Bill C-15 (Historical)

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1.

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

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

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

There are nine motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-15. Motions No. 1 to 9 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 9 to the House.

Motions in amendment

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

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 9.

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 26.

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 34.

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

moved:

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-15, in Clause 212, be amended by:

(a) adding, after the paragraph 12(2.8)(c) that it enacts, the following:

“(c.1) the region of Southern Interior British Columbia described in subsection 7(1) of that Schedule;”

(b) adding, after the paragraph 12(2.8)(e) that it enacts, the following:

“(e.1) the region of Southern Saskatchewan described in subsection 9(3) of that Schedule;”

(c) adding, after the paragraph 12(2.8)(g) that it enacts, the following:

“(g.1) the region of Edmonton described in subsection 10(2) of that Schedule.”

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

moved:

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 233.

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 234.

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 235.

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 236.

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 237.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-15 at report stage.

I was a member of the Standing Committee on Finance, which studied the bill. Unfortunately, I have to say that history is repeating itself. I was on the Standing Committee on Finance for three years during the previous Parliament. If I remember correctly, in those three years, during which we studied six budget implementation bills, the committee considered thousands of pages of amendments but adopted only one, and that was only after a government MP amended the amendment.

In this case, although we were told the government would be more open and willing to co-operate with the opposition, once again, even though our amendments were totally reasonable and intended to correct certain shortcomings in the bill, not one of them was accepted. In fact, during the three or four meetings we had with witnesses, the committee heard some very interesting things about the bill's content, and more importantly, about some of its flaws. Unfortunately, although these flaws were pointed out to the government, it chose not to fix them. In the end, the only amendment that was accepted was a Liberal member's amendment that simply corrected an oversight in the bill. That is another common characteristic of omnibus bills.

The government claims this is not an omnibus bill. After all, it is only 179 pages long. After all, only 35 acts are amended, added, or corrected. However, it is undeniably an omnibus bill, and this means that it is impossible for the committee to properly study the bill and thoroughly analyze its content. Goodness knows that this bill contains important elements that deserve our attention, but unfortunately, we were not able to give it that attention.

As the opposition, we managed to draw the government's attention to a flaw in this bill, and the government is trying to rectify that at report stage. As far as employment insurance is concerned, 12 regions are being given the option of extending benefits. Again, that is an arbitrary number chosen by the government. On May 13, the Prime Minister made a statement that caught my attention. He announced that three other regions would be added: Southern Saskatchewan, Edmonton, and British Columbia Southern Interior. During clause-by-clause review of the bill, we were quite surprised to see that those three additions did not actually materialize. The government seemed to have completely forgotten its promise.

We did try to make a correction. Initially, we proposed a bill whereby all regions in the country would be eligible, including those in Quebec, where no regions are currently eligible. This was declared out of order by the Speaker of the House. Then, we tried to add an amendment that added all the eligible regions in the pilot project that was abolished by the Conservatives in 2011-12, which extended benefits by five weeks for regions with high unemployment. That amendment was also declared out of order.

We really tried to reach out to the government by presenting an amendment regarding the three regions that it had already announced would be added to the bill. That amendment was also ruled out of order because we did not have a royal recommendation. The interesting part of all this is that the government did not seem to know what we were talking about. The Liberals were completely confused. We asked the official who was there for more information. She was extremely helpful in answering our questions. However, in the end, we still did not get an answer and we do not know whether the government even realized that there was a problem with the provision or that it was failing to keep the promises it had made not during the election campaign, but two weeks before the committee examined the bill.

Most of this bill seems to be improvised. Some of the decisions set out in it are completely inconsistent with the promises that the current government made during the election campaign. We are now making amendments at report stage.

One of the changes we are recommending at report stage is to have the government respect and fulfill the commitment it made during the last campaign regarding small and medium-sized businesses.

In 2008, for the first time, the NDP brought forward the idea of decreasing the tax rate for small and medium-sized businesses from 11% to 9%. We did the same in 2011, and in 2015. Although there was not much that we supported in the Conservative government's last budget, to its credit, it actually announced a decrease to this tax rate from 11% to 9% over a period of four years. Therefore, it was an NDP commitment that the Conservative government decided to implement. We were thankful, but wanted it to be sped up by having it implemented over two years rather than four years. However, at least the gesture was there.

It is not often that all three major parties agree on a single measure, but that was the case for the small and medium-sized business tax cut. We all agreed on it. We all ran on that, including the Liberals.

However, in the first Liberal budget, it states that the tax cut will be frozen at 10.5%. The Liberals even took credit during the budget speeches for that decrease, which was in the previous budget. They basically took credit for not raising it to 11%. I found that disheartening. We brought this topic forward over and over again because small and medium-sized businesses expected it and really counted on that tax cut. They were planning for it because all three parties had agreed. I can say that not one single small and medium-sized business representative, either from the CFIB, my riding, or even other ridings, has applauded the Liberals for this. On the contrary, the comments were scathing. It is disappointing to see the Liberals trying to justify breaking this key electoral promise by talking about anything else.

Although I do not have much time left, I would like to also point out that the Standing Committee on Finance does not seem to understand the key role it has to play in our democracy. This is no reflection on the individual members of the committee, who have actually worked hard and asked good questions. However, the role of the finance committee, like all committees, is to hold government to account.

The government is proposing new laws and amending others. Unfortunately, as we have already said, this government does not seem to listen to the opposition. By introducing omnibus bills, the government is giving us very little time to examine extremely complex measures. That means that we cannot do our job properly, which seems to suit some government members just fine.

Take for example the recapitalization of banks. This measure is extremely important. Honestly, at first glance, I was in favour of it. However, pages 20 to 25 of the bill are extremely technical and they completely change the way that our banks, their shareholders, and depositors are protected if they run into difficulty. We barely talked about that. No witnesses appeared to talk about it. We heard from one official, Mr. Campbell, who was extremely helpful, but we did not have the opportunity to carefully examine, scrutinize, and analyze the ins and outs of that part of the bill, which is extremely important to the future of our country.

I do not think we have managed to do a good job in such little time. I know that Bill C-15 will pass, even though we are going to oppose it, since the government has a majority. However, I would like to tell the government that if it sincerely wants to keep its election promise to increase transparency, it should introduce budget bills that actually deal with budgetary issues. It should not introduce bills that include measures in another law, like Bill C-15, and that include sections that are 25 to 30 pages long on topics that are very important to our country's future. We hope that this government will learn from its mistakes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his important contribution to the Standing Committee on Finance.

I listened to my hon. colleague's speech. He raised many of the points he raised today in the Standing Committee on Finance. We heard from a number of witnesses, and my colleague had the opportunity to ask questions, get answers, and contribute to the legislation.

During the election campaign, my colleague spoke about supporting families and the middle class. The government has announced measures, such as the tax cut for nine million Canadians and the Canada child benefit, which will help nine out of 10 families and give each family an additional $2,300 or so.

My colleague represents a rural riding, as do I. I would like to hear his thoughts on how this will affect the communities in his riding.

I would also like to talk about small and medium-sized businesses. My colleague touched on this topic. On this side of the House, we think that a strong economy, in which we give money to middle-class families and Canadian families, will help small businesses.

I would like to hear his thoughts on how the social measures in the budget for middle-class families will affect his riding in Quebec.

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

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

As a parliamentary secretary, he attends committee meetings regularly. We have had many opportunities to talk.

His question is an important one, and it was raised many times during committee meetings. When I talked to my constituents about the small business tax cut, they were very supportive. Now that the measure has failed to appear, they no longer have such nice things to say about the government.

The government talks about the middle-class tax cut. A lot. It keeps saying that nine million taxpayers will benefit. That is true, but if you look at it from another perspective, 17 million taxpayers will not benefit at all.

Now I would like to talk about the Canada child tax benefit, which will help a lot of families. It will not, however, help people without children.

I am trying to understand the government's logic when it talks about the so-called middle-class tax cut and the small business tax cuts, which were promised but will not be implemented, in the same breath.

Basically, the Liberals are saying that they are keeping one of their key campaign promises, so they do not need to keep the other. That makes no sense. One is for people, and the other is for small businesses. I would like the government to realize that and act accordingly.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very informative speech, which really clarified a number of details.

I have a question for the member regarding the tax cuts for small businesses that the Liberals cancelled in budget 2016. What kind of negative impact or repercussions will this have on small businesses? During the election campaign, the Liberals promised a tax credit for hiring young employees. That measure was cancelled, and there was no mention of it in the budget. Yet, this could have encouraged many businesses to hire young people, which would have given more young people jobs and ensured their future. Finally, this also could have helped revitalize our regions. It is hard to keep young people in the regions. Small businesses are often the most likely to be able to hire people and offer high-quality jobs.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is an important question.

Although the government says it wants to grow the economy, that is always a very abstract concept. The Conservatives had their way of trying to grow the economy in the past, and now the Liberals are trying their own way. Will it work? I am not sure. Time will tell.

What matters in order for Canadians to trust the institution, in other words, the government, is for the Liberals to keep the promises they made during the election campaign. The small business tax cut, from 11% to 9%, was a key promise that this government did not keep. Canadians notice these things.

Another campaign promise that was broken is the small businesses tax credit for hiring young people. Maybe it will be introduced next year, or in two years, or in three years. Time will tell.

One thing that is clear is that the government seems to have no scruples about breaking its promises and cleaning up messes by simply drawing people's attention to other areas of its agenda. This will not necessarily be useful or beneficial for economic growth.

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-15, part of our government's plan to strengthen the middle class and keep Canada's economy strong and growing for the long term.

The measures in the budget implementation act will enable us to move forward on our ambitious economic agenda. It is an agenda that restores hope for the middle class by making smart, necessary investments in our country's future.

It is a plan I was honoured to table in this House on March 22.

Let me begin by emphasizing that we intend to take advantage of a historic opportunity. Thanks to the leadership of governments in the 1990s, Canada's debt position is by far the best in the G7. With interest rates at record lows, now is the time to invest in people and the economy to prepare Canada for a brighter future.

Budget 2016 will support the middle class now by helping Canadian families with important and necessary measures, and it lays the foundation for sustainable, long-term economic growth. In particular, on December 7, 2015, we introduced the middle-class tax cut. Nearly nine million Canadians are now benefiting from lower taxes on every paycheque.

As a second step, budget 2016 introduced the new Canada child benefit. Compared with the existing system, the new Canada child benefit will be simpler, more generous, and tax-free. It will also be targeted to those who need it most. With the introduction of the Canada child benefit, about 300,000 fewer children will be living in poverty. In fact, the CCB represents the most significant social policy innovation in a generation. It means real help for real people, and putting more money in the pockets of moms and dads to pay for everything from summer camp to new clothes.

This is only part of what Bill C-15 does to help families directly. In the past, I have spoken in the House about measures that will also help seniors, veterans, and students. Through their efforts, their innovation, and their integrity, Canadians are building a stronger economy for today and for future generations. They rightfully expect their government to work with them in support of those initiatives.

Allow me to highlight a portion of the bill which I have seldom had the chance to address directly in the House.

As members will know, in addition to helping families and making important investments, Bill C-15 also introduces a number of measures in support of our plan to ensure tax fairness and maintain the integrity of the tax system. As we have said many times, we believe all Canadians should be paying their fair share of taxes.

The budget was tabled before this issue dominated the international headlines this spring, but when it did, I am proud to say that Canada was able to stand proud and highlight the action we had just announced in our plan to prevent underground economic activity and tax evasion, as well as aggressive tax planning.

A cornerstone of our action is a $444-million investment over five years for the Canada Revenue Agency to enhance its efforts to crack down on tax evasion and combat tax avoidance. However, we all recognize that assessing tax revenues alone is not enough, and that is why budget 2016 invests an additional $351.6 million over five years to improve the CRA's ability to go after and collect those outstanding tax debts.

In addition, Canada's tax system needs ongoing adjustment to ensure that it is functioning as intended and contributing to the objective of an economy that works for everyone. We believe a stronger revenue base will help support our new investments in education, infrastructure, training, and other programs that will help to secure a better quality of life for Canada's indigenous people, building a stronger, more unified, more prosperous Canada. These are just a few of the measures in the bill.

However, to ensure a brighter future for our kids and grandkids we have to plan much further ahead. As we look out over the horizon we see challenges and we see a world of opportunity.

For starters, Canada’s population is aging. The global economy is volatile. Oil prices are unpredictable. We need to take steps to improve competitiveness and productivity in Canada so that we become drivers of our own success now, and in a generation from now.

As our workforce ages and shrinks, real GDP growth has been forecast to slow from about 3% enjoyed since 1970 to slightly less than 2% over the next 15 years, a one percentage point drop. Productivity is key to a growing economy because when output per worker is higher, firms can pay their employees more, families can work less while earning more, and companies can return larger dividends to their investors or reinvest in their businesses.

I am proud to be working with my cabinet colleagues, the ministers of innovation, trade, labour, and infrastructure, on delivering our long-term growth agenda, but we know that we do not have all of the answers and we are open to innovative new ideas. That is why, a few weeks ago, I hosted my inaugural meeting of the advisory council on economic growth.

Through this growth council, we have brought together some of the best minds, who bring a global perspective and wide-ranging experience that will help us shape the government's growth strategy. The council will help generate the bold and innovative ideas needed to create and sustain long-term economic growth that benefits the middle class and those who are working hard to join it. We want Canadians to be able to afford to send their kids to a quality day care or help their teenagers with a college education and tuition. We want to ensure that every Canadian can put away enough money for a safe and secure retirement.

To conclude, we know the challenges that we face will not be solved overnight or by a single budget, but we also know that good government is not just about today and tomorrow. It is also about the years and decades to come. That is where our focus will be and will continue to be.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today and not only thank the minister for his speech but to inform the House that it is my birthday. I know that in the interest of non-partisanship, the minister wants to bring joy to any parliamentarian on his or her birthday and one way that he could do that is to announce that he will rise and vote in favour of the amendment to keep the Liberal promise to lower small business taxes to 9%. That would make the day of 700,000 middle-class small business owners, who are the leading job creators for our country.

I think that the Liberal Party understands that, because it committed in the last election to honour previous Conservative tax reductions for these great entrepreneurs. There was an unfortunate mistake in the budget drafting, which reversed that promise. I know that he will want to correct it. I wonder if he would rise today and announce that he will support this opposition amendment to the bill so that we can lower taxes for Canada's best job creators.

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by saying happy birthday. It is a great day, I suppose, for at least one member on the opposite side of the House.

I want to say as well that I think it is a great day for Canadians when we talk about a budget bill that is going to help them and their families. The member opposite pointed out that it is important to help those in the middle class. We recognize that so many Canadian business owners are themselves in the middle class.

Our focus has very much been around helping Canadians improve their lots in life. We have put a tax reduction in for middle-class Canadians, reducing taxes significantly, helping nine million Canadians. Importantly, the kinds of things we are doing, together with the change in the Canada child benefit that will help nine out of 10 families with children, will help people in this country who are working hard to have a good life for themselves and their families, and who are going to purchase the goods and services provided by small and medium-sized enterprises.

In that regard, we know that we are going to help our economy. We know that we are going to help small and medium-sized businesses by growing the economy. More importantly, in the future, the kinds of measures we are taking will improve our growth rate. That will raise the opportunity for all businesses in this country to be successful and I am sure will make future birthdays for my colleague across the way that much better.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the budget included a temporary extension of employment insurance benefits, supposedly in response to the drop in oil prices. Initially, the government announced that 12 regions would be included. It then added three more regions, but failed to include them in the legislation, so the NDP has tried to help out by putting forward an amendment to include those three regions.

However, even with that change, we are still in a situation where among the eight EI regions in Alberta and Saskatchewan seven will receive the benefit extension, but Regina still will not. I wonder if the Minister of Finance could explain if he thinks it is reasonable to exclude this one part of the two main oil and gas producing provinces from the EI benefit extension and whether he could commit today to include Regina so that all of Alberta and Saskatchewan would be part of this extension of EI benefits for laid-off workers from the oil and gas sector.

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member shares with all of us in the House a deep concern for people who have been affected by significant changes in the global economy that have resulted in significant changes to the price of oil in our country. Those impacts are being felt by Canadians across the country, but in particular in some hard-hit regions.

We decided that we would like to focus on helping Canadians in multiple ways, generally, across the country, recognizing that Canadians need to be supported in a time of economic challenge, and more specifically in certain regions.

The general measures that we have put in around employment insurance are important. We made improvements in the EI system to allow people to get into the system more rapidly, and increased the training that they can access.

The specific measures help people in particular regions that have been particularly hard hit. We think they are appropriate, and we are pleased to do that to ensure that we allow our economy to do better in the future.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, people love to cheer on the underdog. Think of movies, like Rocky, Rudy, and Will Smith's The Pursuit of Happyness, or think of the great legends like David and Goliath.

Speaking of another legend, Robin Hood, our opponents are always telling us that the reason we need big government is to take from the rich and give to the poor, but big government always seems to send the money in the opposite direction.

The latest Bombardier bailout would take a billion middle-class tax dollars and give it to a company of billionaire owners and millionaire executives. Ontario's Green Energy Act forces low-income families to buy overpriced electricity from millionaire insiders. Government-mandated cartels in the taxi sector empower millionaire taxi-plate owners to rip off cab drivers and their passengers.

It is the insider economy. Those who can afford to lobby government and game the rules of government always win with bigger government. The underdogs are left to fight their own battles. We need to fight along their side. That means fighting for immigrants who are qualified as engineers or doctors, but who are forced into minimum-wage jobs because bureaucracy blocks them from their professions. It means financial transparency, so an aboriginal woman can hold her leaders accountable for how they spend her money.

It means further lowering taxes for the poor, so that work always pays more than welfare. Speaking of welfare, we should get tough on welfare for the incompetent millionaire CEO who is coming back to the government for yet another bailout and another handout from working-class taxpayers.

I believe it is time we shut down the insider economy and open up the free market economy, which is the greatest poverty-fighting machine ever invented. In so doing, let us all become champions of Canada's underdogs.

That is the basis upon which I approach any budget question. It has been proven time and time again that bigger and more bureaucratic government makes for poorer and less prosperous citizens. There are exceptions, of course, people with connections and people with well-paid lobbyists. They always do better.

We can expect that with recent Liberal announcements of new so-called climate change initiatives, we will see certain insiders, who call themselves green energy entrepreneurs and consultants, make millions of dollars. They have made millions of dollars on the backs of working-class Ontarians ever since the passage of the so-called Green Energy Act. They will make hundreds of millions of dollars more with the Ontario government's recent announcement, backed by the Prime Minister, that it will impose new taxes and regulations on Ontario families to pay for the enormous costs of the province's so-called climate change agenda.

The recent budget set aside hundreds of millions of new dollars in new subsidies for these same insiders. It is incumbent upon all of us to see who ends up getting the money. The question of social justice should weigh heavy on every single policy decision a government makes. There are two questions we should ask, therefore, regarding social justice of every policy a government implements. Those questions are these. From whom? To whom? Any expenditure of money takes money from somebody and gives it to somebody else.

The government has made a great rhetorical priority for the question of redistributing wealth and I believe that it will redistribute a lot of wealth. I believe also on close examination that redistribution will take money from the people who need it most and give it to the well-connected millionaire insiders who are most linked to the current government and its decision-makers.

Over the next three and a half years, my goal, and I hope the goal of the entire opposition, will be to stand up for those underdogs who actually earn their own money instead of those who are privileged and powerful and use that privilege and power to feast off the labours of other people. I think we will see that the real champions of social justice are those who expound the free enterprise economy.

Over the last 10 years while the Conservative government was in power, people in the lowest 10% of income earners saw their incomes rise by 14%. That is after tax and after inflation. Middle-class Canadians saw their incomes rise by 10%, after tax and after inflation. The share of wealth controlled by the top 1% actually declined in Canada, bucking trends to the contrary all around the world.

How is it then that the Liberal budget produced a graph that suggested that the middle class had not had a raise in 40 years? The information came from the Department of Finance. I said it cannot be true because we know that the last 10 years saw the middle class gain 10% after tax and inflation. How is it possible?

I looked at the data and the Liberal budget was right. The after-tax incomes of people were just slightly higher in 2015 than they had been 40 years earlier after accounting for inflation. How did that happen? The answer is that it actually took us 30 years to recover from the absolutely devastating economic policies of Pierre Elliott Trudeau. The current Prime Minister is right. After accounting for the devastating decline in middle-class incomes that occurred in the seventies and early eighties under the national energy program and the big government centralized socialist approach to government, it actually took us three decades to recover the income growth of Canadians. Three decades and I am proud to say that the greatest growth of all, according to the Department of Finance data that was highlighted in the Liberal budget, occurred in the last 10 years when the previous Conservative prime minister was leading the government.

It is true that the middle class did not have an effective raise from 40 years back to the present, but in the last 10 years we have been correcting for that. What is most troubling is that the government does not learn from the graph that it put in its own budget. It is now repeating the very same policies that led to such devastating middle-class income declines: expanding governments, out of control deficits, more and more regulations that hold people down and suffocate our entrepreneurs.

I ask that the government learn from history rather than repeating history. We know what works. We know what has failed. Let us look at the evidence and the facts and choose the right path, the path of the underdog, where Canadians get ahead based on their merit, not on their connections, where people who work hard, pay their taxes, and play by the rules can achieve great things for themselves, their families, and their communities and where we shut down the insider economy and open up the free market economy as the greatest poverty-fighting machine the world has ever invented. Then and only then we can all say that we are champions of the underdog.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for that thunderclap from the failed school of supply-side economics. I guess they were going to get to that in the fourth mandate.

My friend across the way talks about insiders, friends, as though he never had a file to defend. I have a question for him about friends. We define insiders or friends as, for example, the unemployed workers who fell victim to the drop in oil prices in western Canada, the parents of poor families who will have to raise their children below the poverty line, and the farmers whose Canadian Wheat Board was stolen from them under the previous government. Those people were not friends of the Conservative government.

I would like to know how my friend, the member across the way, defines these parents, these unemployed workers, and these farmers. How were they treated in our budget?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful the member raised the plight of working low-income people, for example. Those people have benefited by our previous government's decision to raise the personal exemption, which literally liberated hundreds of thousands of people from taxes altogether. Many low-income people actually saw their income tax drop by 100% while we were in government. We were proud to reward their hard work. We wanted to ensure that work always paid more than welfare, so people who made the decision to enter the workforce and earn some money would always be better off. That was the approach our previous government took.

Speaking of supply-side economics, the Liberals are the ones who believe in trickle-down government, this notion that if they tax enough from working families, from the poor and the middle class, and then take that money and give it to powerful and wealthy insiders like the billionaires who control Bombardier and the so-called green-energy entrepreneurs who have made hundreds of millions of dollars off of artificially inflated electricity contracts, somehow that money will trickle down and help the poor. We know that does not work. It does not trickle down. It is people on the ground who work hard who lift us all up, and those are the people on whose side we will fight.

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

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

Obviously, the NDP's economic plan does not have much in common with the Conservatives', but my colleague will agree with me that, if there was one thing that all three parties agreed on during the election campaign, it was that the tax rate of SMEs should be lowered from 11% to 9%.

When I talk to my constituents, particularly small and medium-business owners, they tell me that they had planned for new investments, new hires, and pay raises for their employees over the next two to four years. Now, they are being left disappointed. They have to quickly change their economic outlook and plan for growth.

Can my colleague talk about the reality of SMEs in his riding? How will these businesses have to adjust because the Liberals broke their promise?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that all of the parties agreed to lower taxes for our small and medium-sized businesses. That is why we included that measure in our 2015 budget. In their election platform, the Liberals promised to lower our entrepreneurs' taxes.

Because of their broken promise, the Liberals are going to take $2 billion away from our SMEs over the next five years. Meanwhile, the Liberal governments of Quebec and Canada are going to give that $2 billion to Bombardier, a company controlled by millionaires.

We would rather leave money in the pockets of the entrepreneurs who earned it instead of giving it, in the form of a subsidy, to a company that is far too cozy with the Liberal government. That is the difference in our approach.

We would leave the money in the pockets of small business people who earned it, rather than giving it to the billionaires who did not.

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

Mr. Speaker, first, it might be a great day for the member for Cambridge because it is his birthday, but it is an even better day for Canadians. It will be a great year for Canadians. It might be a great day for him, but it is a great year for Canadians.

I was deeply disturbed when I listened to the member for Cambridge speaking against Canadian industries. That is not the first time I have heard him do that. Just yesterday he insulted our aerospace industry. When he talks about insiders, I wish I had the opportunity to ask him who he considered insiders among the nine million Canadians for whom we reduced taxes since January 1, 2016? Perhaps the nine families out of ten that will receive more benefits through our Canada child benefits? Perhaps the 300,000 children who will be lifted out of poverty. Maybe he is talking about the 250,000 students who will be better off with our student grants. Perhaps he is talking about 900,000 seniors who will be better off with our budget.

I respect the member for Cambridge a lot, but I am deeply perplexed when he talks about insiders. Maybe that was the Conservative way of doing government, but our government is about the middle class. It is about middle-class families, it is about helping Canadian families and it is about helping Canadians.

I had the great privilege of going across this nation with the Minister of Finance. I personally went from Moncton to Yellowknife, engaging with thousands of Canadians, talking about their dreams and their concerns. The Minister of Finance did the same. He went from Halifax to Vancouver. We engaged with Canadians. This was unprecedented. I think the member would be interested in listening to that, a different way of doing government, open, talking with Canadians, something the previous government did not do very much.

I wish members had been with me everywhere I went. They would have seen how many Canadians showed up in our meetings to engage with us and talk to us about their dreams and what they wanted for this economy.

People said two simple things: they asked us to help them and their families, and help them to grow the economy. When people asked for help for themselves and their families, we responded.

I would like to apologize. I was referring to the member for Carleton, not to the member for Cambridge. He is listening carefully and he knows what I meant. If it is the only mistake I have made, I will take it. When I listen to the mistakes my colleagues on the other side have made, I would not be boasting in the House.

However, Canadians asked us to help them and their families. The first thing the government did was to reduce taxes for Canadians, nine million Canadians, the insiders who the member for Carleton is talking about, the nine million Canadians who are paying less taxes since January 1, 2016.

These people wanted help because they were hurting. They said that they had not seen growth in their income for the last 10 years of Conservative government. They had nothing to show for it. We therefore reduced taxes for them.

After that, we did something for families. The Canada child benefit is one of the most progressive policies since universal health care in our country. This policy is about helping the insiders, those who the member for Carleton talked about, the nine out of ten families. These insiders will benefit from a much simpler allocation to help raise children, buy clothes, and send the children to camp this summer. This allocation will even be non-taxable. We are talking about $2,300 more, on average, in the pockets for Canadian families.

Let us get back to what it means for people. If we look at a riding like mine, Saint-Maurice—Champlain where the average income is probably one of the lowest in the country, that may give families 10% of additional disposable income, and that is significant. I am very proud to be on this side of the House because those measures will help families. These measures are meaningful for people. This is not about talk; this is about action.

We promised during the campaign that we would be there for families for once. This is a government of families. This is a government of middle-class Canadians and those who are working hard to join it, not a government of insiders to which the previous government liked to refer.

This is what people had to say. After they asked for help for themselves and their families, they said that they wanted to see the economy to grow. After 10 years of low growth, they wanted a bit of growth in the country. We answered that with our infrastructure program. We are talking about $120 billion over 10 years. We are talking about $11.9 billion in phase one.

Let us talk about that for a minute. We have talked about public transit, something that is dearly needed in our cities as goods and people need to move. I have been in many cities where people have said that they need public transit.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Order, please. We will break for statements by members. Once debate resumes, the hon. member will have another 4 minutes and 30 seconds, plus five minutes for questions.

The House resumed from June 3 consideration of Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures, as reported with amendments from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. parliamentary secretary will have about four and a half minutes to finish his speech.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to resume the debate on the budget, which we began last week.

