projects without an overarching strategy.

The minister announced $9.7 million in Waterloo region a few weeks back. These funds were outlined in the budget as part of an automotive innovation fund. Obviously, we on this side of the House were excited to see the implementation of a new strategy, which the government failed to outline in the committee or the budget, about how it would create jobs. Again, we asked the minister, “How many jobs will be created with this $10-million investment?” The answer was zero direct jobs and perhaps five to 10 indirect jobs. Therefore, the answer is that either $9.7 million equals zero jobs or $1 million of investment equals one job.

These are the results that one can expect to attain when the government is not following a plan, when it is floundering, and when it has no idea how to grow the economy. The Canadian people deserve better than a great marketing plan, better than endless clichés and speeches, better than half-truths and broken promises. The Canadian people deserve the opportunity for success and the hope of a better life.

It is amazing that the Liberal government is so focused on its political fortunes that it is willing to risk the fortunes of Canadians. The Liberal Party was the party that promised great respect for the House, yet now it shamefully mocks the idea of greater debate. It was the party that promised small deficits and gave us large ones. It promised great investment in infrastructure and delivered less than 50%. It promised help for the middle class and cut support for recreation and arts activities. It promised great debate and has constrained the House to 19 hours on a $20-billion to $30-billion deficit budget.

This is a government so unconcerned about the public purse that it does not even support an hour of debate for every $1 billion it goes into deficit. This budget has left Canadians with so many more questions and so few answers, questions such as, what happened to the small $10-billion deficit? What happened to the tax cuts for small business? What happened to the plan for the economy? What happened to the additional $10 billion a year in infrastructure spending?

This is a government that never added up its commitments, never found a group it could not pander to, and never intended to keep its promises.

Today I stand and plead with the government to stop stifling debate, subverting democracy, and disrespecting millions of Canadians who voted for it.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, even if I tried, I could not be nearly as negative as the member has just been. It has been my experience, with more than 12 budgets in the House, that when a member says there is absolutely nothing of value in an opposing party's budget, then the credibility of the speech is seriously eroded.

Of course, every budget has its challenges, and every party has its designs on how it best sees fit to spend scarce resources on behalf of Canadians.

I would like to ask the member if he could perhaps take off the cap of negativity and speak in a positive way and help our government. That is his job as a member of the opposition, as it is the job of a member of the government caucus, to improve things here. Could he help us understand how he sees opportunities for us to improve the way we are allocating those scarce resources, particularly when it comes to innovation? For example, with IRAP investments, startups, and venture capital, we would be investing massively in all these areas, both in the infrastructure and other sectors. Could he give us some positive assistance in improving things for the Canadian economy?

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

Mr. Speaker, nothing makes me more positive or happy than to give the member an idea of what I think would make me positive and happy in terms of return on investment. If the government would invest some money that actually creates jobs, not money that does not create jobs, I would be very happy.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is well known that one of the primary responsibilities, if not the primary responsibility, of members of the House, the reason we are sent here in a parliamentary democracy to represent our constituents, is to scrutinize the spending of the government. The government, as the executive, has the ability to plan a budget and to authorize its spending, and it is the job of every single member of the House, from all parties, to carefully scrutinize that spending. That is our prime function as parliamentarians.

However, the government has imposed closure on debate after only two days, only 19 hours. For those who may be watching this debate, we can get about four MPs speaking per hour. That means about one in five MPs in the House will have an opportunity to represent their constituents on the budget. Eighty per cent of MPs in the House will not have a chance to stand in the House and make their views, and more importantly the views of their constituents, known about the budget.

I wonder if my hon. colleague could comment on whether he thinks this is part of a democratic process, to have a government eliminate the ability of 80% of MPs to stand and have their views known on the budget.

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

Mr. Speaker, members on all sides of the House, whether sitting in the government benches or opposition benches, were excited by some of the language that I quoted earlier from the throne speech, in terms of respect for members of Parliament, giving them opportunities, not silencing them. However, today, just four months after the throne speech was adopted, the government is doing exactly that. It is silencing MPs. It is preventing them from being heard. Unfortunately, that does not agree with my vision and idea of democracy.

Therefore, I share the member's concerns, and obviously will continue to request the government to open up debate.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a number of comments from the government on promises it is keeping, on openness and transparency. My hon. colleague expressed his dismay with some of the language we are hearing.

Very similar to this debate, not a week ago debate was limited on something that was probably the most transformative and important piece of legislation that the government and this sitting will ever see, physician-assisted dying. The government is again forcing closure on this.

For the purpose of being on the record once more, I would ask my colleague to please express his concerns, which are the same as ours, about the government's non-open and non-transparent ways.

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

Mr. Speaker, when we all stand in the House, we are heard often. I would like to leave it up to the Prime Minister's words, for Canadians to judge. Here is what the throne speech said:

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

Parliament shall be no exception.

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

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

I will let Canadians decide whether closing debate aligns with those principles within the throne speech.

[Denis Paradis, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments about the budget.

First of all, a budget must reflect the needs and concerns of our fellow citizens. The budget before us reflects those needs and concerns. As MPs, we are all conduits of the needs and concerns of our fellow citizens.

I would like to say a few words about my riding. There are three regions in my riding: Magog and Sherbrooke; Cowansville, Bromont, and Sutton in the centre; and Bedford, Farnham, and Lake Champlain heading toward Montreal. Of course, each region has its own unique characteristics. Around Magog, it is all about landscapes, seniors, tourism, and culture. In the centre, we have industrial parks, innovation, and new technology. Around Bedford, Farnham, and Lake Champlain, we have agri-tourism, agriculture, and the rural sector.

Before getting into why the measures in this budget matter to the three regions in my riding, I would like to talk about the main reason I came back to politics. I have been away for the past 10 years. I was here before that. As I said many times during the election campaign, I decided to come back because of two lakes. We want the water in those lakes to be as clean as possible for future generations. I am talking about Lake Champlain and Lake Memphremagog. As you may know, when it gets hot in the summer, the water in Lake Champlain is less like water and more like pea soup. The people of my region, particularly those living in Bedford, draw their drinking water from Lake Champlain. I am fed up with this situation.

Together with mayors from the Lake Champlain region, including Jacques Landry of Venise-en-Québec, Réal Pelletier of Saint-Armand, Renée Rouleau of Saint-Georges-de-Clarenceville, Réal Ryan of Noyan, and Yves Lévesque of Bedford, I will meet with the International Joint Commission to see what kind of solutions can be implemented to fix the problem with the water in Lake Champlain.

I also want to take this opportunity to thank my colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who has visited Lake Champlain. Perhaps that contributed to the decision to invest $19.5 million over five years in four transboundary basins. This is water that we share with our American neighbours.

Here is what must be done. We need to stop conducting studies that only serve to find other problems. Let us come up with solutions and implement them so that future generations can have clean water.

The first region is Magog. It is so beautiful, with its incredible scenery and Lake Memphrémagog. I do not need to remind everyone how beautiful it is. That area of my riding has a lot of seniors. I must say, I am extremely proud of the measures in the budget that will help seniors. They include a 10% increase in the guaranteed income supplement for single seniors. That is the increase to the guaranteed income supplement top-up benefit that I mentioned earlier. There is also the elimination of the provision in the Old Age Security Act that raises the eligibility age to 67. These measures regarding the guaranteed income supplement top-up will benefit 900,000 people in Canada. This is an extremely important measure.

Tourism is also extremely important, not only for the eastern part of my riding, which includes the Magog area, but also for the two other regions in my riding. The budget allocates $50 million over two years to Destination Canada to strengthen marketing initiatives in important international markets, such as the United States, our neighbours.

Tourism and culture go hand in hand. My riding is home to one of the counties with the most artists and people working in culture per square kilometre. I almost said “per square inch”, but of course I meant “per square kilometre”.

The budget also allocates $105.9 million over five years to our national museums.

I am very proud, because there are two important museums in Brome—Missisquoi: the Missisquoi Historical Society and the Brome County Historical Society. These two museums will benefit from the additional money allocated in the budget.

In the middle, there is Bromont and Cowansville. This is a bit more of an industrial area. Bromont has a high-tech park, with General Electric and IBM. There is also a young company, Fabritec Group, which now has almost 500 employees and will soon have 1,500. It exports quite a bit to the United States. This is what the budget also does: it restores confidence in innovation and helps set us apart on the world stage through the use of new technologies.

As we have said many times, it is important to remove the gag order on researchers. The previous government muzzled researchers, so it is important to give them their voice back. It is important to strengthen innovation networks and clusters, and to strengthen Canada's network of incubators.

For the middle class, there is the Canada child benefit. We have heard a lot about this in the House. We are making post-secondary education more affordable by enhancing grants. We are increasing investments in green jobs and summer jobs. In the budget, we doubled the funding for student summer jobs.

I will quickly talk about the other region, which includes Bedford, Farnham, and Lac Champlain. I have talked about it a lot. It is a more rural area with all the vitality of rural life. I want to take this opportunity to say hello to the people in my riding who think that our budget in the House today restores confidence in Quebec's economy and restores people's confidence in investing.

Speaking of agriculture, I want to say a few words about the experimental farm in Frelighsburg. I will take the opportunity to congratulate Jean Lévesque, who was just elected mayor of Frelighsburg. The experimental farm was closed down by the Conservatives two or three years ago. The agricultural research we do in Quebec and Canada is important. In the budget, we invested in agricultural research. I told people back home that I would work hard, again, to ensure that the Frelighsburg experimental farm is reopened as soon as possible.

