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

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

moved that Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures, be read the third time and passed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always nice to hear the hon. member, whom I always associate with Shawinigan, even though he is not from there. I am a good old-fashioned archaist, as everyone knows.

He raised two points that I find intriguing. First, he reminded the House that in this budget, his government is bringing the retirement age back down to 65. It is our belief that that is not good for the economy. In fact, that point of view was also held by the current Minister of Finance, who just two years ago published a book entitled The Real Retirement. In that book, he said that raising the eligibility age to 67 was the right thing to do and a step in the right direction, adding that “in 20 years' time, the economy will run better”.

Unfortunately, the former author and experienced businessman became a Liberal minister who is short-sighted when it comes to public finances.

The other point is that the member and parliamentary secretary keeps repeating that it is excellent because their budget puts more money in people's pockets.

Can the member and parliamentary secretary recognize that his approach is based on spending money that we do not have? In fact, the tax changes announced a few months ago will cause a $1.7-billion deficit, and the changes in family benefits will result in a $1.4-billion deficit.

In short, does the parliamentary secretary recognize that with these changes, the money we put in people's pockets is money we do not have?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank my hon. colleague for his question. He knows that I have a great deal of respect for him.

We have had many opportunities to debate these issues because the bill is at third reading stage. However, this is what we should take away, and I am not the only one saying it: we must consider what writers and economists in Canada are saying, including the Bank of Canada, the parliamentary budget officer, and the economists, even those outside of Canada. Ms. Lagarde cited Canada as an example and said that the right approach is to invest in the economy and in our society in order to grow the economy.

Canada has the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. That puts us in a unique position relative to our partners in that we can invest in the middle class and families. Let us take a moment to think about that. I believe that my Conservative colleague should be pleased. Our party has already reduced taxes for nine million Canadians. That was the first measure implemented by this government to help Canadian families.

We also introduced the Canada child benefit, which I believe is the most important social measure since universal health care. These types of measures will put money in the pockets of Canadians, grow the economy, and help Canadian families.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really like hearing the parliamentary secretary talk about the nine million Canadians who will be helped, all the while ignoring the fact that these nine million people are among the wealthiest and that 17 million to 18 million Canadians will not see a single cent from this tax cut. These Canadians are not among the wealthiest.

We have had this debate many times, and the Liberals often use this excuse. They say that they are cutting taxes for the middle class and that they have the child tax benefit, as an excuse for having broken one of their basic election promises to lower taxes for SMEs from 11% to 9%. They swore, hand on heart, that they would go along with the New Democrats and Conservatives and that they would also help grow the economy with this promised tax cut.

Why does the parliamentary secretary defend the government he represents? Why does he defend the Liberals, who are breaking their promise to cut taxes for SMEs and entrepreneurs, which would have enabled them to hire employees, expand, and grow their business? I look forward to his explanation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I always appreciate the work he does on the Standing Committee on Finance. He has a lot of experience and we are always very interested to hear what he has to say.

This budget is not just for the middle class. As my colleague was saying, members need to look at all of the measures. This bill is at third reading. The budget includes tax reductions and the Canada child benefit. We need to think about all of the Canadians we are helping.

For example, my colleague failed to mention what we are doing for seniors, students, and first nations. We are making historic social investments to help the middle class and Canadian families.

In my region and throughout Quebec, everyone knows how important SMEs are to the economy. People asked us to grow the economy. That is exactly what we are doing by implementing measures such as the tax cut and the Canada child benefit, giving more money to our veterans, helping students pursue their education, and investing in first nations.

These investments in our society and these support measures will create long-term growth, which will benefit all Canadians.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech. I also want to thank him for his leadership on this file and the consultations that he and the Minister of Finance held with Canadians.

About a dozen consultations were held in Fredericton. I know that my constituents are happy with this budget.

There are three things in particular that stand out in my riding of Fredericton. One is the Canada child benefit, which will not only help nine out of 10 families but will help lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty. There are pockets of communities across New Brunswick and within Fredericton that are in need of that sort of support for young people.

A second piece of the budget that has been received well in the riding I represent is the increased supports to veterans, ensuring that they are able to live past their service years in dignity, and I know that is just the start of the commitment the government has made.

The third are enhanced supports to seniors, the returning of the retirement age to 65, as well as the topping up of the GIS for single, low-income seniors.

I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could explain a bit more in detail about just how important it is to support young children, to support our veterans, and to support seniors, not only in the region I come from but right across this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is a member who always understands well the issues at stake.

He said it. The first thing the government did in an unprecedented fashion was to listen to Canadians. That is why personally I went from Moncton to Yellowknife with the Minister of Finance to listen to Canadians and come up with these measures.

He did mention the Canada child benefit. As we went across the nation, people asked us to help them and their families. We met I do not know how many hundred Canadian families who told us they needed a bit more. Everything has been going up and the low growth we had in this country, which we inherited from the Conservatives, has not translated into additional income for these people, so they asked us to help them and their families to make ends meet.

When we talked to students, they said they would like to stay longer but they also needed some help from the government.

When we talk about our veterans, who deserves to be helped in our society more than our veterans? After a decade where they were left on the sidelines, we put them front and centre.

This budget, as my hon. colleague said, puts Canadian families at the centre, puts the middle class at the centre, puts students at the centre, puts first nations at the centre. It puts Canadians at the centre of our actions. For once, this country has a government that works for Canadian families, works for the middle class for the benefit of all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question in regard to tax expenditures.

The member opposite cited his support for a new tax credit for teachers and their supplies. In the last Parliament there was a lot of controversy over tax expenditures. Some people on the Liberal side at the time said there had not been enough proper analysis by finance officials to say whether or not those tax expenditures were a good use of public monies.

Would the member support tabling that information so that all members could find out whether or not this tax credit meets the criteria of good public expenditure?

Second, if it turns out that tax credit is not performing well, will he include it in the list of tax expenditures to review, because there has been some talk on his committee of a review of all tax expenditures, or will the Liberals simply guard their electoral promise?

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

Mr. Speaker, this is not about politics. This is about helping teachers and students.

I am very pleased that the hon. member asked this question, because it is quite important. As we see in the budget, we have specific measures to help teachers, because we understand what they contribute in the classroom to help their students. Obviously, we also help students in our budget, because we understand that they are the future of our country.

We have listened to thousands of Canadians. More than 300,000 people came forward to provide input as we made our last budget. Therefore, we are obviously willing to listen, and we will listen to him as well as other hon. colleagues as we go forward and plan the future of this country together.

[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 Essex, Agriculture and Agri-Food; the hon. member for Vancouver East, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship; the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton, Justice.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changes to EI are of great concern.

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

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

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

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

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

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her speech. I really enjoy the work that we do together on the Standing Committee on Finance.

The member talked about promises. I remember the promises that her government, the previous government, made, such as reducing wait times and balancing the deficit. Her government borrowed $150 trillion, which is nearly one-quarter of all the money borrowed since Confederation, yet it failed to prepare us for the tumbling price of oil and commodities, a situation that our government is confronting now.

The member spoke of a plan. I know that she is from the Maritimes, so I hope she will contribute some common sense. Budgets can be balanced by cutting spending or raising taxes. She talked about cutting taxes and balancing the budget.

Would the member mind clarifying? What is her party's plan? When will we see her party's tax plan? What is the Conservative Party's plan for the budget?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the Liberals know, the government's job is to govern, and our job is to ensure we hold the government to account. I know government can be hard, but we were able to do it for 10 years and we left the country in pretty good shape, I have to say.

I would say this to the hon. member's question. Number one, yes—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

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

The hon. member for Milton.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I enjoy working with my friend from Saint John—Rothesay on committee. I appreciate his contribution there.

I listened very carefully and the member spoke about campaigning door to door and how he expressed to his constituents the faith that he has in his party and his party's platform. I wonder what the member is going to do when he runs for re-election and he has to go back to those same voters and explain to them how his government introduced a budget that contained a litany of broken promises on everything from lowering the tax rate for small business, to limiting a $10-billion deficit, to returning to a balanced budget within its mandate. There is a litany of broken promises here that have compromised the credibility of anybody who went door to door with that platform and delivered this budget.

Would the member care to comment?

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

Mr. Speaker, I too have enjoyed getting to know my friend opposite and working with him on our committee.

Going door to door in Saint John—Rothesay was an eye opener for me. Although members opposite talk about fiscal prudence and how they were the stewards of the economy, what was resoundingly clear to me was that those living in poverty, those living in need, the middle class, our veterans, were forgotten by the previous government. It is one thing to preach austerity and balanced budgets, but not on the backs of middle-class Canadians or those in need. Those in need were forgotten by the party opposite when it was in government. Canadians spoke loud and clear on October 19 and changed the government.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign, I think that every single candidate in the country talked about the middle class. The vast majority of my constituents were happy to be heard and to see that something would be done for them.

How can we reconcile that with the tax cuts that will not benefit six out of 10 Canadians? People who earn $200,000 and over will be the ones who benefit the most. I am sick of hearing about the middle class, when the government has no respect for the middle class. Furthermore, the government is telling the six out of 10 people who will not have access to the tax cut to wait, since there is also the Canada child benefit.

Does someone absolutely have to have children to be part of the middle class? Can the member recognize that the choice to have a family and the desire to be part of the middle class are two completely different things?

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

Mr. Speaker, in all transparency, that is a little rich coming from the NDP member opposite. Those members ran in the election on balanced budgets and on austerity. Everybody across this country, including the PBO, thought their platform was so full of holes it was Swiss cheese.

The NDP cannot have it both ways. Those members cannot stand up and say we forgot this and we did not spend enough on that, when they themselves ran on austerity and a balanced budget. Canadians saw right through that.

I am proud of our budget. There are cuts in it for the middle class. There are programs and funding for those who need it, people living in poverty, through the Canada child benefit. I stand proud today to endorse our budget and most Canadians do also.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the eloquent, passionate speech that he made and for the tireless efforts he puts in representing his constituents of Saint John—Rothesay.

I could not agree more with his statements as far as the efforts that our budget is putting forward to create growth, to lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty with the Canada child benefit, to invest in social infrastructure, and to provide a tax cut that would benefit the middle class.

Could the hon. member tell me how he sees the Canada child benefit specifically benefiting his riding of Saint John—Rothesay?