I think it is important to go over some background on the consultation we did with Canadians. What was different during our last consultation is that the Minister of Finance and I criss-crossed the entire country.

I personally went from Moncton to Yellowknife, while the Minister of Finance went from Halifax to Vancouver. We consulted with Canadians in order to give them a budget that works for the middle class and for Canadian families.

I am especially proud of the fact that during the consultations that were held from coast to coast to coast, we had the opportunity to listen to Canadians, who told us what they would like to see in the federal budget. Between the two of us, we met with hundreds, if not thousands of people through that consultation process. On top of that, about 300,000 people contacted the Department of Finance to share their opinions. The Trudeau government is all about being open and transparent, as well as consulting Canadians.

Most people who took part in the consultations asked us to do two things: help them and their families, and grow the economy.

The first thing we did in order to help families was lower taxes for the middle class, which was one of the most important measures in the last budget.

I listened to the comments made by the members across the aisle. It is important to remember that the Trudeau government has lowered taxes for no less than nine million Canadians.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I normally do not interrupt members when they mention the name of another member. However, in this case, the hon. member mentioned the Prime Minister's name twice.

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

Mr. Speaker, thank you for your indulgence.

Obviously, I was talking about the current Prime Minister's government. I apologize. Essentially, I was saying that the Liberal government is working for the middle class.

The first measure taken was to lower taxes for no less than nine million Canadians, effective January 1, which puts more money in Canadians' pockets. This tax cut will help grow the economy, help small and medium-sized businesses, and allow Canadians to invest more.

The second measure was the Canada child benefit. It has often been said, but this may be the most significant social public policy since universal health care was introduced in Canada. Nine out of 10 Canadians will receive more help to raise their children. The benefit will be simpler and non-taxable. It will help families send their children to summer camp, or buy school supplies and clothing.

Canadians asked us to grow the economy. I must admit that I am quite proud of the investments in infrastructure that we will be making, which total no less than $120 billion over 10 years. In the last budget, we announced phase 1, which will involve a record investment of $3.4 billion in public transportation. Goods and people must be able to circulate more freely in our cities.

We are also planning historic investments of $5 billion in wastewater treatment systems. There is no need to remind members that municipalities across the country need this assistance. After 10 years of underfunding in our infrastructure, these investments are being very well received by Canada's municipalities.

We will also be investing $3.4 billion in social housing and affordable housing. This is a very important measure. Canadians have told us that affordable housing is a priority.

In closing, I would like to say a few words about our innovation program. We are well aware that innovation is what will drive continued economic growth in Canada. At present, we are working on our innovation program, which will allow our economy to work for all Canadians, the middle class, and Canadian families.

I am proud of our recent budget.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments and speech. Obviously in speaking about not funding infrastructure for 10 years, I am just wondering if the member realized that, number one, we led the G7 in investments in public infrastructure. I just wanted to know if he was aware of that.

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

Mr. Speaker, infrastructure is a key component of our last budget. I would disagree with the member. I had the privilege to travel across Canada and speak with mayors. They have quite a different view from the member in terms of investment in infrastructure.

That is why we had to make a historic investment of $120 billion over the next 10 years, investing in public transport, water and waste water, and social housing.

When we speak to mayors, we understand what the facts are and what the reality is in this country.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals ran on the idea of a new health accord, and yet this budget does not include any increase at all in the Canada health transfer. In fact, if we compare budget 2016 to budget 2015, we find that projected transfers to provincial governments are actually lower now than they had been under the previous Conservative government.

Indeed, by 2019-20, the Canada health transfer will be $600 million lower under budget 2016 than it would have been under budget 2015, and if we look at overall transfers, they are about $1 billion lower again by 2019-20.

I wonder if the hon. parliamentary secretary could explain to us why his government is cutting transfer payments to the provinces.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for the hon. member and I have known him for a long time. We did a number of things in public policy together.

I can only invite the member to look at the budget. I am quite happy to answer that question. I wish I could have been asked that question because we have made a historic investment in health transfers, $36.1 billion in health transfers. That is the historic high in this country in terms of investment, so obviously we do take health as a very serious matter.

I am happy to see that my colleague the Minister of Health is negotiating the next health accord, but I can say for this House, $36.1 billion. This is a fact. This is the historic high investment in terms of health transfers in this country.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

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

The Liberal Party has absolutely nothing to apologize for—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will give members a couple of examples.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the member was not here, so he might not recall the events when we made that change. We had made a commitment to the provinces about the seniors citizens who they had on welfare, where it basically transitions to old age security and GIS. However, we made a commitment to the provinces that we would ensure this issue was taken care of. The member might not be aware of it, but part of our due consideration and concern was that this would be taken care of.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by asking my colleague if the government's decision to introduce an omnibus bill like this one strikes her as strange at all.

We have obviously seen such omnibus bills over the past five years. The one thing they all have in common is that they are designed to silence parliamentarians, and that includes opposition members and backbenchers. With this particular omnibus bill, the government has silenced Liberal MPs from Quebec.

I would like my colleague to comment on this strategy and the price to pay considering that they have been blamed for what they did in the past and that the Liberals are doing the same thing now.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that there is a lot in the budget. I have bigger concerns about the Liberal policies. Again, I gave some very specific examples. The most important thing the government could have done was to have looked at what was slow growth as opposed to what was global recession and how best respond to that. The way to respond to that is with things like the small business tax, ensuring it is lowered as we had intended, and reducing red tape.

There are many policies that the government could have looked at that would have supported and stimulated that low growth without going into deficits for future generations. The Liberals did not even include things like many of their commitments, for example $3 billion for the health accord.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to comment on one thing. As we well know, during the election the Liberals promised $3.4 billion for palliative care. Yet it was not in the budget. Also, they voted down an amendment for those seeking assisted suicide to be informed about palliative care options. I wonder if my hon. colleague could comment on that issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, the government is showing an incredible lack of faith in the provinces and their ability. If the Liberals believed in the provinces and in palliative care, they would have had that $3 billion in the budget, and at least a chapter of the accord would have dealt with that and it would be happening now. All Canadians should be very concerned about that. Not only did the Liberals vote down the ability for someone who chose assisted dying to be informed about options around palliative care, they did not follow through on their budget commitment to fund it.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one thing I would like to have my hon. colleague's opinion on relates to municipal funding in the budget. As a former mayor, I heard wonderful reviews at the Federation of Canadian Municipalities convention this past weekend about the government's plans to fund infrastructure for municipalities and the empowerment of municipalities. I wonder if the hon. member would at least be willing to speak to that and say something about it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I remember this being very well received in terms of the municipalities. The gas tax fund was not only doubled, but it was legislated and gave municipalities funding on which they could count. However, we also renegotiated and gave municipalities flexibility on how they could spend their money.

The money to municipalities is very important. I was incredibly pleased, when we had our economic action plan, with how efficiently we got the money out the door for important projects. Even the auditor general indicated that. With the Liberal government, we are now seven months in and the pennies are not even going out the door.

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

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to stand to speak to Bill C-15.

This past weekend while in Whitby, I had the opportunity to attend a number of events. I went to the “art heals” program at Ontario Shores, a program which supports using art as a way to heal the challenges one faces in life. I also went to the Whitby Yacht Club and joined a reception following the blessing of the fleet. I visited Nova's Ark, an organization run by a courageously selfless woman named Mary-Ann Nova, who opened up her property to children with developmental challenges. Some local high school students were also at Nova's Ark to help with the movie night so that the children, who are not normally invited to go to the fair or to proms, had an opportunity to just hang out. I also went to the 105th Brooklin fair and helped the Abilities Centre celebrate its fourth birthday. At every corner, at every event, I saw people smiling, families having fun, enjoying the weather, and celebrating together.

I mention all of this because when I joined government I wanted to ensure that my role here helped to make lives better for Canadian families, much like the ones I saw this weekend, and I believe the budget does just that. I am therefore proud to stand to support it.

I first want to talk about what this budget does to help families with the cost of raising their children. With the introduction of the Canada child benefit, a targeted, tax-free, progressive benefit for middle-class families and those working hard to join the middle class, Canadian families will have more money in their pockets. Starting this July, nine out of 10 Canadian families will open their mailbox and find a cheque providing them with a benefit that is more generous than their existing benefits. That is money that families, including many of those I saw at the Brooklin fair, can use to provide the best possible start in life for their children.

However, what I saw in Whitby this weekend is not the norm for many families across this country. In a country as prosperous as Canada, no child should ever live in poverty. No child should go to school hungry, or not have a safe place to call home. The Canada child benefit combats child poverty by targeting the most support to those families in greatest need.

This benefit will lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty. As members may have heard my colleague, the hon. Minister of Finance, say many times in the House, the CCB is the “most significant social policy innovation in a generation”, and I am incredibly proud to stand here today to support the budget that provides for it.

In remembering those high-schoolers volunteering at Nova's Ark, and as the parent of three children, I am always thinking ahead, thinking about their futures. As a parliamentarian, I am focused on our collective responsibility to make sure the next generation has every opportunity to succeed. My oldest daughter will be starting college or university next fall and I want to ensure that all doors are open to her, and to all our children, as they head off to school, start an apprenticeship, or join the workforce.

When I was campaigning in Whitby, and increasingly since I was elected, I have heard over and over again from people in Whitby who are concerned about youth employment and underemployment. This remains a persistent and ongoing challenge in Whitby and the broader Durham region. We know that our country's future prosperity depends on the success of our young people and that in order to be successful today, tomorrow, and in the years to come, our future leaders need access to meaningful work at the start of their careers.

I am so pleased to stand here today to talk about how the measures contained in budget 2016 make important investments to make sure that our young people have those opportunities. As I stand here today, more than 77,000 young people from coast to coast to coast are employed through the Canada summer jobs program. That is more than double the number who found placements in 2015.

In my riding alone, more than 400 students will be employed at 68 small businesses, non-profit organizations, and civic institutions across Whitby. These young people will spend their summer learning valuable skills and gaining important experience while assisting these businesses and organizations to better serve our community.

I want to talk about one organization in particular that is participating in the Canada summer jobs program. That is the Abilities Centre. I would be remiss if I did not mention that the vision for this centre came to fruition under the leadership of the former member of Parliament for Whitby, the late Jim Flaherty. The centre, which provides programs and services, including sports, fitness, arts, and life skills opportunities for people of all ages and of all levels of ability, is one organization that is receiving funding this year. I had a chance to hear from the executive director on how important this program is to its success, and how much of a difference it will make for families in Whitby. He told me that, through this Canada summer jobs program, the Abilities Centre was able to hire 26 students this year, who will work a combined 7,000 hours in service to a diverse population. These students will assist the Abilities Centre in providing programming support while they receive on-the-job experience that will help them to continue their studies and enter the workforce.

While we are on the topic of young people, I want to touch on how proud I am that the budget does so much to support students and ensure that post-secondary education is available and affordable.

Budget 2016 enhances the Canada student grants program by increasing the amounts by 50%, thus allowing close to 250,000 low- to middle-income students access to funds for higher education.

My riding is home to the Whitby campus of Durham College, and I have heard how pleased it is with the increased resources that its students will receive in order to support their academic endeavours. If members want to see how talented these young people are, I invite them to visit my office on the Hill or my constituency office and they will see their artwork proudly displayed.

The last point I want to make today is with respect to the historic investments we are making into public transit and infrastructure. Many residents of my riding travel to Toronto and other parts of the GTA for work each day. I have talked to them about their long commutes and the many hours they spend each week idling in traffic or the time they spend on a bus or a train. The time they spend commuting is time they are away from their homes and families. The budget is investing billions of dollars into public transit and infrastructure over the coming years, an investment that will result in more school pickups and drop-offs, family dinners, and bedtime stories for families in Whitby and the Durham region.

Budget 2016 will make a real difference in the lives of Canadians from coast to coast to coast. It is a plan to get the Canadian economy moving again, while taking real action to support the middle class and those working hard to join it. I am very proud to stand here today and support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate hearing about the member's community. I have a question with respect to the small business tax. We know that the Prime Minister said that small businesses are just a haven for the rich, and that the promise during the election was to reduce the small business tax from 10.5% to 9%. I wonder why that promise was broken.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the small business tax rate was maintained at 10.5%. Before getting this job as the representative for Whitby, I owned a small business. I knew that in order for my business to be successful and grow I needed to have customers come in the door. That was the only way my business could grow. What this budget has done is put more money into the pockets of middle-class families across the country.

Not only that, we have also made an investment into digital infrastructure, ensuring that businesses not only have the capability of gathering customers domestically in Canada but that they will be able to open their doors to customers around the world. Therefore, this budget really does focus on middle-class families who are business owners, and supports our small to medium-sized enterprises.

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

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciated the focus on youth employment and the future of youth. One of the questions that I have the hardest time answering when I am speaking to school groups is about the future for youth, given a $30-billion deficit projected this year, another $30 billion next year, and over $700 billion in total debt facing kids moving into the future.

If a student asks the hon. member for advice, such as “How am I going to deal with all of this $700-billion debt in the future that you're handing off to me?”, I would appreciate hearing what her answer would be.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister has said a number of times that we are going to move toward a balanced budget responsibly. Right now, we are in a period of very stagnant growth in our country.

I speak to students often in my riding. I speak to fifth grade students at Jack Miner Public School. When they ask me about our budget and about the debt, I give them a small course in economics and say, “Right now, we need to do something to kick-start our economy and help it start to move, and one of the ways in which to do that is by making investments.”

We are not just making investments haphazardly. We are making very specific investments in public transit and in social infrastructure. We are doing that in a green and sustainable way, and that will help generations for years and years to come.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her presentation. The investments in infrastructure could have some effects on small business, the businesses that are actually performing the infrastructure changes.

I wonder if the member would comment on the impact upon small business and maybe the multiplier effect that might result in giving us some economic growth, which we have not seen for years.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the infrastructure investment not only helps the businesses that are going to be providing the services, but also helps ensure that we have proper public transit. We are looking into rapid transit. We are looking for innovative ways to ensure that investment is done in a green and sustainable way. It also helps to reduce traffic, to reduce the burden of getting to those small businesses to allow those customers in the door.

I think that this budget has really taken a comprehensive look at how to get the Canadian economy going again by putting money into people's pockets, by having strategic investments in infrastructure, and by allowing those customers to get to those businesses.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak of the Liberal government's proposed line of credit plan, also known as budget 2016. As everyone can imagine, either from the last sentence or my previous speech on this bill, I am not a fan of this budget.

The Minister of Finance and his parliamentary secretary have gone on ad nauseam about pre-budget consultations as a way to justify this mess of a budget. They went coast to coast to coast consulting thousands of Canadians, record numbers of Canadians, epic numbers of Canadians, listening to what Canadians wanted in this budget. The parliamentary secretary even spoke of hearing of people's dreams in formulating this budget.

When looking at this budget, I am wondering just what these Canadians told them. I would like to hear from either one of them about how many of the thousands they claim to have consulted said, “Please break your campaign promise of running a small deficit, and instead saddle us with an additional $20 billion in debt this year alone.”

I wonder how many said, “Please, Finance Minister, break your campaign promise to balance the budget in the fourth year of your mandate, and instead hit us with $120 billion in added debt and let us pay for that with a hefty hike in taxes.” How many spoke about their dreams, as the parliamentary secretary claimed, by saying, “I dream of this government twice breaking its promise to provide $3 billion in home care and palliative care”? Precisely how many went out to consultations and said, “Please, oh, please, break your promise to cut taxes for small business owners”? I am sure that there were many who asked them to break their promise to make their famous tax changes revenue neutral instead of a $3-billion hole in the books.

I would dearly love to hear how many Canadians attended these meetings and said, “Minister, we need a tax cut for people like MPs in the House today, those who make $170,000 a year, but let's give nothing to the 66% of Canadian taxpayers who make $45,000 a year or less.” I am sure that they were sitting at the round table being told that those making $170,000 a year are the real ones who need our help, not the working poor.

The constant refrain of having heard from the people on this budget is just a catchphrase, merely offering platitudes in order to distract from what this budget really is. It is a budget full of broken promises that will do nothing but saddle Canadians with future taxes, and doublespeak that shows nowhere how they will ever pay back this borrowed money. In fact, the government seems to be in denial that this money has to be paid back at all, like the money is coming from some magical ATM machine, perhaps run by the bank of sunny ways and unicorns.

Members of the chamber may know that I have been a vocal advocate of EI fairness for all Canadians. I am happy that the government finally came to its senses when adding Edmonton to the zones where people are eligible for additional help. However, I am still at a loss as to why we had to fight the government tooth and nail to have the Edmonton region included. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour told the House that Edmonton was finally eligible, after the added jobs losses when the Fort McMurray fire moved above the magical and completely arbitrary two-point increase threshold.

What the government could not seem to understand is that unemployment had trended up 35% over the benchmark from the previous year. However, we were told by the Edmonton Liberal MP that a 35% increase in out-of-work Edmontonians was not a dramatic enough increase to warrant action. The Prime Minister further told out-of-work Edmontonians that they were fortunate with a 35% increase in unemployment, as it could have been worse. The Liberals should maybe change their line from “real change” to “just hang in there”.

The government does not seem to understand the difference between a percentage point increase, on which the formula is based, and what a percentage increase is. Unemployed people in Edmonton region know, as they are living it every day. The Liberals' magical two-point increase threshold for Edmonton above the 4.9% base rate, they said, actually means that Edmonton would need a 39% increase in unemployment before the people are eligible for additional help. That seems to be very confusing for the government. However, being out of work and having the government and its Alberta MP sitting on their hands instead of advocating for the province is all the more perplexing.

It is not just Edmonton that is facing this ridiculous situation. The oil and gas region of southern Saskatchewan is also being placed in this conundrum. What a message this government is sending to the unemployed in these regions. Simply put, this government is saying two things through its current policy: one, that people chose to live in the wrong place; and, two, the government would like to see more people unemployed before it is able to help. Yes, more people need to be hurting before it can help, something a government should never say to its citizens. The government's main purpose is to help its citizens, to ensure that all citizens are prosperous.

The second area where the government seems to shrug its shoulders to the west is in its self-congratulatory infrastructure program. The Liberals' golden goose of infrastructure spending includes a complete bias in favour of eastern cities. Budget 2016 allocates the cream of the crop to Toronto, Montreal, and Quebec City. However, for those backward-thinking western cities of Calgary, Edmonton, Regina, and Saskatoon that do not seem to elect enough Liberals, the government is simply throwing a bone to them to save face.

I broke down the numbers the last time, but I know that the members across the way have a short memory, so I will again go over the distribution breakdown in the Liberals' infrastructure spending. The province of Alberta, for years Canada's fastest growing province, the economic engine of this country, has been allocated $347 million for public transit infrastructure, just 10% of the total amount of funds available. Alberta currently boasts 12% of Canada's population, and that number is set to grow in the coming years. Ontario will get $1.5 billion for public infrastructure, 44% of the total amount of funds available, yet has 38% of the country's population. Quebec will receive 27% of the total amount of funds available, and it has just 23% of the country's population.

Alberta is being shortchanged almost 15% on a per capita basis. Alberta, which still contributes to the equalization plan, is getting shortchanged. Alberta is still the fastest-growing province with the fastest-growing big cities. Alberta has taken it on the chin with the oil crash. With all of this, Alberta is still not getting its fair share.

We should be thankful that we have the infrastructure minister himself in Edmonton, otherwise we would not be so fortunate as to be only shortchanged 15%. Again, the infrastructure minister is probably too busy renovating his office and picking out the perfect furniture to stand up for his city and his province.

Let us look at the scorecard. We have one Edmonton Liberal MP who says that a 35% increase in Edmonton unemployment was not dramatic enough to warrant help. We have another Alberta Liberal MP saying 100,000 newly employed Albertans are finding their situation “refreshing”, and are happy that the Liberal government and all four Alberta Liberal MPs are refusing to support the energy east pipeline. We have another Alberta Liberal MP who cannot find the funds to ensure his home province receives a fair share of infrastructure funding, but he certainly found funds to fund sky palace 2.0 in his Ottawa office.

The whole fair share mentality does not apply to actions or behaviour of the Liberal government. Fair share only seems to apply to successful and hard-working Canadians when it comes to asking them to pay more taxes.

What is clear is the fact that the budget is a dog's breakfast of broken promises, out of control spending, no plan to grow the economy or pay back the huge deficits, but with some regional favouritism thrown in for good measure.

I hope that I am wrong in this regard. In fact, I am begging the government to prove me wrong. I am asking the government to treat all regions in the country as equals. I am asking the government to honour its campaign promises. Until then, I will refuse to support this unfair, unbalanced, and unequal budget.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I toured my rather large riding, about four times the size of P.E.I., I talked to my 43 city councils, many schools, many community organizations, and many chambers of commerce. The questions that I receive often came back to whether they can have more investment in infrastructure, in our youth, in our communities and families, in the future.

Did the member not hear from constituents in his riding that they want a that future they can look forward to?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the budget would not invest in the future that the member is referring to. Canadians are not asking for a future of massive debt and massive taxes. The government ran on a specific promise to cap the budget deficit at $10 billion. Canadians are not saying they want a future of massive debt, that they want to bury their children and grandchildren in $120 billion of deficit spending over four years. Canadians are not asking for that.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals go on and on about how they are working for the middle class, but they cancelled the measure that the Conservatives initiated to cut small business taxes from 11% to 9%.

Earlier, they were also boasting about how they are working for youth, but they outright cancelled the youth hiring tax credit for small businesses. That will make it harder for youth to find work. Plus, how can young people hope for work in agriculture, including in Salaberry—Suroît, with all of the problems related to the border and diafiltered milk?

The Liberals' budget does not promise a very bright future for youth. What are my colleague's thoughts on that?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has brought up some very strong points that we both, oddly enough, agree on.

I think this underlines the problem with the Liberal budget. When Conservatives and NDP both agree on very basic things, there is something wrong with the Liberal budget. Cancelling the small business tax break is another one of the broken promises.

I am sure that none of the Liberals, when they went coast to coast to coast, heard “I am a small business person, so cancel my tax break.” The Liberals have said again and again that the middle-class tax break of $1 a day is going to trickle down and help the small businesses. That is fraudulent talk. It is plain silly. It is not going to happen.

My NDP colleague is very right about the cancelling of the small business tax breaks and the hiring tax breaks. It is hurting the youth and it is hurting Canadians. There is a zero tax break for those making under $45,000, which is a huge majority of Canadian taxpayers and a huge majority of people who need it. It is ridiculous. I understand what my colleague is saying. I agree with her 100%.

The budget does nothing for youth, does nothing for our future, and it does nothing for small businesses.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal member asked a question around infrastructure. The previous government had record levels of infrastructure.

I wonder if the member for Edmonton West would comment on an issue with small rural municipalities, especially in Ontario, and in the one I represent. Municipality after municipality has received letters from Kathleen Wynne that the municipalities are too wealthy, that they have too much money and they are not eligible for infrastructure projects, for sewers, roads, bridges. It is outrageous.

I wonder if the member for Edmonton West would comment on that and maybe have the Liberals across the way send a message to Kathleen Wynne in Toronto to get going on helping rural municipalities across this province, and in other provinces.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague brings up a very valid point that I spoke about as well, which is the general unfairness of how items, such as the transit infrastructure, are rolled out.

There is a tiny portion for Edmonton, a tiny portion of Calgary, almost nothing for Regina, if anything, and yet there is a big chunk for cities that are predominantly Liberal and out east. It discriminates against areas that are not very well served by Liberal MPs.

This is just another example of favouring certain areas at the expense of others. It should be about fairness and growth. Growing across the country should be about fairness, not picking specific winners in certain little areas.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise on behalf of my constituents in Guelph to extend my wholehearted support for budget 2016, growing the middle class, Bill C-15. The budget has many bona fides, from the emphasis on the environment, to infrastructure investments, to building the economy, but there is no doubt in my mind that the budget's greatest asset is its focus on innovation.

However, I feel compelled to ask the House this: what is innovation exactly? Innovation is much more than a buzzword. It is a perspective, a new way of seeing our world. Innovation is creativity with a job to do, as John Emmerling defined it. Innovation is the route to developing a prosperous future for business and a more efficient government for the Canadian people. Assembling new technologies, best practices, and ideas is critical, but the process does not stop there. In fact, that is just the beginning.

By bringing together experts and entrepreneurs with new technologies and by utilizing the best available practices from around the world, Canada will flourish, cementing our place as a prosperous nation. That not only adds to the value of our economy but adds to the value of economies around the world.

As I was the former president of the Guelph Chamber of Commerce and co-founder of Innovation Guelph, I have seen this work, and we did our part to grow our community.

As a result of hard work and creativity, Guelphites now have the lowest unemployment rate in Canada. Guelph is ranked number one in the agricultural biotechnology cluster in Ontario. It is also one of the top two in Canada. Guelph's advanced manufacturing sector has 360 businesses employing over 14,000 people in Guelph, with employment growing at close to 10% annually.

Clean technology is a rapidly growing sector in my riding. Canada's largest solar panel manufacturer is located in Guelph, and many businesses are working around the world on water and air quality as well as on alternative energy.

The University of Guelph and Conestoga College have been key to shaping Guelph's growth. Focusing on innovation through business, academic, and government partnerships has been key to Guelph's success, and it will be the key to Canada's success going forward.

If this is what the city of Guelph can accomplish with an innovation network, just imagine what Canada could accomplish if there were a string of innovation networks linking coast to coast to coast.

Building this new future for Canada begins where this government does; it begins with engaging Canadians. Creative and entrepreneurial citizens are at the heart of this new innovation agenda.

Investing in education is a crucial step in developing Canadian talent and as a means of attracting talent from abroad. Through the Canada Foundation for Innovation, the Government of Canada has already made significant investments in research infrastructure at Canada's universities, colleges, and research institutes.

Provinces and territories also provide substantial funding for campus renewal every year. Nevertheless, much of Canada's post-secondary infrastructure is over 25 years old and is nearing the end of its useful life. This presents an opportunity to invest in greener and innovation-friendly spaces.

As chair of the innovation and post-secondary education caucus, I strongly support budget 2016, as it will invest $2 billion dollars in a new post-secondary institutions strategic investment fund.

Commercialization and growth is truly an indispensable element of the innovation process. Dynamic, globally interconnected firms will propel clean economic growth, increase Canada's productivity, and support well-paying jobs for the middle class.

Connections between knowledge producers and users, including researchers and firms, and collaboration within supply chains, driven by market opportunities, create value through innovation while supporting economic growth. Information gaps and coordination challenges may prevent these linkages from being developed to their full potential, impacting the strength of innovation ecosystems.

Therefore, to help address these challenges, budget 2016 proposes to make available up to $800 million over four years, starting in 2017-18, to support innovation networks and clusters as part of the government's upcoming innovation agenda.

Last, but certainly not least, science and technology is the fuel that makes innovation possible. Technology has always shaped the course of human events, and the future will be no different. Therefore, we cannot ignore or become mere bystanders while other nations in the world race past us in an effort to gain the technological upper hand.

Canada's universities, colleges, and other research institutions play a fundamental role in our society by developing the leading technologies of the day, just as we did in the past with penicillin, the Avro Arrow, and the telephone, to name just a few examples of Canadian technology.

In keeping with Canada's long history as a global leader in research and development, budget 2016 proposes an additional $95 million per year, on an ongoing basis, to be provided to granting councils. This will be the highest amount of new annual funding for discovery research in more than a decade. As well as demonstrating the foresight of budget 2016, this initiative will support up to 50% of the eligible costs of infrastructure projects at post-secondary institutions, paving the way for success for hundreds of thousands of Canadian youth.

As a member of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, I recently visited businesses in Montreal's aerospace industry that form part of Canada's aerospace cluster. These businesses show the power of industry-academic collaboration, but also the importance of collaboration with the federal government, to compete and partner with each other and with countries in this area.