In closing, I want to say that a connected Canada is important to a riding like mine. It is important to have high-speed Internet. I have said it before and I will say it again, it is hard to believe that high-speed Internet is not available to all our small communities from coast to coast to coast. I was here in the House when Brian Tobin was industry minister. At the time, he promised to connect Canada from coast to coast to coast. We are far from it. Canada needs Internet connection.

A week ago, I was in Noyan, a small community in my riding where, together with Développement innovations Haut-Richelieu I was pleased to announce that the entire village of Noyan, the entire population and every house, was connected. The budget promises $500 million over five years to ensure that broadband service is provided to rural communities across the country.

In closing, I want to say again how proud I am to be the member for Brome—Missisquoi and how proud I am to be a member of the Liberal Party of Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have had the privilege of visiting the area my colleague represents. It is indeed a very beautiful area. However, I am afraid he is confusing the beauty of that area with the beauty in this budget, because there is none.

We were asked earlier if we could be positive about something in this budget. I would ask my colleague this. Is he not concerned that the agriculture sector was not mentioned once in the throne speech, and that the budget is virtually silent on it?

Also, there is the broken promise for the tax rate cut for small and medium-size businesses that was promised in the election. I remember sitting with my colleagues in other parties and they all promised this tax reduction for small business, but it is not in the budget.

Finally, there is nothing in the budget to fulfill the platform promise of the Liberal government that it would invest $3 billion in home care and palliative care. It is critically important at this time when we are discussing physician-assisted suicide.

However, the biggest disappointment is on page 234. Debt charges alone between this year and 2020 will rise from $25.7 billion to $35.5 billion. That is $10 billion more just to pay the interest. Is my colleague not concerned?

[Denis Paradis, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, if there ever was a time to invest in the economy, that time is now, because interest rates are low and there are exceptional opportunities for stimulating the economy in all our ridings and across the country. It is crucial. As mentioned in the budget, we are going to invest in the Canadian economy because interest rates are low.

I quickly spoke about agriculture in my presentation. It is important for the agricultural sector across the country to be healthy. We recently discussed diafiltered milk at length. All Quebec members, rural Ontario members, and members from all corners of the country are standing up for farmers. It is important that we continue to stand up for them.

We also talked about the social and economic climate. I spoke about Bromont, where Fabritec will increase its workforce from 500 to 1,500 employees within two years. It is important to create an economic climate and that is what we are doing with our budget.

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

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague for his environmental concerns.

When he speaks about pride, I find it difficult to understand how the Liberals can be proud of introducing an omnibus bill and imposing closure on parliamentarians. He said that MPs are the conduits for the people in our ridings. I do not see how I can be a conduit when I am prevented from speaking in the House.

I certainly agree that it is important to have an Internet connection. However, it is completely unacceptable for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to talk only about high-speed Internet when we ask him what is in this budget for agriculture.

It is not enough to say that they care about agriculture when the budget does not provide any compensation for agricultural producers who are affected by different international treaties. I do not see how they can say that they support farmers. I would like my colleague to explain that.

[Denis Paradis, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. I invite her and all of my colleagues to visit the magnificent riding of Brome—Missisquoi, which, as another colleague was saying, is very beautiful. It is also home to the wine trail and many other attractions. I invite everyone to visit my riding.

Agriculture is a constant concern for the Liberal caucus, whether we are talking about agriculture in Quebec, Ontario, western Canada, or the Maritimes. I am part of the Liberal rural caucus. We are having open discussions about agriculture and getting Canada connected, and we are trying to find the quickest way to meet our objectives.

The budget provides $500 million to get Canada connected from coast to coast. That amount is not enough to solve the problem, but since we are here for at least four years, the caucuses that we belong to will be able to put pressure on the government to increase it.

In 2016, if we want young families to settle in our ridings and in rural areas, we need to make sure that every house and every business is connected to high-speed Internet.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by speaking about the aspects of the budget bill that are contained in Bill C-12. I am really disappointed that members of the House were not given the opportunity for debate and study in committee of Bill C-12 to make it a better bill. Veterans have been shuffled aside for so long, but apparently, according to the Liberal government, not long enough. Veterans and their families are in despair. We hear it every day in the veterans affairs committee. Too many are absolutely desolate.

It is no secret that Veterans Affairs Canada has been badly mismanaged by past Conservative and Liberal governments. Pensions have been clawed back, front-line services have been cut, and the result has been increased wait times for desperately needed help. Quality home care is simply not as available as it should be and we all know that long-term care services are shrinking. Soldiers with PTSD face months of delays before even being referred for help and then that help is hard to get.

The changes in the bill to the earnings lost benefit and the disability award for veterans are good first steps. I hope the changes will result in more veterans qualifying for benefits and that those heroes of our country see a positive improvement to their quality of life.

However, this omnibus bill lacks the full support that veterans need.

First, there is no support for mental health in the budget, and this is a huge concern. Many veterans are suffering from the trauma of combat, the stress of their service to Canada. Yet there is a lack of support for veterans and their families to recognize and care for mental health issues that result from their experiences in the field and beyond on behalf of their country. Let us not ever forget that the government asked them to do their duty and they did not fail, and we must not fail.

Sadly and unacceptably, the budget bill would not increase support for spouses or caregivers of injured veterans. Partners of CF members are often required to leave their own jobs to care for the injured veteran. Those caregivers are provided with little training and very little support. This not only impacts the current income of caregivers, but it impacts their own pensions down the road.

Every member of the House knows that pension benefits are largely based on the earnings of an individual's years of employment. Therefore, caregivers who give up employment pay are at a terrible disadvantage. They pay a terrible price in their senior years because their pensions are simply inadequate.

When Canada sends its women and men in uniform into conflict, they and their families accept unlimited liability, and there is the very real possibility that what they are ordered to do could cost them their lives. As a country, we have nothing less than a sacred duty to our veterans to care for them when they return. It is time for a new era in the government's relationship with veterans, one based on respect that ensures dignity, financial security, and quality of life.

If the government is serious about repairing the damage at Veterans Affairs Canada, it should take immediate action and ensure all veterans have the income support they need. We are calling on the government to prove this in a new era by working with veterans and to immediately review, update, and improve the new veterans charter, including addressing the issue of lump sum payments, those payments currently offered to seriously injured veterans.

It is crucial that the government develop a one veteran one standard policy that would ensure all veterans would be treated equally, regardless of when or where they served.

It is time to end the unfair service pension clawback for retired and disabled Canadian Forces and RCMP veterans and show good faith by increasing the survivor's pension of veterans.

It is time to remove the archaic marriage clause restricting benefits for marriages that occur after age 60. Imagine in this day and age calling older spouses who marry, love, and care for veterans “gold diggers”. What a ludicrous and petty label.

The government should provide timely accessible care for veterans' health and well-being. We as a nation must improve and expand PTSD and mental health supports for veterans to ensure they get the care they need, and get that care quickly without barriers, without harmful delays.

The government should reverse the cuts to long-term care for veterans, and expand the veterans independence program to allow seriously injured and elderly Canadian Armed Forces and RCMP veterans to continue to live at home. It should not put that burden of care on partners, on spouses, on caregivers. The government must make sure that the veterans independence program is there, in addition to what caregivers and spouses provide.

I have spoken to this House about post-Korean vets who served Canada in times of great danger only to be turned away from long-term care in their time of need. It is disgraceful to say to a veteran that his or her contribution was less because it occurred after 1954.

Even though the wounds may not have been obvious at the time of release or active duty, they are wounds that come from dedicated service to Canada. Those who suffer those wounds must be respected. They deserve long-term care in a veterans hospital, if that is what they wish.

There must be increased supports for veterans' families and caregivers who are often the main support for veterans.

We have an absolute obligation to ensure that services are delivered with a veterans-first approach. This can be done by establishing a formal covenant for veterans' care that recognizes the government's moral, social, legal, and fiduciary obligation to care for Canada's veterans.

I submit it is also important that we eliminate the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, which is staffed by government appointees who have too often been unresponsive to the realities faced by veterans seeking disability benefits. It is time to replace the old VRAB with a medically focused review process for appeals.

Unlike WSIB, the court cannot overturn a Veterans Review and Appeal Board refusal. The court can only refer the issue back to the same people who decided against the veteran in the first place. How can this result in fairness for veterans? It would seem to me that the appearance of arm's-length non-interference in the VRAB from government is actually a refusal of government to take responsibility. It is politics at its worst.

Finally, Canadians wish very much to show all veterans that they respect them and that these veterans deserve our support. This can be accomplished by a government prepared to expand eligibility and increase funding for the Last Post Fund to ensure that all veterans can be guaranteed a dignified funeral.

New Democrats value the work and sacrifice of our Canadian Forces and RCMP veterans and personnel currently serving, whether they served at home, in war, or in peacekeeping missions. We call on the government to repair our country's relationship to one that is based on that respect, rather than on the current state of neglect.

We must ensure that our veterans and their families are well cared for from the moment they sign up to the moment they pass away, including that dignified funeral and burial I talked about.

Bill C-12 and the same measures covered in this budget bill do not come close to fully addressing the needs of our veterans. The manner in which we honour and care for our veterans and their families is a reflection of the integrity of this country. When we ask people to put their lives on the line for Canada, we must ensure that their sacrifices are recognized and their losses, monetary, physical, and emotional, are compensated, and that their service is recognized with grateful acknowledgement.

