Bill C-2 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Income Tax Act

This enactment amends the Income Tax Act to reduce the second personal income tax rate from 22% to 20.‍5% and to introduce a new personal marginal tax rate of 33% for taxable income in excess of $200,000. It also amends other provisions of that Act to reflect the new 33% rate. In addition, it amends that Act to reduce the annual contribution limit for tax-free savings accounts from $10,000 to its previous level with indexation ($5,500 for 2016) starting January 1, 2016.

Public Complaints and Review Commission Act

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

Madam Speaker, the member took the liberty to talk about our budget. He made reference to the middle class, so I want to ask him a question about the middle class.

Given the Conservative policy of tax cuts, which is all they are advocating for nowadays, does the member feel any remorse or regret in regard to voting against Bill C-2, which provided Canada's middle class a tax cut?

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to an important piece of legislation, legislation that I would have liked, ideally, to see pass earlier. I would like to break down my comments into a couple of different sections. First, I want to talk about something that has already been raised by two previous speakers and that is the issue of timing.

It is important that we recognize that a substantive report was provided many years ago, when Stephen Harper was prime minister of Canada, that took a look at the ways we could reinforce public confidence in Canada's Royal Canadian Mounted Police, given some circumstances that were taking place at the time. That report came out with a number of recommendations.

One of those recommendations was the idea of having some form of an independent commission that would be able to address complaints, with respect to the RCMP, and to be able to investigate. I looked up that report, and I thought that it had been from around 2005 or 2006. I understand that it was actually brought to the House in 2006.

Mr. Harper was the prime minister at the time, and he chose not to take any sort of action on it. When the government changed in 2015, we did a considerable amount of work and effort on doing an overall review.

The Department of Justice had a number of pieces of legislation that would have been before them. We have been debating several pieces of legislation, virtually from 2015, on a wide spectrum of that department's responsibilities. This is our third attempt to get the legislation through, dealing with the commission.

I believe that our very first piece of legislation was Bill C-2, which was tax relief for Canada's middle class. Members will recall that this was when we reduced the taxes of Canadians, for the most part. We had the 1% wealthiest get the extra tax, but that was our first major piece of legislation.

From then to today, there has been an extensive legislative agenda. We have had to go through some fairly difficult times. For example, the worldwide pandemic required numerous pieces of legislation.

I do not know how many times I have stood up inside the chamber to talk about Conservative filibustering on government legislation. We have seen that consistently for years now. We take a look at it and we say, well, today, we are talking about Bill C-20, legislation that is significant. Not only does it reflect on a report that was provided back in 2006, but it is also a reflection on several years of consultations with Canada's border control agency. Not only are we talking about the RCMP today but we are also talking about the Canada Border Services Agency.

The CBSA plays a critical role, as does the RCMP, every day, seven days a week, 24 hours a day. That whole agency is now being provided the same opportunity that the RCMP with the public and the issues that have been raised with regard to both agencies. I see that as a very strong, powerful piece of legislation that will make a difference.

Earlier I asked about the Bloc's support for this. Its members were fairly clear that they would vote in favour of it. They saw the legislation as a positive and were anxious to see it pass through the House. Then we asked the New Democratic Party about the issue of getting the legislation through the House and the NDP seemed to be just as supportive, recognizing the value of the legislation and the desire to see it pass through the House. Both parties were somewhat critical of the government for not passing it earlier. That is why I highlighted the fact that there was substantial legislation.

If time permitted, I would go into the different types of legislation that the government has had to introduce. There is a finite amount of time that the House actually sits. That is one reason why, with the support of the New Democratic Party, we were successful in being able to extend hours so we could sit beyond six o'clock. If we need to sit until midnight for more debate, we are in that position, thanks to the support from the New Democratic Party. Both political entities have acknowledged that substantive legislation needs to be passed. One way we can ensure there is time for debate is to provide those additional hours, if more hours of debate are required, particularly by the official opposition, prior to passing the legislation.

From questions posed by the Conservatives, I am of the opinion that they also support this legislation.

Once again, we might actually find ourselves in a position where political parties support the legislation. I suspect the Green Party will take a position on it, likely in support. I must congratulate the leader of the Green Party, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, for taking on that role again.

I suspect we have legislation before the chamber that will receive unanimous support of getting it to committee. It would be wonderful to get a sense from the official opposition as to when it would like to see this legislation go to committee. In other words, how many speakers will the Conservatives be putting up? For example, if they are going to put up more than three or four speakers, maybe they should look to the government and suggest we sit additional hours in an evening, so we can get the legislation passed and get it to committee.