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

Mr. Speaker, one thing that was resoundingly clear as I went door to door during the election campaign was that those living in poverty, especially, felt forgotten. I remember one lady in Crescent Valley who asked why someone making $150,000 a year should get the same cheque that she got making $20,000 a year.

The Canada child benefit will be better for nine out of 10 Canadian families. It would put money back in the pockets of those who desperately need it. It would lift 300,000-plus children out of poverty. Movement on poverty will happen by national initiatives, and the Canada child benefit is a transformational program for our country.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened very attentively to colleagues who have spoken in the House, and I want to thank my colleague from Saint John—Rothesay, who is sharing his time with me today, for his speech. He is one of our colleagues who has continued to champion many issues, and certainly the issue of poverty, which he speaks very passionately about.

I also listened attentively to members on the other side. Let me say that I was somewhat disappointed by my colleague from the NDP, the member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques. I found the condescending way he spoke somewhat offensive, because to indicate that members on the government side would not be attentive to bills and legislation and fully informed about what we are debating in this House is offensive to all of us as hon. members.

I was very proud of my colleague from Winnipeg Centre, who has offered to have that debate and to do so in Winnipeg. I hope that will happen, because I think it is important to have the facts before the public and real information people can understand.

I want to speak to a few of the things raised here today. First, we talked about transparency and accountability. Our government has led the way on transparency. In fact, we led the way on transparency when we were the third party in the House of Commons. We were among the first MPs in the House of Commons to make transparent a lot of the financial investments we were making within our ridings. New Democrats were one of the groups that did not want to make transparent many of their finances at that time. Members need to be reminded of who started the trend toward transparency and who continues to build and lead on transparency, reform, change, and accountability in the House of Commons. Not only that, we are leading on change and on reform in terms of how we deal with Canadians. I think that has been obvious.

Our government listens to Canadians and understands Canadians and is working hard to meet the goals and objectives they have laid out for us.

I can say for certain that we have responded to great needs in this country in this budget, needs that have been left behind for a very long time. When I hear the former government members speak, I am only reminded of how history continues to try to rewrite itself.

The facts also speak for themselves. We live in a country where, under the former government, many people were left behind. A lot of those people left behind were the very people who sent me here to represent them. That is what I will do.

I am very proud of the budget we have laid out for Canadians, because it not only responds to those who are the loudest or those who may be the most affluent, it responds to the needs of all Canadians, even those who have been left behind and left in poverty.

It responds to the needs of first Canadians, our indigenous peoples. I can read off a whole list of stats with regard to Inuit people, of which I am a descendant. They show that 39% of them live in crowded homes. We have a budget this year, for the first time, that invests in housing for Inuit people. I say to members opposite that they may want to stand in this place and vote against that, but I certainly will not be standing in this place and voting against it, not with those statistics. Compare that with 4% of Canadians who live in crowded housing. It is quite substantially different. However, we do not want anyone in this country living in unsubstantial situations, and that is why we are investing in all aspects.

Let us look at the fact that the unemployment rate for Inuit people in this country is 45%, as opposed to other sectors.

That did not get created in the last seven months, I want to remind hon. members. Those are gaps that had been left there because former governments and members did not address those gaps. These are investments that we have made, putting more money into the assets program and ensuring better targets for employment of people who are left behind. Again, I will continue to say that we are living up to our commitment, and yes we are. We are living up to the commitment and the promises that we have made to Canadians. We have a full mandate to fulfill those promises and commitments, and I can say that this government will do so over the course of that time.

In the last seven months, I have seen a transformation in this country that I have not seen in the last 10 years. I have seen a government that has responded to the very basic needs for infrastructure across communities in this country. Who in this House of Commons wants to vote against that? I have seen the government make historic investments in indigenous communities. I challenge people to stand and vote against that. I have seen this government invest millions more in student jobs. Even in my own riding, this year, I am seeing record numbers of summer jobs, more than I ever have. I am seeing more investments in summer jobs going to both indigenous and non-indigenous communities.

When I look at this budget, I am not only seeing the targets to the middle class and how we are helping raise people up and helping people rise up out of poverty. I am seeing new investments for the first time in our country in housing for northern regions and Inuit people. I am seeing infrastructure investments in highways, transit, and schools, which we have not had for a long time. People cannot forget that we are not going to fix in seven months what was created in decades. However, we are making the greatest attempt to do so and to honour our commitment to the people of this country.

I can say that when I stand to vote on this budget, I will be standing to vote very proudly. For the first time in many years that I have been lobbying, fighting, representing, and challenging governments to do more for people in rural and northern Canada, I am finally seeing some real action. Even more than that, I am seeing action for all my colleagues as well, who come here to lobby hard for the people who sent them, who talk about the growing numbers in the cities across our country and the need for new transit, infrastructure, and co-op housing, and other housing programs. I must say I am very happy to see the investments that are going in those directions.

On the child benefit program, the feedback I have been getting from people in our province of Newfoundland and Labrador is amazing. They like the new child benefit program. It is putting more money into their families and into their pockets. Despite what everyone on the other side may be saying or thinking, they can just read through the comments I get. I am amazed. “I have gained this amount of money”; “My family has gained this amount of money”. Those are the real facts and where we are seeing the real transitions that are being made.

Many people would love to rewrite history. They would love to rewrite the fact that they did not support investments. The New Democrats and the Conservatives campaigned on balancing the budget, and my challenge to them today would be this. Which of those investments would they cut? Would they stop trying to help children out of poverty in this country? Would they cut record and historic funding to indigenous people in this country? Would they not address the problems with transit and overcrowding in our cities? I would challenge the members to tell me today which pieces of this budget in infrastructure and spending and social and economic development they would not support. If Canadians had voted in their direction, they would not be seeing this change, they would not see the investments that are going into their communities.

Again, when one continues to do the same thing, one gets the same result. We are doing things differently, and we are getting a better result.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was just riveted hearing about all of the programs and everything. However, I find missing from the budget the $3.4 billion for palliative care that was in the election plan. Palliative care was supposed to be one of the cornerstones of the Liberal platform.

I wonder if the member would inform us as to where that money is coming from, why it was not in the budget, and why they broke their promise to Canadians?

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, palliative care is one of the priorities for our government. We have continued to talk about it. We are doing the work we need to do to build a better system of palliative care around the country. The Minister of Health has discussed this with a number of regional health authorities and other Canadians, as well as her colleagues. We are going to continue to move forward with this.

What I would say to the member opposite is that in seven months, we have already moved the dial immensely, in terms of the service that we are able to provide to Canadians and the discussion that we have had around palliative care. We have not taken 10 years to talk about it, with no action.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague across for her passionate speech. She mentioned being different and doing things differently. If by that she means breaking promises to Canadians, then I am quite proud to not be different and to not be going down that road.

One of the promises that has been broken in this budget to Canadians is the promise that was made to small business. Small business was promised a cut. We know that without this cut, small businesses will be desperately hurt. We are looking at over $2.2 billion over the next years. It could lead to job losses of 1,240 jobs.

How can the member defend the government's position on breaking a promise to small business?

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, we have been able to invest for small business in many ways throughout the budget. In fact, the more we spend on infrastructure, the more it benefits small businesses. The more we invest in industries like tourism, forestry, and mining, all of these small businesses that supply these sectors in the communities and regions across the country are benefiting. The more money we put into employment and training programs to help people who work in small business, the more it is helping them.

I say to the member opposite, there are many facets of the budget that are going to enhance, improve, and build up small businesses in this country. We are committed to small business. We believe it is an important and sustainable piece in our economy. We are going to keep working with them so that they can build and enhance their businesses in the way they need to.

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

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

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

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

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, we certainly realize, understand, and support the need for further social equity investment across Canada, especially in programs around health and health care and in the area of mental health. Those are all areas that are being looked at by the government. There have been extensive discussions among the provinces and territories, something that has not occurred for a long time. They are anxious to work with the federal government to ensure that we can improve health care programs for all Canadians, and we are eager to work with them to make sure that we get those outcomes.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Before we go to resuming debate and the hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London, I will let her know that there are only about six and a half minutes remaining in the time provided for government orders at this point in the afternoon, but we will get started and I will give her the usual indication when her time gets near the end. Of course, she will have the remaining time when the House next resumes debate on the bill.

The hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member will have an additional three and a half minutes for her comments when the House next returns to debate on the question.

It being 5:54 p.m., the House will proceed to the consideration of private member's business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from June 8 consideration of the motion that Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures, be read the third time and passed.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to participate in the debate on the Liberal government's budget on behalf of the 100,000 people I represent in Lakeland.

I am here in this House today because of the farmers, energy workers, small business owners, public servants, and hard-working families across Lakeland who put their trust in me on October 19. People in Lakeland are facing adversity head on, struggling against job losses, the downturn in the energy sector, and helping their neighbours, friends, and families whose lives have been forever impacted by the raging wildfires in northern Alberta.

As they continue to build and to rebuild their communities and to pursue their dreams, I am committed to making sure their voices are heard on government decisions that matter to them, and particularly on how their hard-earned tax dollars are spent.

The people of Lakeland believe in a free market economy where Canadian workers are rewarded for their efforts, where entrepreneurs, inventors, investors, and hard workers can provide jobs and prosperity for their communities, and where self-reliance, personal responsibility, and generosity bolster incredible community spirit that supports charities and cares for the vulnerable.

In fact, 73% of my constituents voted for fiscally responsible leadership that values every dollar that belongs to the Canadian taxpayer. They know that, as the member for Carleton mentioned last week, a free market economy is the greatest poverty-fighting machine ever invented.

Like all of my Conservative colleagues who are privileged to serve the people who sent us here, my focus will always be on everyday Canadians, like the middle class the Liberal government purports to care about. Our focus is on everyday Canadians, without trust funds, and without friends and family in high places, people who go to work and run businesses to earn the money that they dutifully hand over to the government, trusting that their best interests will be taken into consideration and that their money will be spent wisely and with careful discretion and due diligence.

The government needs to fund priorities, to put needs before wants, and to remember that it cannot spend on everything, just like Canadians plan and prioritize with their families, businesses, and their personal budgets every day.