I am a member of the automotive caucus, and the same can be said about that sector. It is critically important that government, industry, and academia work together to develop our innovation agenda. Budget 2016 gives us first steps to focus government as a key partner in innovation.

Budget 2016 provides Canadians with the tools they need to innovate and build a stronger, healthier, and greener Canada for future generations. I eagerly await the advances in science and technology that will come about as a direct result of the investments we make here today.

No less than Mahatma Gandhi said that we must be the change we wish to see in the world. By embracing and embodying innovation as a perspective, acting as a lens through which we can see the world, Canadians will once again be the change they wish to see in the world and being the trailblazers to whom the world can look as a model for success.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for a lot of that information on innovation. As a former CEO of a health-tech innovation foundation, I am glad to hear that the Liberals are continuing the great work that we started.

Most universities have incubators, commercialization centres, and the network of clusters, from Halifax all the way to British Columbia and through North America. That network is very strong. I wonder if the member has reviewed the database to look at those clusters. What is the plan in terms of funding those innovation centres?

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for South Surrey—White Rock. It is great to hear that she also has a passion for innovation.

We are looking at the clusters across Canada through the innovation and post-secondary education caucus. We are looking at a way forward where the federal government can partner with the provincial governments and the educational institutes to try to get research commercialized and have commercialization fund new jobs in Canada. It is a long-term project, but it starts with budget 2016.

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

Mr. Speaker, I very much share the interest in innovation and green energy the member spoke of.

I recently held a climate change workshop in Nelson in my riding, and 250 people showed up for it. One of the presentations was by a fellow who has a solar company, and he was quite concerned that there are no grants available for people to invest in solar energy in their homes currently. I wonder if the member is aware of any programs that can help Canadians do the right thing, whether it be with the purchase of electric vehicles or solar panels for their homes, that are part of this particular budget.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Kootenay—Columbia for his very astute question. Nelson, B.C. is kind of a twin city to Guelph, where we have a lot of environmental efforts and a lot of people focusing on the world ahead of us. The funding we are looking at in our budget is in green technology investments through our green technology funds. We hope to see those rolling out through the provinces to the municipalities so that people, such as the person the member described, will have access to some assistance in developing green technology going forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's thoughts about innovation. I would ask the member to comment on how important it is that we incorporate stakeholders. I will use the example of Magellan Aerospace, a great aerospace company in Winnipeg. One of the things I appreciated when I had the tour was the fact that the company had a space for Red River College, a post-secondary institution. By having that relationship, students are able to use world technology that the college would not likely have been able to use without that type of co-operation.

Could the member provide some of his thoughts on how important it is to have co-operation between the private and public sectors on the issue of innovation?

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North. It is wonderful to get a question from my hometown. I am a graduate of Red River College. In fact, the person who is working on the aerospace sector is a former classmate of mine.

It is very important to have all three partners at the table. Something I really saw develop strongly through my work with the chamber of commerce in Guelph was that government, education, and business all need to work together. Government needs to provide policy, direction, and assistance to compete globally. Education needs to provide the new ideas and the young people coming into the market with new ideas to move us forward as a country. Business needs to backstop some of this and be an honoured member at the table, bringing forward funds and opportunities to create globally.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House for a second time to speak to Bill C-15, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures. Specifically, I plan to address issues of budgetary concern that would have a direct impact on my riding of North Island—Powell River.

We are currently at the report stage, so I will also be discussing a few of the NDP's proposed amendments to the bill. Thirty-six amendments were tabled in committee by the opposition parties; 15 of them came from the NDP. These amendments would not have made this a progressive budget, in my eyes, but they were crucial and would have made the bill passable. Unfortunately, without them, I am afraid I will have to oppose the main motion at report stage.

As we know, the Liberals decided to listen to its false majority, rejected most proposed changes in committee, and introduced time allocation in the House after only two days of debate.

The Liberal government campaigns on a promise of more help for the middle class. In the communities I serve, I hear from people who identify as middle class but who make less than $45,000 a year. I also represent people who are the working poor and struggle day to day to make ends meet. This tax break would not help these people.

At a time when Canadians need a government to tackle growing income and wealth inequality, the Liberals went in the opposite direction. Everyone agrees that those in the highest tax bracket, earning $210,000 or more, would benefit the most from the Liberal's so-called middle-class tax cut. Six out of 10 Canadians will get nothing from this Liberal plan.

What sets New Democrats apart is our belief that the government should be tackling inequality, not compounding it.

One community in my riding is facing a very painful reality. A mill closed and has been shut down for almost two years. There is no word yet to the community on whether it will reopen or not, but the impacts have been extremely painful, and I have been so grateful to the people who have contacted my office to share their stories and to ask for help.

The people in the communities I serve are hard-working and dedicated to the communities they live in. This tax break would not help them in their process to revision their family or their community. New Democrats proposed to modify the tax cuts so that working-class and middle-class Canadians would benefit from tax changes. The PBO confirmed today that the NDP plan would benefit nine million more Canadians and have a much fairer distribution of benefits.

It is time for a government that is more fair to those who work so hard in our communities.

Two weeks ago, I started a tour in my riding of North Island—Powell River for town halls, to have a conversation on seniors' issues. I listened to their priorities so that I could understand their needs better and work to ensure that they are met. In a riding as large as mine, I have completed only a third of the area and look forward to completing the rest, but I will tell members that these voices were strong and often unanimous. I was deeply touched and startled by the stark realities they shared with me of the people who supported us in the building of this country. Many of them are now feeling completely abandoned.

I have been in Ottawa for nearly eight months now and I am astounded to witness how little we have spoken about the needs of our elders. The budget would not include any additional provisions for home care or palliative care, even after the Liberals promised $3 billion for home care during the campaign. I can tell members that, in the riding of North Island—Powell River, it is desperately needed.

How many more years until we see money or even a strategy in place to meet the needs of Canada's seniors? By 2036, the number of seniors will double. It should be a critical question we are asking in the House, planning for now and for the future.

When the federal budget was introduced, we did welcome the government's recommendation to increase the GIS for single seniors. Let us remember that on the campaign trail the Liberals' promise was to help them immediately. Why are seniors having to wait until July?

The NDP moved to make the increase to the GIS retroactive to January 1. The Liberals rejected our amendments. However, the seniors in my riding can count on an MP who will have their interests in mind.

It is rare for politicians to agree on anything, but during the election all three parties promised to lower the small business tax rate to 9%. Liberal MPs still have yet to keep the election promise they made to small business owners that would see a break on their taxes.

New Democrats have been fighting for a long time for tax cuts for small businesses, which are the real job creators in Canada. In the communities I serve, our natural resource industries have taken many hits. Now with less of these jobs, small businesses have stepped up to the challenge of working in the communities to create economic development and local jobs.

Vague comments hoping people will have more money to spend, which would be good for small business, are not enough. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy, and in rural and remote communities they are often dedicated to supporting the communities in so many ways. It is time to return the favour to these small businesses, to give them what they need so they can make choices, which will help communities across Canada.

The NDP proposed two amendments at the Standing Committee on Finance for the Liberal government to reconsider the tax increase for small and medium-sized enterprises. Not only did the Liberal members of the committee reject all amendments proposed by the opposition, but on many occasions they remained silent and refused to explain their decisions.

Dan Kelly, president and CEO of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, said it best. He said:

So you can imagine our surprise on budget day when we heard that, “Budget 2016 proposes that the small business tax rate remain at 10.5 per cent after 2016”....

We've been trying to figure out why the government did this. Some reasons have been floated. I have to say, after meeting with several cabinet ministers, and many MPs of all parties, there has been no suggestion as to why the government chose to take this action.

I would like to thank my colleague and neighbouring MP, the member for Courtenay—Alberni, for standing up for small businesses. In the last weeks he has launched a campaign that encourages small businesses to send a broken promise invoice to the Liberal government. In total, the cancelled tax reduction will cost Canadian small businesses $2.2 billion over the next four years. Many small business owners were counting on these scheduled reductions. They could have upgraded their operations or given their employees a raise. Now, they feel betrayed. I encourage all small businesses in my riding to stand with us and send these invoices to the Liberal government.

Consecutive Liberal and Conservative governments have given massive tax giveaways to Canada's most profitable corporations. Meanwhile, the NDP is a party that offers tangible solutions that would make a difference for those who need it most. We are listening to small businesses.

Budget time is the government's opportunity to start capping transaction fees for credit cards and facilitating the transfer of family businesses between generations. These are small changes that would go a long way.

The Liberals repeatedly criticized the anti-democratic behaviour of the Conservatives with their omnibus bills, but now that they are in power, they are repeating the practice. Bill C-15 is a large bill. It has 179 pages, amends over 30 separate statutes, refers to nine different ministries, and impacts several others. Moreover, it retroactively repeals an act and proposes retroactive changes, includes a complex chapter on bank recapitalization, and proposes changes to employment insurance.

The budget and its implementation bill simply do not meet the needs of the vast majority of the people I serve. Unfortunately, like his Liberal predecessors, the Prime Minister has given us an omnibus bill that puts tax relief for CEOs and big, profitable corporations ahead of help for many hard-working Canadians, unemployed workers, and small and medium-sized businesses.

At a time when Canada needs a government that will combat rising inequality, the Liberals' first budget is inadequate.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intent behind the member's speech, which is to fight for lower- and middle-income Canadians.

However, I would ask the hon. member what she thinks about the measures taken by the government in the budget to establish the Canada child benefit and provide $6,400, tax-free, to families earning $30,000 less for each child under the age of six and $5,400 for children between the ages of six and 18. Does that strike her as a measure that is helpful to middle-class Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, I gratefully appreciate knowing that there is a bit of help coming specifically to families in communities that are, in some cases, ravaged by poverty. I believe the families in my community will also appreciate that. However, it does not touch on the core issues. There were so many people in my riding who spoke about not having a family, being single or being older. What will they do? I talked to people in my communities who were facing such challenges as three people living in a one-bedroom apartment. We need to ensure that we are looking at equality in a wholesome way and that we are answering the cries of the communities we serve.

I also want to say that although the money will help, it does not touch the core need for affordable child care. When I knocked on doors across my riding, I talked to many women who had to make desperate choices to not work because they simply could not afford to work. Therefore, when they have to make those choices, it is not fair or right. We have to do our job in the House and discuss these important issues and ensure that we are doing what we need to do. Although the child tax benefit will help to support those families, it certainly will not answer that specific need. That money does not create more affordable child care or enough spaces in the communities that I serve.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with what my colleague had to say about the small business tax and the disappointment of seeing that broken promise come out in this budget. I wonder if she could comment on other broken promises that we have seen in this budget that are disappointing.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a huge broken promise for small businesses across this country that were relying on that tax break to give them the support they need. The reality is that in this changing economy, small businesses are the very backbone. They are the organizations and businesses that are helping us pay for things in our community. They are volunteering their time. They are donating money to local community organizations. If we do not support those businesses, it is so much harder on all of our communities.

In terms of broken promises, I think we have seen some things that we should really be concerned with. I mentioned the GIS. People need resources now. They are having to wait until July.

Another big concern of mine is with respect to some of the infrastructure promises, where we were told one number and given a half number. Specifically, if we look at the file around transit, I represent small communities, and the challenge for them is to have transit services that work. Often when cuts happen, it is the small communities that pay. I will be watching for that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think I will have some trouble following the grim reaper of questions.

I have a very quick question. How did the member and the NDP plan to carry through on their promises when they promised not to have any deficits, ever, and to pursue the policy of austerity?

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

Mr. Speaker, I gratefully accept the question from the member opposite.

Our party felt very strongly that the important thing was to look at the reality that large corporations are taxed way below average across this world. We need to increase some of that money because it is about making decisions and having priorities. Therefore, we need to tax people who have more, support the people who have less, and take a step in creating equality across this country. I am very sad that the opposite side did not choose to really work for the people of Canada and continues to work for larger corporations.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Before we resume debate, I must inform the hon. member for Mount Royal that there are only four minutes remaining for his speech.

The hon. member for Mount Royal.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all of the hon. members who spoke before me in this debate today. This is the second time I have had the opportunity to speak in the House on Bill C-15.

To try to say something different, I want to start off by focusing on a couple of the things I have heard.

This morning, I heard a Bloc Québécois member accusing the government of neglecting Quebec. He also accused the government members from Quebec of neglecting Quebec.

Then I heard another member from Alberta saying that the budget disproportionately helped eastern Canada and affected Alberta.

I just want to say that we can be upset and disagree with provisions in the budget, but I would call upon all of us, as Canadians, to recognize that we are here as members of Parliament, not only to stand up for the people of our riding and our region, but also to stand up for all of Canada.

Therefore, I would call upon us not to continually divide ourselves by region, saying that one region is favoured over another, but to recognize that all of us believe in the best interest of Canada, and that we are furthering policies that are in the best interest of Canada.

I would only suggest that that be how we start off in this debate. I am pleased to be able to talk about Bill C-15, because coming out of an election campaign, I saw a lot of things going on in my riding that were disconcerting. I am very happy that some of these situations are alleviated by provisions taken in Bill C-15 and in the budget as a whole.

Number one is the Canada child benefit. It was frustrating, as we all walked door to door during the election, meeting so many families with children living in poverty. I am lucky to represent a riding that has a very affluent side, but we also have a very poor section. I got to meet families living on very low incomes with children, who had to question whether they had enough money to put their child in an after-school program as well as feed them.

All parties, whether Conservative, Liberal, or New Democrat, agree that we want Canadian children to start out with a fair chance, to have a full belly, to be able to participate not only in primary and secondary school but to go to university or trade school or whatever option they want post-secondary, and to be able to participate in after-school sports or arts or other programs.

The Canada child benefit says we are focusing on the poorest Canadians, we are focusing on those parents who earn, for example, less than $30,000 a year, and saying they are going to get $6,400 tax-free for children below the age of six and $5,400 tax-free for children above the age of six. That makes a real difference.

Whatever we think of the whole budget, whatever we think of Bill C-15, I certainly hope we are able to applaud that measure.

As well, I want to focus on seniors. One of the things that was also disconcerting was seeing the number of seniors in my riding living in poverty, widows especially, living alone in their 80s and 90s, with no family in Montreal to support them. These people will benefit from the enhanced guaranteed income supplement for single seniors, of 10%.

I will resume my comments later.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Mount Royal will have six minutes for his speech when the House resumes debate on this motion.

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

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

The hon. member for Mount Royal has six minutes remaining.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was talking about the measures in Bill C-15 to help our seniors. I believe that it is very important to take note of all the measures for seniors in Bill C-15 and in the budget.

I was talking about the guaranteed income supplement and the extra 10% that single seniors can receive, up to $947 per year. However, what is also important is that where seniors are required to live apart because one of their health conditions or one of their circumstances requires that they be in a seniors residence or a care home or other places, we are allowed to now treat them as two separate individuals for the purpose of these supplements. This means that where they were losing money because they were married or living together common law, now they will not be penalized for that. That is also important.

I also want to talk about the $200.4 million that is going to improve social housing for seniors, to renovate apartments to help seniors live in their houses for longer.

As we all know, seniors benefit from residing in their residences for as long as possible. We do not want our seniors to be forced into hospitals or institutions before they need to be there. With proper management, with proper accessibility for the handicapped, and with proper services such as bringing in caregivers from health institutions to bathe seniors, we can leave seniors in their homes longer, and they will have an improved quality of life. I hope we can have agreements with the provinces to ensure that the monies in the budget that we intend to transfer to the provinces for health care go toward helping seniors live in their homes for as long as possible. That will continue to improve quality of life for seniors at home.

I also want to talk about another group of people in my riding who I met with a lot during the campaign who were troubled, which are students. Today, students are struggling, as we all know, with the rising cost of tuition and the massive debt they need to incur. It is low compared with our neighbours in the United States, but still high by Canadian standards. Where students have accumulated more and more debt, they want measures to help them afford to go to college, to university, to vocational training.

We have improved the Canada summer grants program by allowing a 50% increase in the amount of money that all classes of individuals can receive in grants, including part-time students. We are enhancing the Canada student loans program by saying that they do not need to repay student loans until their income reaches $25,000, and introducing more flexibility in terms of repayment measures for Canada student loans.

My NDP colleague was very proud that 320 students were hired in his riding. In my own riding 271 students were hired. Twice as many students were hired to work in our ridings as last year.

I believe that many of my colleagues are very pleased with the investment we made in summer jobs for students.

One other thing is training and apprenticeship programs in this budget. It is great to come out of university, but if students do not find jobs, they are still living in their parents' basement. We do not want perpetual living in parents' basements for our 20-something and 30-something generation. The monies that are going to enhance finding people jobs, going into apprenticeship programs, going into training, has the potential to help many Canadians of the younger generation.

I also want to point out the investments in our rural communities.

My hon. colleague from Laurentides—Labelle keeps talking about the lack of Internet in his community. That is also the case for many of my colleagues who live in rural regions in Canada.

I am very pleased and grateful that we invested $500 million to improve Internet service in the regions of Canada that need it.

I also want to talk about our veterans. I think we all appreciate the incredible service that many women have for generations given to our armed forces. Our Second World War veterans are old now. They are in their late eighties, their nineties, or they are over a century old. They deserve not only our respect but our help in order to get the best services to which they should be entitled, more money for front-line services. Reopening the veterans offices is something that is very important to Branch 97 of the Legion, the Frederick Kisch brigade in my riding, and Legions all across the country.

As mayor of Côte Saint-Luc, I was very proud that we found free space for our Legion in the city. I know that all members from all parties want us to make sure that benefits for our veterans are the type of benefits they are entitled to by virtue of the incredible service they have given this country.

In conclusion, I believe the bill will help Canadians, enhance our middle class, and make our Canada a stronger and better place. I am pleased to support Bill C-15.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could provide some comment in terms of one of the most progressive moves that I have seen in literally 10 or more years; it has been a long time. The Canada child benefit program will lift literally tens of thousands of children out of poverty. I believe it is one of the focal points of this particular budget, which in the years ahead, people will reflect on as the budget that established this fantastic social program.

Could the member provide some comments in terms of what he thinks about this program, and possibly in regard to the increase to the guaranteed income supplement, which supports tens of thousands of seniors in all regions of our country?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I had started my speech by talking about the Canada child benefit, because I believe it is probably one of the most innovative and important elements of this budget.

The Canada child benefit directs money to those who need it the most. Couples or singles who are raising children, earning under $30,000 in income per year, will get $6,400 tax-free for children below the age of six, and $5,400 tax-free for children between six and 18.

What I saw during the election campaign in parts of my riding were many families who were struggling to decide how to use the small amount of money they had, struggling to decide between feeding kids and putting them in after-school sports. I know that this measure will really help many children in Canada come out of poverty.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on the children's benefits program, since the member was talking about how great the program will be, maybe he could tell us why in the budget's annex 1, on page 240, which the budget implementation act is supposed to make law and implement, the children's benefit, in total numbers, actually starts going down as of 2017-18. It goes down every single year into the future, to 2020-21.

I would ask the member if his government intends to cut it back, cut it down, shred the program in the future, because that is what the numbers are showing. It actually shows the numbers going down year after year in the very Liberal budget that is promoting this children's benefit program.

What is the truth here?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on the Canada child benefit in terms of amount, I do not believe there is any intention that I have seen in this budget to change the actual amounts that families would be yielded under the benefit. I would have to review the document for the future years in terms of how the member is calculating it, but I do not believe there is an intention to decrease the actual amounts received per child in future subsequent years.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the member at the end of his speech refer to veterans and what is in the budget for veterans. However, I am mystified, because presumably some of the money to be spent in that budget is now going to be spent on lawyers taking veterans back to court, arguing the very same case that the Harper Conservatives were so roundly and rightly criticized for. I wonder why the member's government is bringing veterans back to court, which will have it spend dollars in—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I am sorry, but we have a point of order.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is just that the member should not reference the name of a member of the House.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I am sorry. I missed that.

I think the hon. member knows that, as he is shaking his head. I take it he apologizes for that.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

My apologies for that, Mr. Speaker. It is the previous government that I am referring to, and I am keen to hear the member's answer.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that the amount he is referring to, whatever the court costs are, relate to money that would be spent in Bill C-15 or under the budget itself. I know that the hon. member will join me in saying that since I personally do not have the knowledge of this particular case before the court, I would hardly be in the right to talk about it now.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise today to speak to Bill C-15, the budget implementation act.

I have spoken to many of my constituents with respect to the budget, and to say there is some concern among my constituents of Barrie—Innisfil is an understatement.

I spent nine years on city council in Barrie dealing with various budgets. I was a member of the finance committee.

Budgets are typically forward-looking documents. When I look at this document, and when my constituents who I have spoken to about the budget look at the document, there is one underlying theme that comes up regularly: Who is going to pay for this? To use the Liberal narrative, quite frankly the people who are going to pay for this are the middle class and anyone working hard to join the middle class.

One only has to look at the situation here in Ontario, my home province, to see some of the parallels to the mindset of unbridled spending that the current federal Liberal government has embarked on. They are very similar situations. It should not come as a surprise to anyone that they are very similar situations, because the very people who were running the premier's office in Ontario are now involved in the Prime Minister's Office. The mindset of debt and deficit spending is very evident not just in the budget but in some of the policies we have seen come from the Liberal government.

I would remind Canadians that the Ontario government is the largest sub-sovereign borrower on the planet. It is not second, not third, but the largest sub-sovereign borrower on the planet. The payment on the debt currently in Ontario is third only to health and education. It is an example of unbridled spending and debt that can occur. What we are seeing, quite frankly, is a 2.0 version happening federally that has happened in Ontario. The difference really is that there is just a bigger piggy bank for the Liberals to draw from. Add to that the green program, the unmitigated disaster and the costs associated with that. It is really something we are all going to be looking for. As I said earlier, budgets being forward-looking documents, the question for most Canadians is who is going to pay for this.

When we look at some of the promises the Liberal government made, it promised a small $10-billion deficit. We now know that this year that it is going to be $30 billion. We are looking at $150 billion as we move forward. We also heard about, for example, the revenue neutral tax breaks. We now know that those tax breaks are going to cost Canadian taxpayers $1.7 billion this year and $8.9 billion over the next six years. In fact, we are going to see taxes rise to the tune of $1.3 billion this year and $2.4 billion next year.

When the Liberals talk about the middle class and taxes, when they throw out the talking points and talk in platitudes about the middle class and how they are the party of the middle class, I would suggest, as I have before in the House, that what we are actually seeing is effectively middle-class tax fraud. What the Liberals are imposing on the middle class is tax fraud. It is a shell game.

I have said this before, and I will say it again, to make my point. What the Liberals give, the Liberals take back. We only have to look at the budget to figure that out. The fitness tax credit that most Canadians have used, to the tune $1.19 billion since 2006, is gone. The arts and fitness tax credit Canadians have benefited from, to the tune of $118 million or $119 million, is gone. Income splitting for families like mine, a typical middle-class family, is gone. TFSAs are gone as an option for saving. What the Liberals give, the Liberals take away.

On the issue of the OAS, and I think this is critical to discuss at this point, one of the reasons the OAS age limit was reduced from 67 to 65 was a matter of cost and sustainability.

In 2011, almost $38 billion more would have been spent to sustain the OAS. It would be $108 billion by 2020, and by 2030 it would cost almost $266 billion to sustain. In 2012, the Conservative government chose, in keeping with OECD recommendations, to increase eligibility from 65 to 67. It did this because this measure alone would have an estimated annual spending increase of $11 billion. Again, someone has to pay for that. Baby boomers, those born between 1946 and 1964, represented the largest age cohort in history. They retired. The cost of the OAS program was scheduled to balloon, as I said, to $38 billion in 2011.

When the OAS system was originally designed and implemented, the average life expectancy was much shorter. Today the average Canadian life expectancy is 85-plus. Seniors starting to receive the benefit at 65 will live 20 years more, greatly increasing the costs for working taxpayers.

According to Statistics Canada, the most recent projections estimate that more than one in four Canadians will be over 65 by 2036. When OAS was introduced in the 1960s, the ratio of active workers to pensioners was 7:1. Today, however, it is 2.5:1. That is not enough to support the massive cost to Canadians.

The finance minister himself wrote a book advocating later retirements. In The Real Retirement, he wrote:

If we were to retire three years later than we now do, any concerns about having adequate retirement income would practically vanish. It would also alleviate any shortages in the workforce due to the aging of the population.

Again, we have a finance minister who on one hand understands this but on the other hand, as finance minister, reverses his position. It begs the question: would the Liberals and the Liberal Party run their households the way they are running the country?

There were also some other issues with respect to the small business tax cut. On the issue of infrastructure, and I spoke about this before, while money sits to be handed out, people sit, as jobs cannot be filled unless projects begin, and projects cannot begin until the funding has been received.

The government can now, today, get this money out in a fair and equitable manner. We have seen members of the Liberal Party out and about in their communities making funding announcements.

One of the things the Liberal Party ran on was fair and equitable infrastructure investment in the country. Granted, it has made significant investments, but there is one way we can get that money out the door quickly, one way we can get the money out that is equitable. In fact, Mayor Nenshi, this past weekend, at FCM, spoke about the issue of the gas tax being a way to get that money out the door.

If the Liberal government wanted to, rather than delay, and already we are starting to see delays in the construction season due to the fact that the money is not going out the door, it could use the gas tax revenue. There is an existing formula in place.

I know that in my city, the city of Barrie, we receive $8 million a year in gas tax funding. The criteria is already set. The accountability system is already set for that gas tax money. In fact two weeks ago when I was in Vancouver, I met with the president of FCM. I met with the president of LUMCO in my role as urban affairs critic. Universally, every single one of them has suggested that the gas tax is the proper source for ensuring that infrastructure money is put out the door in a fair and equitable manner.

This budget, as I said earlier, is a shell game. I have statistics. I can show third party assessments of this budget and how it does not benefit wholly the middle class. I would suggest, finally, that the ones who benefit the most from the Liberal budget are in fact parliamentarians with respect to tax reductions. I think the same thing that holds in Ontario will hold true three and a half years from now. My constituents are looking at this, and I know that others across the country who voted Liberal did not vote for this.

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

Mr. Speaker, during the summer, we talked about giving the middle class a tax break. This legislation is what it is all about. Our teachers, factory workers, bus drivers, and others would be given a substantial tax break.

For the first time in a long time, what I am seeing is Conservatives lining up to vote against these tax breaks. How would the member explain to more than nine million Canadians that the Conservative Party is actually voting against tax breaks for our middle class?

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

Mr. Speaker, to answer that question one would have to look at just who would benefit as the middle class. I know that the Liberals have used the narrative of the middle class to be the party of the middle class.

The fact is that Canadians know that the Conservative Party is the party of the middle class. We actually saw the lowest tax regimen in this country for middle-class Canadians in more than a generation. If members do not believe me, they can look at what Mr. David Macdonald, a senior economist at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, said when talking specifically about tax breaks and tax cuts. He said that there are 1.6 million families in this country who are earning $48,000 to $62,000 who would benefit from the middle-class tax cut by $51.

This is what I said earlier about this tax fraud, this narrative the Liberals are using that lower-income Canadians would benefit the most from this. They would not, in fact. Do members know who would benefit from it? The member for Winnipeg North would benefit, because his family would see a tax decrease of $813 as a result of the Liberals' measures.

How does the member explain to his constituents that he is actually getting a bigger tax break than those who are earning $48,000 a year?

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to pick up on this discussion about the so-called middle-class tax cut. I would ask the member for Barrie—Innisfil to speak to the fact that this measure would actually only apply to incomes over $45,000 per year, and it would not even provide the maximum benefit until one reaches an income of $90,000 per year. I wonder if perhaps the member for Barrie—Innisfil could help us understand how the Liberal Party defines the middle class in Canada.

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

That is a great question from my hon. colleague, because I am not sure that the Liberal Party really understands how to define the middle class, unless of course it defines it as the upper middle class being the one that would benefit the most from this.