It seems to me that the desire is there to see the legislation pass to the committee. There are more government bills on the horizon on which we would like to have debate. When I hear that all members are supporting the legislation, my concern is that the Conservatives might double down, insisting they put up speakers until the government brings in time allocation. The leader of the Green Party will be in opposition to that time allocation and we will have to bring in other parties to support it in order to get the Conservatives to pass the legislation and allow the bill to ultimately go to committee.

We should try to avoid all that. If it is not resolved today, I would encourage the opposition House leader, in particular, to let the government House leader know how many actual speakers the Conservatives anticipate, so we can get it into committee. Literally thousands of people are being directly or indirectly impacted. I would argue that all Canadians are, in one way or another, affected by it.

With respect to the cost expenditure, we are talking about well over $100 million over five years, but the trade-off with the cost factor is building what is absolutely essential when it comes to law enforcement, whether it for our borders or anywhere in between. Public confidence in our border agency and RCMP is absolutely critical. This is one way we can reinforce the many things that need to be done related to the fine work that both CBSA and RCMP agents do for us seven days a week, 24 hours a day.

In listening to the comments from members, I want to provide a general thought with respect to bad apples versus the vast majority. For the vast majority in both agencies, we continue to receive the best service that is humanly possible.

I do not have a problem in comparing our national institutions, in particular, the RCMP, to any other law enforcement agency anywhere in the world. Its members are constantly called upon from other countries and from within Canada to perform in many ways, whether it is training and assistance in countries like Ukraine and many others throughout the world to the absolutely fantastic work they do in Canada.

The same principle applies to the majority of those who work at the Canada Border Services Agency, and I recognize their phenomenal effort. It is very delicate work, as some members have implied. It is almost like a border agent is a semi-god of sorts when someone comes into Canada. That individual is completely dependent on that border agent to make a decision that is favourable to the nation and that decision could ultimately prevent the person from coming into Canada.

The bad apples cause a great deal of issues for both agencies, and we often will see that take place. After all, it is the incident that the public will react to through media reporting which reflects negatively on the institution. For example, when an RCMP officer takes an action that reflects negatively on the entire force, that gets amplified, whether through social media or mainstream media. That is when the seeds of doubt or questionable behaviour are planted in the minds of many, and justifiably so. However, it is because of those bad apples in particular that we need this legislation.

This is why it is so important to recognize the finances to support the public complaints and review commission. That is money well spent.

The public complaints and review commission will have the ability to review and investigate the conduct and level of service of an RCMP officer or a border control agent when an issue has been raised. That is the essence of the legislation. It will allow the chair of the commission to initiate some form of a disciplinary action where it is deemed warranted. Again, that type of action is necessary. At the beginning, when I talked about the time frame, I put it in the form of a question. There has been a lot of time since the report, but the essence of the legislation is far beyond what was recommended back when Stephen Harper was the prime minister.

The vote of confidence that is established when the commissioner provides a recommendation on a behaviour that has taken place is what provides that confidence. Through that recommendation, we will receive an annual report. That annual report will highlight the many different things with which the commission has had the opportunity to deal.

I recognize the importance of the makeup of the commission. I suspect, given some of the suggestions or ideas from the opposition party, we will likely see some healthy debate on this at the standing committee. Given the department's interest and level of time commitment to the legislation, I believe the government is open to suggestions, and I would encourage members to bring those ideas to committee.

I understand there are concerns, particularly related to a number of issues of the day. The Conservatives have raised issues like illegal guns crossing the borders. When we think of the Canada Border Services Agency, it is important to note that it deals with issues such as arrests, detentions, removals, human trafficking, customs, trade, immigration and illegal firearms. The Conservatives are quick to criticize the government on that issue.

I suggest that the Conservatives might not want to bring that issue up during questions and answers. If they do, I will talk about the tens of millions of dollars in cuts to the Canada Border Services Agency that the Conservatives put in place, which reduced the number of border services officers and that enhanced the opportunities for illegal trafficking of guns and weapons coming into the country. I will remind them of their responsibilities to the issue and their lack of commitment and support of Canada Border Services Agency before. Maybe they could come up with a different question, but I will not tell them what they have to ask.

I hope, as I explained in depth why it is important, that the legislation passes.

Motion in relation to Senate amendments

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to give a little ad at the beginning of my speech. Tomorrow is an important day. June 12 is Philippines Independence Day. I want to invite all members from all sides of the House to come out after their caucus meetings and walk across the street from West Block to SJAM to participate in the Filipino heritage event.