If we leave one single veteran living in poverty, one single veteran homeless, one single veteran suffering the agony of post-traumatic stress, or one single dependant of that veteran unsupported and out in the cold, we will have failed in fulfilling our sacred covenant.

I know we can do better. I have faith, hope, and optimism. I believe that we need, and can work towards creating, a system of comprehensive support for our veterans. This budget bill could have addressed the gaps we face in fulfilling our covenant to veterans, but sadly, it has missed the mark. We are capable of better. We cannot let anyone tell us it cannot be done.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for seeing, like the government, that there are a lot of things that need to be done for veterans. I appreciate her outlining some of the things that still need to be done.

When the member talked about the good things relating to veterans that were in this budget, which is probably more than a lot of budgets in the past, would she add the reopening of a number of offices that were closed for veterans, and re-employing a number of employees to help the veterans? As she mentioned, after what veterans have done for our country, the waiting times are totally unacceptable.

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

Mr. Speaker, certainly, I have profound concerns about the shortfalls of the budget when they relate to veterans.

I must remind members opposite that those offices have not been opened yet. They have been promised, and they are critical in terms of serving the needs of veterans, but they are not open yet. In terms of the extra staff, yes, there are promises for extra staff, but we have heard in the veterans affairs committee that that, too, is not enough.

There has to be a change in culture in Veterans Affairs Canada. There has to be a real understanding that if there are indeed programs and services available, then veterans and their families must be given full access to them, instead of playing the guessing game that has been going on for too many years.

I call it a computer surprise. Basically, if one can figure out where on the computer to access the program and decide how one fits in, then maybe, if the application is just right, one might get some of that benefit. I am tired of computer surprises.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for highlighting our veterans. Just this past Saturday, I had the honour of spending some time with a World War II veteran, Mr. Harry Watts, who worked as a dispatch writer in World War II in liberating Holland. What an honour it was to stand beside him and to hear his stories.

My question relates to palliative care. I had the honour in the previous Parliament of working with the member's colleague, Mr. Joe Comartin, a member of Parliament from Windsor. We worked on a report called “Not to be Forgotten”, which highlighted the sad state of palliative care in Canada. Recently, we just passed a bill at second reading to authorize physician-assisted suicide. The bill is currently before the justice committee.

My concern is that in spite of the Liberal platform promise to put $3 billion into home care and palliative care initiatives, there is not a penny in the budget for that. I wonder if my colleague shares that concern.

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

Mr. Speaker, yes, I do recall the work that was done in the previous Parliament in regard to palliative care. It was very important work. Despite the fact that it was a Canadian doctor who came out with the idea of palliative care, we have done very little in the last 30 years to make progress on that. It is absolutely essential that, in terms of all Canadians, including veterans, end-of-life care be sensitive and appropriate, but above all, it needs to be available.

I would like to add concerns that are connected to this, which have to do with long-term care. Back in the 1970s, the federal government downloaded its responsibilities for veterans in terms of long-term care on to the provinces. Over and over again, I have seen post-Korean veterans who desperately have needed the support of their federal government to have long-term care, and those needs have been denied. That has to end, too.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know that members who come from British Columbia, particularly the Lower Mainland, are aware of the absolute crisis in affordable housing. In the city that I come from, Vancouver, the average house price is now well over $1 million, meaning that the vast majority of families cannot afford to buy a simple house with a backyard, which our parents and many of us in this chamber have done. I am wondering if there is a similar problem in Ontario.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague whether she feels that there are sufficient resources devoted in the budget to address the absolute crushing need for affordable housing, and a federal government that is once again a partner with the provinces and cities in building that essential resource for Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would say that no matter where we go in this country, the need for affordable, decent, appropriate housing is critical. When the Conservatives and Liberals cancelled and defunded the national housing program, we saw an escalation of the homeless. That includes homeless veterans. Imagine the travesty of their doing their bit for their country with integrity and honour, and then finding out there was nothing there for them, including a decent and affordable home.

I would say that the lack of a housing policy in this budget, and in the budget before that, and in the budget before that, going back to the 1990s, is a disgrace and we need to address it urgently.

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.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to a number of the speeches given by other members.

As I join this debate, I must note, with some amusement, the positively apocalyptic terms in which my friends across the way have described the kind of country we had between January 2006 and October 19, 2015. I thought we were getting on rather well, but to listen to the way in which our country was described during that period, it is as if we narrowly avoided the introduction of some kind of Hunger Games.

Now to be sure, the odds were not always in our favour, and we did go through a significant global financial crisis. However, our performance, when it comes to growth, and inclusive growth, was very strong. The record needs to be corrected, because a poor understanding of the past can set us up for ineffective efforts to shape the future. Indeed, the game-makers of this budget seem to be proceeding as if we were in an alternate reality.

Over the last 10 years, a Conservative government managed Canada through the worst global recession since the Great Depression. The record is well known. There were no bank failures and no tax hikes. Through these years, we had the best economic growth in the G7, the best job creation record, with 1.3 million net new jobs created, and by far the lowest federal debt-to-GDP ratio at the end of it.

We were able to implement a stimulus program, one that was timely, targeted, and temporary. As well, the government delivered a balanced budget one year ahead of schedule.

Now, although the new government wishes to paint a drab picture of Canadian life over the last 10 years, most of these facts are quite beyond dispute. Instead of disputing them, our friends on the other side have sought to claim that this growth has not been inclusive. However, even on that score, the facts do not add up to their assertions.

Here is what Hillary Clinton said about the Canadian middle class in 2014. I know some Liberals may find her too right wing for their liking, but she is the presumptive Democrat nominee. Secretary Clinton said:

Canadian middle class incomes are now higher than in the United States. They are working fewer hours for more pay, enjoying a stronger safety net, living longer on average, and facing less income inequality.

It is no surprise that even while Donald Trump is modelling his economic policy on Panem, Secretary Clinton is looking to Canada.

There are two principal ways of evaluating the performance of the middle class: median net worth and median income, median being a better measure than average in this case, because it prevents the numbers from being skewed upwards by a small percentage of high performers.

Between 1999 and 2012, the median net worth of Canadian families rose by 78%. That translated to more than 50% growth in net worth for every single income quintile, except the lowest which still grew, though by not as much. This is no district 12.

What about median income? According to analysis from the far-right New York Times, a noted supporter of the previous government, Canada had the richest middle class in the world in 2014. Real, or inflation-adjusted median income, in fact, went up more than 20% since the beginning of the last decade, while real median income in the U.S. remained stagnant.

Tracking real economic changes, as opposed to nominal change, is fundamental to a sound description of the economic picture. Nominal indicators always go up, regardless of other factors, because of inflation. Real figures adjust to look at non-inflationary effects. This rather elementary distinction is important but it is something that the game-makers of budget 2016 seem to have missed, and it seems rathe, intentionally.

I read the whole budget after it came out, even though it was not exactly as gripping as The Hunger Games. I know my colleague from Calgary Shepard suggested nominating this book for the Giller Prize in fiction, but I would respond that even good fiction has to be believable.

It was obvious to me already, on page 11 and 12 of this budget, that there was some active and intentional sleight of hand. On page 11 is a graph purporting to show real median wage income of Canadians from 1976-2015. This particular graph paints a rather positive picture, especially of the last 15 years. Although with an increasing number of Canadians self-employed and doing very well, it is sort of strange that this budget focuses on wage income only, instead of overall income.

Then, on page 12, we have a graph that shows increasing household costs. The increases appear to be alarmingly steep, until we realize that the graph is titled “Nominal Increase in Household Costs, Selected Items”.

Aside from the whole selected items issue, the nominal costs of things always go up because of inflation, which is precisely why economists almost always use real or inflation-adjusted numbers. However, this budget document uses real numbers on page 11 when it is talking about wages, and then nominal numbers on page 12 when it is talking about increasing costs, which I think is a transparent attempt to suggest the illusion that costs have grown faster than wages. This is a trick that might catch a lot of people. However, anyone with training in economics would spot the problem right away. Therefore, however riveting the entire document may be, we only have to get to page 12 to see these efforts as sleight of hand, to see the intentional writing of what is respectfully a bit of fiction.

The budget game-makers clearly felt it was important to obscure the performance of the Canadian middle class. Why? Because those who get the past wrong often find it easier to get the future wrong as a result. When we have a well-performing economy, we need to focus on preserving and playing to our strengths. However, if the economy is doing poorly, then we are in a stronger position to justify a radical shift.

To justify a politically motivated radical shift, the Liberal government had to paint this absurdly drab picture of the last 10 years in an effort to explain its decision to blow up hard-won fiscal gains. For the Liberal government, destroying things is much easier than making them.

During the last election, Donald Sutherland came out as a Keynesian, and therefore a New Democrat supporter. In this respect, he is at least consistent with his character. I am sure Katniss Everdeen is more Hayekian, at least in her skepticism about big government. Sutherland's simultaneous endorsement of Keynesianism and the NDP platform perhaps undercut his point that an American resident could be just as up on Canadian politics. I do not recommend taking political advice from American residents named Donald. However, here is the important point about Keynesian stimulus.

Keynes himself saw this policy as a response to only a particular set of circumstances. He thought the economy could be boosted during a short-term economic downturn if the resulting debt was paid off via surpluses during good years. We stimulate the economy during tough years, we pay off our debts during good years, and we balance our budget over the long term. There is obviously some logic to this, but it does require us to correctly diagnose where the peaks and valleys are. If we outspend our revenue during good years as well as bad years, then we will run out of money fairly quickly.