I want to continue, and I am glad that hon. member talked about this. When we talk about tax reductions, when we look at families earning $62,000 to $78,000, we see that they would actually see a benefit of $117. Granted, $117 is a benefit, but to espouse the virtues of the tax cut the way the Liberals are is a false narrative. The Liberals are actually not telling the truth to most Canadians about what their middle-class tax cut would do, not to mention the fact, as well, that there would be a deficit created, as a result of this, of $1.7 billion this year and $8.9 billion over the next six years. That does not take into account the fact that the Liberals ran on a platform that this would be revenue neutral.

It would be $124,000 to $166,521 in tax benefits. Again, the members on the opposite side know full well that they would be the ones to benefit. Every member of this House, wrongly, would gain the most as a result of this tax decrease, to the tune, on average, of $813. This false narrative that somehow the middle class would benefit from this tax break is something most Canadians are starting to come to grips with, this shell game, this middle-class tax fraud the Liberals are perpetuating on Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak this afternoon to Bill C-15, budget implementation act, 2016. I would like to focus my comments today on one particular area that is of great interest to me and that our government is dedicated to enhancing and that will lead to a stronger economic growth profile for our country, the field of innovation.

When I think of innovation, I look at my riding and in the city of Vaughan there are literally thousands of innovative companies. One that comes to mind is Mircom Group of Companies, a company that has been in existence for many years and whose owners are good family friends. The Mircom Group of Companies is the largest independent designer, manufacturer, and distributor of intelligent building solutions. It competes against U.S. giants like General Electric, Tyco, and Johnson Controls employing literally hundreds of Canadians. Over half of its products are exported outside of Canada to more than 95 countries. Mircom employs a highly skilled workforce, including scientists and engineers. It hires the best from Canadian universities.

This company is one example of a Canadian success story and it is an innovator. I would also like to add that I am proud to say that another company in my riding Vision Plastics, part of the Vision Group of Companies investing $150 million in Vaughan, will be employing literally 300 to 400 Canadians and is set to open this coming fall. I will have more to say on that in the months ahead.

Bill C-15 is a part of the legislative framework our government is attempting to put in place to encourage companies like this to start, to grow, to remain in Canada, and to succeed. That is what makes me happy about what our government is doing. In terms of its commitment to innovation, we are going in the right direction, a direction that will lead to better jobs, better benefits, a strong and growing economy, and a strengthened middle class.

What do we mean when we use the word “innovation”? Certainly it means different things to different people. I just cited an example of what innovation means in my community, but in the broader context, our government is daring to dream of doing something smarter, faster, and better to improve the status quo, to improve the quality of life in whatever way is possible.

Fundamentally we are trying to find solutions to the big problems, to the big issues that challenge us. That means social innovation, embracing the premise that a clean environment and a strong economy go hand in hand. It means understanding that some of our most important infrastructure is not only roads and bridges, but is also digital infrastructure in the context of a knowledge economy. It means moving beyond individual interests to see the collective opportunities.

Technology is fundamentally transforming the way Canadians access information, pay for goods and services, interact with each other, and build communities. At the same time, technology has now reached a new level. It is more than just communications. Technology has become a transformative tool in addressing global challenges like climate change and poverty. Where industrial progress once came at a cost to the environment, nowadays technology has emerged as our greatest tool in clean growth and healthy growth, and prosperous societies.

Our government has defined a new vision in 2016, a vision to build Canada as a centre of global innovation, renowned for its science and technology, creative and entrepreneurial citizens, and globally competitive companies offering high quality products and services, much like the Mircom Group of Companies. We are well positioned for this. We have world-leading research institutions, creative and innovative entrepreneurs such as the Mircom Group of Companies, businesses, and commercial organizations that can transform breakthroughs in the laboratory into products that enhance the lives of millions. That is the lives of millions of Canadians and also the lives of people around this earth that we inhabit.

Canada's innovative society already creates jobs for the middle class, enhances homegrown talent, and helps companies expand beyond our borders. However, we can and we will do much more. What is now an emerging economic opportunity will become the foundation of a modern 21st century Canada. We will transform our economy from one that depends on a few resources to one whose resources are as infinite as our diversity, creativity, and talent.

Through 2016 and 2017, we will define a bold new plan, the innovation agenda. Bill C-15 is a part of that blueprint to get to the innovation agenda. This will be a plan for change. It will define clear outcomes and pinpoint milestones toward achieving them. It will be a cross-government effort, drawing on Canadian and international experts in clean technology, health sciences, advanced manufacturing, digital technology, resource development, and much more.

It is important for us to be leaders in this field. We all hear that word, ecosystem. The ecosystem is important. In prior periods there may have been an auto plant where suppliers would co-exist in the surrounding area. However, today that has changed. Today with an ecosystem, we may have many small companies operating in clusters throughout the world and we need to be at the forefront of that. We need to be a part of that. That is what is going to create a strong and growing economy and strengthen our middle class.

To help us realize this vision, budget 2016 proposes several interim measures to promote research and accelerate business growth. It would focus new federal support for science on world-class discovery research, maintain funding for the commercialization of promising scientific discoveries, begin to orient federal business support toward those firms with ambitions to grow, and build a better evidence base to identify gaps, evaluate performance, and inform future decisions.

The rules are changing around us. In the old bricks and mortar economy, a bigger factory meant not just more output in wealth but more jobs. That is not the case in the new digital economy. We need to enable and support this change. We also need to ensure that we do so mindfully and in a way that does not stifle innovation.

The innovation leaders are the future and must be equipped with the skills they will need to succeed. Post-secondary and other research institutions are the front-line agents in fostering science and research excellence. They help train the Canadian workforce of tomorrow today. They help train my young daughters. They also help to create the knowledge base necessary for the private sector and policy-makers who are looking to build a thriving and clean economy. To ensure that these facilities continue to support our researchers and innovators, budget 2016 would invest up to $2 billion over three years in a new post-secondary institutions strategic investment fund.

If investing in the spaces that enhance our innovative potential is the first step, the second step is most certainly investing in Canadian researchers themselves, particularly those on the cusp of new discoveries. In Canada, this funding typically flows from federal granting councils, which include the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. These councils already receive $2.8 billion annually to support research and training of highly qualified people at universities and colleges across the country. This year and going forward, I am proud to state that our government would provide an additional $95 million to support discovery research, the highest amount of new annual funding in over a decade.

To ensure that federal support for research, including through the granting councils, is strategic and effective, we will undertake a comprehensive review of federal support for fundamental science. We want to be sure that we are providing the right support to the right leaders and that fields of research reflect shared Canadian priorities.

Our government will also continue to support Canada's strength in genomics, the study of the entire genetic code that is fuelling innovations across a number of sectors. We would provide $237.2 million over the next four years to support the pan-Canadian activities of genomics.

Well before genomics, Canadians carved out a special expertise in stem cell research. It started over 50 years ago when two of Canada's own doctors proved their very existence. Since that time, stem cell research has evolved into one of the world's greatest promises, with significant implications for medical treatments, commercial products, and public policy. We would provide up to $12 million over two years in support of the stem cell network so it could continue to provide bridges that connect researchers and professionals through training and outreach activities.

To conclude, in the 21st century global economy, Canada needs to be innovative to be a leader. We need to be leaders. Our businesses need to be fostered and encouraged. We need to embrace the world of science, technology, engineering, and math. We need to diversify our economy to enable growth and prosperity throughout the country. We need to turn the page on the last 10 years.

In addition to these goals, I believe that Canada has a strong foundation to build upon. We have one of the best educated populations in the world. We have one of the highest university investments in research and development. We have one of the world's best investment climates. We are a leading edge of global trade.

Let us be proud of Canada.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what my constituents and I have significant concerns about in the budget is the elimination of the small business hiring credit. It is hard for me to understand why the government would eliminate a measure specifically aimed at helping small businesses hire more people. Also of concern is the movement away from the election commitment made by the Liberal Party, as well as all parties in this place in fact, to follow up with the commitment to lower small business taxes. Small businesses will effectively experience a tax increase.

Specifically, on the elimination of that hiring credit, in light of the things he said in his speech, and good intentions no doubt, I wonder if the member could explain these policies.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a few comments specifically with respect to small business.

First, in the foreseeable future there will be EI reductions for small businesses. Therefore, small businesses will benefit from employment insurance reductions on their premiums. That can be a great thing for small businesses.

Second, we understand that small businesses are the backbone of the economy. We would like them to scale up and grow. However, we also need to have a healthy middle class and a strong demand for small businesses to prosper. That is what our budget aims to do. It aims to grow the economy by providing middle-class tax cuts, which now currently benefit nine million Canadians. We will be introducing the child Canada benefit, which will benefit nine out of 10 families. They will spend their money, and will spend their money at small businesses to help them grow and prosper as well.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge spoke about the role of post-secondary education in the innovation economy. The main way in which the federal government supports post-secondary education is through the Canada social transfer to provinces, which helps to fund universities. I was struck by the fact that the Canada social transfer in budget 2016 is exactly the same going forward as what was projected in budget 2015. Therefore, we are not seeing any increase in funding for post-secondary education from the new government.

I wonder if the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge could explain that and give us some sense of when the government might actually provide a higher level of federal funding for our universities and colleges.

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

Mr. Speaker, what I will say is that we have made a large commitment to post-secondary institutions. We have made a commitment to individuals who are enrolling at post-secondary institutions. If we look at the Canada student loan grants and debt repayment schedules that we have put in place in the budget in Bill C-15, we see literally a multi-billion dollar investment into our universities, and our students per se, so that when students exit university and begin working they will have a time frame to accumulate some capital before they need to repay their student loans. Therefore, on the one hand we are helping in terms of investing in infrastructure in universities and on the other hand we are also helping with students enrolling in universities, particularly middle and low-income students who need that assistance when going to university so that they are not burdened by such a high debt burden when they exit university.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge for his interventions so far. I do a lot of work with him on the Kurdish file. Therefore, I know that he is learned and studies up on issues like this. However, I cannot believe that he would support a budget that will spend over $100 billion. In this budget alone it will be $29.6 billion, 80% of which is just program spending. It is just spending on programs. That will be passed on to the next generation. This is telling them that they will have to pay the bill for the wants of today, not the needs of today. How can he support such a bad budget where the vast majority of the spending is not spent on infrastructure or assets, rather it is bad program spending? How can he answer that? How can he support this budget?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I do some good work on the Kurdish file, and I am pleased to work with him on that.

What I will say is that I defer to what others have commented about infrastructure investments, whether it is the former federal reserve chairman Ben Bernanke or the current Bank of Canada governor Stephen Poloz, which is that key investments in infrastructure, which is what this budget undertakes, are an enabler for long-term growth and maintain our standard of living. Therefore, our budget, part and parcel of which represents our platform, and Bill C-15, which is the blueprint, is one of the large first measures to implement our infrastructure program, which will help grow our economy and strengthen our middle class.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join this important debate on the government's budgetary policy. I will be focusing my remarks on certain areas that I have not had a chance to discuss yet in previous speeches on the government's budgetary policy.

There is an evidence sense of unreality to the discussion coming from government members on this. We hear a lot about what the budget aims to do. The budget aims to do this and it aims to do that. Our complaint is not with the intentions of the budget. Our complaint is with the provisions in the budget. There are many cases in which there is this obvious dissonance between high-minded claims about what the budget aims to do and the substance of the provision. We just heard a good example of that. A member talked about small business in his riding and the important work it did, but then supported a budget that would raise taxes on small business and eliminate the hiring credit for small business. There is this evident dissonance here.

I had an opportunity to question the finance minister in committee of the whole last week. I asked three times, consecutively, if he believed that the government should eventually balance the budget at some point in the future. We did not get an answer to that question.

When the finance minister, who should know better, cannot even answer a direct question about whether it is important for a country to balance its budget at some point in the future, then we have a real problem with the seriousness of the plan. It is not a problem with intentions necessarily, but it is a problem with the seriousness of this so-called fiscal plan.

I want to talk about three specific things today. I want to talk about where economic growth really comes from. I want to talk about the impact of the budget on families. I want to speak about the impact of the budget on indigenous Canadians, specifically in the context of indigenous education.

We hear a lot about economic growth, and this comes back to the good intentions here. We hear the word “growth” used over and over again. Like so many of the words the government uses, especially in the context of budgetary policy, we have not ever heard it clearly defined. We do not hear the Liberals explain what they mean by growth and what exactly they plan to achieving in growth.

Economic growth is produced when there is an increase in the ability of society to provide for itself, when society grows in its economic means to provide for itself in terms of its wants and its need. Therefore, it is very closely linked to the concept of economic productivity, productivity being the rate of output given the input.

We often talk for example about labour productivity. As labour productivity increases, the amount of output that can be produced in a given hour of labour increases. That is really what creates economic growth. Economic growth is about finding ways of more productively using our time and our resources to produce more things that we can use to satisfy our wants and our needs. Fundamentally, foundationally it is about growth in productivity.

When the government thinks about trying to encourage economic growth, it should focus on productivity. The current government talks as if all that is required to increase growth is more government spending. Looking around the world, it is easy to see how there is no linear relationship at all between government spending and economic growth. Some countries do much better than others that have much lower levels of public spending. That is not to say the government does not have a role in identifying areas where productivity growth can occur, but it certainly is not in any sense linear.

From my perspective, there are a number of different things that facilitate increases in productivity, which is important for economic growth. One would be a more educated workforce, specifically though a workforce equipped with job-ready skills, and a marketplace that is well-equipped to commercialize knowledge that is produced.

That was why in 2007 our government came forward with a science and technology strategy that looked at ways of more effectively encouraging commercialization of knowledge. It was why we put an emphasis on encouraging the trades as well, because of the needed to have a workforce that was equipped with job-ready skills. That was important for productivity and economic growth.

Efficient transportation infrastructure is obviously an important part of that as well, both in education and infrastructure. These are areas where government spending can play a positive role. What is disappointing about the budget is the total abuse of the word “infrastructure”. The government redefines infrastructure to mean almost everything.

The minister confirmed in our discussion in committee of the whole that he believed child care was a form of infrastructure. Well, it is certainly not in the sense that economists traditionally define it. Transportation infrastructure obviously has a positive impact on productivity when it is well placed, well designed, and when it helps people get to and from work more quickly.

Productivity growth requires an economic system that provides significant returns on business innovation. Business innovation creates improvements in productivity, and therefore we need a system that creates incentives for that business innovation, things like relatively low business tax rates and benefits accruing to companies that choose to hire more people. That is why this budget would negatively impact productivity by effectively increasing the tax on small business by eliminating the hiring credit. These types of measures are not good for economic growth.

Economic growth requires a stable and predictable economic environment as well. People will invest in an economy that they have a reasonable expectation will do well over the long term. When we have extended periods of large budget deficits and we have the government going into deficit with no plan to get out of it when we are not in the midst of a recession, that clearly damages confidence and reduces the reason for investments in things that produce productivity growth.

We hear a lot about growth from the government, but we do not actually hear any discussion of those foundational constituent parts of growth, things like how we increase the productivity of our economy and how we increase the productivity of labour. These are things that the government should be thinking about in a more serious way, but the Liberals repeat this mantra that more government spending is somehow, absent of any clear connection or specificity in investment, going to lead to economic growth. That is a major concern I have with the plan of the Liberals.

I want to speak as well about the impact of the budget on families.

I believe in a simple principle with regard to family taxation. If two families are earning the same amount of money, then they should pay the same amount of tax. It would seem arbitrary and unreasonable, and therefore unfair, that we would have two families each earning the same family income but happen to pay different amounts of tax, simply by virtue of which people in the family are earning the income. That is why we brought in income splitting. It was an important tax cut, but it was also a measure to ensure tax fairness.

However, the government does not seem to agree with this principle of tax fairness. The Liberals would eliminate income splitting, having the effect of raising taxes on many families, but also now ensuring a system of unequal taxation where we have families that are earning the same income, yet paying different amounts of taxes, simply because of how they decide to divide child care responsibilities. Our view has always been that it should be up to families to make their own child care choices, and families should not face some kind of direct or indirect fiscal penalty because of the financial choices they make.

Of course, the Liberal changes would also remove universality of child care benefits. We think that is a problem. We think a universal taxable benefit made good sense. Of course, a taxable benefit is inherently more progressive because the more money one makes, the more tax one pays on it. It had that built-in progressivity to it, but it was still designed to ensure that everyone had something to benefit from.

I want to speak briefly about the impact of the budget on indigenous Canadians. This budget would spend a significant amount of new money, but it does not come with the kinds of measures that are necessary to ensure the success of those investments, especially as it pertains to education.

We have a core problem when it comes to education in aboriginal communities. Unlike in every province across the country, on-reserve first nations education does not have legislated educational standards and a legislated mandate for core curriculum. It does not require that schools award a recognized provincial diploma. That is a problem. It is a problem when we do not have those structures in place to ensure that there can be a seamless transition between a school on a reserve and a school off a reserve. These are the kinds of measures, the kind of collaborative structuring of the system, improvements to accountability, that would make a real concrete different. We think those kinds of changes should, and could, be accompanied by increased investment. However, the government has put in new money but does not actually have an effective plan to improve the system at all.

Those are a number of reasons, and there are many more I could list, why I am very concerned about this budget, and I will be opposing it.

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I took some pleasure in listening to what I call the hon. member's litany of unfounded grievances with the budget. However, I have a specific question for my friend.

He no doubt is aware that the former finance minister of the previous government, the late Jim Flaherty, was adamantly opposed to income splitting. Part of the foundation for that opposition was that a consequence of income splitting would show an inordinate amount of women staying at home and not entering or staying in the workplace. Is that the policy the member wants to see achieved by having a robust income splitting regime?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think to some extent the member would put words in the former finance minister's mouth, although to the extent that we may disagree on aspects of this.

On the question of people staying home or not, the tax system should be neutral with respect to the choices people make about child care. I do not think it should penalize people who make one kind of child care choice over another. Some parents may decide that a certain kind of child care arrangement is better for their family, whether that is a person at home, be it mom or dad; whether that is grandparents; whether that is institutional child care; or whether that is some kind of child care sharing arrangement with neighbours or friends.

What I see in my community is actually the increasing flexibility and variability of child care relationships. We increasingly see people working from home, and working different hours. We are not in that sort of narrow nine-to-five model for many people. Increasingly there is flexibility there. There is a lot of change and variability in child care.

From a state perspective, we should not go to families and say that we think this is what we want them to do with respect to child care. We should leave the decisions to the people who we think are the most important child care experts, mom and dad.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan is a fellow alumnus of the Canadian University Society for Intercollegiate Debate, and he clearly understands the importance of defining his terms. I note that he began by defining economic growth in terms of the economy's capacity to produce output. Of course, by that definition, we can only look at the supply side, and productivity is the only factor that matters to economic growth.

We are all in support of more productivity, but I wonder if the House would accept that economic growth is actually about the total amount of output, which depends not only on productive capacity, but also on the demand for output. I wonder if the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan would acknowledge that in the current context of unemployed workers and unemployed resources, it is actually possible to increase economic growth by increasing demand through measures such as government spending.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

This is probably a debate that would take more than the time you would allow me, Mr. Speaker, to engage in great depth.

Probably the easiest way to answer that is as much as there are some good arguments for fiscal stimulus in certain contexts where there is sort of a brief aberration in terms of levels of demand, in the long term it will be an increase in productivity that sustains economic growth over a long period. I think Keynes would agree with that, as well as a range of economists across the spectrum.

The problem I have with the government's budgetary policy is not that it supports fiscal stimulus in unique times of recession, but that it seems to believe that we can perpetually run deficits. I think every serious economist would agree that we cannot be constantly running deficits to stimulate the economy. The very basis of Keynesianism is that we run deficits at certain times and surpluses at other times, not that we have a constant situation in which spending exceeds what the government is taking in. Obviously, that would lead us to a debt crisis, and then we are in a situation where we cannot stimulate our way out of it, because we have run out of other people's money.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I must also mention that the government has been swift in its response to unforeseen and sharp rises in unemployment in certain regions by extending EI benefits in 12 regions across the country. Unlike the previous government, we are delivering on our promises. Budget 2016 is a testament to the delivery of these commitments.

As I have said before, there is much more to be done in the years ahead, but with budget 2016, our government has laid the foundation for future growth and prosperity. With this budget, we are investing in Canada's future, and today that future is extremely bright indeed.

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

Mr. Speaker, one thing we are seeing with the Liberal budget, obviously, is increased deficit spending. We are looking at multi-billions of dollars in deficits that are going to be created, and an increase to the debt as well.

Recently, on a trip to Washington, I had the opportunity to listen to some of the top economists in the country. They were talking about the potential for a recession. It is not just a matter of if a recession is going to happen, it is a matter of when. We are currently in the sixth year of what are typically five-year cycles of recession. When a government spends as much as what the Liberals are proposing to spend, it leaves very little wiggle room with respect to getting out of a recession, as we did in 2008.

I would like to ask the hon. member this. If a recession were to hit, what measures would her government take in order to make sure that Canada recovers from that recession?

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, right now Canada is going through an infrastructure debt. We cannot pass that debt on to our future generations. It is time to invest now, not tomorrow, but today. The interest rates are low and we need to invest in our economy. That is exactly what we are doing through our budget 2016. We are investing in our middle class by giving tax breaks, introducing the Canada child benefit. This will lead to growing the economy, and all Canadians will benefit from that.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I fear that the member for Scarborough Centre's speaking notes may be out of date. She mentioned that the budget would extend employment insurance benefits in 12 regions. Since then, under pressure from the NDP, the Prime Minister has added three more regions to that benefit extension. We are now up to 15. In spite of that, Regina continues to be excluded from this extension of EI benefits.

To put that in context, there are eight EI regions across Alberta and Saskatchewan. At this point, seven of them are included in the benefit extension and only Regina is left out.

I wonder if the member for Scarborough Centre could shed any light on that decision and the rationale for leaving out Regina.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is right. In the budget, the government promised to monitor the economic situation after the budget, and, as a result, three other regions have been added. This is an evidence-based process, based on the data available. We will review the numbers, and wherever the help is needed, it will be extended.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the previous questions with great interest because it was not pressure from any political party; it is a formula that includes jurisdictions. It is not political pressure. It is not favouritism. It is evidence-based decision-making. I am glad that my colleague across the way knew that.

However, it was the first question that caught my attention and the infrastructure deficit. There was underspending by the previous government. There were zero infrastructure dollars in Alberta. Not a single new dollar from the new building Canada fund was spent in Alberta in the last two years. That money could have been putting people to work in Alberta. Instead, it sat in bank accounts in Ottawa, even though the billboards went up in that beautiful province.

However, this is the issue. The $440-billion infrastructure deficit in this country has driven into places like Toronto, our home city, a $2.6-billion backlog in infrastructure repairs for Toronto Community Housing.

How will this budget address the deficit, both the fiscal and the infrastructure deficit, left to us by the previous government, a deplorable state of economic affairs, but even worse when it comes to measuring infrastructure impact?

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I totally agree with my hon. colleague. I represent the riding of Scarborough Centre, which faces infrastructure debt for transit and affordable housing. It is not only an economic issue, but it is a social issue. Families cannot get back home in time to sit down and help their kids, or help their parents and look after them, because a lot of time is spent in Toronto on the roads.

Budget 2016's investment in transit and affordable housing will build on that, and people in my riding will definitely benefit from the investments in infrastructure as well as in affordable housing.

[Eva Nassif, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Mr. Speaker, hon. members, colleagues, members of the opposition and friends, it is a privilege and an honour to address you here today, in this noble institution, regarding the first budget of this new government, which was tabled by the Minister of Finance on Tuesday, March 22.

All my colleagues were here when the Minister of Finance presented the details of this budget, the fiscal blueprint that will take great strides toward a better and brighter future for Canada. I am proud of this budget that addresses the concerns of everyday Canadians and especially the people in the riding of Vimy, the people that we who sit in this House have to thank for the great responsibilities they bestowed upon us to represent their interests. Every day, I am grateful for this privilege, as we all should be, and therefore I fully intend to honour that privilege with steadfast and genuine service to my constituents.

This budget does just that. It is a progressive budget with attainable goals that will be felt positively by Canadians of the middle class. I am delighted to be able to speak directly to the positive direction the government has been taking with respect to fiscal and social policy, which will begin to redefine what it means to assist the middle class and those who wish to become a part of it.

The middle class is the backbone of our economy and so the government has devised a budget for those people. They are the everyday citizens who work hard so that one day they can pay off their debts, own a home, raise their children and put them through school, save for retirement, and still have enough money and time for leisure and generosity. The middle class works tirelessly for this country, so it is about time that we got to work and had a government that works tirelessly for the middle class. With this budget, we begin to restore hope to the middle class and reinvigorate the economy.

The combination of long-overdue investments in infrastructure, re-engineering of social and economic policy, and commitment to providing stimulus and support wherever it is needed is an ambitious concoction of progressive policy initiatives that will act as a catalyst to bring about the kind of relief needed to energize our economy and our middle class. Through several initiatives, middle-class and low-income Canadians will have relief from their financial burdens and receive extended benefits in areas where they need them most.

Canadians who are single, partnered, or have families of their own will see positive fiscal changes putting more money directly in their pockets. One of the government's most crucial promises was to adjust the federal income tax structure. We kept that promise as soon as we took office by lowering taxes by 1.5% for middle-class Canadians earning between $45,282 and $90,563.

This cost was offset by raising taxes for the wealthiest Canadians so that we could offer help to those who need it most. This tax break represents up to $670 per person or $1,340 per couple per year. Thousands of people across Canada and in my riding of Vimy in particular will benefit directly from this tax cut.

With the creation of the new Canada child benefit, the government is offering greater benefits to Canadian families and, again, especially those who need it most. Lower-income families will see a greater share of the benefit to assist with the greater financial burden that comes with raising children. Families earning $30,000 or less will receive the maximum of this new tax-free benefit, which means more money in the pockets of the Canadians who need it most.

Helping to keep 300,000 Canadian children out of poverty should always be a top priority for governments. Re-evaluating and prescribing newer, more efficient policies is the key to success for tomorrow’s generation. By supporting and investing in Canadian families now, we are opening up new doors for our children that may have previously been inaccessible.

We may find ourselves in old age burdened with difficult choices. Our elderly years, while heavily contingent on the plans made in our youth and adult life, are often subject to changes we could not have foreseen such as the death of a loved one, early retirement because of health that eviscerates our pension, or perhaps a life of hardship that left us without much in the way of support, and little financial stability outside of government assistance. Life does not smile on us all the time.

After a life of hard work, one should be able to retire with dignity. The budget has made some of the most extensive enhancements and policy adjustments that would give seniors the assurance and security they deserve. The previous administration's decision to trim the OAS and GIS, among many other cuts and changes that affected our seniors, was a brash and unnecessary decision doing a great disservice to them. This was at a time when, given the realities of the rising cost of living, seniors who hovered around the poverty line and undeniable projections, depicting the growth our aging population in Canada, we should have been investing in their long-term prosperity, not cutting their lifelines and watching the very people who helped build our country fade into destitution and obscurity.

On September 29, 2015, it was announced for the first time ever that in Canada there were more Canadians aged 65 and over than there were Canadians aged 15 and younger. Canada had nearly six million seniors when that announcement was made. In 21 years' time, it is expected that this number will increase by 50%. Without all of the ongoing changes, both the reversal of decisions by the previous administration and the new implementations by this government, we are taking proactive measures to ensure fair treatment and an acceptable standard of living for our seniors.

The additions made to affordable housing in the budget designed specifically for seniors, the increase to the GIS, restoring the age of eligibility for OAS, GIS and allowances and our government's intention to work with the provinces and territories to expand the CPP, and increase access to home care, these are the kinds of investments we need to be making in our country.

I chose to speak about these particular aspects of the budget today because of the positive impact they would have on my constituents. I believe the direction we are heading is the right one. I have met with countless Canadians and listened to their concerns. They want a government that looks out for all Canadians. They want a plan that helps the entire country move forward, not just one segment of society. Every one of the points from the budget I have mentioned today will help thousands of people in my riding of Vimy alone. It will also help millions of Canadians across the country for years to come.