I want to add my thoughts in regard to Bill C-59 and I will approach it in two ways. First I will speak to the process that has brought us to the bill before us today and then I will provide thoughts in regard to some of the content of the bill itself.

To say that the issue of security and freedom is a new debate in the House of Commons would be a bit of a stretch. I can recall the debates surrounding Bill C-51 several years ago when Stephen Harper was the prime minister. He brought in that piece of legislation. At the time, the Liberal Party, as the third party, actually supported that legislation.

However, we qualified that support in a very clear way. We indicated throughout the debate that there were some fundamental flaws in Bill C-51, and that if we were to ultimately win in the election of 2015, we intended to bring forward some changes that would rectify some of those fundamental flaws.

I can recall the hours of debate that took place inside the chamber by members of all political parties. I can remember some of the discussions flowing out of the committees at the time. There was a great deal of debate and a great deal of controversy with the legislation. Even while campaigning during the last federal election, it was a topical issue for many people. It dealt with issues of an individual's rights versus having that sense of security. I always made reference to the fact that Liberals understand how important individual rights are. That is one of the reasons I often highlight that we are the party that brought in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

If we take a look at the original Bill C-51, even though the principles were very admirable and we supported it and voted for it, even though at the time we received some criticism, we made it very clear that we would make changes.

This is the second piece of legislation that has attempted to make good on commitments we made to Canadians in the last election. I really enjoy is being able to stand up in this place and provide comment, especially on legislation that fulfills election commitments, starting with our very first bill, Bill C-2. That is a bill I am very proud of, and I know my caucus colleagues are very proud of that bill. It concerns the tax break for Canada's middle class. There is the bill we are debating today, Bill C-59, the second part of a commitment we made to Canadians in the last federal election, which talks about the issue of public safety and privacy rights. Yet again, we have before us another piece of legislation that ultimately fulfills another commitment we made to Canadians in the last federal election.

I mentioned that I wanted to talk a bit about the process. In bringing forward Bill C-59, I do not think we could come up with a better example of a minister who has really understood the importance of the issue, or who has gone far beyond what any other minister in the Stephen Harper era ever did, in terms of consultation.

Even before the bill was introduced, we received input from thousands of Canadians, whether in person or through the Internet. We also received input from members of Parliament, particularly from many of my Liberal caucus colleagues. We were afforded the opportunity to share with the minister and the caucus some of the issues and concerns that came out of the last election. A great deal of consultation was done. The minister on several occasions indicated that the comprehensive dialogue that took place allowed for a substantial piece of legislation at the first reading stage.

Shortly after that, the bill was sent to committee prior to second reading, which allowed for a more thorough discussion on a wider scope of issues. The bill was debated at report stage and then at third reading. It was sent to the Senate, which has sent back amendments, which is where we are today. That process indicates that we have a government, as the Prime Minister has often indicated, that thinks the roles of our standing committees and the Senate can improve legislation. We have seen many changes throughout this process. This bill is a stronger and healthier piece of legislation than it originally was at its first reading stage.

I wanted to give that bit of background and then do a comparison regarding why the government had to move closure just an hour ago. I want to make it very clear to those individuals who might be following the debate, whether it is on Bill C-59 or other pieces of legislation.

We have an official opposition party that is determined to work with the NDP, and I often refer to it as the unholy alliance of the Conservatives and the New Democrats. They work together to try to prevent any legislation from passing. They will do whatever they can to prevent legislation from passing. It does not take much to do that. At the end of the day, a few members can cause a great deal of issues to prevent legislation from passing. There is no sense of responsibility coming from the opposition side in regard to working hard for Canadians and recognizing the valuable pieces of legislation that would be for the betterment of our society. In fact, those parties will put up speaker after speaker even on non-controversial legislation, because they have no real interest in passing legislation. If it were up to the Conservative opposition, we would still be debating Bill C-2. The opposition members have many different tools, and they have no qualms about using them. Then—

Budget Implementation Act, 2019, No. 1

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to address the chamber on a wide variety of issues. This evening is special in the sense that we are talking about the budget. When we talk about the budget, we talk about priorities and I am happy to share my thoughts on the government's priorities.

As the member for Winnipeg South pointed out, he and I go back 30 years, both on the provincial and national scene. I have learned to respect many of the things he does, especially on issues surrounding the environment, women's issues and Churchill, Manitoba. These are the types of issues he really digs his teeth into and produces tangible results. I respect the effort he puts in, day in and day out, in serving the constituents of Winnipeg South. Combined, we bring the south end of Winnipeg to the north and the north to the south. As he pointed out, it is friendly Manitoba and it has always been a pleasure to work with him in many capacities.