I think Canadians accept that we can and should run budget deficits at certain times, but only at certain times, and only modestly, because we obviously cannot run deficits in perpetuity. Again, we eventually run out of other people's money. Keynes understood that the right policy becomes the wrong policy in the wrong circumstances. The Liberal government promised to run short-term deficits on the basis of their talked-down version of the Canadian economy. However, that $10 billion projected deficit has ballooned to more than double its projected size. Reading this budget, I imagine Canadian voters feel sort of like Gale did during the Quarter Quell. I might call this a betrayal, but for there to be betrayal, there would have to have been trust first place.

Our children will have to pay the price for this profligate spending. They will be forced to scrounge with less because of the government's capricious fiscal game. They did not volunteer for this.

One of the most important insights of The Hunger Games is that politics becomes pernicious when pageantry is elevated over policy. The Liberal government is all about pageantry, and this budget is all about pageantry. However, it tells a story that simply does not accord with the facts on the ground, not in present-day Canada anyway.

The basic claims about the situation which the budget seeks to confront are incorrect and therefore its proposals for radical new deficit spending are out of step, even with the Keynesian philosophy on which it is supposed to be based. I am sorry to say that there is no philosophy to this, but there is an overabundance of pageantry. When the global economy catches fire, we may not have the cushion to weather the storm the next time around because the odds will not always be in our favour.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Intergovernmental Affairs)]

Mr. Speaker, I guess it is somewhat comforting to now realize that the economic theory of the Conservative Party comes from a work of fiction.

Putting aside The Hunger Games and the appetite that leaves us to go after this a bit harder, I am kind of struck by something.

The party opposite often references the New York Times article about how well the middle class is doing. I often wonder if those members have actually read it beyond the headline, because the second paragraph says the following:

Members of the middle class in Canada worry about whether they can afford college for their children and whether their children will find jobs afterward. Housing costs are a major concern, as are everyday costs for transportation and mobile-phone plans. Middle-class Canadians worry about inequality.

In light of the fact that this is what Canadians are worried about, is it any surprise they changed governments in the last election?

However, what surprises me more is that the party opposite often rails about the deficit, somewhat oblivious to the fact that the Conservatives added $150 billion to the debt.

In light of the fact that the member opposite does not believe in Keynesian economics, does not believe we should go into debt when we are not in recession, which the Conservatives did in 2007 well before the 2008 recession, is he willing to resign and sit as an independent because of the disgrace of that party and its record on fiscal management?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member's question was serious.

The New York Times article points out, and I think Canadians and our party would agree, that things are never perfect, that people can always do better, and always want to do better.

The point the member has missed is that our performance through a global economic recession was better than any other country in the G7. It is right that in challenging global economic circumstances, Canadians would be very conscious of it, one might even say worried about some of the things the member cited. However, that does not change the fact that our relative performance was very strong.

On the issue of deficits, and this is important, through the 10 years of Conservative government, we lowered the overall debt-to-GDP ratio, the economy grew, and there were stimulative deficits that were timely targeted and temporary during a certain period of time.

I did not say that I did not believe in Keynesian economics. I did not really answer that question one way or another. There are merits to a variety of these different ideas. However, the point I made was that the budget was not Keynesian, because Keynes' economic recommendation was for stimulus in times of recession, not for constant deficits. No serious economist would recommend constant deficit, because we eventually run out of other people's money. It just does not make sense.

[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?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my view is that there are certain cases where we need to have different kinds of measures together in a bill if they broadly accord with something we are trying to do at the same time. However, the member is right to point out a profound disconnect between what the current government members said when they were in opposition and what they are doing now.

We have had the use of time allocation again, for example, as well as the last use of time allocation on one of the most challenging, important, and personal issues that Parliament has dealt with in a very long time. Therefore, there is a big disconnect between what was promised, big changes on some of these procedural things, and now what the government is doing.

I wish the Liberals would have had the courtesy to tell Canadians the truth if they intended on using some of these techniques. They should have told the truth about that during the last election.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, the member wisely did not answer that last question, because it showed a misunderstanding of the omnibus bill procedure.

I am delighted the budget had so many things for so many Canadians that it had to deal with a number of other acts. However, what it has not done, and what people were incensed about in the past, is include a whole bunch of information from things that are not related to the budget, other issues that government wants to get through, which is the improper use of omnibus bills.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I did answer the question. I think there is a disconnect between what the government promised and what it is doing.

I do not often hear people incensed about details of parliamentary procedure so much as they are incensed about how the budget would raise taxes on small business and would run massive deficits far beyond the scope of what was promised. These things are going to hurt our long-term economic well-being. If there is something that people are incensed about, I think it is much more the substance of this than the process.

[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 road map 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.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member talked a little about young people. I count in that category, by some definitions, my two young children. I want to ask the member how he sees the issue of deficits from the perspective of young Canadians. This is present consumption on a variety of programs, some of which are very worthwhile, that has to be paid for by future generations. It means that 20 or 30 years from now when my children are working and paying taxes, those taxes will have to go for things they did not enjoy, but someone else enjoyed. How is that fair to the next generation?

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

Madam Speaker, the budget is an investment for Canadians. This is an opportunity to invest when interest rates are low and we are able to create job prosperity, which will in turn allow us in a very short term to pay off our debt and come back to a balanced budget.

We have to invest. I would ask members across the floor if any of them borrowed money to build a house or to buy a car. Did they borrow money? Yes, they borrowed money.

We need to have certain things in place to do what is required. This is an investment for the future. Many of these infrastructure projects need to be done. This is the time to do it, and we will benefit in the very near future from this investment.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech. I am pleased to work with him on the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

He talked about what his government has done for official languages. What he forgot to mention, however, is that at this very moment, the Commissioner of Official Languages does not have enough money to fulfill his mission. This Liberal government has not invested in the commissioner's budget, nor has it invested in the road map for the next two years. That budget remains frozen, despite the demands of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada and the Quebec Community Groups Network, just to name a couple.

If the Liberal government really believes in official languages and really wants to work on that file, why will it not say whether it will support Bill C-203, my bill, which introduces a new requirement for all judges appointed to the Supreme Court to understand Canada's two official languages, so that everyone, whether English-speaking or French-speaking, is equal before the law?

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for this question.

We have had the opportunity to discuss the official languages and what we would like to see in the future on a number of occasions.

Not long ago, the member was at the committee meeting when the Commissioner indicated that he had not requested additional funds because he was winding down some files. He would be asking for additional funding during the next budget cycle. We cannot give out money if there is no demand for it. For the time being, it is understood that there will not be a request for funds.

What our government will be getting started on shortly is the consultation of minority organizations across Canada. This consultation will help the government determine whether a five-year plan is appropriate.

As for the Supreme Court judges, I imagine the issue will be addressed soon.

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleague on his passionate speech and his hard work on behalf of his community.

The budget tabled by our government is a breath of fresh air for the vast majority of Canadians and for the people of Nova Scotia. People across the country are excited about the investments we are making in seniors and youth, among others.

Could the hon. member give us one or two concrete examples of the impact this will have on his riding?

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague.

There is no doubt that the investment in youth, such as the Canada child benefit, will be extremely well received. This will be very clear in July. People are already talking about it.

The investment in education is already very significant. There are so many investments, that my colleague will not give me the time to name them all.

[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 goodwill. 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.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague across the aisle for his speech and the version of economics from the Conservative Party.

Canadians will not forget what 10 years of regressive policies have done to them. Infrastructure is suffering right across the country. The middle class was suffering and those living in poverty and in need were hurting. That is what regressive policies do. That is what trickle-down economics and that style of economics do to Canadians. Canadians spoke in volumes on October 19 and wanted a change. The Liberal government came with progressive policies. We believe in government that is for the few—for the many, sorry, not the few.

My question for the member opposite is to ask him to explain to me how the tax-free savings account contribution limit needed to be doubled when only 4% of Canadians maximized it. I would ask that he please explain that to me.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure that was a slip of the tongue, because I would agree with him. This is a government for the few.

The facts are clear. We have the best middle class in the modern world. The middle class is doing just fine in this country, and this particular member is, I am sure, referring to the Liberals' so-called tax cut for the middle class.

If we run the numbers, they are a joke. It is a buck a day that this particular tax cut would result in for the average family. At the same time, we would be going into debt of some $30 billion to fund an extra dollar a day for families.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, the previous government made a lot of negative changes to the employment insurance system over the last decade, and of course we see that many people in our communities are continuing to be hurt by that.

Unfortunately, the bill that has been put forward by the government does not undo some of those changes, so I want to ask the member this. Do you believe that workers in all parts of Canada deserve fair access to employment insurance, their money, and better benefits?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I am assuming you are asking through me to the member. Perfect.

The hon. member for Calgary—Signal Hill.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am sure the hon. member is referring to the inequities that came out of this particular budget as it impacted parts of Saskatchewan, northern Alberta, and Newfoundland.

In some parts of this particular assembly, we seem to focus on things like EI. This budget should be incenting the private sector to continue to create jobs, as was the case in Alberta up until recently. The goal is to have zero people collecting EI, not continue to argue whether it is relative in a particular part of the region or not.

However, the government is going in the wrong direction. The government believes it can create jobs, and it has never been proven in the history of this country that government creates jobs; it is the private sector.