I have been only able to scrape the surface of what the budget aims to achieve. It offers assurance for families, dignity for seniors, respect for our veterans, a future for our youth, renewed hope for aboriginals, a humanitarian global presence, sustainable environmental policies, fairness and equality.

When middle-class Canadians have more money in their pockets to save, invest, and grow the economy, it is all Canadians who benefit.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member about the budget, and more specifically about schedule 1 and the Canada child benefit. This is a topic I have raised with other members.

In the government's budget, it appears that the amount for the Canada child benefit will drop starting in the 2018-19 fiscal year, going from $22.8 billion to $21.8 billion.

Does the member know why her government will reduce the amount allocated to the Canada child benefit in its budget by $1 billion over four years?

Is it because the benefit will not be adjusted for inflation? Is it because the government thinks that families' incomes will increase so much that they will not be eligible for the benefit?

Can the member tell us why the government is cutting $1 billion from this benefit?

[Eva Nassif, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague opposite for his excellent question.

What we actually did is this: before the election, we listened to Canadians, and during the election campaign, we promised to invest in families, in the middle class, and in our children.

We therefore made changes to the Canada child benefit so that it is fairer, automatic, and tax-free and benefits all children. More importantly, it will lift 300,000 children out of poverty. The fact is, that is what we promised and that is what we have done.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to mention to my colleague that I am always a little surprised to see how people join a party, get elected, and become part of a government that made such huge promises, particularly in Quebec.

I cannot help but scratch my head, thinking that, clearly, governing is about making choices. Her government specifically chose not to support Bombardier and small businesses, although it promised to make evidence-based decisions. Knowing where her riding is located, I am sure that many people there who work in the aerospace industry will be asking their MP how she can support such an initiative.

An omnibus bill like this one certainly muzzles the opposition, but it also muzzles members like herself, who do not have much say in the matter and who will obviously have a hard time explaining this to their constituents.

I would like to hear her thoughts on that.

[Eva Nassif, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

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

As I said earlier, we listened to Canadians before the election. We held round tables and decided to invest in families for the middle class. With respect to Bombardier in particular, we did not break our promises. We are in talks to garner better offers and support Bombardier. The fact is that we are waiting for the negotiations and will update the House on those negotiations in due time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the passion and strong advocacy the member expresses, whether in here, in caucus, or wherever she might be.

Could the member reflect on the importance of the health care accord and how our government is working toward achieving that? All Canadians want to see us demonstrate leadership on this, and we have. There are $36 billion, a record high amount, going toward health care this year.

[Eva Nassif, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from this side of the House.

During the campaign, we promised to invest in families, the economy, and infrastructure. We also talked about health, which is under provincial jurisdiction. We promised huge investments to help people, to reduce wait times, for mental health, and for seniors. That is what we promised before the election, and that is what we will do.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, National Defence; the hon. member for Sherbrooke, Canada Revenue Agency; the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, Foreign Affairs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is sometimes challenging to listen to such hyperbole, with all due respect, moving from attacks against the Ontario government, which have little merit or place in the House.

Let us set that aside for the time being and focus specifically on the issue of gold. The member suggested that the government is somehow engaging in inappropriate practices by selling off gold assets. It seems to me a reasonable thing to do, advised by many financial experts who suggest that diversifying the investment reserves of different currencies is a good plan.

Would the member opposite like to inform the House of the previous government's initiatives to sell off gold, which I understand to have been a standard practice?

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

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

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

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, like the member for Pontiac, I was somewhat intrigued by the remarks about Canada's gold reserves and whether we should be holding them as part of our monetary base.

My question for the member would be this. Does Canada's role as a major gold producer have any bearing on how much gold it makes sense for us to hold or not hold in reserve?

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

Mr. Speaker, now Canada is the only G7 country that holds no official reserves. That puts us into the same category as countries with no gold reserves, such as Tonga, etc. It is incumbent upon us to be part of the higher gold reserves in terms of the G7.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is hardly an exaggeration to suggest that the policies of the Liberal brand in Ontario are coming to the federal level, considering the players that are involved. My question for the hon. member is this. With respect to the Green Energy Act, which, as I said in my speech earlier, has been an unmitigated disaster for Ontario, how would that play out federally if that same plan were to be enacted across this country?

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

Mr. Speaker, certainly plans are under way to implement the spirit of the Green Energy Act federally. Now that they have put Ontario into bankruptcy, they are looking at the national treasury.

Not only are federal taxpayers expected to subsidize this electricity-subsidy program, but also if the court case at the Hague is lost, taxpayers will be on the hook for another $1 billion, and there is not anything in this budget outlining that either. That is in addition to all the employment insurance extra premiums that employers would be on the hook for across the country because the Green Energy Act has hollowed out manufacturing in Ontario.

[Raj Grewal, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak in support of this government's first annual federal budget.

Just recently I was knocking on doors in my riding of Brampton East just to be accessible to the people who sent me to Ottawa. Many of my constituents expressed support for this government's investments to help middle-class Canadians succeed, investments that would not just help them today but investments that would lay the groundwork for the success of future generations of hard-working Canadians. These hard-working Canadians include our young Canadians, who are some of the best and brightest and deserve great educational opportunities and work experiences for the future.

Here at home and around the world dramatic shifts are taking place that represent both challenges to and opportunities for Canada's economy. Managing Canada's ongoing demographic shift means that we must do more to invest in young Canadians, specifically in post-secondary education, training, and innovation.

When I meet young people at community events, at the door, or at their school events, I see in them limitless potential to be the leaders of today and tomorrow, whether it be in the fields of science, law, business, the trades, or anything else they put their minds to.

I have had the opportunity to attend some of the best post-secondary institutions in this country. I have also had wonderful job experiences that helped me begin my career and prepared me for the honour of being a member of Parliament. Thus, I am a strong believer in the power of education and in training our young people to be the leaders of today and tomorrow. We must invest in this generation to ensure that we have support for our aging population and create economic growth to last generations.

Unfortunately, for far too many Canadians the rising cost of post-secondary education is making it less affordable. Fewer people are able to save for their education and those who receive financial assistance often find it difficult to repay their loans.

That is why budget 2016 proposes a package of reforms to the Canada student loans program that will make post-secondary education more affordable for students from low and middle-income families and ensure that student debt loads are more manageable. This includes a new flat rate student contribution to determine the eligibility for Canada student loans and grants. This will ensure that students are able to gain valuable work experience while not worrying about a reduction in their funding. This will also benefit adult learners who are working or have financial assets.

Budget 2016 would increase Canada student grants by 50%, from $2,000 to $3,000 per year for students from low-income families and $800 to $1,200 for students from middle-income families. Additionally, part-time students would receive $1,200 to $1,800 more per year as they aim to complete their education. This means that approximately 247,000 students from low-income families will benefit and 16,000 part-time students who work alongside school or care for their families will also benefit from the government's investments. This is a direct investment to meet the rising costs of post-secondary education. I cannot understate the impact that this will have for many ordinary young people who are looking to build brighter futures regardless of their family or personal income.

Also proposed is an increase in the loan repayment threshold to ensure that no students across the country will have to repay their Canada student loans until they are earning at least $25,000 per year. This measure will provide assistance of $131 million over five years starting in 2016-17. Finding a good job is hard for young people. We need to do better to ensure our recent graduates are not burdened by student debt until they are on their feet and earning a decent income.

Budget 2016 would also ensure our young people have the real life skills they need that can often only be gained from experience in the workforce. Our government is investing in employment opportunities for youth through the investment of an additional $165 million in 2016-17 for the youth employment strategy.

As well, we are creating an expert panel on youth employment to guide future investments in labour market programming. We are ensuring co-op placements and work-integrated learning opportunities for young Canadians through an investment of $73 million over four years, starting in 2016-17 for the post-secondary industry partnership and co-operative placement initiative. We would help young Canadians gain valuable work and life experiences through an investment of $105 million over five years to support youth services.

Additionally, there are numerous other provisions in our budget that would benefit young people. For example, by investing $3.4 billion over three years to upgrade and improve public transit systems across Canada, we would make it easier for young Canadians to get to and from work and school, and it is also more environmentally friendly.

By way of another example, with the millions we are investing in small businesses and innovation, such as through the industrial research assistance program, we will create new jobs in the future for our young Canadians to transition into.

In all, budget 2016 is a strong follow-through on the commitments that we made in last year's campaign.

We need to ensure that we invest and create the opportunities for young Canadians to succeed. The future of Canada depends on the quality and work ethic of our young Canadians. By investing in them, we are investing in a stronger and more prosperous Canada for years to come.

I ran to become a member of Parliament to ensure future generations had the same opportunity as me. As the son of a taxi cab driver and a factory worker, I got to attend some of the best schools across this nation. I got to graduate from Osgoode Hall Law School, join as an interior lawyer, be called to the Ontario Bar, and become a member of Parliament.

When I go to schools across my riding, I see the potential in young Canadians. I see that in Canada, if one works hard, one can achieve anything, and that education is the single most powerful tool to change one's circumstances and achieve one's dreams. Therefore, it is very important that in budget 2016 we are investing in young Canadians. We are investing in post-secondary education for all Canadians across this country. If one has the work ethic and the grades, financial assistance will be there to achieve one's educational dreams.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Brampton East for his speech. We have taken a few flights together to Toronto.

As the member mentioned, it has been a theme today of the student loan and grant provisions in the budget. However, I wonder if he can comment on the Federal Reserve Bank of New York report that was written not too long ago. July 2015 was the revised edition, and in March 2016, there was Staff Report No. 733, which studied the relationship between the federal U.S. student loan program and how it actually contributed to increasing tuition costs in the United States. The relationship it found was that the subsidized loan effect is most pronounced for the most expensive degrees offered by private institutions, two-year degrees, and vocational programs.

We are trying to help students by paying for their education, but this is the latest data coming out of the United States where they provide significant contributions through loan and grant programs. I have a U.S. master's degree, and I am familiar with how expensive it is to get a post-secondary education there.

However, for these types of programs, when we increase them, the correlation is that we increase the cost of the programs of post-secondary institutions. In this case, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York found that the relationship was mostly between expensive programs, vocational programs, and two-year programs.

Therefore, is the effect of this increase in the budget going to be that program costs in Canada might actually start going up in relation to how much they are being subsidized? I would like to hear the member's comments on this.

[Raj Grewal, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that the U.S. and Canada are totally different when it comes to universities and post-secondary education. Here in Canada, the average tuition rate is a lot cheaper than it is in the U.S. In my humble opinion, the study is not relevant to what government is doing in 2016.

The government ran on a commitment to invest in Canadians, specifically to make sure that our young Canadians have every opportunity to succeed. I know that in this country if one gets an opportunity to go to some of the phenomenal post-secondary education institutions that we have across the country, that one can achieve one's dreams. One can become a doctor, lawyer, or engineer.

However, to ensure that path happens for our young Canadians, we have to ensure that the infrastructure is there. We have to make sure that they are not riddled with debt. No student in this country should be making the decision of whether they should go to school or into the workforce based on the cost of tuition. The government should be investing in young Canadians, and that is what we are doing in budget 2016.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it has been a pleasure working with the member for Brampton East on the government operations committee.

He spoke very eloquently about the need to invest in post-secondary education. The main way in which the federal government invests in post-secondary education is through the Canada social transfer.

I am struck by the fact that this budget provides no increase at all in the Canada social transfer relative to the last Conservative budget. We have had a number of good speeches today about post-secondary education, but when it comes to actually funding post-secondary institutions, unfortunately, the current government is not doing anything more than the previous government did.

Could the member for Brampton East tell us when his government will be coming forward with an increase in the Canada social transfer?

[Raj Grewal, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to echo my hon. colleague's sentiments. It is an absolute honour and privilege to serve with him on the government operations committee.

I want to focus on the increases we are making to universities. We are directly investing through a post-secondary investment and research fund. The Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development is doing a phenomenal job, travelling the country, coast to coast to coast, speaking with the heads of universities to ensure they have access to this funding.

There are clear guidelines across the country to ensure that our post-secondary education institutions have the money to invest and to ensure that when young Canadians go to these institutions, they receive that high-quality education we are so used to in Canada. A lot of our hon. colleagues have had the opportunity and the benefit of getting good degrees and education from very good institutions.

It is our job and our requirement to ensure that future generations have the same opportunity we have had.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I suspect that there are many New Democratic members of Parliament who are a little nervous about how to vote on what is one of the most progressive budgets we have seen in the last decade, and even longer than that. We can talk about the money that would be provided through the child benefit program, the increases that some of the poorest seniors in the country would get through the GIS, and the solid commitment to infrastructure dollars and building projects. I appreciate that New Democrats wanted to balance the budget, but when I listen to their speeches, they talk about wanting to spend more money.

How does the member feel about voting against one of the most progressive budgets we have seen in the last decade-plus?

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I can assure my colleague across the aisle that I am not nervous at all about the way I will vote on this particular bill and that I have studied the budget extensively. While there are things that will help people in my region, there are gaping holes for others. Those who make under $45,000 in my community, in the small towns I represent with many minimum-wage workers, will not receive any type of tax benefit or help.

He talks about the money that will go to families. Of course, this is a benefit for families, but it does not address a huge issue in my riding, which is child care and the lack of affordable, safe child care spaces. He also mentioned seniors. Seniors are largely left out of this budget. Let us talk about health care, the gaping hole that exists for palliative care, the $3 billion that was promised to communities that simply does not exist. This is the reason I am looking critically at this bill.

Again, I promise my colleague across the aisle that I will stand with full confidence in my vote.

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

Madam Speaker, my hearty congratulations to my colleague from Essex for her speech, which reflected the reality of the people she represents. She says that she is proud to represent her constituents, and I think that they can be very proud of their MP, who is so in tune with their reality. The member said that this budget does not meet all the needs of the people in her riding.

After making an election promise to reduce the small business tax rate, the Liberals decided to make them wait even though they are our most important job creators. I am guessing that was a real blow to the agricultural sector and entrepreneurs.

Would my colleague care to comment on that?

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his kind words about my representation for my riding. I am very proud and I take it very seriously when I am looking at an issue such as this omnibus budget and breaking it down into ways that are relatable.

Small businesses in the community have been seriously let down. I represent five small municipalities. Small and medium-sized businesses are the backbone of Essex. There is absolutely nothing for these folks in the budget. The decrease promised by the Liberal government that did not show up in this budget is a huge letdown for small businesses. I do not know where their future lies without those extra funds, particularly in Ontario, with a Liberal government that is, unfortunately, raising hydro prices that are unaffordable for businesses in my riding.

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

Madam Speaker, I was really pleased to hear my colleague talk about short-haul railways. The role played by independently own railways across Canada is significant. We do not talk about them very much.

In the brief time remaining, I want to ask the member if she would agree with me that we should do more to help them own their own tracks, get goods from place to place, and reduce truck traffic on our highways.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, short-haul railways are integral to my riding. In particular, there are some that require attention. If we could do some improvements to two particular crossings that have small bridges, it would grow the economies of the small communities they serve. Of course, there is the environmental impact, which is incredibly important to all of us down in the sun parlour of Canada.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to be joining the debate at this hour.

As I have done before, I want to share a Yiddish proverb, “One builds the house and the other lives in it”. I think it really applies to this budget. Today I want to talk about the fiscal house the government is building through its budget.

If we look at the “Fiscal Monitor” for March 2016, we see that the Liberals had a budgetary deficit of $9.4 billion of their own creation. They spent the money. They did not control the cost and it is really one that they own.

The March 2015 “Fiscal Monitor”, the house that was built by the previous government, had a budgetary deficit for March 2015 of $3 billion, and that house was built on sturdy foundations, based on the idea that this is not the money of the government and this is not the money of the House. It belongs to taxpayers and we are here as stewards on their behalf.

We see also in the March 2016 “Fiscal Monitor” that personal income taxes and corporate taxes were both down, $1.1 billion on the personal side, $2.1 billion on the corporate side, and $0.2 billion on non-resident income tax. Revenue was way down but spending was way up. Direct program expenses were up $1.5 billion.

If we look at the comments made by the former parliamentary budget officer, he said, “The (Conservative) government handed over a set of books that were, for all intents and purposes, in balance”. Furthermore, he went on:

Policy related changes include the Liberals booking $3.7 billion in future veterans benefits in the 2015-16 fiscal year, while tax changes, an Alberta stabilization fund, Syrian refugee costs and the cancellation of federal sick leave savings totalled $2 billion....

And their spending and tax measures are going to add to that deficit.

This is truly a budget that builds a fiscal house based on structural deficit, so there is no foundation. There is just an ample, large volumes of spending. Most of the spending is really being thrown away. It is done without any real, focused purpose. It is not really being done for the benefit of the middle class. In fact, one commentator said that this budget is “a giant meat grinder of taxpayers’ money”.

While for many of us it is kind of shocking to see how the concept of stewarding both the economy and taxpayer dollars has been thrown out the window with the budget. I also think about the obvious effects of just how little effort the government puts into cost control or this concept of stewarding taxpayer dollars.

When the government took power in early November 2015, it also began owning all of these spending decisions. As I mentioned, there is quite a few of them that the Liberals have made since then, and they have chosen to go down this path of deficit spending. During the campaign we heard that they would have small, reasonably sized $10-billion deficits. To me that seems completely unreasonable. That deficit has grown through $29.4 billion, $29.5 billion, $29.6 billion, to almost $30 billion.

We see that all of those promises the Liberals made during the campaign are not really worth the paper they were written on. They own this spending that they have done since they took power in November and it is truly theirs. The Liberal deficit has been reaching new heights since March 2016, and as in the budget, there is no end goal. There is no end to the spending. They will just continue to spend to new heights. They have no plans to return to a balanced budget.

When we look at the budget a little more closely, we also see that the revenue numbers are hard to believe. The Liberals believe that between this fiscal year and the next they will have an extra $10 billion just in personal income taxes. It makes one wonder how and from where will they get this money. They say they are getting it from Canadian taxpayers, but I just do not see the potential for an increase that is so high.

The borrowed money of today is really the taxes of tomorrow. If we binge borrow today, as the Liberals are doing, eventually we will have to pay it back. Binge borrowing today by the Liberals will require them, and they are already doing so, to squeeze the private sector in terms of the borrowing opportunities. The private sector has to go out and find dollars from regular Canadians, from businesses or from banks to borrow as well, so public sector borrowing squeezes private sector borrowing and costs go up.

The federal government is displaying and creating this type of environment where it will be more difficult in the long term for the private sector to borrow at reasonable rates. There is also an open question as to whether any of these budget numbers make any sense. A sizeable contingency fund was created. They have tagged the price of oil at $25, and at times they have really rosy revenue growth, which, as I said, especially on the personal income tax side, is just completely unreasonable and very hard to believe.

One other oddity I have mentioned in the House before and I have asked questions about to other members, today especially, is on the child benefit numbers. They actually start going down, starting in fiscal year 2018-19.

The result is a $1-billion gap between their numbers in 2018-19 and the numbers in 2020-21. The only reason to explain this gap is because either they believe that Canadians will be making vast sums of new revenue somehow, families will be making vast sums more and therefore they will be eligible for a smaller child benefit only, or they have no intention of indexing it to inflation and over time, the child benefit will simply decrease in its real value. That is the only way this works and the budget document is simply unhelpful in pointing out how this will be done.

On the very next page we have an explanation for every single other line item. They have no explanation for this decrease on the child benefit side. On infrastructure, again Liberals are off to a bizarre start with the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities wasting $800,000 on a new deputy minister's office. Is there truly no space available in Ottawa to fit a deputy minister's office? Is there truly no space available to start an infrastructure program but by building the Taj Mahal, by building, as a colleague of mine from Edmonton West called it, sky palace 2.0 for Albertans who are quite aware what sky palace 1.0 was, a huge waste of dollars.

On the infrastructure record, the Liberal record between 1994 and 2006, was $351 million allocated to Alberta. A pittance, peanuts. The Conservative record in comparison between 2006-15 was $3.4 billion of infrastructure spending, real money allocated to real projects, projects one can see in my community like the Stoney Trail bypass of the city of Calgary built with federal and provincial monies including the City of Calgary.

If we want a record of fairness and standing up for Albertans, the budget does not have that. The budget does not help Albertans continue to build in the fastest growing cities in Canada.

There is a measly $4 billion in the current budget to be spent on actual infrastructure. Another $25 billion is being spent and over 80% is being spent on a wish list of program spending, so there is very little infrastructure spending in the budget. The Liberals have plans to spend more, but in the budget they have tabled with this budget implementation act that would actually change the laws to make it work, they have almost nothing available for actual infrastructure.

If we look at small businesses and how they are hard done by the budget, they are losing out on a 1.5% tax cut they were supposed to get. That was another broken promise by the Liberals. I talked of a meat grinder for taxpayer dollars, but I am sure the Liberals have also a very well used industrial shredder for all those Liberal promises they are no longer willing or able to keep.

The PBO estimated that a reduction to 9% would reduce the federal revenues of $2.15 billion over the next four years and this is net. Put another way, this was $2.15 billion that small business owners would get to keep in their pockets so they could reinvest it into their business.

We talked about innovation. There is no greater innovator than small business owners trying to grow their business. They do not need the government to tell them how to do it, they can do it themselves.

When we look at the PBO's report even further, we also see the real GDP impacts. Employment numbers will go down by $1.24 billion. Again, it is a huge loss not to reduce the small business tax. I know when I worked for the Calgary Chamber of Commerce, we moved a motion at the provincial level to simply reduce the small business tax by 1% to match it with Saskatchewan. This was hugely popular in the chamber movement in Alberta.

I know the record that the previous Conservative government left to the current government: the number one most reputable and admired in the world, the Reputation Institute; the number one government net debt, GDP,G7, OECD, AAA credit rating; best country for business in the G20, according to Forbes; number one best G7 job growth since 2008 according to the OECD. All of this is at risk with this budget.

The list is no doubt a flurry of wasting tens of billions of taxpayers' dollars. To return to the concept that I started with, the Yiddish proverb, the house that we are building in the budget has no foundation. It is built on bingeing of debt, debt as far as the eye can see, structural deficits that it will take a generation to fix, and successive governments will struggle with it because they have to, there is nothing here. There is no plan.

We are talking about future generations and many of us have talked about the graduating students. There is nothing in it except debt and higher taxes in the future. I will oppose the budget and invite other members to do the same.

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

Madam Speaker, I often ask Conservative members this question. I know it can be difficult to vote when there is something in the budget that I believe many Conservatives are glad to see, and that is the whole issue of the tax break. In excess of nine million Canadians, Canada's middle class, will receive a substantial tax break, adding literally hundreds of millions of dollars to people's disposable income.

We are talking about individuals like teachers, manufacturing workers, and bus drivers, so many individuals in every region of the country. This bill would deliver a tax break for those Canadians. Not to mention the Canada child benefit program, where we will see millions of dollars being delivered into the homes and literally lifting hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty.

How does the member feel about those two specific issues? Does he feel this is something he would support?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have no problem voting against this budget. I have absolutely no problem voting against the Liberals on most of the things they put forward as part of their government agenda.

The simple reason is this, especially on the child benefit issue. The member must know that in the Liberals' budget, they cut $1 billion out of the child benefit program in the term of their government. It actually starts going down in total numbers. They are not being straight with Canadians about how they are going to run the program.

The next part is on the income tax issue. I have a constituent named, Cole. Cole works in a casino. He gets a smaller tax break than I do, because of the Liberal supposed middle-income tax cut. That is not a tax cut for middle-income Canadians. Cole is a middle-income Canadian. He deserves a tax cut, which he is not getting with this budget.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for talking about tax breaks for the middle-class and for small business, and failed Liberal promises.

On the question he was just asked about middle-class tax breaks, when we looked at the middle-class tax break offered by the government, two-thirds of Canadians did not qualify for those tax breaks.

He talked about one of his constituents. We did the math. Anyone who earns $23 an hour or less gets nothing in the middle-class tax break that the Liberals have proposed. The people who benefit the most earn between $50 and $100 an hour.

I want to ask my colleague how he feels about this. In talking to my constituents, those who earn between $50 and $100 an hour, even they think it is unfair that someone earning $23 an hour or less gets nothing in the so-called middle-class tax break and that small business people, who are the economic generators, the job creators in our society, get nothing with respect to the tax break promised to them.

Maybe the member could talk a little about these false promises.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member and I share an interest in Kurdish issues, and both of us participate in a parliamentary group on it.

The member is exactly right. This budget offers very little for the supposed middle class on which it is themed. That is the very front page of it.

Going back to my constituent, Cole, a pit boss at the Deerfoot Inn & Casino, and the card dealers who work there, they are the ones deserving of a tax cut as are small business owners. Neither of them are getting it.

I, who am a higher income earners, and members of Parliament in the House, who are also higher income earners, are getting the full benefit of this supposed middle-income tax cut because of the way the tax system works.

The Liberals are actually hurting Canadians who need it the most by driving the debt up to new heights. Taxes in the future will have to be raised to pay for the spending they are engineering today.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond Centre, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I have been listening to the hon. member opposite talk about the need for tax cuts. Putting aside the fact that taxes did not go up for small businesses, future reductions have been deferred, and taxes did go down this year.

I have been reading through all of the private members' bills that the Conservative Party has introduced in the House this term. It is quite fascinating to note that we do not find tax cuts amongst them. We found things like an act to amend the Criminal Code. We found an act to establish a national appreciation day, a much higher priority than tax cuts in terms of the private members across the way. We found an act to amend the firearms legislation and an act to amend corrections and conditional release. We did not find tax cuts as being a popular component of their private members' bills.

I am curious as to why the member herself has not brought forth a private member's bill, if the issue is that important to her.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, our Conservative government lowered personal taxes 120 times. We do not need a measure in the bill just to reinstate our commitment to cutting small business taxes. It was in our campaign promises, as it was part of every party's commitment.

Once in power, why did the Liberal government forget about its commitments and not fulfill its promise to lower small business taxes? The Liberal government should be facing that challenge. The Liberal government should be helping our small business owners.

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

Madam Speaker, it is incredulous to me, to anyone who sits in the House on this side, that the hon. member would actually bring that up when he knows full well that it was the Liberal Party that promised to bring the small business tax rate down, and yet it is not included in the budget. However, I digress. I am not actually here to speak to that, but it is worth noting.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague about small business. In the committee of the whole last week, the Minister of Finance was asked a very pointed question as to whether in fact he had consulted with Dan Kelly of the CFIB during budget deliberations. Like an artist in Cirque du Soleil, he contorted his body in every angle without answering the question. Therefore, I would like to ask my hon. colleague a question. How important would it have been for a finance minister to meet with the president of the CFIB during budget deliberations?

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, during many of my visits and discussions with the president of the CFIB, the first concern he raised was they were not even able to secure a meeting with the finance minister. How can the government really set up a policy when the most important economic element in our whole community in Canada that creates over 95% of jobs is not even heard?

In my experience, in meeting many of the business owners, and as a former business owner myself, this is exactly who we should be listening to, small business owners and small business organizations that represent them. I mentioned the B.C. Women's Enterprise Centre, the Ethno Business Council of B.C., and all those business associations I have been consulting. We should be listening to them. This is their major concern.

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

Madam Speaker, first, I would like to mention that small businesses in my area are concerned. They are trying to invest, to hire, and to develop.

I would like to ask about the overall government plan on spending. If spending for the sake of spending were true, Ontario would be the economic engine of Canada. Of course that is not true. Perhaps she could speak to that.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, the government has said it is going to spend on infrastructure and innovation. What they are spending on is the program, and the program administration. There is no actual job creation. There is no direct benefit to any of our businesses, especially now that it is actually increasing taxes to our small businesses.