Having said all of that, I would like to pick up on a couple of points. The overriding issue for me has always been to demonstrate that, as a government, we have been very effective in a relatively short period of time. The budget is all about priorities and ensuring the economy and the social fabric continue to move forward. When I say the social fabric, I am talking about diversity. One of the most compelling facts is the number of jobs that have been created since we have been in government: one million jobs. That is a significant achievement.

When we talk about those one million jobs, we ask ourselves how that happened. It is because we have a government that is committed to working with Canadians in all regions of our country. We have a government that is committed to working with many different stakeholders, provinces, territories, indigenous people and municipalities, and by working with Canadians, we were able to deliver in a very tangible way.

I referenced something the other day and I want to repeat it. From day one, we have been focused on Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it, and that has been demonstrated from the very first piece of legislation we introduced, which my colleagues will recall was Bill C-2. It is what gave the middle class of Canada a substantial tax cut, putting hundreds of millions of dollars into the pockets of Canadians.

If we carry that piece of legislation over to the budget of 2016, the very first Liberal budget under this administration, we saw substantial increases to the guaranteed income supplement, which lifted tens of thousands of seniors out of poverty. There were also substantial increases to the Canada child benefit that completely reformed it, which again lifted tens of thousands of children out of poverty. Through those things alone, we invested in Canadians in very real and tangible ways. We put hundreds of millions of dollars into the pockets of Canadians in all regions of our country. In Winnipeg North alone, there is $9 million a month for children, every month, in the form of the Canada child benefit.

This is how to support the middle class and those aspiring to be part of it and how to give a helping hand to those who really need it. By doing that, we increased the disposable incomes of Canadians. It meant more money was being spent in our communities in all regions of our country, and by doing that, we created jobs.

Take that into consideration along with the historic investment in Canada's infrastructure. In the most recent budget we have seen an additional allocation for municipal infrastructure investment. That investment in infrastructure means hundreds of millions of dollars being invested in every region of our country, creating more jobs.

Why have we been able to create one million jobs by working with Canadians? Compare what we did in the last three and a half years to the 10 years of misery with the Harper regime. For Canadians who follow the debate on the budget they will see there really is no change in the opposition today. The only change is the incredible amount of influence that Doug Ford has with the Conservative Party. The Premier of Ontario now sits on that small circular table with Stephen Harper and the current Conservative leader.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member brought up the government's Bill C-2, which was in fact the cut to the middle income bracket, not to the middle class.

I have had this exchange with the member several times now, probably more than several times over the past few months and year. The government offered a tax cut of over $800 to every member of Parliament in this Chamber. However, people who were earning $45,000 or less got nothing. They got carbon taxes and higher payroll taxes. They actually got less at the end of the month. People who were earning $60,000 a year, which is more than the median income, more than the average income a person would earn in Canada, got about a $260 tax cut.

The member keeps repeating that this was for the middle class, but in fact every member of Parliament received a much higher tax break. That is wrong. That is not the way this is supposed to work. We are not supposed to fill our pockets; we are supposed to help Canadians.

Will the member finally admit that the middle income tax cut was not for the middle class, that it did not achieve any of those goals? In fact, the numbers provided by the CRA show that the extra tax put on the so-called 1% did not generate the revenue the government thought it would, that we lost over $4 billion.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise and address the House on the important issues we have to address. What is more important than the national budget? It is one of those measures that we can read a lot into, because it is the way the government establishes its priorities. From day one, this government has been very clear to the House, and through the House to all Canadians, and I would even reverse that by saying that through Canadians, we have been very clear to this House, what the intentions of this government are.

As I have referenced in the past, we have a Prime Minister who constantly challenges members of the Liberal caucus to stay connected with their constituents, the people we represent, and to bring their thoughts and ideas to the floor of the House, the standing committees and the caucus. I really believe that a lot of positive things have happened as a direct result.

Before I get to the core issues, I would like to use the example of pharmacare. On numerous occasions, I have had the opportunity to stand in my place and table petitions dealing with pharmacare. We know how passionate Canadians are about our health care system. It does not matter what region of the country we live in, health care is an important issue. As such, I have always taken it seriously, not only here in the House of Commons but also in the days when I was an MLA.

Under this Prime Minister, for the very first time in decades, we have seen an open mind toward a national pharmacare plan. I would argue that for the first time in decades, we have seen not only members of the government but also some opposition members talking more about a pharmacare plan. Virtually months after the last election, we saw the standing committee put meetings on its agenda to deal with pharmacare, which ultimately led to a report.