When Liberal politicians cut child care benefits, when they disallow families to split their income, and when they limit their ability to save for their futures, and then they use taxpayers' dollars to pay for their own nannies, their own personal domestic support, when these politicians use tax dollars for their families to go on trips, for swanky new furniture, paintings, and art, on office renos, while Canadians and their neighbours, their families, and their friends are losing their jobs and limiting their budgets to ensure they can pay their bills and their taxes, that is when Canadians lose faith in politicians. No wonder why. When that happens, we MPs are failing our responsibility to Canadians.

I am talking about all of the Albertans still working, and of all those who have lost their jobs in almost unprecedented numbers, and of the millions of Ontarians who must strictly budget to ensure they can pay their bills every month, and rural Ontarians and those on fixed incomes who limit groceries or go to food banks because of skyrocketing hydro rates courtesy of big out-of-touch government and bad public policy.

I am referring to Maritimers, where my family is from, who once worked in the oil sands, who are now back at home without a job and with few prospects while governments block opportunities for responsible natural resources development that would provide jobs and benefits for all communities and all provinces.

These are the people I think about every day, and these are the people I am standing to support today, as I speak about the government's fiscal fiction budget, as my colleague from Calgary Shepard has called it.

Let us start with the fundamentals. Any government expenditure takes money from someone and gives it to someone else. The Liberal budget includes excessive untargeted spending that will end up hurting businesses, families, and hard-working Canadians in the form of future tax increases in order to fund government handouts.

It has tried to pass this off as standing up for the middle class, but I think Canadians see through the smoke and mirrors, and see it for what it really is. I know Canadians in Lakeland do.

The government is simply redistributing wealth. The worst part of this, of course, is that what the Liberals are really doing is taking money from people who need it most. As an example, they have alluded to a potential carbon tax in their budget. The Liberals have not provided details yet, and like so many other things the government is doing, of course we are uncertain but we know one thing for sure.

Ultimately it is Canadians, families, consumers, business owners, the middle class, people on fixed incomes, the working poor, and charities, who are going to pay the high costs and increased prices of all goods and services, the guaranteed result of yet another tax. This particular tax will disproportionately target and harm rural and energy-based communities.

Canadian governments collect $17 billion annually from revenue generated by oil and gas workers to fund programs and services and provide benefits that increase the standard of living of all Canadians. Piling on more costs, especially during such challenging times, will only make things so much worse. It is a cold-hearted cash grab Canadians just cannot afford.

There can also be no guarantee that a national carbon tax would be so-called revenue neutral. What taxes are ever revenue neutral? Or dedicated to initiatives aimed at innovation and environmental stewardship. The carbon tax is just a revenue generator for government to feed reckless spending and out of control deficits masquerading as environmental policy.

Such a tax shift was rejected by Canadians in the 2008 election, something the member for Calgary Heritage reminded me recently. The Liberals are also sending hundreds of millions of Canadians' tax dollars to other countries instead of focusing on the priorities of Canadians and on the services they need and value.

Let us not forget the 700,000 middle-class small business owners who were counting on the promised lower small business tax rate of 9%. They are Canada's leading job creators, employing hundreds of thousands of Canadians, contributing to the economies of communities big and small, from coast to coast to coast. Because of the Liberals' broken promise, they are going to take $2 billion away from these hard-working business owners over the next four years. That is a lot of money that cannot be used to grow their businesses, to start up new ones, to hire people, and to increase wages.

Meanwhile, the Liberals are still pondering a government bailout of a multibillion-dollar company while denying the expansion of an airport that would have effectively boosted that company without any taxpayers' dollars. Why does this big government insist on making things so complicated when the answers are often so obvious?

I am not sure Canadians really anticipated the government would blow through their money so quickly. It is not the government's money, it is Canadians' money. They certainly did not anticipate a deficit ballooning to $30 billion and they did not anticipate it because that is not what the Liberals said they would do.

Of course, we know that this exorbitant deficit is a result of choices and not of circumstances. It is because of spending, given that the former Conservative government left a healthy surplus when the Liberals took office.

Canadians know that spending more money, increasing and introducing new taxes, and continuously hindering a key sector on which our economy relies will lead to an ongoing spiral of deficits and debt.

Who is going to pay for all of this? My friend, Michelle's brand new baby daughter, the young women in high school with Girls Inc. I met this week, the young guys apprenticing to start a career or upgrading their skills to get jobs in a different sector in Lakeland. Grandchildren and great-grandchildren will be paying off the tab, setting them up for fiscal failure before they even begin.

Because of decisions today, future governments will have less money for programs and services today's young Canadians deserve. It is irresponsible and it is wrong.

The government does not seem to get that hiking taxes does not create jobs. Governments that go down this path get stuck in a permanent cycle of taxing, borrowing, and spending.

Research has found that a negative relationship exists between government debt and economic growth. It impacts real lives. This will come as no surprise to my Conservative colleagues. According to a 2016 study on the cost of government debt, when government debt expands, it can cause long-term interest rates to rise, which in tum increases the cost of private sector borrowing. Higher borrowing costs can then discourage private capital investment, the key driver to long-term economic growth and jobs.

Government debt also results in significant interest payments, similar to paying mortgages or vehicle loans resulting in less money for priorities that directly impact Canadians' lives, like reducing the tax burden or paying for health care, education, and social services.

Take Ontario, which has the largest subnational sovereign debt in the world. Ontario spends nearly $1 billion per month on debt repayment. Imagine what governments of every level could do with the billions of dollars they are spending on debt servicing from broad-based tax relief to funding core programs and services.

I assure Lakeland and all Canadians who are growing increasingly concerned about their bank accounts and their prosperity that my Conservative colleagues and I will continue to stand up for the hard-working taxpayers and communities from Prince Rupert to Bonnyville, from Lloydminster to Charlottetown and everywhere in between. We will continue to be the voice of hard-working people who actually earn their own money and work tirelessly to provide for their families.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her passionate speech on our budget and about the economy. I listened with great interest to her speech, but one thing that was glaringly missing in the speech was those living in poverty, those living in need, and Canadians who need help, and Canadians who feel forgotten by the government over the last 10 years.

My question for the member is this. Tell me one thing the Conservatives have done over the last 10 years, particularly the last four years, to help those—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite I am sure does not need help from my colleague opposite.

Could she tell me a specific program the Conservatives initiated over the last four years to help those people living in poverty?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member was not actually listening to my comments because almost all of my comments were about low-income, working poor, charities, and people who are vulnerable and need support the most and the fact that high taxes causes lost jobs and takes away the ability of communities, charities, provinces, and municipalities to support vulnerable, low-income, and poor people.

The government took 400,000 seniors off the tax rolls entirely and lowered the tax rates for all Canadians and all businesses to the lowest rate in nearly 60 years and created 1.2 million net new jobs, even after the recession, putting Canada in the strongest position of all the G7 countries, with the wealthiest middle class in the world.

The whole point is that lowering taxes, limiting government, focusing government spending on priorities, and putting needs before wants ensures that we can provide—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please.

Questions and comments.

The hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for bringing forward her concerns from her riding.

I find it very disturbing to hear members of the government talking a lot about how they are helping the middle class, helping those to join the middle class. When we look at their tax break for the middle class, we find out that two-thirds of Canadians do not benefit. Anybody who is earning $23 an hour or less will not benefit. Those who need help to join the middle class are not getting the help they need.

We also know that the government made a promise to small business to reduce taxes from 11% to 9%. Those are the businesses that need a lift so they can grow.

I want to hear from the member how the member feels about the promises from the government and talking about how it is helping those join the middle class, helping those in poverty. Maybe the member could elaborate a bit more.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned the promised lower small business tax rate partly because I have heard from so many businesses and entrepreneurs in my communities in Lakeland who, between provincial policy that is increasing taxes and increasing their costs and the federal failure to continue on its promise to lower the small tax rate, are getting squeezed from all levels. Ultimately, that means they cannot expand their businesses, they cannot invest in new ones, they cannot raise wages or benefits. These are businesses that have been in communities for generations. All sides are being squeezed while money is taken away from them so they cannot continue to be Canada's leading job creators.

Another thing that we have just heard about recently is the astronomical costs, the tens of thousands of dollars a year, that Calgary food banks and Calgary homeless shelters will have to pay because of the provincial government's new carbon tax.

We cannot keep nickel-and-diming job creators and—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please.

Questions and comments.

The hon. member for Carleton.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member has done a great job pointing out the Liberal hypocrisy on the subject of social justice and helping our most vulnerable.

Under the previous Conservative government, we raised the personal exemption to allow people to earn more tax-free, literally lifting hundreds of thousands of aspiring working-class people off the tax rolls altogether.

Jim Flaherty brought in the working income tax credit, which accelerated earned income to ensure that working always pays more than welfare. We lowered the poverty rate to its lowest level since the poverty rate was recorded. It was at 8.8% the last time it was recorded, under the Conservative government, which is half the level it was 20 years earlier, under the previous Liberals.

I wonder if the member would comment on the Liberal tax plan, which gives about $1,000 in tax relief to a Liberal MP earning $150,000 a year and gives exactly zero to a working person earning $45,000 a year.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague, the member for Carleton, always does an excellent job exposing the cavernous gap between what the Liberals say they want to do and what they actually do, and how it harms the very people who they often purport to care about the most.

In fact, in free developed countries around the world, we do not have to take a politician's word on this. It is true that people are able to pursue their dreams, build their lives, and pursue opportunities in free-market-based economies with limited government. That is the true way to lift people out of poverty and to allow people to provide for their families and for their communities.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I want to let you know that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

We learned this morning of the death of one of Canada's great icons, Gordie Howe. He is someone I have admired and most Canadians have admired. I want to extend my condolences to his family and to all those who felt strongly about that man.

We are at third reading, and pretty much everything there is to say about this budget has been said. We debated elements of this budget at length during the campaign. There was some back-and-forth here in the House. As a member of the Standing Committee on Finance, I worked with my colleagues to expand my knowledge of the issues and investments in the budget. Today, I would like to sum up by talking about the impact this will have on my riding, Gatineau.

The people of Gatineau work hard. It is an honour to represent them. Many people work for the federal public service or for companies, institutions, and organizations connected to the federal government. We also have teachers and health care workers, who contribute to the well-being of our children and seniors every day. These are people who work hard to help build Canada by being involved in or working for the federal government or by providing services to people in the federal government.