Again, to grow or not to grow, to expand or not expand, that is the question. I do not think the Liberals have a good answer to it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's not worth the paper it's written on.

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

That is right, Madam Speaker.

How did this promise come about? In February 2015, the NDP promised that it would reduce small business taxes from 11% to 9% to give job creators a needed break. The Conservatives played politics at first by voting down the measure, but then, to their credit, inserted the small business tax reduction into budget 2015. During the election campaign, all parties, even the Green Party, supported keeping these tax cuts that would have gone to 9% by 2019.

Political parties cannot agree on the time of day, so this was significant. This was huge. Small business owners felt they could be assured that after years of breaks for big corporations, they would finally get a little help, but then the government tabled its budget. This budget bill would delete all future reductions to the small business tax rate, with no plan to bring them back at a later date. They were just deleted.

It is a fact that this bill would delete all future reductions, but not once have the Liberals acknowledged it. Instead, they say, “Who knows what will happen in future budgets”. That is not a commitment. That is not a responsible way for government to speak to small business people, the people who are the foundation of our local economies. The Liberals made a promise and they broke it. Instead of owning it, they are hiding behind political spin. They will say that they have made all kinds of other promises, on top of other promises, like personal income tax cuts and child care money that will help.

Let us look at the so-called tax cut for the middle class that does nothing for those earning $45,000 a year or less, but really benefits the people earning around $200,000. If Liberals think that most small business owners do not benefit from income taxes, then they truly do not understand the business world. Small business people count on every dollar they earn to keep their businesses going, to pay their employees, to pay their rents, and to contribute to the local economy. The child tax benefit measure will not cover the cost of child care, so it is not enough.

It was a promise. The Liberals knocked on doors, visited small businesses, held round tables, all while making their promise crystal clear. There is a word I am not allowed to say in this place, but Canadians know what it means when a promise is made on something with no intention of doing it. It starts with the letter “l”. It was a slap in the face to small business.

Some have asked if small business really need this break, and the answer is yes. Small businesses create 78% of all new jobs in the country. They are the backbone of the economy. Fifty per cent of small businesses earn less than $40,000 a year. Seventy per cent of small businesses earn less than $60,000 a year. I have this information from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.

If the government was truly interested in growing the economy and creating jobs, it would do everything it could to support small business. It is important that we keep money in our local communities and plug economic leakages. When we look at buying local and spending money in our local community, we can see the multiplier effect. When we spend money at a local business or small business in our community, 46% of that money stays in our community, versus 14% spent at a multinational. Therefore, it is very important that we invest in small businesses and make sure that we keep that money.

As we know, the parliamentary budget officer did a report that said that $2.2 billion is going to be lost to small business by getting rid of the small business cut. When we add the multiplier effect, it is a lot of money to the local economy. If we want to grow our economy, and we want to do it in a way that supports community economic development, we need to invest in small business.

I have spoken directly with small business owners across Canada. Many were counting on this. Small business owners in my community, who have a whale-watching company, told me that they were planning on using the tax cut to help purchase another boat and add to their fleet, but now they are not sure that they are going to be able to afford it. They looked at it over four years.

At the end of the day, this is about priorities and fairness. Consecutive Liberal and Conservative governments have slashed taxes for Canada's largest and most profitable corporations from 28% to 15%. We know that a lot of that money ends up being dead money. It ends up in the hands of shareholders and leaves our communities.

We need to invest in small business. If the Liberals truly wanted to, there is nothing stopping them from honouring their promise.

Some might ask how we can afford to invest in small business, the $2.2 billion to do this right. I will give an example, and it is about choices.

Budgets are about choices. Elections are about choices. The current government has a choice. There is $800 million annually being lost through shareholder stock options. CEOs are getting a tax break when they are not paying their fair share. If we close that loophole, it would more than cover the small business tax break.

The Liberal government is making a choice to give CEOs a huge tax break instead of giving it to small business people in our communities. This is very important, because when they say that we cannot afford it, we can. We know we can. It is about choices. To go back to people in our communities and tell them that we are going to choose CEOs who are not paying their fair share over small businesses is a slap in the face.

I really hope that Liberals and members of the House will vote against the bill. Vote for the people at the doors they knocked on. Vote for the people in their communities instead of voting for Canada's CEOs, those who earn the most, and make sure that they pay their fair share. The myth that CEOs will suddenly pull out and that investment will pull out if we close these tax loopholes is wrong. It is not true. Fundamentally, it is not right.

We need the government to do the right thing and make sure that those who can afford it pay their fair share, that those who need a break get a break, and that small business counts and is a priority. We need to build trust with small business people instead of continually breaking trust.

I hope government members and all members of the House will vote against the bill, vote for the small business people in their communities, vote for what is right, and vote for the promises they made.

[Fayçal El-Khoury, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I have to say that this government presented the best budget to support families and the middle class. As we all know, a middle-class family with more money in its pockets spends more, and that helps to boost the economy and support small and medium-sized businesses.

I would like my colleague to explain that.

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

Madam Speaker, I do not share the same perspective about the budget. In fact, I do not see the Liberals tackling inequality or helping those who are not in the middle class join the middle class.

Again, on the middle-class tax break I talked about earlier, those who earn $23 an hour or less do not get the tax benefit. How are those people supposed to join the middle class?

When we talk about small business, the economic generators, the job creators in our communities that create 80% of jobs, they are not getting a tax break that was promised to them. The child tax benefit the Liberals are offering is not enough to cover child care.

In fact, the people who would benefit the most from the middle-class tax break earn between $100,000 and $200,000 a year. If we ask them, even they will tell us that it is unfair that someone who earns $23 an hour or less gets nothing.

To the member, I completely disagree. I think the Liberals failed to do what they promised: tackle inequality and help those who are not in the middle class join the middle class. Two-thirds of Canadians are not getting the benefit they were promised.

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

Madam Speaker, earlier on in a debate on this same topic, I believe it was the member for Winnipeg North who expressed to me that the small business owners in his riding were very happy with this budget. They were happy because there were so many dollars being put back into the pockets of everyday Canadians in the middle class that suddenly small businesses were going to have all of this additional cash coming in their doors. I wonder if the member might have a perspective on how that would somehow balance out with small businesses actually receiving what was promised to them in the budget initially.

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

Madam Speaker, that is a great question. I was actually just in the member's riding at FCM. I was in north Winnipeg, and I talked to a couple of people. I gave them the breakdown for the middle-class tax break that was promised. They earn less than $23 an hour, their children are over 18, and they feel that they have been forgotten, been left behind and been lied to.

I agree that the best thing the Liberals could have done is to make sure that everyone counts in their so-called tax break for the middle class. They could have done their research to find out where median incomes lie in Canada, and in places like Winnipeg and especially north Winnipeg. We know it is certainly less than $31,000.

Also, who drives the economy? It is small business people. That promise was made to small business people. In Winnipeg north, in the member's riding, and in all of our ridings, it is small business people who are driving our economy. They are the people who are building our economy.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and for the attention he gave to small and medium-sized businesses.

On that note, I was wondering what he thinks about the attitude that this government and the Prime Minister himself have shown toward small and medium-sized businesses. The Liberals broke their promise to lower the tax rate for SMEs.

During the election campaign, the Prime Minister was probably thinking about his own numbered companies when he said that Canada's entrepreneurs were using their small businesses to try to avoid paying taxes.

Can my colleague comment on the attitude of the government, and more specifically of the Prime Minister, toward SMEs, as well as their perception of these small businesses? The Prime Minister seems to believe that everyone uses these companies the way he does.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his strong values and for standing up for the people in his community. He is absolutely right. We hear rhetoric from the members from the government side, saying things like small business people are bad fiscal money managers, or they are tax cheats. About 80% of small business people earn less than $80,000 a year. Actually, 70% of them earn less than $60,000 a year. Therefore, this rhetoric is unacceptable. These people are the foundation of our community. These are the people who we should be celebrating and helping to lift up.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, in a number of the member's comments, she is looking for issues that affect people. If we look at Veterans Affairs, I could talk about the nine offices we have committed to reopening. The budget allows for that to take place. There is substantial support going to the veterans.

Would the member provide a comment on what I think is a very progressive aspect of the budget dealing with some of Canada's very poorest seniors in all regions of our country? The budget puts into place a substantial increase. It could be as high as $900 for a single senior who is finding it very difficult because of a limited income.

I am wondering if the member would provide some comment in regard to how important a guaranteed income supplement is and recognize that the money flowing to that program is a positive step forward in helping a good number of Canada's poorest seniors.

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

Madam Speaker, I certainly would have liked some answers to some of my questions followed by a question in regard to our veterans, as that is the area about which I am especially concerned. Being on the committee and being deputy critic for Veterans Affairs, I know these issues are very serious and a deep concern to them.

I represent one of the ridings in the country with the largest percentage of older people, and I communicate with them a great deal. They are concerned about a number of things. One of them is about the highest end of a possible increase in the GIS. Many of these people are facing situations where the amount they are being provided is minimal, not unlike our lowest and most vulnerable veterans. They receive the bottom end of potential support that really will not make much of a difference to them in the long term.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question about the definition of middle class used by the government.

In many communities, at least in my community of Sherbrooke, the definition of middle class is not necessarily the same one that could be attributed to the government, which is cutting taxes. In fact, those earning more than $160,000 a year receive the largest tax cuts.

My colleague from Courtenay—Alberni just said that he calculated that a full-time employee would have to earn $23 an hour to benefit from the government's so-called middle-class tax cut.

Accordingly, could my colleague comment on these facts and figures concerning the middle class, which seem rather high for the Liberal government?

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

Madam Speaker, this is of deep concern to me as well. Prior to being here, I was a small business owner. I still am, but I am not involved in the business. Watching our employees and the amount of money they are earning, they are certainly not what the current government deems the middle class. The vast majority of people in Canada who should be receiving support from the government, who truly do need it, do not fall into the categories that the Liberals have presented to us today. What this would do is again reward in circumstances where the need is not as great as those who truly do need that support in a truer representation of the middle class.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The member will have one minute remaining the next time this debate is before the House.

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

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this time on the budget implementation bill. I always call budget implementation the time when the tires hit the road, when we hit the pavement and decide what we will implement over the next little while. In some cases our budget implementation bill will undo some of the things we did not agree with in the last administration and it will put forward what we put into our election platform. These are details by which we debate.

I would like to highlight a number of things. A lot of this has to do with my riding and by extension my province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I want to focus on two themes from the budget. A lot of it has to do with the individuals who I feel need a hand-up from the government, who need some help from the government to get by, through no fault of their own. It is one of the reasons why I ran for politics. It is one of the main reasons it has sustained me for the past 12 years. It gets me up in the morning and gets me to work every day. I feel that all 338 of us make a difference in our own sort of way, not just for our ridings but also in general, to further the dialogue of our country and enact elements of that dialogue into legislation.

The two themes I want to talk about are smart investments and a sense of fairness.

Smart investments come from the conversations we have had with people over the past couple of years. I remember when we were the smaller party in the House. There was a lot of discussion. There were good ideas from all parties at that time and there were great debates. I do not want to dwell on what happened in the last session too much, but I will dwell upon some of the things we looked at to create fairness within the taxation system. That is what we are talking about here.

As for fairness for the middle class, I know in many cases a lot of the tax credits we talked about earlier may seem like a wonderful thing by the day's end, things like the credits that the former government put in place. Some of them were for good reasons. They were good for fitness, for books and for many other things. However, we looked at all the credits and decided we needed to invest in the middle class. All of these could be encapsulated into fairness so we could invest in our middle class and so people could provide for their families. In turn, we could help create employment as a result of that.

Let me go back to my origin, to Newfoundland and Labrador. One of the best things we can invest in are the skills for people. Back in the early 1990s, when the cod moratorium was in place, one of the biggest lay-offs in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador occurred. Thousands upon thousands of communities were affected by the shutdown of the major fishery. The government of the day, under former prime minister Jean Chrétien, decided it would invest in people by allowing them to re-educate themselves, retool themselves for something down the road. It took a while to do that, but it got done in several ways.

First and foremost, we talk about seafood as being a great export. We talk about our minerals and mines as a great export. However, one of our greatest exports that we have right now in our neck of the woods is skilled trades. My constituents travel the world: Norway, North Africa, eastern Russia, the Middle East; and even in our country into Alberta, Saskatchewan, and British Columbia. Many of our people travel away for a period of time, return, and live in my province, in my riding and throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. Yet they find themselves going around the world making a living. The investments we made many years ago allowed that to happen. We were able to build the capacity by which we could educate people and by the same token we could create a post-secondary institution that was nimble and therefore able to adapt to the skills market it required. To dovetail that, we have cut taxes for the middle class. As a result of that, we also believe in the investment in the people and the structures by which they live.

One of the best things I found about this budget was that it would benefit the smallest of communities. There are about 140 communities in my riding and each of these communities is now able to invest in infrastructure in a way they could never before. How they do that is by allowing the flexibility within the system so they can invest with other levels of government, with provincial governments and the federal government.

We now can make substantial investments in community infrastructure regarding recreation, heritage, tourism, culture. Beyond the industries I mentioned earlier, we also have a burgeoning tourism market throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. Many have seen the commercials. They are enticing a lot of people to my area, but if there is nothing there for them, then it becomes very difficult to provide services and to create long-term employment as a result.

I also want to talk about some of the specifics when it comes to seasonal work, which is a big element for central Newfoundland in particular. Division 12 of part 4 of the bill would increase, until July 8, 2017, the maximum number of weeks for which benefits may be paid to certain claimants in certain regions, and my region is one of those. It certainly would benefit in a great way.

It would eliminate the category of claimants who are new entrants and re-entrants, so it would not perplex people who are new entrants into the EI system to acquire the hours to get into the system for the first time. Before, it was rather unfair. Double the amount of hours were required for people getting into the system for the first time. Therefore, we are scaling it back to what everyone else has to do.

It would reduce to one week the length of the waiting period during which claimants would not be entitled to benefits. It is not just about the one week; it is also about processing. In some cases, some people who apply for employment insurance have to wait not one to three weeks, but six weeks to receive that first cheque. That is two or three weeks beyond the late mortgage payment or the late payment for utilities. That certainly becomes onerous. Therefore, we are going to do that, plus we are going to enhance the system by which processing takes place in the public service.

Budget 2016 certainly takes an essential step to grow the middle class. It puts people first and delivers the help Canadians need now, not in a decade from now. In the last session of Parliament, the emphasis was on the investment that was on the back end, as some people like to call it, meaning the latter part of the span got most of that money. We felt that investment had to be done now in many cases, certainly for Newfoundland and Labrador. In my particular situation, that had to be done soon.

One of the examples I can use is that soon there will be harder regulations regarding waste water, for environmental reasons and for all the right reasons. In 2020, we are looking at some very onerous regulations for the smallest of communities, not just the largest cities. As a result, we have to help bring these communities up to a standard by which they can satisfy those regulations. That is very important to us and to Newfoundland and Labrador.

I want to turn to the main text of the budget for a moment, because there are several areas I would like to touch upon. I mentioned small town recreation. Page 102 talks about investing in cultural and recreational infrastructure. Some of the best investments we have made are in things like playgrounds and ball fields. Recreational areas create jobs, yes, but more important, they allow communities to invest in themselves, and we want to be a part of that.

Our 150-year celebration is just around the corner and the local and regional economic development agency, more commonly known as ACOA, or Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, provides an essential service for the smallest of communities. It tells communities that the Government of Canada believes in them and will be there. That is why I love this budget. I will vote for it, and I hope all members do.

Rural broadband is absolutely an essential service. When I first arrived in the House, Internet capability was something for those who could afford it. Now it has become absolutely essential. Building a road to reach a community now is as essential as the reach of broadband Internet as well.

I believe in tourism and investments in it.

Finally, I want to talk about the Manolis L, and the $6 million to come up with an assessment. It is a sunken ship off the coast of my riding. It had to be addressed, and was addressed in this budget.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about what the Liberals would implement with this budget. What are they implementing with the huge deficit they have budgeted for, with no plans to balance the budget? These are serious things to implement upon the Canadian public.

What is more concerning to me is on page 235 of this year's budget. It is the GST revenue projections. If we take note of these numbers, the GST revenue is projected to rise by 21% over the next five years. The government is certainly not predicting, nor are any of the economic indicators suggesting, that our economic growth is going to grow by anywhere near 21%.

I am concerned the government is planning to implement a GST increase. Is that the case?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's enthusiasm. During the campaign, there was never a commitment to talk about the GST or to increase it. I do not think—

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

I'm not talking about the campaign.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

I am sorry if my answer is interrupting his heckling, Mr. Speaker, but I will try to keep going.

These are projections based on the economic growth. I mentioned the investment in our communities, and how that would benefit us. I certainly believe the projections are there. Our debt-to-GDP ratio allows us to eliminate this deficit a few years from now.

I would like to remind the member that this is nothing new. The idea of injecting money, investing in the economy, and investing for the sake of a stimulus measure is not new. Being in a deficit situation for a period of time was also talked about by the former finance minister, Hon. Jim Flaherty, God rest his soul. He said the same thing.

When the other side says that this is a rather wasteful way of spending, that is not what they used to say, as we get into a hashtag disingenuous conversation.

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

Mr. Speaker, when I go door to door in Trois-Rivières, there is one question I am dying to ask every person I see. I want to know whether they are satisfied with the tax cuts. Most times, people ask me what tax cut I am talking about.

There is a big difference between the definition of middle class that I had in my mind and what we see in the budget.

The median salary in Quebec is around $31,500 a year. As we all know, everyone who earns $45,000 and under will not receive a tax cut.

Is my colleague truly proud of a budget in which the middle class, or those striving to join it, do not have access to the tax cuts? Is he proud of a measure that is supposed to be revenue neutral but that will actually cost hundreds of millions of dollars?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I have been in the House 12 years. I do not often get to hear the NDP members advocate for tax cuts, but nevertheless I will address it.

We are looking at the tax cut for the middle class, but we are also investing, the child tax benefit being a big factor of that. That is what a lot of people have asked for, and that is what we are delivering.

I know both parties are on us about this idea of spending. We call it investment for all the right reasons. If members have been here as I long as I have, they would realize that these investments are crucial for all communities, including Trois-Rivières and the other communities he has mentioned.

I would suggest the member hang on and look at how these investments will benefit his riding, and maybe he will take credit for it. They are solid investments in the middle class, such as the child tax benefit for those raising families. This is what it is about. The tax cut is there to help them. Compared to what has been done, it is a substantial tax cut.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments on this particular budget and the debate we are having today.

I heard with great interest the discussion he mentioned about being with children and talking about the debt, and them questioning how we get out of so much debt. I hope he also took the opportunity to explain to them what taking on this debt could do for our country in terms of our ability to invest in infrastructure and get the economy moving again and getting things properly working.

He was very critical of the debt we are taking on, but at the same time, also made comments about the fact that we were not able to balance the budget. I am wondering if he could provide some input. Given the fact that the NDP had made a commitment to balancing the budget, how would he have worked with his party? What would he specifically have cut in order to balance the budget, while at the same time providing these tax breaks that he spoke about for small businesses? Can he give us some insight as to how he would cut the taxes for small businesses and balance the budget? What specifically would he have cut or promoted to cut to add up to the $30 billion?

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

Mr. Speaker, our approach to the budget was to increase corporate taxes, to increase the amount of revenue coming in. That, of course, is another aspect that is missing from the budget and from our approach to Canada.

Increasing corporate taxes would bring in additional revenue. There was a bit of an expectation that corporations would do the right thing and reinvest the money that they saved on taxes in Canada. That has not happened and it was one of the things we really wanted to see happen.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I found it interesting that my colleague was comparing Canada and Norway, and the rainy day fund that Norway has.

I would just like to point out, Norway does not have equalization payments to the provinces. Being from Alberta, I know exactly the impact that has had on our province; $10 billion has left our province.

Is the hon. member saying we should eliminate equalization payments to the provinces? I am sure people in Alberta would have no problem with that.

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

Mr. Speaker, equalization payments, of course, are part of Canada and have been for a long time. I am not suggesting that we get rid of equalization payments. I am suggesting that perhaps we take a different approach to how we deal with oil and gas revenues, similar to how they do it in Norway.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me add to that point. Where did Norway get the brilliant idea of setting aside royalties that were priced appropriately to the value of the resource, for the benefit of their public? They got it from Peter Lougheed, the former premier of Alberta whose brilliant idea was trashed by his successor, Ralph Klein.

It is not the money that would be in Alberta and Alberta would be awash in cash if only it was not for equalization payments. Alberta would have a heritage fund with money for its citizens if not for the policies of Ralph Klein, and equalization payments have nothing to do with it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree with the hon. member.

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

Mr. Speaker, stupid is as stupid does. The reality is, the leader of the Green Party and the member who just spoke clearly do not understand how equalization works.

If the member who just spoke says that we need to rethink equalization the way Norway does, that is nationalization of the energy that Norway has, and that is the difference.

Is the new position of the NDP nationalizing our natural resources like oil and gas?

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

Mr. Speaker, what I was agreeing with was that Alberta used to have a good, solid approach to having a heritage fund and having money in the bank, and that got squandered by governments that followed Mr. Lougheed. That is the point.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have many reasons to be proud of budget 2016.

First, I am proud of the process that led to this budget. Budget 2016 is the result of an extensive, inclusive consultation during which we heard from a wide range of Canadians in big and small communities across the country, and Sudbury was no exception.

In fact, Sudbury was one of the very first ridings to hold a pre-budget consultation. During our pre-budget town hall, we heard from individual business leaders; representatives of sectors as varied as mining, health care, and arts and culture; and concerned individual citizens. Each of them provided thoughtful, progressive, and insightful advice.

I would like to thank them all for their important contributions to the budget. These stakeholders, and thousands more like them across Canada, are at the heart of the budget. Budget 2016 puts people first.

I am originally from northern Ontario, and I can say unequivocally that budget 2016 is good for the people of the north. I grew up in a small community where the pulp and paper mill is still the biggest employer and a pillar of the local economy.

Today, I am proud to represent a northern city known the world over for its exceptional mining sector. Anyone who has worked in a mill or a mine knows the meaning and the value of a hard day's work.

They also know, and so does the government, that when local industries suffer, workers, their families, and entire communities suffer as well.

Over the past few years, too many hard-working Canadians have faced tough times. Northerners know that when times are hard, families and communities must stand together and help each other to overcome adversity.

When a business that has fed a family for generations disappears, when the mill, the mine, or the factory closes its doors, when people lose their jobs and have to swallow their pride and ask for help, the last thing they need is to get tangled in a web of bureaucracy that prevents them from getting the help that is essential for their families.

The budget eases that burden by improving employment insurance and extending benefits in a dozen regions that have been particularly hard hit, including my riding of Sudbury. It is an important measure that will help Canadians when they need it most.

I am delighted that the budget commits $150 million in new funding through regional economic development agencies, such as FedNor for northern Ontario, to renovate, expand, and improve existing community and cultural infrastructure.

Sudbury is home to 15 housing co-ops, and access to affordable housing is an ever-growing challenge in our community, as it is throughout the country. Budget 2016 includes $1.5 billion to improve access to safe, adequate, and affordable housing, including shelters for victims of violence. It also includes support for the construction of up to 4,000 new affordable housing rental units.

Throughout the country, close to 700,000 seniors' households face a housing availability challenge, and affordable options for seniors are extremely limited. That is why I am proud that budget 2016 commits more than $200 million to boost funds for the construction, repair, and adaptation of affordable housing for seniors. Our government will give Canadian seniors greater access to safe and affordable housing and a better quality of life.

I am also proud to see that budget 2016 makes significant investments to improve the quality of life of indigenous communities, including $1.2 billion for housing, early learning and child care, health, and cultural and recreational infrastructure on reserve. These are significant, meaningful investments and mark an important step toward improving the lives of those who have, all too often, been overlooked by previous governments.

We need to make sure that the economy works for everyone and to make sure that our tax system is fair for all Canadians. That is why, as one of its first actions, our government introduced a middle-class tax cut and raised taxes on the wealthiest 1% of Canadians. These changes give middle-class Canadians more money on their paycheques and increase the fairness of our tax system.

I am proud that budget 2016 will take action to prevent tax evasion at home and abroad. In particular, though they have been largely ignored over the past 10 years, this budget commits to tackling tax havens head on. As part of a coordinated multilateral effort, our government is acting to address international tax planning arrangements undertaken by multinational enterprises to inappropriately minimize their taxes. These efforts will also increase transparency through the automatic exchange of financial account information between various international tax authorities.

In order to crack down on tax evasion and tax avoidance, budget 2016 increases the Canada Revenue Agency's funding by $444 million and provides $351.6 million for the CRA to improve its ability to collect outstanding tax debts.

As a tax lawyer, I am well positioned to attest to the fact that these measures improve the fairness and integrity of our tax system and contribute to fiscal sustainability over the long term.

A few weeks ago, I joined the right hon. Prime Minister and my hon. colleague, the member for Nickel Belt, to announce a $27-million investment for the Maley Drive extension, a new road in Sudbury.

This kind of infrastructure investment, which responds to a priority identified by the municipality and involves support from all three levels of government, will create good jobs, make it easier for people and goods to get around, and contribute to economic growth for years.

I am very proud that our government is prioritizing investments like this one. I am also proud that one of the first of these infrastructure investments is for Sudbury.

It is a well-known fact that mining has been at the heart of Sudbury's economy for almost 130 years. Sudbury continues to be one of the largest integrated mining complexes in the world. However, Sudbury's economy is not just about pulling resources from the ground. It is one of the world's leading clusters of mining research and innovation.

Local businesses continue to find new ways to increase their global competitive edge while becoming safer, more cost-effective, and more environmentally sound. That is why I am particularly pleased that budget 2016 sets out a new vision for Canada to stand as a global leader in innovation. Expanding Canada's network of innovative, globally connected firms will drive clean economic growth and will help grow our middle class for years to come.

Sudburians know that investing in research and development is also imperative for sustaining long-term innovation, renewal, and growth. Budget 2016 will strengthen Canada's research excellence by investing in infrastructure and post-secondary institutions and by funding innovative research.

Sudbury is also an important cultural hub, and given the tremendous range of artists and arts and cultural organizations that contribute to the local economy and raise the quality of life in Sudbury and across Canada, I am truly proud to say that the budget is great for arts and culture.

Over the next five years, our government will invest over $1.9 billion to support this country's great cultural institutions, including the Canada Council for the Arts, Telefilm Canada, and the National Film Board of Canada.

These investments will have a positive impact on hundreds of communities across the country and will enable Canadian artists to continue making their mark as leading lights on the international scene.

I am also delighted that our government is investing an additional $675 million in CBC/Radio-Canada. This investment will ensure that both of our official languages are heard on public airwaves from coast to coast. The arts and culture community has been waiting for these investments for a decade. These investments will create jobs, strengthen the economy, and enable Canadian culture to shine here at home and around the world.

We have every reason to be proud of our Canadian creators, and these investments make it clear that we support the good work they are doing.

Budget 2016 is good for families, good for hard-working Canadians, good for businesses, good for innovators, and good for our cultural sector.

The budget is good for Sudbury and good for the north, and it will be good for Canada.

We are investing today to ensure a better, more prosperous future for our children.

This will be our legacy. It marks the way to a brighter and more hopeful future for all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my Liberal colleague across the way a question specifically about veterans.

As he may know, Bill C-12 was on the Order Paper. It dealt with increasing compensation to veterans. That is something the NDP supports. The budget implementation bill would swallow Bill C-12 and incorporate it among the many different acts that would be changed by this giant omnibus legislation.

In light of the recent horrible news coverage the Liberals have been getting with respect to veterans, veterans groups have been tossing out words like “disgrace” and “shameful betrayal”. In light of those facts, why did the Liberal government not leave Bill C-12 alone so it could at least have gone to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs for further study? The committee would have heard from expert witnesses, and we could have debated things like increasing mental health support services and increasing support for veterans' spouses? Why was Bill C-12 swallowed up by this omnibus bill?