We could have cut small business taxes to create jobs in the private sector, but the Liberals chose not to do that.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his great initiative in outlining the failures of the budget.

The one big failure in the budget is the lack of commitment to palliative care. The Liberals promised in their platform $3 billion for palliative care and home care, and under the current circumstances of physician-assisted suicide, it is critical.

I wonder if my colleague would comment on that.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, that has certainly been something that these particular 98 members of the House have been advocating throughout several of the debates that have taken place in this House, and I would agree with my colleague.

I do think, however, that one of the challenges the new Minister of Health will have to face is the cost of health care and how we as a country can deal with that. That is part of the whole discussion.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is again a pleasure for me to rise to speak on this budget implementation act, but I would like to comment on what the government has been doing since it was elected.

Just now, the member opposite asked a question regarding 10 years of regressive policy. May I remind that member very simply that we were elected in 2006, elected in 2008, and we were elected in 2011 with a majority government. What is this talk about regressive policy?

Let me remind this member of a similar thing. The Liberals keep saying that we gave them a deficit. Let me tell them very clearly that at one time they were in favour of the PBO, and now they are having problems with the PBO because he said we gave them a surplus. Again, they are hiding what is really the truth.

Today the Prime Minister got up and said we did not understand protocol because he took his mother and his in-laws to Washington. He says that we do not understand. He is talking to somebody who has been in government for the last 10 years, and we do not understand protocol? Again, he is trying to hide this thing.

When the government came into power, the Prime Minister went on the international stage. I am talking about the international stage, because I was the parliamentary secretary for 10 years in foreign affairs. Very interestingly, he said, “Canada is back.” Of course, the media took that to be something, as if the government never existed before these people came into power, but for the fact that he was sitting over there in that corner before being the Prime Minister.

Let me say this. That was an insult, not only to everybody who was looking, but, most importantly, to the hard-working foreign affairs people who have demonstrated time after time the excellent way that they run Canada's foreign policy and the objectives that the government sets out. We should be thankful to them. Yet, here is the Prime Minister going on the world stage and saying what? He says, “I am back.” Inciting who? He is inciting the same officers that he is dealing with now.

Let me give an example. When the Prime Minister came into power after that, the first thing he said with respect to international development is that they will continue supporting the child maternity initiative that was done by the former government at the Muskoka conference. He wanted to continue that because that was a very good initiative. Yet, he says, “Canada is back.”

Yesterday, when he went and met Melinda Gates, he said they were going to give a commitment for the global fund. May I remind these people who are telling us that Canada did not exist prior to them coming into power, that it was the former government, the former prime minister, who was with Melinda Gates and who started giving money to this project. Now they say they are continuing that project. It is the same old story. They will continue doing what we were doing, and they want to take credit for it.

During the election campaign, the Liberal Party made numerous promises. Now it is coming out that all of them have been broken. One by one by one, major promises are being broken.

However, today we are speaking about the budget, so let us talk about the budget.

We are going to do a $10-billion budget. Well, guess what? One of the members said we can borrow at a cheap rate.

There is nothing wrong with borrowing at a cheap rate. We borrow money, but we have a plan to pay it back. Everyone has a plan to pay it back. Where is their plan to pay back this money, which is going to be a deficit of $30 billion? There is absolutely no plan.

Then they get up, and what do they say? They said, “Yes, we are borrowing the money. Everybody does.”

Let me also say this. They raised the international development budget by $250 million. That is fair enough. Then guess what the Minister of International Development said? She said, “I'm going to use this money to help us get votes at the United Nations Security Council”, which they have said they are going to fight for.

I was one of the persons in the former government who went out campaigning to get our seat. I can tell members that we stood our ground. We stood our ground, despite the fact that we were going to lose that thing.

We did not go out to buy votes like the Liberal government is saying it wants to do with the international development fund. That in itself is absolutely a broken promise. Where is the government going with this implementation bill?

There is another broken promise. Before I came to Parliament I was in a small business with my wife. We ran a successful dry-cleaning operation. She was the boss, and I was helping her. That is maybe why the business was successful. I was just taking care of the accounting process. The biggest issue with respect to that was that every time I dealt with the government, costs went up and up. Any time we dealt with the government for the 10 years that we were in business, the costs related to the government kept going up. That is a heavy burden for small business.

What did we do when we came into power? My good friend, the member for Beauce, undertook the initiative of how to reduce the red tape. As the Minister of Small Business was saying, small business is the driving engine of the economy.

If that is the case, let us do something for them, such as reducing the red tape and the government costs. Recognizing that, we even reduced the tax. What have the Liberals now done? They have refused to reduce the tax for small business, the driving engine of the economy.

Today, the PBO was absolutely clear with respect to the consequences of not fulfilling that promise. It will be a lack of revenue for the government, and job losses. The Liberals are saying they are presenting a budget that will create jobs. However, the PBO has said that because they did not reduce the small business tax, we will lose jobs. Therefore, the Liberals will put aside the old PBO report and carry on with the hoodwinking of the Canadian public, which is what they have been doing with their regressive policies. Who had regressive policies? Us? Forget it.

Let us be very clear about this. We will hold the Liberal government absolutely accountable. After our 10 years of experience, we left it with sound financial books. Now everyone is jumping on the Liberal bandwagon and saying that the deficit is fine.

When I was sitting over there in 2008, I remember that we went into a deficit because the G20 had agreed to go into a deficit to get the global economy out of the recession. Canada is not in a recession. Canada has its problems, but it is not in a recession, because we gave them sound financial books.

When I was representing Canada overseas, I remember being asked these questions repeatedly: Why is Canada's economy so sound? Why is it that the Canadian government has not had to bail out the banks? That was in 2008. It was because we had sound economic policies. The policies of the Liberal government are, as that gentleman has called it, “regressive”.

Let me say this. We left the Liberal government with sound economic books. What will the Liberals now do? They will nip a bit here and there, and destroy all of that. As one of my colleagues said, our children will pay for that.

Let us go to the basics. A deficit can be used temporarily when there is a need for it. However, there was no need to do that now because we are not in a recession. When the Liberals promised to increase the deficit by $10 billion, they should have come with a plan. I would not be surprised if the Liberal government raises the GST, which we had reduced, and places that heavy burden on Canadian taxpayers.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague from Calgary Forest Lawn whether he has studied Canada's economic history at all. He talks about history, but he is not familiar with it. He should be, since the Conservative member has been here for a long time.

Conservative governments have a history of deficits, debts, cuts, and negative growth. Not once have the Conservatives managed to leave a balanced budget for their successors. They do not invest. They simply spend. There is a big difference between the two.

Has the member for Calgary Forest Lawn studied the history of previous Conservative governments, or does he simply get his facts from their advertisements?

His government left us with a $150-billion debt, yet that money did not produce anything new. Hypocrisy is a Conservative value.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member is now asking me where or what my government was doing. I was part of that government. We were the ones who came here and ran an efficient government that he is now trying to say we did not. What is he talking about? It is the same way that the Prime Minister stood up and said “You guys know nothing about it”, when we were the government.

I know about the history. We ran a sound economic government. When we took power, the tax burden on Canadians went down.

[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.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for asking an excellent question. It was better than the one from the other side.

I agree with the member. The Liberals will have to pay for the broken election promises they made. Absolutely.

On the question of EI, we are still wondering why the Prime Minister came to Alberta and gave to one region and the other region was not included. We do not understand that kind of economics. Only he can understand it. The whole province of Alberta will pay for that.

Yes, there are a lot of broken promises that the Liberal government is not going to fulfill.

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

Madam Speaker, one of the challenges that the member referenced in his statement today is the issue of debt and deficits. With no plan to get out of it, I am wondering what the hon. member believes the impact of that will mean, not just to Canadians for today, but generationally as well.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, very briefly, it means higher taxes, more GST, a bigger burden on taxpayers, and a regressive economy.

[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.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Intergovernmental Affairs)]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the needs that were expressed in two areas in particular, one in the area of housing and the other in the area of infrastructure; and the frustration that the member opposite has in not receiving funds to support these two critically important programs, which finally have been spoken to with great authority in this budget.

Is the member aware that the lack of an agreement on infrastructure, particularly on housing, with the Government of Quebec is the primary reason why zero dollars flowed to that province? In particular, zero dollars flowed to cities like Montreal and Quebec City from infrastructure funds announced. Even though the announcements were loud and proud, the dollars were never cut and the cheques were never delivered.

Is the member aware that the failure of the previous government to get an infrastructure and housing agreement with the Province of Quebec is primarily responsible for the lack of programs in that particular province?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is right to mention that the previous government failed on this. However, now it is the Liberal Party, his party, that is in power. It is time for the Liberals to stop criticizing the Conservatives and get on with investing in social housing and green infrastructure. That is what my riding expects.

It is time for the federal government to work with the Government of Quebec and the other provincial governments on concluding agreements properly and making investments. The future of our regions depends on it.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his comments today. Certainly, he pointed out his concern about the lack of funding for palliative care, and I deeply share his concern about that, especially in light of the current conversation that we are having on physician-assisted suicide. To not offer palliative care in the face of the possibility of offering physician-assisted suicide is unconscionable.

However, my question is regarding the issue of small business taxes. I wonder if my colleague is hearing from his constituents regarding the lack of support for small business, especially in the face of the broken promise that the Liberal government has made in terms of reducing those taxes.