These are people who needed to be recognized not only for their efforts, but also for their diversity. The previous government created programs here and there to target this or that group, but it never managed to recognize the diversity and simplicity of the uniquely Canadian unit called the family. A family can consist of a single mother or same-sex partners. There can be situations that are sometimes difficult. Nevertheless, what families all have in common is that they work hard and want the best for their children. They also want their government to acknowledge that they need a little help and recognition for what they are doing for the future of Canadian society.

It cannot be emphasized enough that the Canada child benefit will revolutionize social policy in Canada. It guarantees that 300,000 young Canadians, including many in my riding, Gatineau, and the Outaouais region of Quebec, will no longer be living in poverty. As we said during the election campaign, this will help 300,000 children, including 80,000 in Quebec, who would fill the Olympic stadium, and 220,000 or more in the rest of Canada. It is a real revolution.

As for the others, nine out of 10 families will get a little help that will allow them to invest in the skates that might make their child the next Gordie Howe, for example. They will be able to invest in music lessons, in the necessities of life, or perhaps in little treats, like an ice cream after soccer practice.

Gatineau is home to many young families who are helping build this country. These are the people who will benefit from this extra money, and that is why our message of change during the election campaign resonated with them so much.

It resonated because Canada recognized that a family is a family, whether we are married or single parents, whether we are living in a tough situation or in a conventional one. Raising a child is one of the most rewarding and significant responsibilities that Canadians with the good fortune of having children will face.

There are also investments in education, which often go unmentioned.

A strong economy depends on having a steady supply of qualified and motivated labour to enter the workforce. We often say, and it has become a cliché, that it is an investment in the future to invest in education and post-secondary education. However, there are difficult demographics that Quebec faces. In Atlantic Canada there is a difficult demographic situation. Right across the country employers have told us that the challenges of the future will be challenges that post-secondary education can partially solve. It is important that this government tell students that it is going to make their lives easier as well, just as we are for parents.

In budget 2016, the government decided to make young Canadians a priority in order to give them a better future. Post-secondary education will be more affordable for students from low-income families, and it will be easier to pay back student debt.

Canadian student grants will be increased, which will help students cover the cost of their studies while limiting their debt ratio. Flat-rate student contributions will make it easier for post-secondary students to work and gain all-important work experience without worrying about a reduction in their financial assistance.

Finally, of course, students will be asked to pay back their student loans only if they are able to and if they are earning $25,000 a year. As everyone knows, summer jobs are very important for training students. That is where students can save money. I am pleased to see that we have doubled our investments in summer jobs. In Gatineau, we went from $229,000 last summer, under the previous government, to $730,000 this summer. I am very proud and very happy to be able to offer attractive job opportunities in Gatineau.

I will close my speech by saying that investing in people, investing in families, and investing in the next generation is an essential part of the budget. The government is looking to the future and decided to campaign on these priorities and table a budget in the House that focuses on these investments.

Gatineau, like many of the communities represented here, is in great need of infrastructure money. Gatineau's infrastructure deficit is $1.3 billion. We are going to continue our efforts to ensure that Gatineau gets its fair share of future-oriented infrastructure investments. Thanks to our human and infrastructure capital, the national capital region and the rest of Canada will be able to face the economic challenges of the future. Canadians will see the wonderful changes that will be brought about by the great long-term plan that begins with budget 2016.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share the hon. member's tribute to Gordie Howe, who was one of the greatest hockey players of all time.

I am concerned about young people who want to rise up and become the next Gordie Howe. I wonder if the member could comment on why his government eliminated the child health benefit. For a middle-class family trying to get three or four kids into hockey, in some cases, could mean $5,000. Why did the government eliminate that?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we can take programs that are aimed at reasonably small pockets of Canadian society, put them together, add money to them, and say to a single mother, who could not share her income with someone else prior to today, “We can help you with piano lessons, we can help you with hockey skates and all of these things, but the biggest thing we can help you with is making sure that your children are well-nourished and ready to learn, and 300,000 of those children or more will be elevated above the poverty level”. I think that is where a responsible government has to put its priorities.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated what the member said about supporting families and young people. However, I can say that in the riding I represent, which is very rural, with many remote communities, we have challenges. Seniors are facing particular challenges accessing health care and staying in their homes as long as they possibly can. How can the member justify not following through on his commitment to have home care so that people can stay home longer? Having it mentioned vaguely in a conversation is not having it in the budget. It needs to be a budget line. Why is it not?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we have complete confidence in our Minister of Health, who is working with the provincial health ministers on a new health accord that will allow us to address the challenge of home care.

I was part of a government in New Brunswick that implemented the first real provincial home care system, the New Brunswick extra-mural program. I am therefore extremely familiar with the issue of home care and the challenge it poses.

I am delighted to know that in 2016, this government also recognizes the need to develop a coordinated home care plan.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have seen what 10 years of trickle-down economics, regressive taxation, and regressive economic policies have gotten our country. We saw that the NDP ran an election campaign basically based on austerity and balanced budgets, which was not realistic.

One thing that was very clear to me going door to door during the campaign with respect to our seniors was that they were forgotten. This is certainly a group that needs support. I would ask my colleague what the Liberal Party will do in this budget for those seniors who need help.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague from Saint John—Rothesay, I have noticed the number of seniors who are still living in poverty. I know that for all of us on this side of the House, it was with great pride that we saw included in this budget the increase of 10% in the guaranteed income supplement and the age for eligibility for OAS brought back from 67 to 65. The work continues in terms of making sure that the pension system, which Paul Martin saved, which Lester Pearson put in place, and which is the envy of the world, stays in place and reassures Canadians for generations to come.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I could not have said it better myself.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to answer that question.

Of course, that was going to be a conversation that we had with the provinces. As to how we would pay for our program, what the member lacks in understanding is that the $15-a-day child care program would allow more parents to enter the workforce, which would broaden the tax base. It is very simple economics.

The other thing is in terms of how we paid for our budget as a whole. The Liberals have refused to touch the corporate tax rate. They have refused to tackle tax loopholes. As a result, we are stuck in this trickle-down economics. There is so much dead money sloshing around in corporate bank accounts, which is something that has been explained by Mark Carney, the former governor of the Bank of Canada. The Liberals did nothing on that.

They are not helping the job creators of Canada, the small businesses, and they are not touching corporate tax rates. As a result, we get a $30-billion deficit, because I do not think the proper areas of fiscal management have been looked at.

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

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

When he was talking about broken promises, I started to reflect on all the broken promises: not holding the deficit to $10 billion, the cost-neutral middle-class income tax, the home delivery.

I wonder if the member could comment on which broken promises he is most disappointed in.

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

Mr. Speaker, I might have to request an additional 10-minute speech to go through that list.

I have always had a very strong connection with the veterans in my riding, and I think that broken promise in the court system was a big one.

In terms of the real reforms on employment insurance, I think this budget was a very real opportunity to get something meaningful done by making sure that there was a common threshold, no matter what part of Canada a person lived in, and also that we had a fund that was protected very much in the way that the Canada pension plan is. This would have ensured governments against future unemployment shocks, and it would have given all workers peace of mind, knowing that there is a dedicated fund that would always be there for them and which would not disappear into the consolidated revenue fund.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when we ask ourselves who serves our country, there are people from my region, blue-collar people, who went to Afghanistan and who served in Croatia and Bosnia. They came back, and there was a trust that they would be treated with respect.

When I see how the Prime Minister used the veterans as props, and made all manner of promises on their pensions, but then turned his back on them and is fighting them in court, I find it unconscionable. For the families that I represent who are being denied their basic pensions and the services that they are entitled to, because they were used as an election prop, I find that simply unconscionable.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague what he thinks about the breach of faith with the veterans in our country.

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

Mr. Speaker, when solemn promises like that are broken, it gives all MPs a bad name, because people start saying that they just cannot trust politicians; they put their faith in them but promises get broken.

In our previous constituency week, I sat down with a veteran who had been in Afghanistan. This poor man was quivering with rage and tears, because he firmly believed the Liberals were going to honour that promise, but then they ended up taking veterans to court.

I think it is just a despicable 180-degree turn, and I hope the government finds it within itself to reverse that, and gives instructions to the government lawyers to stop this shameful practice of taking our veterans to court.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the member for Edmonton Riverbend.

It is said that if one wants to bring constructive criticism, one should make a sandwich; say something positive, then bring the criticism, then finish off with something else positive. That is what I will try to do today. I will make a budget 2016 sandwich.

As the science critic, I will begin by pointing out an extremely positive aspect of the budget. The Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development and I met earlier in the session and, together, we decided that it would be a good idea to develop a Canadian science strategy that both sides of the House could support. That is what we did.

As members can see in this budget, we kept the granting council, which supports quality applied research in co-operation with universities, industries, and governments. Increased funding was granted in order to enhance Canada's innovation skills.

Built upon the strong supports of our previous government, budget 2016 would now provide the granting council program for NSERC, CIHR, and SSHRC for research investment with an additional $141 million in annual resources.

I am also very pleased that our previous Conservative government's knowledge infrastructure fund has been retained as the post-secondary investment fund. Targeted investments aimed at our post-secondary institutions will promote Canadian research and discoveries for generations to come.

Similarly, we restored targeted basic research methods. As a result, Canada has made considerable gains in genomics and particle physics, several areas of medical research, and big data.

In other areas, at the global level, we are working on maintaining our international ventures. We also recognize that we need to support the commercialization of Canadian technologies to create more jobs in Canada. Therefore, $100 million was included in the budget to that end. That is very positive.

However, not everything in the budget is positive. The Liberal government has promised deficits nearing $30 billion this year, and more than $100 billion over the next four years. On top of this, the Liberal government seems to have no clear plan on how to pay it back or to balance its budgets in the future. This will cause Canadians to have a deficit of $10 billion annually just to pay back the interest on the money borrowed by the Liberal government. No family would put in place a budget that would put it into debt forever. It is just not wise.

I am also not pleased about the fact that tax cuts to the Canadian middle class will cost the country more than $1.7 billion every year. It was supposed to be cost neutral. Can the government not do basic math?