Why are veterans not getting the proper care and treatment they need?

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my grandfather was a veteran of World War II. One of the reasons I sought office was the treatment of veterans over the last few years.

It was clear in our election platform that we wanted to help veterans by refinancing and bringing back the Veterans Affairs offices across Canada. Reinvesting in veterans was a key section of our platform. That is something our Minister of Veterans Affairs is working hard toward, and I am proud to support him in that endeavour.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on what is one of the greatest initiatives in the budget, and that is the Canada child benefit program. My colleague is aware of the fact that we will be lifting literally thousands of children out of poverty in every region of our country. Years from now, we will reflect back on this budget, and that will be one of the issues that will really stand out, at least for me, and I am sure many people.

From the member's perspective, what does he believe is the most significant aspect of the budget for his constituents and himself personally?

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is so much in the budget we could talk about that would help my region in northern Ontario. The Canada child tax benefit is a very important one, as well as the significant investments in infrastructure. There is a huge infrastructure deficit in northern Ontario from years of cutting back by the previous government.

The budget goes such a long way. We are already starting to see the fruits of the budget in investments. Those are long term. They will be creating jobs and helping out the middle class, as well, in northern Ontario.

Social housing is also a big investment we would be making through our infrastructure projects. That would have a great effect in my community.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to hear the previous question about the Canada child benefit program. We could better refer to the budget as the Canada child deficit program, with the continuing long-term deficits being brought in.

I asked a question earlier today regarding the GST increases that are projected to be 21% over the next five years. That is far more than any increase in the economy is predicted to be. Where is the 21% increase in GST revenues coming from? Is it coming from a tax increase?

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is very simple. The budget has no increases in the GST. It is as simple as that.

We are investing in the middle class and investing in infrastructure. After conversations with Canadians for the past little while as to what mattered to them, that is what the budget is about. That is why I am proud to support the budget.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. I just want to point out to the hon. member that we have about seven minutes, so when 2 o'clock strikes, she will have three minutes to continue when the debate continues.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member will have four minutes remaining when debate resumes.

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

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands has four minutes left in her speech.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to congratulate my friend from Saanich—Gulf Islands for an honest and passionate speech, as she always gives.

I wonder if she could talk a little about what changes she would want to see in order to support it. I am curious about her opinions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I feel as though this budget suffered from the fact that, when input went into Finance Canada to draft this, ministers were just beginning to establish their staff, just getting briefed up.

I am hoping that this is like a budget with training wheels, and the Minister of Finance will get it better next year.

This does not meet the expectations of proper funding for infrastructure. For instance, having announced $100 million for infrastructure in the first 10 years, only 10% of that funding is in the first five years.

We are talking about the need for economic stimulus. The Liberal government got elected on a pledge to use deficit spending to stimulate our economy and specifically to help infrastructure. It does not adequately help infrastructure. It is too little.

Let us hope that 2017 really addresses the infrastructure crisis and removes fossil fuel subsidies and commits to a revised environmental assessment act, one similar to what we had up until Bill C-38 in the spring of 2012.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands for her speech.

We nod our heads whenever someone talks about environmental issues. She is right about how so many issues have been put off. I am sure she is very aware of the burden of being so few in number and, as a result, seeing governments ignore so many of the measures they could include in an omnibus bill.

Would my colleague like to comment on the fact that the Liberal Party was elected for its bold promises? I like her image of training wheels that a young cyclist uses when learning to ride a bike and the fact that this does not meet people's expectations, including those of the party's own backbenchers, the MPs who are not in cabinet.

That is what is kind of sad about an omnibus bill, is it not? The fact that it silences everyone, not just opposition members, but also anyone whose opinion differs from that of cabinet ministers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert for his question.

I think that this budget implementation bill really is an omnibus bill. However, it is not at all like the omnibus budget bills introduced by the previous government. At least this bill does not contain changes to laws that have nothing to do with the budget, as was the case with omnibus Bill C-38 in the spring of 2012. It was really terrible and gutted certain laws meant to protect the environment.

I think the bill before us would be better if the government would examine certain projects, particularly the one that pertains to the Canadian Wheat Board. I would agree that it is an omnibus bill, but it is not all that terrible.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise on behalf of my constituents in Saint-Boniface—Saint-Vital to speak to these important issues in the House.

It is a great honour to rise today on behalf of the citizens of Saint Boniface—Saint Vital who, on October 19, voted for change, change in leadership, in direction, and in priorities for our country. I am very happy to say that budget 2016 delivers on those promises of change.

As a former city councillor for many years, I am proud to say that this budget delivers on our commitment to rebuild our communities, both rural and urban, as well as rebuilding our cities.

Just this last weekend I had the pleasure to attend the Federation of Canadian Municipalities annual general meeting in Winnipeg, Canada. There, cities and municipalities from coast to coast to coast met in Winnipeg and they collectively sent the message that they had been sending for the last 20 years to little avail. That message is that cities are in desperate need of the most basic of infrastructure. Whether it is regional roads, residential streets, back lanes, sidewalks, bridges, community centres, libraries, pools, day cares, and more, all need the help and the investment of the federal government.

Let me give members a little real-time example. The City of Winnipeg currently spends $1 billion a year on infrastructure, above ground infrastructure only, and the heavy construction industry of Manitoba commissioned a study about six years ago that said that the City of Winnipeg should actually be spending an extra $300 million per year on above ground infrastructure, just to maintain the current infrastructure at its current level. That bears repeating. This would not actually improve our infrastructure; it would only maintain it to the level that it is currently at today. I daresay that cities cannot do this alone, and the time has never been better for federal investment into our infrastructure.

This weekend, I spoke to a councillor from the great ward of St. Boniface, Mathieu Allard. I also spoke with a councillor from Transcona, Mr. Russ Wyatt, who spoke about the absolute need of the federal government to partner with municipalities to construct transportation infrastructure on the east side of the city of Winnipeg, which is one of the fastest-growing segments of the entire city. Whether it is Woodvale-Lagimodiere, whether it is Marion Street, whether it is Archibald Street, the city is crying out for partnerships from the federal government to get the traffic moving on the east side of the city.

Those very same councillors spoke of the need for the federal government to also partner with Transcona on the Transcona outdoor pool project, as well as the Taché Boulevard walkway project in St. Boniface.

The councillor for St. Boniface spoke to me about the importance of the Tache Boulevard walkway project in front of the St. Boniface Cathedral. It is a wonderful project, one that is extremely important to the people of St. Boniface. It is supported not only by the City of St. Boniface, but also by the Winnipeg Foundation. The only thing missing is infrastructure funding from the federal government.

Both of these are very worthy projects that will be eligible under our green and our social infrastructure programs, which will be rolled out in the future.

I also spoke with a councillor from Point Douglas, Mike Pagtakhan, who emphasized the necessity for a new Arlington Street Bridge, which connects central Winnipeg to the north end of Winnipeg. I spoke to the councillor from Elmwood, Jason Schreyer, who advocated strongly for a new Louise Bridge, a piece of infrastructure that should have been renewed long ago but fell by the wayside because of a lack of funding by all levels of government.

I spoke to the councillor from Old Kildonan, Devi Sharma, who advocated on the merits of completing the ring road project called Chief Peguis Trail, which would link Main Street to the CentrePort project, an initiative not only important to alleviate traffic congestion in Winnipeg but also to enhance economic development opportunities at CentrePort Canada, Winnipeg's very own inland port located near the airport.

Winnipeg needs to catch up on its rapid transit obligations. The future of cities is closely connected to managing traffic, getting rid of gridlock, and getting traffic moving again, and nothing does that better than getting people out of their cars and getting them to use rapid transit. Winnipeg has ambitious plans for rapid transit and what it needs is a federal government that is equally interested.

I am equally proud that our first slice of infrastructure spending will be on what is arguably the most important of all, our underground infrastructure: water systems and wastewater treatment systems.

People have to understand that for many years federal and provincial governments have been extremely reluctant to invest in our underground systems for a simple and cynical reason, because we do not often get to cut ribbons when pipe is placed underground. It is not a play structure that would be immediately utilized by hundreds of children in any park or schoolyard. It is not a bridge that would benefit thousands of citizens as they commute back and forth. Nonetheless it is probably the most important of all because nothing is more important than clean water and a clean environment.

That is why I am proud that budget 2016 makes green infrastructure its first priority. It is filling a void that previous federal and provincial governments have created, because make no mistake about it, cities cannot do it by themselves and budget 2016 recognizes this.

We will also be giving families more money to help with the high cost of raising their children. We will be introducing a more generous, simplified, and tax-free Canada child benefit to give families more money to raise their children. Our Canada child benefit is geared to income. Those who need the help the most will receive the help, single- and low-income families. Our plan will raise 300,000 children out of poverty. This is an important measure that will give children a better opportunity at a brighter future. Families in Manitoba alone will receive $490 million more next year than the previous year. That is incredibly significant.

Another part of our plan is to raise the guaranteed income supplement for low-income seniors by 10%. This would give one million of our most vulnerable seniors, often women, almost $1,000 more per year.

The budget includes a $675-million investment in CBC/Radio-Canada, a national institution that is crucial to official language minority communities. In Saint Boniface, Radio-Canada Manitoba, which broadcasts on radio and television, is an important member of the Franco-Manitoban community that supports and promotes our culture.

The federal budget recognizes the contribution of cultural industries to the Canadian economy by committing $1.9 billion to arts and culture over five years. These investments will support major national institutions, protect both official languages, and support industries that showcase Canadian culture, including the Canada Council for the Arts, Telefilm Canada, and the National Film Board of Canada.

Recently a round table was held at the Barbara Mitchell Family Resource Centre. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and I met with community organizations to discuss poverty and housing issues. Stakeholders discussed the urgent need for affordable housing and that such housing needs to be part of a larger community plan in mixed neighbourhoods, creating an ecosystem of community housing that supports people through training programs and other services.

Budget 2016 proposes to double the current federal funding under the investment in affordable housing initiative, create an affordable rental housing initiative fund to test innovative business approaches, such as housing models with a mix of rental and home ownership, and invest in renovations to existing social housing.

Budget 2016 will lift 300,000 children out of poverty. It will offer nine million Canadians a middle-income tax cut, which I really have not spoken of today. It will improve the living conditions of one million seniors through a 10% increase in the guaranteed income supplement. There is $8.4 billion of new funding for indigenous infrastructure and education, $2 billion for arts and culture over five years, and Canada's largest-ever infrastructure program is being introduced in this budget. I am very proud to support this budget.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear the hon. member for Saint Boniface—Saint Vital underline the need to replace the Louise Bridge in his speech. It is indeed a project long overdue.

One of the connected projects and an important infrastructure need that is adjacent to where the new Louise Bridge would go is the Columbus housing co-op. The riverbank around the co-op has been eroding and is now actually quite close to the housing complex and risks the housing on that land. It is City of Winnipeg land.

I am wondering if the member and his government would agree with me that federal infrastructure money should be able to be applied to riverbank reinforcement projects, especially when doing so could help save housing in Winnipeg.

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

Mr. Speaker, I did have the opportunity to also speak to the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona about the Louise Bridge earlier in the year and I know he is a big proponent for that, as is the councillor for Elmwood, I believe.

Having been a councillor for many years, I understand the problem is that there are simply too many priorities and not enough funding resources at the city to take care of all the priorities. That is why it is so very important for the federal government to make good on its infrastructure commitments. We have introduced the largest infrastructure program ever, $120 billion over the course of 10 years.

Certainly I know a huge liability in the city of Winnipeg is riverbank protection and I believe that we would be willing to sit down and discuss those options with our provincial government, as well as our municipal government, to see what is achievable and what can be done.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member from Saint-Boniface—Saint-Vital on his speech.

I would like him to know that one of his predecessors, Ronald J. Duhamel, profoundly influenced my political career at a very early age.

Could my colleague elaborate a little on the impact of the measures on infrastructure and youth in his riding? How will they help his community?

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

As I have mentioned before, Mr. Speaker, Saint Boniface and the whole of Winnipeg have serious infrastructure problems.

As a former city councillor for several years, I know that several projects are in greater need of assistance than money. The government of Canada must work hand in hand with the City of Winnipeg and provincial authorities on all sorts of projects, from roads to alleys, and bridges to bicycle paths. That is how we will create jobs.

I want to make sure that, as we create jobs to restore our infrastructure, we hire young people from the community so they may gain experience and put food on the table.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I also want to ask him about the definition of middle class, which the government has yet to clarify.

The government refuses to say what it considers to be the middle class, for the purposes of the so-called tax cut for the middle class. Some of my colleagues already mentioned that someone would have to earn $23 an hour and work full time in order to be eligible for a tax cut under the Liberals' tax plan. Could the member at least tell us what he considers to be the middle class? If someone earns $21 an hour and works full time, would they be in the middle class?

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

Mr. Speaker, what is very clear is that, if a Canadian earns between $44,000 and $90,000 a year, he or she will receive a property-tax cut. That is very clear and this measure will apply to more than nine million Canadians in our great country. This will be a real benefit to nine million Canadians.

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

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

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

Today I will focus on Bill C-15.

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

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

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

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

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

Division 5 of part 4 amends the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act to, among other things, broaden the corporation's powers to temporarily control or own a domestic systemically important bank and to convert certain shares and liabilities of such a bank into common shares.

It also amends the Bank Act to allow the designation of domestic systemically important banks by the Superintendent of Financial Institutions and to require such banks to maintain a minimum capacity to absorb losses.

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

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

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

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

I would also like to speak about section 9.

Division 9 of part 4 amends the Old Age Security Act to increase the single rate of the guaranteed income supplement for the lowest-income pensioners by up to $947 annually and to repeal section 2.2 of that act, which increases the age of eligibility to receive a benefit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola on his speech and on his efforts to speak French. I commend him for that.

My colleague spoke of the political implications of increasing the retirement age from 65 to 67 and of bringing it back to 65. Yesterday, one of his colleagues told me that, if we keep the age of retirement at 67, the provinces will take care of our seniors from the time they are 65 until they turn 67. If you ask me, this is just another way to download costs onto the provinces. I believe it is very important to keep the retirement age at 65, protect our seniors, and prevent them from slipping into poverty.

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

Mr. Speaker, we cannot run away from our demographics. I appreciate the seriousness of the question. This is actually unfolding the way a debate should; we are talking about important issues.

When it comes to our demographics, we are living longer and living healthier. We should celebrate that fact. However, we should also be making sure that our government institutions are moving in lockstep with that. Many advanced countries, such as Japan and the United States, have already tackled this issue. In some cases, they have actually pegged it so that when the average lifespan increases, so does the retirement age. If the current government does not like the form of the change that was proposed by the previous government, I hope the member opposite will say that he believes that we also need to tackle these demographics, especially given low growth and low interest rates. We have to be able to show that we can move with the times and make sure that all seniors, whether current seniors or seniors 50 years or 100 years from now, can retire with dignity.

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

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

Despite having closely followed the debates in the House these last two days, I have not heard a single, clear answer as to why the Liberals broke their campaign promise to lower taxes for small and medium-sized businesses.

Has my colleague heard a satisfactory answer or does he believe the government simply backed out hoping no one would notice?

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

Mr. Speaker, the government has clearly made it a non-priority. That speaks volumes. It does not matter what other members have to say about it. The government's non-action speaks louder. I would simply suggest that the government does not feel that the lowering of that tax rate from 11% to 8% that was promised by all parties needs to be honoured. I am not sure if it feels that this constituency is doing well enough or if it does not believe that it should follow up on its promises, but governing involves making decisions, and the Liberals have made theirs.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to get back to old age security, to which the member devoted much of his speech.

I have not heard my colleague mention a single study showing that the Canada pension plan would be in trouble if we did not raise the age of eligibility for OAS. By contrast, several studies have shown that keeping the retirement age at 65 would not jeopardize the CPP.

I would like my colleague to identify at least one study showing that the government had an obligation to raise the age of eligibility to old age security in order for the system to be sustainable.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was not sure if the member was speaking specifically to the Canada pension plan or old age security. What I will say, and what I did mention in my speech, is that the parliamentary budget officer put out a statement saying that the changes to the health accord allow for the age of retirement to stay at 65 on a long-term basis. Stephen Gordon, who is a professor at Laval University, did a blog post on that particular subject and found that if the parliamentary budget officer's assumptions were off by 0.01%, so we are talking about less than 1%, then the whole rationale would be off.

Now the Liberals are speaking about a new health accord, which increases costs. They are talking about bringing old age security back to its original age. On top of that, we see things like wildfires in Alberta and flooding in Alberta, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan, and so forth. These unforeseen events have a real cost for the government. Obviously, the federal government is the only government agency that is able to span those losses and come to the table to help those provinces. It is a delicate balance when we are talking about these razor thin margins. I think the government is playing too loose a game.

[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 Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, Health; the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Railway Transportation; the hon. member for Vancouver East, Transport.

[Deb Schulte, Liberal, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to talk about the federal budget 2016.

This being my first speech in the House, I would like to begin by thanking the wonderful people of King—Vaughan for placing their trust in me. Serving as their representative is an honour, one I take very seriously. I also want to thank my supporters, who worked so hard through my nomination and the long election campaign. It was during this campaign that I came to fully appreciate the challenges and opportunities across my large and diverse new riding. Finally, I need to publicly thank my family members for their support, patience, and understanding. They have made this challenging transition to life in two locations manageable. As everyone ever elected to this House knows, the unsung heroes of parliamentary life are our families, who shoulder additional burdens maintaining a home and family while we immerse ourselves in becoming effective representatives.

From my seat in the far corner, in a spot where I look out upon everyone in this chamber, a new MP cannot help but quickly gain perspective, perspective on the formidable but resolvable challenges facing the country, perspective on the impressive talents and breadth of experience members from all parties bring to the national debate. Let us not forget that our time here is brief. Serious issues are confronting Canadians. Let us be bold enough, wise enough, and selfless enough to do what is right rather than what appears to be politically opportune.

With that perspective, I want to use my maiden speech to reflect upon the government's budget as it relates to my constituents, the diverse, compassionate, and hard-working people of King—Vaughan. Succinctly, this budget is about people. It is a transformative plan for investments in our families, communities, and Canada.

My riding is both urban and rural. In the south, there is a rapidly growing suburb transitioning to a more urban context. The northern portion has small towns in an agricultural setting. However, some of those small towns are now transitioning to a suburban context. It is a multi-ethnic mix, and overall, it has been a story of success, with native-born Canadians and immigrants together striving for and achieving prosperity and security and growing desirable communities.

Overshadowing the success stories, however, is a looming challenge. Housing affordability has become precarious, especially for young families and seniors. Without solid economic growth bringing high-quality jobs and good rates of return on investments, many will have trouble meeting the high cost of home ownership in my riding in the years to come.

During the campaign, when I knocked on doors, parents told me that they need more money in their pockets. Seniors told me that they could not keep up with the rising cost of living in their homes. They wanted to stay in their homes but were worried that the money was not going to last. Youth told me that rising university and college costs were making it difficult to invest in their futures, and the lack of good-paying jobs made it difficult to pay off their student debt. Everywhere in King and Vaughan, people were concerned about the congestion on the roads and the lack of accessible transit options.

However, I believe that the government's priorities will help address my constituents' concerns, both in the near and long term. This budget builds on our campaign promises. We promised to strengthen the middle class. When we have a strong middle class contributing to our economy and communities, everyone benefits. With our tax cut, we will put money back into the pockets of middle-class Canadians. It is well understood that the majority of those benefiting will spend it right back in their communities, supporting local businesses and their families, fuelling growth.

With the new Canada child benefit, nine out of ten families will get more help than they do under existing programs, and that benefit will be tax-free. This program is the most significant social policy innovation in a generation and will lift hundreds of thousands of kids out of poverty.

As important as those tax cuts and the new child benefit will be for my riding, ensuring future prosperity and quality of life will largely depend on wise public infrastructure investments in roads, transit, housing, water and waste water services, and communications. It is the smart thing to do, and it is a two-birds-with-one-stone initiative. Good middle-class jobs, necessary to support a family, will flow as major projects move forward. These improved services will further attract employers and more investment.

However, this is not just spending to create jobs. This spending is long overdue. Woefully inadequate infrastructure in my riding already hampers economic activity and decreases quality of life. Ask any of my constituents about traffic congestion and one will get an earful, and rightly so.

Before becoming a member of Parliament, I was a regional councillor in the City of Vaughan and York Region. I was well aware of how important it was for York Region to have strong representatives and a good partnership with both provincial and federal governments to help invest in infrastructure solutions. We asked the federal government to be a true partner, invest a third, and lift restrictions that did not work in the best interests of municipalities.

I am delighted to see the government listening to the needs of municipalities and committing to invest as an equal partner and lift the P3 restriction. I am now privileged to be one of those strong voices in Ottawa, and I am pleased to see funding being committed for important transformative projects, not just in my riding but across the country.

Helping to protect the local environment first drew me to becoming involved in public affairs. I am honoured to be the chair of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development and have the opportunity to work with experienced and knowledgeable colleagues as we transition towards a more sustainable, clean, and green economy while protecting our environment and our health.

Those of us living in quickly growing suburban communities, areas that are facing pressure to expand and consume ever more farm land, areas where everyday life often seems centred around our automobiles, have a particular challenge in helping Canada get on with the transition to a more sustainable future. When we envision a sustainable future and plan for that future, and take concrete steps to make it happen, we reduce the economic burden our grandchildren will have to bear.

The good news is that people within my community will benefit at every turn from this transition. When we move to new, innovative forms of energy, high-skilled jobs will come. When we build efficient transportation mechanisms, we will get cars off the road and shorten commute times, benefiting everyone trying to get home to see their kids' soccer games or to just spend more quality time at home with family and friends.

When the government puts forward its new innovation agenda, which will outline a new vision for Canada's economy as a centre of global innovation, King—Vaughan will be ready to take advantage of these opportunities, and it has the workforce ready to play its part. All that makes sense in King—Vaughan, a region dedicated to providing good opportunities and a good quality of life for current and future generations.

Canada's future depends on ensuring that our children get the education and skills necessary for their success. However, post-secondary education is becoming increasingly expensive. The government recognizes that it must do its part to make post-secondary education more accessible. I am very proud of the program so far to help our youth, and I look forward to more in the future.

At the opposite end of the age spectrum, too many Canadians find it impossible to save enough before reaching retirement age. Too many of our seniors live in poverty, particularly our single seniors. The minister is committed to working with his provincial and territorial counterparts to enhance the Canada pension plan before the end of the year, which will go a long way to improving the future for seniors.

In this budget, the government is increasing the guaranteed income supplement for single seniors, and this will improve the financial security of about 900,000 of our most vulnerable single seniors in Canada. We will see investments in social infrastructure funding for seniors housing and affordable housing.

I want to touch on what the government has committed to for small business.

Budget 2016 supports Canada's innovators and entrepreneurs. It gives them the help they need to access expertise, identify new markets, and scale up for future growth.

Small businesses are the backbone of my riding. What I have heard from small business owners is that they need customers with money in their pockets. This is what will drive our economy. The middle-class tax cut and the Canada child benefit will do just that. It will ultimately put more money in the hands of small business.

If members spend any time at all in King—Vaughan, they will see that people from right across the world have settled there. It is a microcosm of Canada. My constituents come from just about every country and speak about 100 different languages. We obviously have many different backgrounds, but we share this in common: we came to Canada at some time in our family history for peace and opportunity.

The riding demonstrates what I think is one of the fundamental truths about our country: we are stronger because of our diversity. The diversity King—Vaughan offers Canada is also offered to the rest of the world. My constituents have the requisite contacts, language skills, business interests, religious associations, and most of all, desire to weigh in and contribute.

The government's action in seeking to address past wrongs and current shortcomings with our first nations communities, working in equal partnership with them, is perhaps the most crucial step in celebrating and maximizing the potential Canada's diversity brings in growing our economy.

Like all members of this House, I am extremely proud of my community. Some members will know of our attractions: Canada's Wonderland, the Canadian McMichael Art Collection, and the villages of Schomberg and Kleinburg. However, I am especially proud of our people. I am not sure if there is a more generous community in Canada. I cannot keep up with all the fundraising and volunteering efforts going on every week.

I will conclude by reiterating that I am proud of this budget and believe that it is an important step in putting Canada on a path to a bright and sustainable future. We have seized the opportunity to invest in our people, offered immediate help to those who need it most, and invested in future growth that will benefit all Canadians.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is a question I have asked before in the House to members of the government and members of the government caucus, as well.

In the budget implementation act and the budget document, in annex 1, on page 240, when we look at the child benefit program and the total amount the government will spend on this over the timeline presented in the budget, the numbers actually begin to go down after fiscal year 2017-18 and drop every single year until 2020-21. I would like to hear from the member an explanation for why that is.

Is it because the government intends not to adjust for inflation? Does it intend to lower the benefit, or does it simply believe that Canadian families will be making a higher income and therefore will not qualify for the child benefit program being proposed in the budget?

I would like to hear the member's explanation for these numbers.

[Deb Schulte, Liberal, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as members know, we are trying to consolidate quite a few programs that have been available, and it is a very disparate, disjointed support network for families. We are trying to put them all in one, make it more simplified, and make it tax-free, because that is another challenge that I found, especially, when I was out campaigning. The previous government ended up providing the benefit and then taxing it back. Many families, when they were ready to do their taxes at the end of the year, were surprised to find they had to find money that they did not have.

We are trying to simplify it. I think part of the process is looking at how we will go forward and make sure that we simplify all the initiatives that are there to support families.

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

Mr. Speaker, on employment insurance, I would like to know the member's thoughts on the fact that, due to an oversight on the part of the government, three additional regions were added to the list of 12 regions initially determined to be eligible to receive an extra five weeks of employment insurance benefits.

Quebec, however, seems to have been left out, even though it has many jobs in the agriculture and tourism industries, and some of its teachers and nurses have very precarious jobs.

In my riding of Salaberry—Suroît, many workers would certainly appreciate five extra weeks of benefits, as they have families to care for and are part of the middle class. They will not benefit from this EI program, which is totally unfair. We are left with a two-tier system based on the area where workers live.

[Deb Schulte, Liberal, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is something I am sure many Canadians are asking themselves, so I am going to do my best to try to put in a frame.

Obviously, we have a challenge in our economy, at the moment, and certain areas are more challenged than others and have had precipitous drops in employment. The intent here is to support those areas that have had an unexpected high drop in the employment rate because it is obvious this is a support to get a person to their next job. If those jobs are not available in the area, it is going to take longer and it is obviously difficult for people to be able to bridge that gap to the next job.

We really identified areas based on the assessments done on the employment rates and the drop in employment rates. Where we saw a change, we have amended. I am sure that the government is going to continue looking at this across Canada and see where Canadians need the most help and try to be there for them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke a great deal about the issue of deficit and his concerns regarding deficits. Many Canadians are concerned about how tax dollars are spent, justifiably so, but what I have a difficult time with and would ask the member to reflect on, is that the Conservatives are in no position whatsoever to give advice on deficits. They inherited a multi-billion dollar surplus. They converted it into a multi-billion dollar deficit and that was prior to the recession taking place. Then they left us with a deficit, contrary to what members might like to think. The reality is that they created a deficit, they ended in deficit, their total deficit of over $150 billion of debt added by the Conservatives.

My question is very specific. Why does the Conservative Party believe that this government should take advice from a government that failed miserably in terms of the issue of debt?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party has nothing to apologize for when it comes to fiscal responsibility. Indeed, when the Conservative Party formed government in 2006, it set out to pay back the largest amount of debt in Canadian history. It was the sum of $38 billion in the repayment of the national debt.

There was, of course, the recession of 2008-09 and my hon. friend is correct, there were deficits run at that time, but they were short-term deficits based upon short-term stimulus spending that allowed the Canadian economy to recover at a faster rate with stronger growth than any country in the G7.