The other question I have is in regard to the support for our rural communities. Agriculture is virtually absent, totally absent from the throne speech and virtually absent from the budget. I wonder if my colleague shares those concerns.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned a number of things. I very much enjoyed sitting with him on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development in recent years. We never agreed, but we always enjoyed it.

The palliative care issue is very disappointing. There is currently a major debate on medical assistance in dying. The government absolutely must invest in palliative care. There is a crucial need for it in the greater Drummond area. The private sector is doing a lot of work in this area at present, but the government must also assume some responsibility.

Agriculture is a total disappointment. A motion concerning diafiltered milk was moved last week. I met with a few dozen farmers and dairy producers, who shared with me their disappointment at the government's inaction, which they cannot understand.

However, it is very simple. There is really no need for a new bill; we just need to clarify the rules. Diafiltered milk is milk, and it should not be crossing the border. The government must take responsibility. What the government is currently doing for our regions and agriculture is really disappointing.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his very thorough review of what his constituents require, and I can echo that as a voice from Alberta, including for the dairy farmers and the egg and chicken producers, who just met with me and expressed the same concerns.

However, Cheng Hoon Lim, the head of the IMF's annual review of Canada's economic performance, has raised a concern that the Liberal government is failing to take real action on child care. The review says that putting money into child care is going to help women get employed, and that is going to improve our labour productivity. Would the member like to speak to that?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for the work she does in her province. I know that she works very hard and she is very much appreciated.

We had a national child care plan. Unfortunately, the Liberal government did not put forward any such plan. That was very disappointing because it would provide day care spaces at a reasonable cost.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to the budget implementation act and talk about the end of fiscal prudence in Canada as we know it.

We are looking at a budget this time around that talks about big deficits, a deficit of over $30 billion has been suggested. This is in light of the fact that the previous government, during one of the worst economic recessions in history, was able to go from being in deficit back to surplus positions, not one year but two years, and ahead of the schedule that was previously planned.

As we know, the Department of Finance is reporting that up until the end of February 2016, there is a $7.5 billion surplus on the books of the Government of Canada. Yet the Liberal government is projecting a deficit of over $5 billion by the end of March. Is this March madness? What are the Liberals spending the money on? We are talking about rolling dollars out the door faster than we can throw spaghetti at the wall. Those guys are really moving pretty damned fast to spend money.

We have to look at this in context. This is the biggest budget in Canadian history at $311 billion. It is by far the most spending we have ever seen on things that are not necessarily important to Canadians. It is also the most revenue the government has ever taken in at over $282 billion. If we compare that to when the Conservative Party was in government, revenues and expenditures somewhere around $250 billion. Therefore, we are talking about huge increases in revenues and even faster growth in spending by the Liberal government.

This will result in more taxation. Through this budget, taxes will rise over the next five years. From personal income tax and corporate income tax, we will generate another $5 billion, so that is more money coming out of the pockets of taxpayers. Every time we increase taxes, we stymie growth.

The people of my riding of Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman are extremely disappointed with the budget. Small business operators, the mom and pop stores up and down the main streets of the over 70 communities in my riding, are the ones who are paying the price.

First, they had a guarantee from the previous government that the small business tax rates would move down to 9%. Now they have now been frozen at 10.5%. They were counting on this money to grow their businesses and hire more people.

As well, the Liberals took away the small business hiring tax credit. The ability to employ people in our rural communities has dissipated because of the callous move by the Liberals and the way they are treating small business operators.

We need to remember that over 90% of businesses in Canada are small business operators, and they employ two-thirds of all Canadians. If we do not support them, we will not get the opportunity to have a prosperous economy.

I want to talk about agriculture, but unfortunately there was absolutely nothing in the budget for agriculture. We did not see any move forward in trying to improve research opportunities, a commitment to conclude the trade agreements that our previous government started in Europe and the states. I know our farmers are also small business operators. A lot of them have incorporated to take advantage of these small business tax rates. According to the Liberals, they will not get the benefit from it the way they would have if it had been a Conservative government.

Families in my riding are extremely disappointed. These people really relied on things like family income splitting. They loved having the educational tax credit. They loved having the family tax credits for sports and arts. Those families that have their kids enrolled in hockey, in soccer, in music, in dance will no longer have the generous tax credits they enjoyed under the Conservative government. All that is washed away and their net take home has been diminished.

People in my riding are very disappointed that the Liberals are removing the balanced budget legislation. This is necessary to compel the government to try to balance the books and to ensure that it looks out for not just its own interests but the interests of future generations that will have to pay off this national debt that the government continues to accumulate. We know we have to do the right things to encourage growth, and that means we need to have balanced books. If we are to have preferential tax rates, preferential exchange rates, and preferential lending rates, we need a solid financial picture from the federal government.

I remember when Pierre Elliott Trudeau was prime minister. We saw interest rates in our country skyrocket. I know this for a fact because I bought my first section of farmland in 1984 and my interest rates were 21.5% because of the incredible high debt load that the government of the day had undertaken and the lack of confidence the financial institutions and the world economy had in Canada. We had high tax rates and terrible exchange rates. I fear the current Liberal government may go down that path again, which really would not help us stimulate our economy, create jobs, and have economic prosperity.

In my role as the official opposition critic for defence, I want to touch on the $3.7-billion cuts to the Department of National Defence. This was the only department that did not see an increase to its budget. I love this quote from David Perry, who is with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute: “This budget reminds me of that episode of Oprah where everybody in the audience got a car.... Everyone got a car here except the Department of Defence”. Everybody seems to have a net increase in spending across the board, except the Department of National Defence. This is why we cannot have budgets that are not balanced. Ultimately people love to cut national defence projects.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

What do you know about balanced budgets?

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

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence wants to chirp at me, Madam Speaker. He was sitting in government during the decade of darkness under the Liberals. He knows very effectively how to cut defence spending. Unfortunately, he is in a position now to be advising the minister and the government on how to cut defence spending again.

We have seen that these cuts have been made, $3.7 billion, and we know the Canadian Armed Forces needs equipment to do the jobs that we task it with.

Here are some of the details. The Liberals have cut spending on the Arctic offshore patrol ships by $173 million. For investments in the future fighter aircraft that we need to replace the CF-18s, $109 million has been withheld. We are just finally getting to a place where we can retire the Sea King helicopters, and replace them with the Cyclone maritime helicopters, which the previous Conservative government brought into Canada. The Liberals have gone and reduced the operational budget for the Cyclones by $90 million. The Liberals have taken the Halifax-class modernization/frigate life extension and have cut $71 million from there. As well, we have already heard how they cut $39 million from the integrated soldier protection system. That communications and personnel protection unit is critical to our soldiers who are going into harm's way, those who are right now serving in Iraq.

Unfortunately, we have a situation where our Department of National Defence budget has been cut. We need to continue to tool and kit out our soldiers, our aircrew, and our sailors who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces, the Royal Canadian Air Force, and the Royal Canadian Navy so they have the ability to do their jobs in protecting Canada and projecting our influence on the world stage on issues that are important to us.

I just want to quote the parliamentary budget officer, who clearly showed that the Liberals have a history of doing this. In his 2015 report, he said:

The most significant budget cuts under program review occurred from 1995 to 2004...The cumulative defence expenditure over that period of time was roughly $13.4 billion below what our modelling showed was required to maintain the existing force structure.

Back then it was called the decade of darkness. I sure hope we are not entering another era of Liberal darkness for the Canadian Armed Forces.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to hear my colleague remembers the price of land he purchased back in 1984. Does the hon. member remember the $1.19 billion cuts in defence spending in 2012 under his government?

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

Madam Speaker, it took a lot of hard work to repair the damage the previous Liberal government did under the decade of darkness. Defence spending stagnated at $10 billion per year during the decade of darkness. When we took office, we took it from $14 billion a year to over $20 billion a year. Unfortunately here we are today still talking about a $20 billion expenditure for the Canadian Armed Forces.

Under departmental programs, it looks like a big number, but other partners in the NATO alliance are spending much more than that on a percentage of GDP. The NATO goal is that every nation should spend somewhere around 2%. It is an aspirational goal of 2% of GDP. This year we are sitting at 0.9% of GDP being spent on national defence. That unfortunately is not enough for what we need to do to protect our brave men and women and to protect our sovereignty.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is extremely disconcerting that the government would produce a budget basically void of any details on palliative care, especially in light of Bill C-14. It is extremely important we have these enhanced details.

Would the member agree that this is a glaring error in how we move forward responsibly with the budget?

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

Madam Speaker, we need to have more palliative care across the country and we need to improve what we already have. I have recommitted myself to this in light of our discussions on physician-assisted death. My wife is a nurse in personal care. She does palliative care. We live it on a daily basis. We know that palliative care is lacking resources.

The Liberals promised during the election campaign that they would provide more resources for palliative care across the country. Unfortunately that is another broken promise, as the Liberals seem to prove over and over again. There are so many broken promises that Wellington Street is being paved with them right now.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague talked about the decade of darkness and the cuts in military spending. Sometimes Canadians do not understand just how much that impacts us at home, how much it impacts manufacturing, how much it impacts the hundreds of reservists in the greater city of Hamilton, in a riding I represent in that area, and how it would affect us during national disasters when we would need to call on our own military.

Would my colleague expand on just how much this will impact the average Canadian on a day-to-day basis?

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

Madam Speaker, this impacts various things.