The same goes for small businesses. Budget 2016 would stop the previous government's lowering of taxes on small businesses. The Liberals promised to cut the tax rate to 9%, but they have broken this promise, which would now cost these same small businesses upward of $2 billion in extra taxes annually.

Next, we will look at infrastructure funding, which was supposed to keep the recession at bay while creating jobs. However, less money is available this year than was promised.

My riding of Sarnia—Lambton has a project for the creation of an oversized load corridor. In discussions with the Minister of Infrastructure and his team, I was assured there would be a fund for trade corridors that this project would fit very well into. For $12 million, this project would create up to 3,000 well-paying jobs in southern Ontario. However, no funding was made available in the budget and therefore no jobs were created for the project. In fact, overall in the budget, the government predicts it will only change the unemployment rate by 0.3% over four years. Seriously? This, for $113 billion?

I would now like to speak about the climate change direction in the budget.

The reality today is that Canada makes up less than 2% of the world's carbon footprint. We could totally eliminate our footprint in Canada, and it would have no fact and evidence based temperature result on the planet. Therefore, our approach should be to leverage our carbon emissions reduction technologies to the substantive contributors like China, the U.S., and India, which make up 40% of the footprint. This budget, with an attempt to layer on additional carbon tax, would drive jobs out of Canada to other regions, but would not help the planet. It would just move the carbon footprint somewhere else.

An example of this from my riding is a project currently being considered, worth billions of dollars and thousands of jobs. With two levels of carbon tax, this project is uncompetitive here and will go to the U.S. gulf coast. The carbon footprint is the same for the planet, but we lose thousands of jobs. This is what will happen across the fossil-fuel business without a better plan. While we lose job opportunities like this one, $2.65 billion is being spent in a foreign fund to benefit other nations like China and India, which are substantive contributors to the global carbon footprint and which are still building coal facilities. This is not an approach that would help the planet, help Canadians, or help Canada.

I am also concerned about how much money we give to other countries, in light of the fact that there are people in need in Canada.

At present, more than $5 billion of taxpayers' money is sent abroad for various programs. At the same time, we have homeless veterans and seniors who cannot make ends meet after having worked all their lives. Fort McMurray is still burning and hundreds of thousands of jobs have been lost.

We need to help Canadians and realize that we cannot be as generous as we once were given our current financial situation.

Let us move past these issues into another area of concern for the Canadian public: national security and defence. One of the most important jobs for any government is to protect its citizenry. Now more than ever we need more defence, not less defence. Cutting $3.7 billion from the defence budget is absolutely reckless, as I heard at the town hall meeting I held on this issue in my riding, where I consulted broadly with people. Much-needed ships for the navy as well as equipment for the air force have been put on hold with no explanation or expectation given for future timelines of availability. We need to ensure the men and women who protect our country are well-equipped, and we need to ensure our borders remain secure.

Now, I come to the final part of the budget 2016 sandwich.

Having just spoken about defence, I do appreciate any increase in benefits for veterans. There is much more to be done, and we need to ensure veterans are treated with the dignity and respect they deserve.

I also would like to speak about seniors. My riding has an aging demographic, so I am pleased to see an increase in the guaranteed income supplement. It may only be $18 a week, but seniors on a fixed income need all the help they can get. I still think we need to do more. I am glad that the income splitting for pensioners was retained, but I would like to have seen the tax-free savings account limit expanded. Many seniors use this to preserve their savings and increase their flexibility in retirement.

Finally, with an ever-growing number of individuals of all ages experiencing chronic and terminal conditions across Canada, and in light of the assisted-dying legislation, I was happy to hear the Minister of Health say that there were $3 billion in this budget for home and palliative care. That said, I could not find the actual words palliative care in the budget. However, I trust that since this has been repeated by the minister in the House on numerous occasions, and the Liberal Party recently made a resolution on palliative care, I believe there is support for this on all sides of the House.

That is why I have introduced my private member's bill, Bill C-277, on palliative care. Good palliative care covers a wide range of services such as acute hospital care, hospice care, home care, crisis care, and spiritual and psychological counselling. Those who have access to good palliative care choose to live as well as they can for as long as they can. Now is the time to get this in place for the 70% of Canadians who do not have access to this service. I am pleased with this commitment. It is a good start.

I am happy to see more summer jobs for youth as well.

To summarize the budget sandwich, thumbs up on science, thumbs down on fiscal responsibility; thumbs down on the approach to infrastructure, climate change and defence; and thumbs up for moving in the direction of good for seniors, veterans, palliative care, and youth.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton will have five minutes for questions and comments when the House next returns to debate on the question.

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

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

When the House last took up the question, the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton had five minutes remaining in the period for questions and comments on her earlier remarks. Therefore, we will go to that now.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of quick questions on the member's excellent discussion of sandwiches and the culinary arts.

She gave five thumbs up and five thumbs down on the budget. On balance, I would say that the member should be supporting the budget in principle. I am wondering if she could comment a little more on those five thumbs up and how wonderful it is for the future of our country.

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

Mr. Speaker, certainly I want to give a big thumbs up. The minister of science and I worked very hard to come up with a science strategy that is very good for Canada. It emphasizes the good things that were in place under the previous government, and alongside additional fundamental research that is very focused on where Canada can lead addresses issues where we are weak in commercialization. I could definitely spend the whole five minutes saying good things about that.

However, the reason I cannot support this budget is the fiscal irresponsibility of the current government. Saying that it is going to hold the deficit at $10 billion, then going to $30 billion, and then going to $113 billion and never balancing it again is unwise. It leaves us in a position where we will be forever paying $10 billion of interest on the debt we have accrued. That is a legacy for future generations that I certainly would not want to saddle them with. If it were going to create jobs, which I think was the whole point, that would be a different discussion. However, changing the unemployment rate by 0.3% is sad in the extreme for $113 billion.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my region is resource based. We are in a resource-based economy, and all the royalties go to Queen's Park or Ottawa, so we have to rely on coming to the government and asking for economic development projects as though we are somehow begging them. We look at FedNor, which plays a crucial role in economic diversification, in creating jobs, and in creating sustainability through the boom times and the bust times.

We see with the government that there is no commitment to moving forward with FedNor. It will not make it a stand-alone agency so that it can do its job.

I want to ask my hon. colleague what she thinks about a government vision that continually ignores regional development in other areas of the country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I feel that with the current Liberal government, the fossil fuel area is under siege. It is not just that we have lost hundreds of thousands of jobs in this area. Now the carbon taxes that are coming to this industry will make us uncompetitive.

We need to keep in mind, if we want to be fact- and evidence-based, which the government is always saying it wants to be, that our whole footprint in Canada is 2% of the global footprint. We can eliminate our whole footprint, and it will not matter to the temperature in the world. We will continue to have all the same problems.

That is not to say that we should not do something. We have great carbon emission reduction technologies. We need to be leveraging those, and we need to be putting things in place in concert with our neighbours.

As the U.S. starts to move into an area where perhaps they will do carbon pricing, then we should look at it. However, if we put it in place here, it will actually drive the jobs outside of Canada and drive the carbon footprint elsewhere. It really does not help the situation.

I share the member's concern that the whole fossil fuel, natural resource sector is really under siege by this government, and I will continue to aggressively speak out against any move to further curb it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comparison to a sandwich, with good news and some tough stuff in the middle, but I want to ask my colleague some questions about the party opposite's philosophy with respect to the UCCB compared to our party's Canada child benefit. We want to be progressive. We want to give money to those families that need it the most, as opposed to the UCCB, which was basically one price for everyone.

I wonder if the member opposite could comment on the Canada child benefit and whether she thinks it should be included with the good things in the budget.

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

Mr. Speaker, as someone who was a youth leader for over 30 years and a camp director, any time we are doing something good for children, I am happy about it.

We can argue about what the approach is. The previous government was putting together not just the universal child care benefit but also a series of tax credits to allow children to take advantage of fitness programs, art programs, and education and tuition support.

If I look at the whole list of what the previous government did versus the whole list of what has come out in this budget, I think families will find that children are short. They will not have the money to get involved in activities. They will not have the same money to devote to them, so I am concerned about the new budget.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is truly a privilege to speak yet again to budget 2016.

I question where to begin because quite frankly there have been some changes since I last stood and spoke to the budget. The biggest change centres around the impact the budget has on Edmonton.

When I stood here months ago, I talked about budget and EI, and the impact it would have on Edmonton families. It was largely an area that was forgotten by the Prime Minister and his ministers. As a result, we became extremely critical. We stood up for Edmonton and fought hard for the EI changes. Along with a number of my colleagues in the House, the member for Edmonton West, the member for Edmonton Griesbach, the member for St. Albert—Edmonton, we fought hard for Edmonton. We have as yet heard nothing from the Liberal members. We heard nothing from the member for Edmonton Mill Woods, or the member for Edmonton Centre. We were actually joined by the Alberta NDP in fighting for these changes. That was a strange moment in our political history.

The Prime Minister showed up in Edmonton. We were all expecting him to say that the Liberals had made a mistake, that this was a terrible oversight. We expected him to apologize and say that Edmonton was now included. However, he did not say a word. He then came back to Edmonton and toured Fort McMurray. Again, there was not a word. It was not until a Friday afternoon at 4:30 p.m. when a press release was sent out to say that Edmonton would now be included. Although I applaud him for those changes, it just shows a continual lack of understanding about the impacts the budget has on western Canada.

The Liberals like trump that they have a mandate to govern because on October 19, 2015, they won the election. They do not say the percentage on which they won the election. It was not even close to 50%.

However, during the election, among the promises the Liberals made to my constituents, to Canadians, was that they would ensure it would be just a $10-billion deficit. They told us not to worry, that they had this. They said that they would not balance the budget this time because they were going to go into deficit. Canadians said that they understood this and that they would consider voting for the Liberals. They may or may not have cast their vote on that pure fact alone.

However, the deficit is now $29.4 billion. This is a drastic change. We all did debates. I sat with the Liberal candidate, and he trumped this as something the Liberals had right. He said that the deficit would be $10 billion, and that was it. Eventually they would balance the budget. Then to my shock and dismay, I remember sitting in the chamber on budget day, reading about the $29.4-billion deficit.