We then returned the budget not only to balance in 2015, but in fact there was a surplus. That is what has been confirmed by the PBO and it has also been confirmed by the Department of Finance. I do not know what the hon. member is talking about, but again, we certainly have nothing to apologize for on this side of the House when it comes to fiscal responsibility.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I would like him to comment on one of the Liberals' broken promises, which the Canadian Federation of Independent Business called a betrayal.

The Liberals went back on their campaign promise. They said numerous times that they would reduce the tax rate for small and medium-sized businesses from 11% to 9%. However, once in power, they changed their tune and went back on the promise they had made to the Canadians who elected them.

Could the hon. member comment on this particular broken promise? There are many others, but, for now, I am asking him about this one specifically.

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

Mr. Speaker, yes indeed, the Liberals ran around Canada saying they were committed to a small business tax reduction and then quite simply broke their promise, just like so many other promises they have broken since the election. Every single day seems to bring about another new Liberal broken promise from the election.

This is going to cost small businesses. The finance department estimates it is going to cost small businesses some $2.2 billion over the next four years. I should remind hon. members that small businesses constitute 40% of Canada's GDP and represent 98% of companies in Canada. Those are precisely the job creators that need support. Instead, at this time, the government is penalizing them with tax increases.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, today is June 7, a day to celebrate, according to the Fraser Institute. The Fraser Institute says today is tax freedom day, although those in Quebec will have to wait just a little longer, at least a week.

If it sounds as if we are paying a lot of taxes in this country, we do. We pay income tax, payroll tax, health tax, sales tax, property tax, fuel tax, vehicle tax, profit tax, import tax, along with various sin taxes. We will see next year if the Liberals have increased all our levels of tax.

Provinces like Ontario and Newfoundland, run by Liberal governments, are running massive deficits right now, so with the election of these Liberals to run our country, we are seeing that trend continue. It is called spend, spend, spend.

In reality, this budget is all about spending. After they broke their major election promises, including capping the deficit at $10 billion, why should we trust the Liberals? The Liberal budget is a plan for reckless spending that offers higher taxes and billions of dollars in new debt, and yet we have no real plan in this country for jobs.

At the recent G7 meetings in Japan, the Prime Minister was determined to sell the merits of deficits to grow the economy. Fortunately, that was met with major resistance. Large-scale deficits and debts are weakening investor confidence. Other countries have chosen to cut their deficits. Many countries in the G7 have been rewarded for their efforts, but the Prime Minister sought to promote deficits backed by growth at the recent G7 meeting. Many around that table did not buy it.

Many saw first hand the positive effects of curbing the spending, in fact, reducing their deficit, as did the previous government here. There was no appetite around the world for adding the deficits, so why then is the Prime Minister promoting deficits to the G7? Stimulus requires international co-operation. Stimulus spending will have a marginal impact on the open Canadian economy when dealing with our trading partners. The result, though, will be bigger deficits and certainly more debt.

The point I am making is that it appears Canada is on an island all by itself when it comes to spending and adding more debt. The G7 meetings recently in Japan showed that this government has little or no respect among our trading partners.

The Liberals have also picked winners and losers with the EI program. Twelve regions qualified, including my city of Saskatoon, along with northern Saskatchewan, but south Saskatchewan, where the resource sector suffered tremendous pressure with job losses, was not included. Weeks later, because of our relentless pressure, the government then decided to include south Saskatchewan along with the Edmonton area for improved EI benefits.

I have said in this House before and I will say again that Canadians want to work. In Saskatchewan, where I come from, people are known for their work ethic. They want to wake up in the morning with a job and with a purpose. They want to provide a future for their families.

Unemployment rates in Saskatchewan and our neighbouring province, Alberta, have spiked since the Liberals have taken office. We should be reminded that Canadians need more job support, not simply longer periods of EI benefits. When will the government, for example, support the oil and gas sector? Pipelines are needed to move product safety, yet we constantly see delays, every day in this House. This is costing us jobs. Evraz in Regina, which manufactures pipelines, was forced to lay off workers in February. It laid off another 50 workers just last month.

Cameco, the largest uranium manufacturer in the world, suspended its Rabbit Lake mining, putting another 500 people out of work. This mine was an economic engine for northern Saskatchewan, employing many first nations people. These positions were very well paying jobs, creating wealth in our northern region of Saskatchewan.

However, the Liberals have taken their frustration out entirely on small businesses. It is unfortunate, really, that 700,000 middle-class small business owners who employ about 95% of working Canadians are the target of the government in the recent budget.

The Liberals have ended the hiring credit for small businesses. They have cancelled their planned youth employment hiring credit. The Liberals have broken their clear promise to small businesses in this country to proceed with just that small tax rate reduction to 9%. Plans for any small tax cuts, in fact, will now be deferred, maybe forever with the government.

According to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the decision will cost small firms over $900 million per year to 2019. The finance department has estimated that this broken promise will actually cost the small business sector $2.2 billion over the next four years. All signs point to trouble for Canadians.

The Minister of Finance is planning another hit to Canada's small businesses by increasing the CPP premiums. This would, in my estimation, send more people to the unemployment lines in this country.

An employer with, let us just say, one employee would see an increase in the CPP to $880 a year. Imagine, let us say, if there were 15 employees. The employer would end up paying over $13,000 per year. For small business, this is a direct payroll tax. The self-employed would be paying an additional $1,700 a year. That would certainly be a big hit for those who have decided to be entrepreneurs and do business on their own.

This spells big trouble for our economy: higher labour costs with little or no productivity. This would lead to more job losses, possibly wage cuts, or even freezes, putting everyone at risk.

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce is also very concerned. It stated recently that the importance of businesses has really plummeted in this budget. As we all know, during the election, the Liberals said publicly that small businesses are just tax havens for the wealthy. Well, business owners are middle-class people. Far more make less than $40,000 per year than what the Liberals think they make, $200,000-plus a year.

By increasing taxes on job creation, the Liberals are destroying success, and they are really not promoting entrepreneurship or even innovation in this country. As we all know, saddling businesses with higher taxes will not create jobs.

Previous tax breaks for middle-income families have been taken away, for the arts community and for fitness, which included sports, and even the most popular family income splitting, as well as the reduction of the TFSA limit, where hard-working Canadians actually had an opportunity to prepare for retirement.

In fact, when I was home this past weekend for a barbecue, many came up to me asking what they could do about unnecessary spending leading to a greater deficit, which this country will share. We should always try to run our country as we run our households: live within our means, especially when the circumstances do not justify the spending. We are really not in a recession, yet the government is determined to run up huge deficits.

The former Conservative government created jobs. During the worst economic downturn and this great recession, Canada, it should be noted, had the best job creation for economic growth among the G7 countries. We balanced the budget. In fact, we left the Liberals with a surplus of over $3 million at the end of 2015. We lowered taxes for Canadians, to their lowest point in 50 years. A typical family of four saved $7,000 a year.

Finally, Canadians have just heard the buzzwords in this budget. Soon they will realize that it is not what it is cracked up to be.

[Fayçal El-Khoury, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the member, who was saying the government is spending and not creating jobs, that he must correct himself to say that the government is investing in order to create jobs.

If all of those huge investments in infrastructure, in green technology, in protecting the environment, in supporting middle-class families, in lifting hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty, and in social housing do not create jobs, could my colleague tell us what other elements or means would create jobs in Canada?

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that in the city of Saskatoon, there are two infrastructure projects that were promised by the Conservative government. They were shovel ready. There were overpasses at Boychuck and McOrmond. The money was sitting there. The infrastructure minister came to the city about two weeks ago and delivered the message. Why? Because it was the Conservative government that promised those two overpasses. There are no other plans in Saskatchewan with the Liberal government. That is the infrastructure in my city, a population of 250,000.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, could my colleague tell us about the Liberals' improvisation with regard to the selection of the 12 and now 15 regions that were chosen to receive enhancements to employment insurance?

He mentioned his province of Saskatchewan, and I was wondering if he could expand a bit. Were there specific factors or reasons why the government chose certain regions? On what facts was this decision based? Why were similar regions excluded from this regionally based enhancement of the employment insurance system?

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. That was asked at the original news conference at Saskatchewan Polytechnic, when the minister started to talk about the 12 regions. During the new conference, the minister did not know that region 42 existed, which is Saskatoon, and region 43, which is northern Saskatchewan. It was just simply picking winners and losers.

I had toured the province and knew that Estevan, Weyburn, and even Regina were in serious trouble because of the oil price and, then, of course, Edmonton, the hub of Alberta, along with Fort McMurray. A lot of people work in Fort McMurray but live in Edmonton. They were excluded from this. A lot of people who live in my city and work in Fort McMurray were also excluded. I do not know why.

Obviously the Liberals realized their mistake because they included south Saskatchewan and the Edmonton area after hours of debate in the House, led by my side of the House. It is too bad they selected winners and losers.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the Liberals say that they would not take any lessons from anyone. It is unwise not to take lessons, especially from such a fiscally responsible side of the House, like the Conservatives.

If a government wants to borrow money and has no plan to pay it back, what is that called economically and fiscally?

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, this will affect me. My first grandchild was born in August, during the campaign. Not only are my two kids going to have this debt heaped on them, but so is my new grandchild. I am appalled by what will happen with this Liberal budget. It will not saddle me as much, but it will my kids and now my grandchild. That is the story all Canadians will have to face four years from now.

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

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

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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

(Motion agreed to)

The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to talk about the budget implementation bill and, of course, a number of things that are particularly important for my riding, including the mineral exploration tax credit. I think it is worthwhile at this point for me to sketch a portrait of what Abitibi-Témiscamingue represents in terms of mineral exploration.

In my riding, one in six people is connected to the mining industry. That is 16% of jobs, both direct and indirect. In Abitibi-Témiscamingue, investments in mining exceeded $1 billion in 2011, but dropped to about $780 million in 2014 because of the economic downturn.

In addition, 370 businesses are active in the mining industry either as product manufacturers or mining companies. Clearly, this sector is huge in my riding. That is why I want to talk about the mineral exploration tax credit.

The budget implementation bill renews the mineral exploration tax credit, which helps junior mining companies using flow-through shares. Of course, we support the mineral exploration tax credit, but unfortunately, the Liberals missed this opportunity to make it permanent. I think it is very important to make this tax credit permanent in order to make life easier for mining companies.

The fact that the tax credit is not permanent and that no one knows whether it will come back has a serious impact when firms try to plan their exploration activities. They can try to hurry, but they do not know whether it will happen.

It is important to understand the mining cycle. When it comes to mining, if companies wait for metal prices to go up before they explore, by the time they go through all the steps to eventually get to a mine in production, metal prices will have dropped again. It would be much better to promote exploration when metal prices are low, so that when the price of gold, for instance, goes up, the mines are ready to go into production quickly, within two or three years. That is the logic that must be applied to the mining sector. That is why this tax credit must be permanent, if we want to promote the development of our mining sector in a much more intelligent manner.

When it comes to prospecting, that is, when a company thinks there is a deposit somewhere, it takes about five years to do the research, get some core samples, and analyze them. The delimitation also has to be completed, in order to find out exactly where the deposit is located.

Ideally, this five-year period would coincide with the down cycle in ore prices. That way, when the price starts rising again, the next phases can begin. It is currently a good time to undertake mining exploration. We cannot abandon our mining companies, especially those who are just starting up. They need help now. Unfortunately, when metal prices are low, it is harder to find investors to back up these companies. That is another argument in favour of supporting our mining startups in their exploration activities.

When we talk about the development phase, which encompasses pre-production preparations, the setting of every technical and economic parameter, and all feasibility studies and environmental assessments, we talk about a three- to eight-year period.

For installation and production, we are talking about a 10-year timeframe, give or take, during which the mine will actually be in production.

That is the mining cycle. Afterwards, of course, there is everything related to closure and rehabilitation, which can take a year or two. Environmental monitoring can last for several years, depending on the situation.

That was one of the especially important aspects of the mineral exploration tax credit. The other important aspect that was brought to my attention several times had to do with eligible expenses.

At the exploration phase, mining companies are increasingly responsible for consulting the public to notify them of their activities, and they are on board with that. Sometimes, they also conduct environmental assessments or studies on the fauna before even beginning with the exploration, to ensure, for example, that they are not disturbing the habitat of animals such as moose or other wild animals.

Before exploration even begins, there are expenses for consultations or environmental assessments. Unfortunately, since these are not expenses for extracting core samples, for instance, where the work is actually done on the ground, these expenses do not count as eligible exploration expenses.

It might be a good idea to include these expenses with those that are incurred for mining exploration because they go hand in hand with ensuring that the projects unfold seamlessly. The purpose of all these expenses is truly to ensure that the approach taken by the mining companies is much more respectful of the communities. I think that the Liberal government could also take a look at this as part of the budget.

I would also like to take the time to talk about other measures. For example, feminine hygiene products have been added to the list of tax-free products. I believe that it is a good measure that can be primarily attributed to the NDP, which proposed this measure in the previous parliament. It has now been implemented. We can be proud of what we accomplished.

I would like to remind the government that I introduced a bill to eliminate the tax on basic baby supplies. These products are zero-rated in most provinces that do not have a harmonized tax. In all provinces where the provincial tax is not harmonized, these products are considered zero-rated supplies.

I believe that we should consider taking action to ensure better coordination between the provinces and the federal government. We do not have to wait for my bill to reach second reading stage. I have many other interesting bills. Therefore, I would not be upset if the problem were to be solved before we reach my bill. The government is completely free to implement the measures contained in my bill before it is debated. I would be pleased if it wanted to do so.

I also think that it will make life easier for a lot of parents who buy basic baby products. The bill provides a list of products that are absolutely essential when caring for a baby. I also think that many parents would be grateful to the Liberal government for taking action on this.

Another important point is that the Liberals have gone back on their promise to lower the small businesses tax rate to 9%. Small and medium-sized businesses in my riding will be particularly disappointed, especially when you consider that they provide the vast majority of jobs there. They are the heart of our communities.

Some communities rely solely on a local SME, which enables people to earn a living. For example, in La Reine, where I am from, Les Aciers JP manufactures metal products. It hires welders and people who work on the cutting tables. Without this business, there would be nothing left in town, aside from a few service businesses.

When the government chooses not to support these businesses and lower their taxes, it is adopting measures that hurt rural ridings like mine. It is important to support these businesses. These are local jobs that help keep people from leaving many of these towns. I think that is particularly important.

Since I am out of time, I thank my colleagues for listening. I would be happy to take questions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will pick up on the member's last comments in regard to the importance of small business being the backbone of Canada's potential job growth. I would just provide assurances to the member and others who might be listening that this government takes it very seriously. They talk about the middle-class tax break, where we would inject literally hundreds of millions of dollars into the pockets of Canada's middle class. They would see higher disposable income that would help small businesses in all regions. It would also directly support those franchise owners, the small companies that the member made reference to because they too would be getting a direct tax break.

Whether it is indirect or direct, this budget in several ways would support small businesses. Would the member at the very least acknowledge the fact that there are both direct and indirect advantages for small businesses in this budget?

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the majority of my constituents do not make enough money to take advantage of the much talked about middle-class tax cut. They had hoped to be part of the middle class as defined by the Liberals, but it seems that they were wrong. There are many people in my riding who do not earn the $45,000 a year it takes to get a single dollar back in tax relief.

Thank goodness that the cost of living remains low in many of the towns I represent. Houses can be bought much cheaper than in Toronto, for example. There are perfectly decent houses for less than $100,000. Perhaps Toronto is a different world. That said, most of my constituents will not be benefiting from the middle-class tax cut because their low annual incomes do not meet the income eligibility threshold.

People are left feeling like we have failed them, which is a shame. If the tax cut had been applied to the lowest tax bracket, as the NDP suggested, the vast majority of people would have benefited. However, the Liberals held firm, and as a result, most of my constituents will not make enough money to receive a single dollar in tax relief.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her articulate and well-researched speech about the realities of these people and the economic benefits. She made constructive arguments about supporting entrepreneurs, small and medium-sized businesses and people from her region.

I agree with my colleague on the disconnect between the great expectations created by that party during the campaign, when everyone agreed that small and medium-sized businesses needed a lower tax rate, and what actually followed.

Does the member not find even more disappointing that the great expectations of small and medium-sized businesses, Quebec and the aerospace sector were not met?

Does she not find deplorable that this election campaign turned out to be such a complete fraud? The Liberals made promises and announced a humongous deficit, and yet people will not even get what they were promised during the campaign.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague for the question.

That is a real problem. In 2015, I ran in my fourth campaign. I have been a candidate since 2006. People are sick of being lied to. They want the truth. They do not want any surprises.

Being honest with Canadians is how we score points. People have had enough of politicians promising them to fix everything and doing nothing once elected. They simply want the truth. Is that so hard?

When I worked as a nurse, it was the same thing. Patients do not want to be told that everything is fine, that they still have 10 years ahead of them. They want to be told the truth when things are not going well so they can plan for what comes next. They do not want reality to be sugar-coated; they want us to tell it like it is and stop springing surprises on them. That is how they can make informed choices.

When politicians promise one thing and do the opposite or fall short of expectations, people are disappointed. That is unfortunate, because it reflects badly on all of us.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the member. I believe the budget delivers what Canadians wanted. It delivers on a number of election platforms. Let me just cite a couple of examples of that.

The poorest seniors in Canada, single seniors in particular, would receive significant increases to their GIS. It is something the Conservative government failed to do. The budget would deliver the most generous Canada child benefit program that we have ever seen in the history of our country. It would lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty. Again, it is something the Conservative government failed to do. The budget would deliver a substantial tax break to over nine million middle-class Canadians. That is hundreds of millions of dollars going back into the pockets of Canadians. The budget would commit the hugest amount of dollars to expenditures on infrastructure, in every region of our country. This is a budget that Canadians wanted.

I will narrow my question down to one issue for the member. How do the Conservatives justify in their own minds voting against one of the most significant tax breaks that we have seen to Canada's middle class? How do they vote against that?

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

Mr. Speaker, he left that pretty wide open. The bottom line is that I do not know where the hon. member gets his numbers from. This is a budget that absolutely does not help the middle class, and I am going to concentrate on that because that seems to be the big item the Liberals want to talk about, the middle class.

The middle class, in their terms and definition, are people who make the same money as members of Parliament. Anybody making up to $200,000 a year, in their wisdom, in their minds, is included in that.

How do I tell families where both spouses are working and making $40,000 to $50,000 a year that they are in the middle class, while a member of Parliament is included in the same category? I do not think many of them will buy it.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

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

Considering some of my colleague's recent statements or publications, I was wondering if he could tell us what he thought about the assistance programs for Canada's least fortunate. I am thinking about income security programs such as old age security and employment insurance.

What does he think about the help the government can give to Canada's least fortunate and what was proposed in the budget?

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

Mr. Speaker, the first program the member mentioned was welfare. Welfare is there, like a lot of government programs are, for those who have found themselves in tough circumstances in life. I fully support that.

Employment insurance is there for people who lose their jobs. It is not there for somebody to use as part of a plan. I fully support that.

As my hon. colleague will know, the previous Liberal government took I believe it was $52 million or $54 million out of the EI fund, which it had no right to do, and it put it in the general coffers.

Those programs are in place and I fully support them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I remind the member that he cannot refer to a member of the House by their first or last name. I must also inform him that his time is up.

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

Madam Speaker, the only thing that is rich about the Conservatives' legacy is their own description of it.

Many of their statements are not exactly up to date. The Conservatives did not manage to balance the budget one single time in the 20th century. The last time they managed to balance it was in the 19th century.

They claim to be good economic managers, but with their magic economist, the former prime minister, I have a hard time believing that claim.

Can the member talk about the Conservatives' real history with balanced budgets?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his pertinent question. This gives me the opportunity to tell the House that the Liberals, once again, are not able to acknowledge the truth.

We balanced the budget in 2014-15 and we left the house in order financially. I do not know what planet the Liberals are living on, but their claims are not true.

I should therefore ask you, Madam Speaker, what is the procedure for requesting that a member retract an erroneous statement?

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I would like to come back to an issue that he raised but did not elaborate on it as much as I would have liked. I mean old age security. He said it was irresponsible on the part of the government to bring the age of eligibility back down to 65, but he failed to cite any studies showing that the program was not viable if the eligibility age remained at 65.

Earlier I tried to get an answer from one of his colleagues, who referred me to a blog post to try to justify the fact that his government raised the eligibility age from 65 to 67. Maybe I will have better luck with this member.

Can he refer me to any studies proving that the program is unsustainable if the eligibility age is set at 65? I would like him to cite at least one study, rather than a blog post.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague for the question.

On the official opposition side, our objective is to create wealth. We need to get the economy moving. We need to invest in the regions. We need to put Canadians to work, so that they have money in their pockets. If the funds are available, we are willing to use them to improve our social programs. However, we believe that you need to have the money in order to make investments.

The same thing is true for families. If no money is coming in, no one can invest; no one can spoil themselves, and no one can go on vacation, for example.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague who serves on the public accounts committee with me for his hard work there and the great speech he gave today.

There have been a number of questions referencing 2008. The member before him spoke about the Hon. Jim Flaherty and how, in the first two years our government was in power, we paid down $38 billion with surpluses. We balanced the budget, we had a surplus, and we paid down over $38 billion in national debt.

In 2008, the largest recession since the Great Depression hit, yes, we did go into deficit spending with infrastructure funding and investing in things that would help create jobs. Canada was the last to enter the recession and the first to come out of it. This showed that it was good fiscal management.

We had balanced budget legislation, which said that if we were not in recession, if the economy was growing, we would have balanced budgets. The current government has thrown that out and has gone from $10 billion to $20 billion to $30 billion in projected deficits—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I want to give the member a chance to respond.

The hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.

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

Madam Speaker, indeed, we worked hard for the nine years that we were in power. What worries me, unfortunately for Canadians, is that the Liberals will destroy Canada in the next four years.

In Canada right now, the Liberals want to let young people use marijuana, let vulnerable people commit suicide, and send Canada into bankruptcy.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order, please. I can see that people feel quite passionate about this debate. It is a shame we do not have more time, but other members want to ask questions and participate in the debate.

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

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, there are so many reasons why this legislation is bad for Canadians that I hardly know where to begin. The excessive spending the Liberal budget sets out is not targeted and will end up hurting businesses, families and hard-working Canadians in the form of future tax increases.

The budget is about spending. It will stifle economic growth. The Liberals hope that by throwing out buzzwords like “infrastructure” and “innovation”, Canadians will not notice their true intentions.

When the Liberals took office, taxes were at their lowest point in 50 years, transfer payments had reached an all-time high, our economy was leading the G-7 in job creation and growth since the recession, and the budget was balanced. The Liberal budget is a plan for reckless spending that offers higher taxes, billions in new debt, and no real plan for jobs. It is a fundamental Conservative principle that Canadians should be able to keep their hard-earned money in their pockets.

Before the people of Edmonton Manning gave me their trust as their member of Parliament, I was a small business owner. I have owned and operated a number of businesses since coming to Canada in 1990. I know first-hand the importance of balancing the books. I understand the importance of meeting payroll and how much having a good, steady job meant to my employees. I worked hard to build my business, because I knew that in Canada success comes with hard work.

My experience is the same as that of thousands of Canadian businessmen. We work hard and have the satisfaction of creating something. We are not rich, but we earn a living, and through our businesses, we help others earn a living also. That may be why I was so disappointed to hear, during the last election campaign, that the Liberal leader thought small businesses were just a tax haven for the rich. I am not rich, but I have worked hard for what I have. I did not grow up with a trust fund.

Roughly two-thirds of small and medium-sized business owners fall directly into the middle class. Employers are about four times more likely to earn less than $40,000 than more than $250,000.

We know that small business creates jobs, According to Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, small businesses account for more than 98% of all firms in Canada and play a large role in net job creation. Small businesses created 77.7% of all private jobs from 2002 to 2012, a little more 100,000 jobs each year on average.

Given those statistics, it would seem only logical that governments would encourage small business owners to grow their business, that government would create a climate in which entrepreneurs would want to invest in expanding their companies, creating more jobs in the process. There is no logic in this bill.

We know the Liberals will have to raise taxes to pay for their out of control spending. It is unfortunate that 700,000 middle-class small business owners who employ 95% of working Canadians are the Minister of Finance's first target.

The Liberals ended the hiring credit for small businesses. The Liberals cancelled their planned youth employment hiring credit. The Liberals have broken their clear promise to small businesses to proceed with a small business tax rate reduction.

Our previous Conservative government encouraged job-creating small business by cutting the rate to 10.5% for 2016, with a planned further reduction to 9% to encourage growth and jobs. In 2015 the Liberal Party told Canadians that, if elected, they would also implement these planned cuts.

Apparently a year ago, they recognized the importance of small business. That does not seem to be the case anymore.

The Minister of Finance has said that the planned cuts would be deferred. He has not given a concrete date for implementation. Perhaps we can expect him to live up to his election promise when we see a herd of unicorns on the front lawn of Parliament Hill. What we do know is that the finance department has estimated that this broken promise would cost the small-business sector $2.2 billion over four years. By increasing taxes on job-creating small businesses, the Liberals are discouraging success and entrepreneurship for the whole country. They are hurting the middle class.

Another one of the provisions of this bill that I find profoundly disturbing is the repeal of the Federal Balanced Budget Act. This is a subject I would hope would be of concern to all Canadians. Let me quote from the preamble of that act:

...a sound fiscal position is crucial to economic growth and job creation over the longer term;

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

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

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

The Federal Balanced Budget Act requires the Minister of Finance to be accountable to this House. If he wanted to run a deficit, he would need to appear before the appropriate committee, make a case for the deficit, and present a plan for a return to balanced budgets. I can understand why this is a concern for the current government. After six months in office, the Liberals have discovered that despite their leader's assurance, budgets do not balance themselves.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The division on Motion No. 1 stands deferred.

The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 2 and 3.

The next question is on Motion No. 4. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

I declare the motion carried.

(Motion No. 4 agreed to)

The question is on Motion No. 5. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

All those in favour of the motion please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

All those opposed please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The recorded division also applies to Motions Nos. 6 to 8.

The question is on Motion No. 9. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

All those in favour of the motion please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

All those opposed please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions on the motion at report stage of Bill C-15.

Call in the members.

[Andrew Leslie, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Madam Speaker, I ask that the votes be deferred to Wednesday, June 8, at the conclusion of the time provided for oral questions.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The votes are deferred.

It being 6 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 7 consideration of Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

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

Call in the members.

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

(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #82

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare Motion No. 1 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 2 and 3 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 5. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 6 to 8.

[Andrew Leslie, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe that if you seek it, you will find agreement to apply the results from the previous vote to this vote.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives agree to apply and will be voting yes.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP agrees to apply the vote and we will vote yes.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and we will vote against the motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party agrees to apply the vote and votes yes.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

Just to be clear, is there unanimous consent to do it this way?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(The House divided on Motion No. 5, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #83

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare Motion No. 5 defeated. I, therefore, declare Motions Nos. 6 to 8 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 9.

The hon. Chief Government Whip.

[Andrew Leslie, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that if you seek it, you will find agreement to apply the results from the previous vote to this vote.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

Does the member have the unanimous consent of the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives also agree to apply and will be voting yes.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thought there was unanimous consent, but the NDP agrees and votes yes.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Québécois agree to apply the vote and vote in favour of the motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply the vote and vote yes.

(The House divided on the motion No. 9, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #84

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare Motion No. 9 defeated.

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

[Andrew Leslie, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent to apply the result of the previous vote to this vote, with the Liberal members voting in favour of the motion.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this manner?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives also agree to apply and will be voting no.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP agrees to apply the vote, but this time our members are voting no.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote, but we are voting against the motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party agrees to apply the vote and is voting against the motion.

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

Vote #85

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion carried.

When shall the bill be read a third time?

Later this day, pursuant to order made on Tuesday, June 7.