There are a lot of industries right across the country that provide a lot of equipment for the military. This includes industries in my riding of Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman and in the city of Winnipeg, especially in the aerospace sector. Those industries are providing jobs. The rhetoric coming from the Liberal government right now indicates that it is going to cancel the F-35 contract. In Winnipeg alone there are a number of operations that are being undertaken in building components of the F-35. Magellan Aerospace employs over 400 people. If the government cancels the F-35, 400 people in Winnipeg could lose their jobs.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan, Employment Insurance; the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, Indigenous Affairs; and the hon. member for Trois-Rivières, Housing.

[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 represent 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.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary for Sport and Persons with Disabilities]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his French.

I would like to thank my colleague for his fine effort. I would also like to congratulate him on his speech.

My colleague opposite talked about tax credits in the first part of his speech. He even mentioned that we are fostering obesity in youth by cutting tax credits.

I would like to say that we chose to give back the tax credit to families. Nine out of 10 families will have more money in their pockets. They will be able to register their children in sports. We support children's physical fitness.

Just last month, I registered my daughter for soccer. Does it make sense for an MP to receive a tax credit for his child considering his salary?

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member from Quebec for his question.

I think it is important for government programs to be universal, that is, to be accessible to all Canadians.

For example, it is important for parents to be able to take advantage of a tax credit when they sign their kids up for fitness or sports activities. I think such a tax credit is important, especially when you look at the results of obesity tests.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to put a question to this member that I put previously to one of the Liberal members relating to the IMF review on Canada that has just occurred. It raised a number of concerns, including record-high household debt and high housing costs, but it indicated particular concern over an area that the member's party, when in government, also did not take action on; that is, greater federal support to child care. The IMF has said that in Canada and elsewhere it has been a statistically significant positive effect on labour productivity when women enter the workforce and what they need is access to affordable child care.

Would he agree with that?

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I might begin by saying, just in case there is any confusion, I do not have any taxpayer-funded nannies. My daughter is in day care, Perth Care for Kids, and we pay for those expenses out of our own pocket, as I think most Canadians would expect to be normal and reasonable.

I think it is important that we encourage all members of society, particularly women in society, to have the advantages necessary to return to the workforce if they so choose. I know in my particular situation, my wife was a nurse prior to giving birth to our first child and she made the decision not to return to work at this time, to put that off, and take the opportunity to raise her own children, but that is a decision that we made. We need to ensure that all Canadian families have the opportunity to make the choices that are right for their families, including being able to allow women to return to the workforce after giving birth, which is why I was so proud of the universal child care benefit, which applied to all Canadian families and did not pick and choose those who got it.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for a great job on his comments today. My colleague is my next-door neighbour in riding and probably has the honour of having the second-best agricultural riding in the country.

I wonder if he would comment on the lack of support for actual farmers and small businesses in this particular budget?

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, Perth—Wellington is the heartland of Canadian agriculture. We have the most dairy farmers of any riding in the country and some of the most fertile farmland.

It is disappointing that the budget and the Liberal government's Speech from the Throne has all but ignored the importance of Canadian agriculture. However, there is, as I said before, one thing that the Liberal government can do to help Canadian farmers, and that would be to ratify the trans-Pacific partnership.

[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 a 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.

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

Madam Speaker, I do find it unfortunate that the member concluded her remarks by saying that she is not going to be supporting the budget implementation bill.

She should be very much aware that this is a progressive budget that would really have a profoundly positive impact on Canadians from every region of the country. We can talk about the Canada child benefit program, which would literally lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty. We can talk about the middle-class tax break, which would save hundreds of millions of dollars, or put those hundreds of millions of dollars into the pockets of Canadians.

With those two initiatives alone, what we would do is increase disposable income. In other words, we would provide customers for small businesses in every region of the country.

We would invest in infrastructure. We would invest in our seniors through the guaranteed income supplement.

My question for the member is this. Would she not recognize that this is in fact one of the most progressive pieces of legislation enabling our middle class that we have seen in the last decade?

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, just saying something is progressive does not make it so.

The reality is that we are the progressive opposition, and we are here to remind the government that middle class does not start at $45,000 a year. There are people in my riding who are surviving every single day on less than $20,000. They are fighting every single day to survive.

It is very disrespectful to not look at their needs and make sure we are there for them when they need us. The government must do better.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to reference, just for a minute, the member for Winnipeg North and his comments from earlier today when he said that this budget is largely a fulfillment of the Liberal platform.

It was funny enough to listen to him, but what was really sad was to see that he actually kept a straight face while he was saying that. We know that the small deficit the Liberals promised of $10 billion, the small business tax reduction, and the promise of palliative care, none of these are in the budget.

I want to ask a question for my colleague. I thank her for highlighting the need for improved palliative care, especially in light of the current conversation around physician-assisted suicide. How are the member's constituents responding to her in terms of the lack of palliative care, when at the same time we are talking about actually offering, to patients who request it, physician-assisted dying, where there is no palliative care available? Where is the choice?

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I share the concern that there is not adequate palliative care.

We know we have an aging population. We know we need to plan for a future when people are going to be facing multiple challenges.

We need to see an investment in home care, so we can keep people in their homes and keep them healthy and strong as long as we can. We need to make sure that, when the time comes, the services are there. When the time comes that anybody has to make a decision for themselves, I hope we have the services that are adequate to do it in a respectful way.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I could certainly echo the same concerns with this budget from my riding.

I put the question to the Liberals. I put the question to the Conservatives. I am wondering if she would like to respond to it. Even the IMF thinks that the progressive thing to do is to invest more in child care so that women can enter the workforce and increase productivity.

Would the member like to speak to what the IMF is calling on the government to do?

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, absolutely, I feel we need to have a strategy around child care across this country.

I believe the federal government should be taking leadership and working with its counterparts in the provinces and territories to make a strategy that makes sense.

The reality is that affordable child care makes a difference. It means women can afford to go back to work, or to have the opportunity to grow their own business. I know that, for the women in my riding, it would mean a real opportunity.

I also think it is important to remember that it is often women who make this sacrifice. It is a wonderful thing. I myself stayed home with my children for the first seven years. It was a huge gift to me and my family, and we struggled for it, but it was something I really felt was important. However, this is the point, as the member said. In my riding they need to feel they have a choice. Affordable child care gives families a choice.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to the budget implementation and the government's objective to diminish private economic activity through the reckless spending of public money.

Before I get there, permit me to provide a bit of information on the province I call home, as it seems from this budget that both the Minister of Employment and the Minister of Finance appear to be unfamiliar with where and what Saskatchewan is.

Saskatchewan is a landlocked province. It represents 7% of the land mass of Canada and has 10% of its fresh water. Saskatchewan is a cartographer's delight, as its borders are all parallels and meridians. There are two major natural regions, the Canadian Shield in the north, and the Interior Plains in the south. We have over 11% of the rail network, and the largest network of secondary roads in Canada.

In Saskatchewan, we are mighty familiar with sunny ways, as we receive more hours of sunshine per year than any other province. We also understand the deception, that sunny ways does not necessarily mean warmth. Some people think our winters can be bitterly cold.

With 3% of Canada's population, Saskatchewan contributes 4.5% to the GDP. Our GDP per capita contribution is $28,000 more than Quebec, which has seven times our population. Since 2007, we have also become a net contributor to the equalization scheme. Despite the provincial economy that is experiencing challenges due to decreases in world oil prices, we are forecast to contribute a further $1.7 billion, or 10% of equalization transfers for our fellow Canadians to the east.

In Saskatchewan, we have a very diversified economy, much of which was not recognized in the borrow-and-spend budget. Saskatchewan is often referred to as the bread basket, due to its producing 47% of the wheat grown in Canada. Along with peas, soybeans, lentils, flax, barley and canola, Saskatchewan is able to contribute to feeding both Canadians and the world through exporting these crops. These farms are small businesses, which the budget betrays by not reducing the small business taxes promised by the Liberals during the election.

Beyond its size, the agriculture industry in Saskatchewan has actively participated in modern agriculture techniques that are highly technologically advanced; help produce larger, more nutrient-rich crops; help maintain soil conditions; and help sequester greenhouse gas emissions like C0₂, methane, and nitrous oxide.

Modern farming techniques contribute to a dichotomy between the ability to feed vast numbers of people, thereby reducing starvation, and the role of food production as carbon sinks in climate mitigation. Agricultural producers in Saskatchewan are very cognizant of the negatives of natural and man-made CO₂, and continue to work diligently to adopt zero tillage, organic farming practices, and the development of crops that require less water to grow.

In place of flying in jets to hobnob with environmentalists from around the world and promising to reduce emissions by government fiat, Saskatchewan's agriculture producers are taking a proactive role in reducing emissions through their actions.

In Saskatchewan, we work hard to both provide economic activity and to ensure that we are stewards of the land and resources.

In my riding of Souris—Moose Mountain, we have over 300 years of proven coal reserves. We use this coal to generate electricity, which meets 50% of Saskatchewan's electricity requirements.

While the government wants to shut down the coal industry because it is dirty and pollutes the environment, in Saskatchewan we came up with a less radical plan. Rather than shutting down the coal plants, losing millions of dollars of economic activity, and throwing thousands of people out of work, we instead invested $1.4 billion in an innovative carbon capture project, to which the previous Conservative government contributed $250 million.