I cannot fathom how a number of members on the opposite side can now face those same constituents. They knocked on their doors, went to the community town halls, talked to businesses. To change this six months later seems politically unwise. These constituents are not going to go away. These are the same people they will have to face three and a half years from now. These people are going to remember things like this. They are going to remember that the Liberals promised a small deficit, that they would take care of it. However, the deficit has now been increased to almost $30 billion. I would not want to be a Liberal candidate in the next election, and I pledge not to be a Liberal candidate.

In addition, unemployment in western Canada has hit numbers that we have not seen in decades. In a lot of the conversations I had with Liberal MPs and cabinet ministers, I was truly hopeful there would be a jobs plan to get these people back to work. Spoiler alert, it did not happen. However, this not only was another broken promise, but it was something we drastically needed.

Politics aside, we need something to spur the economy. We need growth in western Canada. We have continual announcements of policies that do nothing but hurt the growth in western Canada. The government's positions on pipeline and on carbon tax do nothing but drive away the businesses within western Canada.

Fort McMurray just went through an incredible natural disaster. That will have impacts on the sector for decades. However, the people have yet to see any movement from the Liberal government to support the area. The Prime Minister flew in on his fancy jet and toured the area, shaking his head in dismay. I appreciate the fact that he finally got there. It took him a couple of weeks. Yet there is no plan for how we are to continue to encourage growth in Fort McMurray.

For members from the opposite side who have not been there, Fort McMurray is an area that not only drives our economy, the environmental standards in Fort McMurray are higher than anywhere else in the world. One can tour the bison farms of Syncrude.

The reclamation happening in Fort McMurray is not something about which we should be embarrassed. The Minister of Environment and Climate Change should stand time and again and trumpet how important Fort McMurray is to our economy, to our country, to Canadians, and to our future generations. The Prime Minister's lack of regard for the people of Fort McMurray has been nothing but hurtful to us in Alberta and hurtful to Canadians who rely on the sector. If I were to advise the Liberals, it would be to change the message to “Help support Fort McMurray with us”. Defeating motions that support pipelines and not standing up for the jobs and the sectors of Fort McMurray only hurts us in the long term. It hurts future generations.

The $30 billion deficit in this budget will have to be paid back. This is not just suddenly money that has appeared. This is borrowed money that we will have to pay back. We need the sectors in Fort McMurray. We need the oil and gas sector. We need them to support this $30 billion deficit.

I cannot fathom why members on the opposite side have not quite grasped this. Perhaps it is because not many of them are from Alberta. That means it is even more incumbent on the four members who were elected from Alberta. When the four Alberta Liberal members stood and voted against a pipeline, I do not know to which constituents they were talking. I was talking to a lot of their constituents, and they said that they needed support for this. However, those members continually vote against stuff that really has an impact on Alberta's future and the economy within Alberta.

The promises made during the campaign are not reflected in this budget. The promises that the Liberal members, at least from Alberta, made on their campaign trails are certainly not reflected in this budget. I certainly do not intend to support the budget. Members of the Liberal Party, especially the members from Alberta, should be embarrassed to campaign on in the next election.

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

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with a number of the member's assertions.

Albertans know that the Prime Minister truly cares about what is taking place in Alberta. This government has put a process in place to see future pipelines get done, something the former government failed to do. The former Conservative government did not get one inch of pipeline built to tidewater in over 10 years.

Our government understands the importance of jobs. We want to see Fort McMurray recover. We want to see the entire province of Alberta and the Saskatchewan region recover from what has been a hard year for them as a result of oil prices and the Fort McMurray disaster.

Albertans know this government and the Prime Minister are there for them, will continue to be there for them and will be led by our backbenchers.

Why is the Conservative Party going to vote against middle-class tax breaks that would benefit many individuals in the province of Alberta, whether they be farmers or in any other occupation?

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this seems like a bit of déjà vu. Every time I stand in the House to speak to the budget, I get the same question from that member, as do other members on this side, Yet what have the Liberals done? What have they done for Fort McMurray? We have yet to hear anything from that side. They have voted against a pipeline. The member for Saint John—Rothesay voted against a pipeline, yet on the campaign trail he trumped support for the energy east pipeline.

I would remind the hon. member of the motion we had before the House early in this session. It explicitly asked for support for the energy east pipeline. It did not ask for the approval it. It asked for support. Every Alberta member on the Liberal side voted against that, and they should be ashamed.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to border my colleague's riding. I am also proud to have constituents in my riding who elected the member to the provincial legislature.

I have to agree with my colleague about the disappointing performance of our Liberal colleagues from Alberta. We heard the Liberal member for Edmonton Centre say that a 35% increase in unemployment in Edmonton was not dramatic enough. We heard the member for Calgary Centre tell 100,000 unemployed that it was refreshing to be unemployed and that it was refreshing to vote against the energy east pipeline. We heard the member for Edmonton Mill Woods, who is the Minister of Infrastructure, undercut Alberta by 15% per capita for the infrastructure investment.

I would like the member to comment on perhaps some of these transgressions against our—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. The hon. member for Edmonton—Riverbend.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is truly an honour being the House with my colleague. We have known each other for a long time. We have done a lot of Conservative-minded things together over the years.

My colleague raised an excellent point about the Liberal members from Alberta. They have done nothing to support our economy back home in Alberta. They may enjoy their fancy new offices here, particularly the Minister of Infrastructure . I have not yet seen his office, but it sounds quite beautiful. I hope he invites me some time, but perhaps after this he will not.

We see this massive deficit and then we see poor judgment by members on the other side, such as an $800,000 office. That makes our job easy on this side of the House, particularly when Albertans are struggling. Instances like that show a complete lack of disregard for taxpayer money, a complete lack of disregard for taxpayers who elected the member to office. It is disgraceful. Those members should be ashamed that this is what he has done with his funds.

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary for Science]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North.

I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for budget 2016 and the hope that it offers to families in my riding of Burnaby North—Seymour, as well as Canadians right across the country.

This budget reflects an unprecedented dialogue that happened in our communities over the previous two years. Even before the start of the last election, the Liberal platform had already been shaped by millions of discussions held in coffee shops, community centres, and on the doorsteps of our constituents from coast to coast to coast.

Canadians understood that after weathering two recessions, a youth unemployment rate of 13.1%, and the slowest economic growth our country has seen in 80 years, it was time to make a change. Canadians asked for a government that would work to restore hope and to reward hard work. With this budget, we present Canadians with an ambitious plan for the future, and for a strong and empowered middle class.

I started my own dialogue with the good people of Burnaby and North Vancouver when I started my door-knocking campaign in March 2014. From these conversations, I learned that Canadians overwhelmingly believe in fairness, and that the benefits of a strong and growing economy should be accessible to all Canadians who work hard to make it happen.

Now, almost 27 months after starting these conversations, budget 2016 delivers on these core Canadian values by giving more help to those who need it and less to those who do not. Our first action as a new government was to pass a progressive middle-class tax cut that reduced taxes for middle-income earners by 7%. This budget provides further help by enacting the new Canada child benefit. Taken together, these two measures will put more money in the hands of more than nine out of 10 families in Burnaby and North Vancouver.

This is good news, because Canada is stronger when families have the resources to build wealth and invest in their future. Investing in the future is a strong theme throughout the budget and is demonstrated by the government's historic investments in both infrastructure and an ambitious innovation agenda.

This includes billions of dollars for public transit, transportation infrastructure, and green infrastructure, projects that will not only stimulate growth and create jobs today, but will make Canadians more productive and help build a higher quality of life for tomorrow.

These investments will also complement our continued dialogue and leadership on carbon pricing, an essential tool to help Canada move towards a more sustainable energy future. In British Columbia, we have already seen how a revenue-neutral carbon pricing plan can help to balance our need to both grow our economy and protect the environment.

In the long term, our environment is not just something that needs to be protected, it is an economic driver and a source of competitive advantage. This is an important point, because this budget is not just about improving the lives of Canadians today. It is about making decisions that will benefit Canadians 25, 50, and 100 years into the future. In fact, there is no better example of this than how, at its heart, this budget invests in our people.

Investing in Canadians is a part of this budget that matters to me personally. I grew up in a working-class family, where going to college or university was not expected. It was never even discussed at the dinner table. My father was a janitor. My mother was a stay-at-home mom. However, despite little resources, I never felt poor. I knew from a very young age that if I worked hard enough, I could have the same opportunities as everyone else, and I could build a better future for myself and for my family. The only reason that I am here today in the House with the great honour and privilege to represent the good citizens of Burnaby and North Vancouver is because I grew up in a country that invested in families like mine.

Now it is our duty to make sure that our kids and our grandkids have the same opportunities to succeed. As the Prime Minister has rightly noted, young Canadians are not just leaders of tomorrow; they are the leaders of today.

I am inspired by the level of political and community involvement I see when I visit the schools in my riding. Students from Alpha Secondary, Burnaby North, Westridge Elementary, and Seycove Secondary are hopeful of their future and want to help in the effort to build stronger communities and pathways to success, both for themselves but also for future generations.

Budget 2016 helps in this effort by making post-secondary education more affordable for students, and providing critical opportunities for young Canadians to gain valuable work experience. Across the country, more young people than ever before, over 77,000, will receive work experience through the expanded Canada summer jobs program. In my riding, nearly 250 students will be going to work this summer as a result of this program.

Whether it is as instructors for the learn-to-sail program in Deep Cove or as leaders for the award-winning young filmmakers camp in Burnaby, students are gaining the skills and experience they need to succeed in today's economy.

However, there is still much room for improvement. For example, only 38% of indigenous youth living on reserve have completed high school. If we compare this to the 87% rate for non-indigenous youth, it is clear that we still have a significant amount of work to do. This is why we have made a historic $8.4-billion investment in the future of indigenous people, and a significant portion of this funding will go toward improving education outcomes for first nations children right across the country.

The riding I represent includes the unceded traditional homelands of the Musqueam, Squamish, and Tsleil-Waututh people, representatives of which were in the House just this week. In meetings that I have had with Chief Maureen Thomas of the Tsleil-Waututh Nation and others, I am impressed by the leadership they have shown on issues like education, economic development, and the environment.

For instance, the nation's day care centre not only provides a valuable service to the community, but it is expected to run almost entirely on solar power. It is a great example of how advancements in technology and science can help Canada meet its economic goals while building a more sustainable future.

It is no secret that science and innovation are drivers of inclusive and sustainable growth. In fact, most economies throughout history share two common traits. The first is a strong and empowered middle class, where the majority of citizens benefit from economic growth and are able to invest in their futures and the futures of their families. The second is an economy that is driven by innovation and technological advancement.

As the parliamentary secretary for science, and as an entrepreneur myself, I am inspired and encouraged by our government's investment in science and in the innovation agenda.

A further $95-million investment in the national granting councils will help Canada restore its leadership in scientific discovery and research. Through the post-secondary education strategic investment fund, we will invest a further $2 billion in our nation's research facilities, alongside a further $800-million investment in incubators and accelerators. This funding will attract the best and brightest to Canada by offering access to cutting-edge tools, equipment, and facilities. It will also allow us to leverage our significant investment in research and development to ensure that we commercialize new technologies and nurture the development of new high-growth and high-impact enterprises.

As an educator, and now as an elected official, I believe we have a moral obligation to arm our young people with the tools of entrepreneurship and innovation. It is an investment that is required to ensure Canada's leadership in the global economy.

In our riding, we are lucky to have a university that is quickly establishing itself as a global leader in this field. Not only has Simon Fraser University been recognized as Canada's finest comprehensive university for several years now, it has adopted a bold action plan to embed innovation into all aspects of the university, known as SFU innovates. The university-wide initiative will ensure that all faculty and students, from mathematicians to anthropologists, will have access to the critical skills of innovation and entrepreneurship. These are skills that will leverage many of the investments that are being made in this budget.

As a new MP, I have also been trying to find ways that we can innovate within Parliament so that we can better serve our constituents. I started by saying how proud I was that this budget was created by engaging with Canadians. We need to make sure that we continue to do this.

I am happy to inform my colleagues on both sides of the House that for the first time, high-quality video conferencing is now possible from our parliamentary offices for members of the House. Knowing that we, as MPs, have to spend almost half of our time away from ridings, this project has been a priority for me to ensure that these valuable conversations and consultations with our constituents can continue, both on this budget and on other issues that are important to individual ridings.

For example, I have been holding ongoing consultations with constituents regarding the proposed expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline. As the MP for Burnaby North—Seymour, I am committed to representing the voices of my constituents on this important issue. As the newly appointed ministerial panel begins to meet, we will be able to complement our community forums, meetings, and doorstep conversations with digital conversations and town halls.

I remember my wife, Ravi, and I reflecting on the last election. Having had 18 all-candidate debates and almost two years of door knocking, a common theme was that Canadians were feeling hopeful again and were excited to work hard to secure their futures. Overwhelmingly, people told me that they wanted a government that was going to invest, not just to better our lives today but for future generations.

This budget is about investing in all of us, in our futures, in Canada's future, and in our place in the world. It is for these reasons that I stand here to support budget 2016.

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

Mr. Speaker, I too am a huge advocate for the Canada summer jobs program. As a parent, I believe it is very important for students to have jobs so that they learn transferable skills, such as serving in a restaurant and applying that in their own lives. All customer-service skills and other skills are true assets, and I agree with that.

Unfortunately, I am going to speak more about what happened in my riding. For the Canada summer jobs program, the number has gone up to over $700,000. Also, when I look at other ridings, some small businesses received $70,000 in grant money for students. I will advocate all of the time when it is necessary for students to have these transferable skills, but I am wondering what the member opposite thinks when a private company receives $70,000. How is that company going to compete with another company?

Is it in our best interest to make sure there are great jobs for students that are going to continue or is it in our interest just to give $70,000 to one company and make it more competitive than another company?

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to talk about my experience with the Canada jobs program. This is one of the few programs in Canada where members of Parliament actually have a say in what goes on and who gets the money in that program. I became aware when I was going through the list of private and non-profit organizations that were applying for this that it might have been a while since they had heard from their members of Parliament.

Not only did I go through the whole list and look at everybody who was using the program or asking for funds when I made my selections, but after the selections were made and the recipients were informed, we called every single one and invited them to share with us how they were planning to use the students and what kind of experience they were going to provide. In fact, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister for Youth is also planning to invite all of the students in the program to come to a barbecue, so they can share their experiences and talk about the different skills they are learning in the field.

The fact is that there was a 13.1% youth unemployment rate. We need to make sure we invest in young people and ensure that they get the skills they need.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke about young people and aboriginal communities' economic generation. He talked about the future of Canada. During the campaign, the member actually made a commitment to his constituents that Kinder Morgan would be under a renewed environmental assessment process. Of course, his government has failed to deliver on that.

My question is this. Will he stand with the three nations, the Musqueam, the Squamish, and the Tsleil-Waututh nations, along with Mayor Derek Corrigan and the mayor of Vancouver, and say no to Kinder Morgan?

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

Mr. Speaker, during the last election, I made a very specific promise, a promise to ensure that the National Energy Board process was redone to make sure that it was fair, objective, and based on science. That is exactly the process that Natural Resources Canada is undertaking presently and over the next two-year period.

In the interim, a transitory process is being used for existing pipeline projects like Kinder Morgan and the energy east pipeline. I have encouraged, through town halls in my riding, all members of my community on both sides of this issue to engage with me and this new panel to make sure their voices and concerns are heard, so that their opinions, thoughts, and feelings on this matter can be shared with this government before it makes its decision.

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

Mr. Speaker, when I went door to door in my campaign, what screamed out to me were that those living in poverty, seniors, veterans, and other groups, were forgotten by the previous government.

My question to my colleague is this. The Canada child benefit will be transformational. How does he see that transforming child poverty in his riding?

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I had a very similar experience. There were all-candidate meetings at senior homes across the riding. We had issues that arose from various veterans groups. In fact, every issue described in that question was mirrored and similar questions were asked in my riding of Burnaby North—Seymour.

With regard to the Canada child benefit, we actually went beyond the talking points and looked into the Statistics Canada data. We found that even more than nine out of 10 people in Burnaby and North Vancouver will benefit from it. Therefore, I am very excited to be able to say that there is a disproportionate benefit in my riding.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's emphasis on people on the lower end of the spectrum, having grown up in a family that was generally beneath the poverty line. Having once not had money for my rent, I had to sleep in a car for a month, so I very much appreciate where the hon. member is coming from.

One of the interesting things I noticed when she was talking about the new child benefits was that the underlying philosophy behind it is giving money directly to parents, something which, when I first got here, was a matter of debate for the House: do we give money directly to parents, or do we set up a day care or other great social welfare program across the country?

Does the hon. member not concede that giving money directly to parents, as the Conservatives did and now the Liberals seem to be saying, is actually the best way to help families with children who have particular needs?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's openness about the struggles of his upbringing.

I believe that it is always a blend. I believe that there is a role for the state to play in ensuring that essential services are there for Canadians, things like universal health care, access to education, and support for people who need those supports. However, I also believe that we live in a country where we honour the capacity of parents to make the best choices for their families. That is why I support the Canada child benefit. As I illustrated in my narrative, this is an initiative that would have helped me tremendously in the raising of my children. It took me three decades to get out of debt after raising them and providing for them in the best way I possibly could. That is time I could have spent building up for my own retirement and taking the necessary steps to save for their success in their future careers.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the minister plays a very important role, because she is the only voice in cabinet for northern Ontario. However, I did not hear any mention of northern Ontario, or in particular, the hammering that has happened economically in Thunder Bay.

I am looking at today's unemployment figures, and I am looking at the government's calculation for what regions deserve to be given the extended EI benefits. Thunder Bay is one of those regions that should have gotten them, yet we saw no action from the current government. In fact, when it was Edmonton, southern Saskatchewan, and southern interior B.C. that were pushing for extended EI benefits, it was opposition MPs, NDP MPs, who pushed for that.

Other regions of northern Ontario are eligible for the EI extension, but Thunder Bay needs it. It meets the criteria. The Prime Minister has said he is refusing to add any other regions. Why has this minister not stood up for Thunder Bay and said that the unemployed workers of Thunder Bay deserve the same rights that other Canadians in similar regions are receiving? She is at the cabinet table. She should be speaking up for the people of northern Ontario.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, of course northern Ontario has suffered a prolonged and protracted recession, which is why northern Ontario, except for Thunder Bay, has been included in the EI extension.

I am very proud of the fact that I speak loudly and clearly for northern Ontario. As a matter of fact, one of the privileges I had recently was to be beside our Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development as he announced over $2 million to a first nations company that is investing in solar-generated power, giving a much-needed economic boost to those six first nations that are part of this conglomerate, but also to our region.

When we invest in things like small business, when we invest in innovation, and when we invest in our communities, we will see a thriving economy return to northern Ontario.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the major problems in my colleague's riding, as in my own and in many of Canada's vast regions, is that high-speed Internet is almost non-existent.

Connectivity levels in my riding are completely unacceptable. They were unacceptable even in 2000, and now it is 2016.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the budget measure to invest $500 million in the Internet. Is she proud of that? How does she see that going forward?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his reminder of the importance of broadband and how it has been such a detriment to not have expansive broadband in rural and remote communities. I agree with him that this is an essential component of success and innovation in the north.

I regret that the member who asked me the previous question is not able to hear my response. In fact, this is an indication of that commitment to northern Ontario and other rural and remote regions across the country so they can actually join the economic success of Canada through the essential tools that drive business forward.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Calgary Signal Hill.

The government has been talking a lot about the middle class lately. In fact, it put a chart in the budget to make a point about the relative incomes of middle-class people in order to make an illustration of their incomes and how they have been affected by the last 40 years. The Liberals' chart on page 11 demonstrates incomes for middle-class people over the last four decades and they have made the claim that middle-class people have had almost no raise in four decades.

I thought, “That can't be possible”, because all the data that I studied from the last decade alone had demonstrated that incomes had gone up, and gone up dramatically. I filed an ATIP request and asked the finance department to provide me with the underlying data that it used to produce this chart showing that middle-class incomes are roughly where they were 40 years ago.

Is it possible that the budget, which shows no increase in middle-class incomes over the last four decades, and previous Conservative claims that show incomes have risen dramatically in the last 10 years, alone, could both be true?

The reality is they are. Liberals who say there have been no increases in middle-class incomes over four decades are basically right, and Conservatives who say middle-class incomes went up dramatically in the last decade alone are also right.