The carbon capture project cleans the CO₂ particulates produced from using coal for electrical power. While this continued use of fossil fuels is an anathema to environmentalists, the project at Boundary Dam is designed to remove the equivalent of pollution emitted by 250,000 automobiles per year. In fact, in the month of March 2016, over 83,000 tonnes of CO₂ were captured, the equivalent of 700 cars per day being off the road.

The CO₂ is sold to an oil company which uses it to stimulate oil and gas wells to improve its productivity while reducing the use of chemicals and water, which are also used to stimulate oil production. It is also sequestered miles underground.

This is technology that can be used around the world for coal generation plants that continue to meet the needs of electricity requirements of more than 50% of the world's population. This is innovation. This is infrastructure. This is green technology. This creates jobs.

Carbon capture is not a perfect system, but we take a measured approach in Saskatchewan. This is proving to be a less disruptive solution to reducing C0₂ emissions than simply shutting coal-powered generation facilities with nothing to replace that source of electricity.

I am sure that those who believe that The Flintstones is a documentary, and who continue to burn fossil fuels to attend conferences around the world to discuss how to shut down the fossil fuel industry, are appalled by this approach. However, it sure beats their alternative of economic disruption, massive unemployment, and, as has been experienced in Ontario, huge increases in electricity costs. This will harm businesses and individuals by increasing the energy costs by over 70% in the next 10 years.

The Liberals talk a good game about growing the economy and environmental protection. In my riding, we also produce lots of oil. Moosomin, Saskatchewan is the proposed jumping off point for the proposed energy east pipeline to transport oil produced in Saskatchewan, North Dakota, and Alberta across Canada to refineries and ports in the Atlantic provinces. This would remove millions of barrels of oil from being transported by rail across the country and through communities. The government response to this huge influx of private capital into infrastructure has been to dither and delay.

The government provided nothing in the budget for a proposal from a resident in my riding, which was supported by Premier Wall, to engage out-of-work oil workers in oil sites reclamation projects. Instead, the Prime Minister came to Saskatchewan and told us that we should be happy that the downturn in energy prices has not hit us harder. I am not sure how to explain that to an oil field services company that has had to lay off 22 of its 26 employees. There are no job-creating strategies within this budget.

While an American oil company proceeds with building a 50,000 barrel-per-day refinery in North Dakota, a few miles south of my riding, we study and delay $15 billion of private money to expand a transportation system for Canadian-produced oil. I am not sure why sunny ways should make us glad that our biggest competitor in the oil industry in North America generates employment and economic activity while we equivocate and utter meaningless bromides.

Over the past 40 years, a fairly consistent cycle of activity has been followed in the oil fields in southeast Saskatchewan. Oil workers stop work for two to three months in the spring while the land thaws. Some of these workers take up part-time work in the agriculture sector during seeding, or apply for employment insurance while they wait for work in the oil industry to resume. With the changes in the oil industry and lack of encouragement for the industry by the government, instead of applying for employment insurance, these oil workers are simply giving up. Again, I am not sure why we should be glad in Saskatchewan that the government has no idea where the oil field is and refuses to extend, by a few weeks, the access to employment insurance in the oil fields of southeast Saskatchewan.

Saskatchewan is a province that is very dependent upon the export of our products and services. The TPP agreement, entered into with 12 other Pacific countries, provides an opportunity for ranchers, architects, manufacturers, food producers, education and health workers, and all the other sectors of Saskatchewan's diverse economy, to have access to wider markets. Removing tariffs on cattle, canola, honey and other agriculture products, and allowing for the unimpeded movement of professionals, is nothing but great for the Saskatchewan economy. The positive impact of this agreement was ignored in the budget, and the government seems to be sending signals that it is unsure if it wants to participate with countries representing 40% of the world's trade.

In conclusion, Saskatchewan is an important contributor to the well-being of the Canadian economy. We have a way of life that allows individuals and communities to grow, to contribute to the image of Canadians all around the world as fair-minded, honest, and law-abiding people. The indifference of the Prime Minister to the challenges of those employed in the fossil fuel industry, the uncertainty of the government's actions with respect to privately funded national infrastructure programs, and the lack of commitment in supporting free trade agreements is causing concern among the many industries and communities in Saskatchewan. They are being left with an impression that the federal government is more intent on attacking the way of life we have developed than in providing support, leadership, and a commitment to improving the function and future of our community.

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

Madam Speaker, I find it interesting to hear what my friends say from other regions across the country. It gives me different perspectives to learn about. I was particularly interested in what the member raised about farming and organic farming, and the steps that are being taken in Saskatchewan to support sustainable agriculture. I am wondering if he could perhaps share a bit more, as he kind of glanced over it. I would love to hear his thoughts about how making investments in green technologies and in science to support having sustainable agriculture may assist people in Saskatchewan.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned, the backbone in Saskatchewan and in my riding is the agriculture industry. It sustains and keeps things surviving. Right now, we are hurting in our province because of the downturn of the oil industry.

However, our agriculture industry has advanced in learning agriculture practices of reducing tillage, moving crops around so we can put nitrogens, etc., back into the earth, and using products that use less water to sustain the industry. These farmers need a market to move that to, because I am in a part of the world where we have to export everything.

For so long in Saskatchewan, and in my riding, we have been exporting our people. We have exports of agriculture, canola, oil, and potash. We need to be able to export and to move all of those things, whether by road or by rail, because we are not flying it out of there. As the agriculture industry produces greater crops, it needs a market to move them to.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, my honourable colleague used the term of fair, honest, and law-abiding people to describe working people in that constituency. That term describes working-class Canadians all over Canada. It also underscores the point that in the last 30 years, workers in Canada have contributed to an economic growth of over 50%.

Now we are seeing that these are the people who are struggling. We have higher debt loads per household. We have people who have retirement insecurity. We have people who are retiring with no dignity. We have workers who cannot afford child care. It seems that we have this section of our society that is turning all of the gears for a healthy economy being eroded.

We have talked about that before in a partisan way, so my question for the member is actually this. Who do you think the members of the middle class are who are being addressed in this budget?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I just want to remind the member to address questions to the Chair as opposed to individual members.

The member for Souris—Moose Mountain would like to respond.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, I often ask that same question. Who does the current government think the middle class is, and where is the government setting its priorities?

In Saskatchewan and in my riding, we have people in various walks of life, those who have nothing because the oil industry has taken them out of a well-paying job. They are trying to survive and to keep their families together in an area instead of moving away. We are seeing members of our middle class who are losing their jobs because this budget provides no indication of any jobs that will be created.

Before, our previous Conservative government reduced our taxes to the lowest they have been in 50 years. That allowed people to have more money in their pockets and to sustain the lifestyle that we would like to see for all Canadians.

[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 is 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.

Unfortunately, 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.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, having sat through that speech, I think what the member wants beyond reinvesting in the auto fund is to speed up the RFP for the bridge. What date would he like the RFP issued by?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Today, Mr. Speaker, because it was due six months ago.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the elements that the Liberals have purported throughout this whole budget process, in fact since they took office, is a reduction in the middle-class tax rate. I would call it, and I think others on this side of the House would agree, a middle tax fraud. It is a shell game. What the Liberals give, the Liberals certainly take away.

I am wondering if the hon. member could comment on how he feels the Liberal middle tax fraud is working.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

It is fraudulent, Mr. Speaker. That is how it is working. The reality is that we have a situation to correct the balance and protect those individuals who need disposable income to maintain their homes or to make sure their kids get an education. For some people it is the ability to get prescription drugs and other types of necessary medicine in order to have a healthy lifestyle so they can be productive in Canadian society, whether it be working, volunteering, or helping in their communities.

It is difficult to accept these allotments that are taking place and not be compelled to speak out that they are going to the wrong people. We should be rebuilding the middle class while we can.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague to comment on the budget bill being a showcase of election campaign fiction and a showcase of broken promises. Perhaps he could hone in on the issue of tax loopholes and small businesses, the gems of opportunities which the budget is epically failing.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a specific example of an election broken promise is that Liberals in my area promised that my single events sports betting bill, Bill C-221, would be put in the budget. It would become a regulated industry under my bill and would allow money to be shifted away from organized crime. It would provide jobs and new revenue sources for the government in terms of accountable funds. My bill is still out there. It could have been put in the budget. That was a promise made by the Liberals during the campaign.

Many of the economic studies that have been done related to this have shown that it would benefit small business. The redistribution of those funds from organized crime would affect tourism in a positive way, economic development through the management aspect with regard to single events sports betting, and also protect our billions of dollars' worth of infrastructure from the United States. That would take that industry allocation out of the equation. It would also provide desperately needed resources for public expenditures and investment opportunities. It would provide a revenue stream for those who have gaming problems.

We have all of that versus allowing $10 billion going to organized crime and its associations per year, and another $4 billion offshore that they do want to have a regulated environment that is not coming back at all and is not accountable. That is one specific example that would affect all of us in a positive way and it would reduce the revenue that organized crime depends upon every single day.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères has about four minutes before we move to the vote.

[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.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

It being 5:45 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

The question is on the amendment. May I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

[Chair read text of amendment to House]

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #51

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I declare the amendment lost.

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

In my opinion, the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

[Andrew Leslie, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think should you seek it you would find consent to apply the results of the previous vote to this one, with the Liberal members voting yea.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives agree to apply the vote and will be voting no.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP agrees to apply the vote and will be voting against the motion.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we agree and are voting against the motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, we agree to apply. The Green Party will be voting no.

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

Vote #52

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

It being 6:35 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business, as listed on today's Order Paper.