How is that possible?

I drilled down into the data and I got from Finance Canada the data used in the Liberal budget. Here is what I found.

If we look back to 1976, which is the starting point of this Liberal chart in the budget, we find that the median income for a Canadian was $46,300. That was under the first Prime Minister Trudeau, but in the following seven years, they dropped by $2,800, down to $43,500. It then took 30 years to recover the incomes lost during the Trudeau era. It was not until 2007 when incomes would return to $46,400.

Just to recap, in 1976, incomes were $46,300. They plummeted during the Trudeau government, until 1983. It then took decades to recover the lost income that was suffered as a result of those policies. This data comes right out of the Liberal budget and it shows the damage to middle-class incomes that resulted from the policies of spiralling debt, rising taxes, and handouts to big corporations.

What do we have now? Spiralling debt, rising taxes, and handouts to big corporations. The very policies that led to the income declines witnessed in the Liberal budget chart are now being repeated by the son of Pierre Elliott Trudeau.

However, I wanted to study the chart a little further to find out what it would tell us about the most recent Conservative prime minister who just left office last November. According to the Liberal budget, in inflation-adjusted dollars, median incomes grew from $44,700 when he took office, to $49,602 in the year that he left office. That is an increase of $5,000, or 11%, after inflation.

Again, this is according to Liberal budget data. That is the largest increase in median incomes in 40 years. In fact, incomes under our recent Conservative prime minister grew more than under prime ministers Trudeau, Clark, Turner, Mulroney, Campbell, Chrétien, and Martin combined, according to the Liberal budget data.

Among whom did this increase occur? The biggest increase happened for women. Women in the workforce, working on average 30 hours or more per week, saw their incomes go up, after inflation, by $5,234 during the leadership of the previous Conservative prime minister. That is a 14% increase in income after inflation.

My colleagues across the way will say that this is just a long-term demographic trend and it is nothing unusual. In fact, it is true that female incomes have risen under all governments in the last 40 years. However, none comes even close to the increases that occurred during the leadership of the previous Conservative prime minister. In fact, the growth rate for women's median income was five times higher under the most recent Conservative prime minister than it was under Pierre Elliott Trudeau, and also five times higher than it was under prime ministers Chrétien and Martin.

This is data that comes out of the Liberal budget. To see it, one can go to page 11 and find the reality of middle-income growth and how it was successfully increased by the previous government.

I will be overlaying the Liberal budget chart with a very helpful chronological reminder of which prime ministers were in office when the incomes were earned. In so doing, we will see which governments have done best to produce results for median income people.

How did this happen? During the previous Conservative government, we introduced a number of key tax reductions designed specifically to help the less fortunate and the middle class. According to a report conducted by the independent, non-partisan parliamentary budget officer, Conservative tax reductions amounted to just over $30 billion a year. According to the PBO, these tax reductions were disproportionately targeted at low and middle-income families. They included the registered disability savings plan, which Jim Flaherty set up to help families give financial independence to their disabled children; the tax-free savings accounts to help people, who did not have a lot of money to buy real estate or RRSPs, save tax-free into the future, with two-thirds of those who maxed out their TFSAs making less than $60,000 a year.

We raised the personal exemption to take hundreds of thousands of low-income aspiring workers off the tax rolls so they could keep more of what they earned. We brought in the working income tax credit, which accelerated earned income so people were always better off when they worked than when they were on welfare. We scaled back unnecessary bureaucratic spending. We reduced the size of government as a share of the economy to its lowest level in half a century, which lifted the burden of expensive government off the shoulders of the working poor.

I am proud to say that according to the most recent data, when our Conservative government was in power, the poverty rate had dropped to its lowest level since it was recorded. This was a government that moved people into the middle class and moved the middle class up.

That is why we will continue to fight for the people who work hard, pay their taxes, and play by the rules, those who are not part of the insider economy and who do not get bailouts and handouts, because they cannot afford the lobbyists to acquire those bailouts and handouts.

We will be on the side of the underdogs, as we have always been. As the data have shown, we have helped them move up, and we will continue to fight so that they have a fair chance to do so in the future.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for breaking down the truth about the numbers and the stats we are hearing from the Liberal government.

Maybe the member could talk a bit about some of the Liberal promises. They promised to help the middle class. The tax break for the middle class would benefit only those who earn the most, those who earn over $100,000 a year. Parliamentarians would get the highest tax break. Those who earn less than $45,000 a year, earn less than $23 an hour and work full-time, would get absolutely nothing from the promise by the government to help the middle class or to help people join the middle class.

Maybe the member could talk a bit about how he feels about the proposal by the Liberal government to help the middle class.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that Liberal elites, wealthy elites, not just Liberal elites, will do very well under the Liberal tax plan. For example, a member of Parliament earning $150,000 a year would get about $1,000 in tax relief. A working class, blue collar person earning $45,000 a year would get absolutely nothing from the changes the Liberals are bringing in. A senior who has just downsized and has sold a home so that the real estate wealth can be turned into income would find that the amount of money that can be put into a tax-free savings account has dropped from $10,000 to $5,000 a year, which means that low-income seniors who were relying on an increased tax-free income to pay their bills will have less of it to do so with.

This is a budget designed for the wealthy elite and the rich, despite the rhetoric we hear from across the way. I thank the hon. member for giving me the opportunity to say so.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to change the topic a bit. We heard previously some Liberals talking about broadband Internet across the country. I wonder if my colleague could comment on the fact that the Liberals seem to be pushing broadband as a universal right in their most recent budget but have broken their promise to provide palliative care. They promised $3 billion for the delivery of broadband as a universal right but are ignoring people who are in desperate need of palliative care.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting contrast, and I thank the member for asking about broadband.

Recently Telus Communications came up with a very innovative idea to expand Internet to low-income people by simply putting a slip in the twice annual child benefit mail-out. On that slip would be a pass code that low-income families could use to sign up online and receive Internet for only $10 a month. There would be no extra cost to taxpayers, because that mail-out already goes in the system and CRA already has the data on who is low income. Telus would be prepared to cover the cost of giving this ultra-low-cost Internet to families who need it most. Rogers has a similar proposal for a program, I might add.

I am now waiting for the Liberals to agree with this zero-cost solution that would help children who would otherwise not have access to the Internet to do their homework. They would get that chance from a corporate enterprise that is willing to offer it to them for such a low price.

I encourage members of the Liberal government to come onside with this proposal so that we can expand the availability of Internet to young people who desperately need it to succeed with their homework and other projects.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his very clear presentation.

I know he did not address any indigenous issues, but he was part of a government and sat around the cabinet table. I would like to hear his views on the Liberal approach to indigenous issues, and I want to know whether he sees much of a difference.

Let me give an example. The budget has earmarked $500 million for indigenous housing. If we divide that by the number of communities, it gives about $300,000 a year to each community. One house in the northern part of my riding costs about $300,000.

I would like to know if he sees much of a difference between the Liberal approach to indigenous issues and the previous government's approach.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I know that he is very passionate about this topic. I appreciate his work on this file.

When we were in government, we improved the quality of life of indigenous people. We also gave indigenous people the right to know how their money was being spent. We proposed a bill on financial transparency. This is one of the best ways to improve the situation in indigenous communities. It is a matter of giving them the right to know where their money is going.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as the final speaker on the bill, which has plodded along through the process in the House. I thought I would recap for members of the House how we have gotten to where we are today, describe what the process has been throughout, and then conclude by making a few comments about the bill itself.

The bill was concocted without the input of Canadians. Typically, in a budget process, Canadians are consulted about what they would like in the budget, but we had a situation, after the October 19 campaign, where, I would say, due to the ineptness of the government in early December, the government House leader was unable to strike a finance committee. We all knew who was on the finance committee, but unfortunately, the government could not get the committee struck in early December. Therefore, members of the finance committee sat around for about six weeks without actually consulting Canadians.

By the time the government managed to get approval to strike the finance committee, the committee heard some 92 witnesses over a period of about a week or a week and a half. However, we also knew in early February when we heard those witnesses that the budget had probably already gone or was very close to heading to the printer.

One thing this budget has clearly lacked is the input of everyday Canadians through consultation. With all due respect, I think the finance minister had a great deal of difficulty pulling together this budget, because he was hamstrung with the fact that so many promises had been made in the campaign. He was stuck with trying to put together a budget based on a bunch of promises in which, quite frankly, the dollars did not add up.

It also included a number of broken promises. A promise was given in the election campaign, whereby the Liberal leader of the day, now the Prime Minister, promised that the budget would have no more than a $10-billion deficit. We all know that promise was broken very quickly. We are not sure yet if $30 billion is the final number for the deficit. During the short period of time since the budget was introduced, as an example, there was a horrible situation in Alberta with the fires. As a result of that, the federal government is going to be on the hook for some significant costs associated with the wildfires in Alberta, so I think the deficit could go well past the $30 billion.

While it was not a broken promise, it was a promise that I personally would have liked to see the finance minister break, and that was the ill-conceived decision to reverse former finance minister Flaherty's decision to increase, some 10 years into the future, the eligibility age for OAS to 67 from 65. This particular decision was not based on any particular science or data, which, of course, the Liberal government keeps saying it prides itself on. It was based on a back-of-the-napkin campaign promise made by the Prime Minister and it is one that I wish the federal government had not followed through on.

As I said earlier, this is a budget that I do not believe the Minister of Finance felt good about presenting. I know how that feels, as someone who has had to present a budget based on some campaign promises made simply to get elected.

I see the benches of the government are starting to fill up as is the press gallery. I do not think they are filling up to listen to my speech, so I will sit down and let the House proceed on to the business of the day.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Calgary was a very distinguished member of the provincial cabinet at one time in my home province. I remember the good old days when Alberta was at the forefront of economics. Are the policies of the day in Alberta today reflective of the policies we will see federally? Are we in for the same tough times across our country as we currently have in Alberta?

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

I would concur, Mr. Speaker.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 45 the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, June 13, at the hour of daily adjournment.

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 June 10 consideration of the motion that Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures, be read the third time and passed.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

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

Call in the members.

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

Vote #87

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

Colleagues, I think it is notable that tonight was the first time calling the vote for Clerk Jeremy LeBlanc.