We have seen commitments within our budget measures to further the debate and dialogue on pharmacare. We have seen members of Parliament go into their constituencies and work with others.

I am very proud of the fact that my daughter Cindy has been very strong on this file and has been advocating for a national pharmacare plan on the floor of the Manitoba legislature. She recognizes, as I do, that this is an important issue for the residents of Winnipeg's north end and beyond.

If we listen to my caucus colleagues, they will talk about the importance of a national pharmacare plan. I think that embodies some of the things the Prime Minister has talked about, which is that as members of Parliament, it is important that we stay in touch with what our constituencies want and expect.

Let me suggest to members that it is one of the important issues on which I hope to see some tangible results in the coming days, weeks, months and, with the approval of my constituents, years. It is an issue I want the residents of Winnipeg North to understand. I will continue to advocate for it until we have some form of national pharmacare plan we can all be proud of, a plan that will complement the national Canada health care system we have.

Having said that, I want to talk about day one. I sat in the opposition benches a number of years ago when our current Prime Minister was elected leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.

I thought it was significant that the day he made the announcement that he was interested in putting his name into the leadership race, he highlighted the importance of Canada's middle class. Nothing has changed. The then leadership candidate, who then became the leader of the Liberal Party and is now Canada's Prime Minister, has consistently indicated that Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be part of it are the first priority of this government and the Liberal Party.

He made that pledge in the last federal election. I believe that if we look at the budgetary measures we have taken since day one of getting into government, we will find example after example of what we have done as the government to further the interests of Canada's middle class.

If we look back at the beginning, and Bill C-2, we will see the tax cut for Canada's middle class. At the same time, we recognized the sense of tax fairness, and we saw a government that put an extra tax on Canada's one per cent, the wealthiest Canadians. The revenue generated from that, in good part, went to pay for the tax break for Canada's middle class.

I am very proud of the fact that we have seen a government that also wants to do what it can to deal with issues such as poverty. That is why we saw the enhancement of the tax-free Canada child benefit program, literally lifting tens of thousands of children, going into hundreds of thousands, out of poverty. Then we saw the guaranteed income supplement, which also lifted tens of thousands of Canadians out of poverty.

I want to combine the three of them and use it as a tangible example of this point. We took money and put it into the pockets of Canadians in every region of our country. We supported the middle class and those aspiring to be part of it, those who needed that helping hand, and we put money to work. I say that because if we invest in our middle class, we are really investing in Canada. The hundreds of millions, going into billions of dollars annually that we invested in Canadians ultimately assisted us in providing tangible results. It increased disposable income and, I would argue, helped create the one million jobs this government, working in co-operation with other stakeholders, has been able to generate in every region of this country.

In so many ways, we are the envy of the world because of the economic policies we have put in place. We have put money in the pockets of Canadians by investing in infrastructure. Even with this most recent budget, we are giving tens of millions of dollars. In the city of Winnipeg, just over $35 million is going into municipal infrastructure, creating jobs, building our country and investing in Canadians. That is what this government has been all about over the last three and a half years.

We have seen tangible results. This is why I am very happy and quite content. The summer is quickly approaching. We only have another 12 or 13 days left in this sitting. I look forward to a summer where we can reach out and tell Canadians what has been taking place in the last three and a half years.

Come October, when people do the comparisons, they will recognize and appreciate all the work we have been able to accomplish, working with Canadians day in and day out, working hard and delivering.

Energy Costs

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

Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat interesting listening to the Conservatives. We have heard them, not only today but in previous weeks and months, talk about the tax on tax, as if Stephen Harper never did it. One would think the Conservative Party never had a tax on tax.

Every week, Canadians from coast to coast to coast were paying a tax on a tax that Stephen Harper was very supportive of. When people put gas in their vehicle, there is a provincial and federal levy, and then there is the GST. My understanding is that the GST is a tax that is applied onto a tax. Yet, the Conservative Party is so offended by taxes on taxes, as if it has never happened before.

Why did Stephen Harper not deal with the tax on tax? What happened then to the oomph of the Conservative Party today, saying that a tax on a tax is bad? The Conservative Party is probably the one that came up with the idea of a tax on a tax. It was actually the Progressive Conservative Party in Alberta that first came up with the idea of a price on pollution in North America. That is the reality of it.

The Conservatives are really good at opposition, and I have said this before: I hope we keep them in opposition for many years. However, we really need to reflect on some of the speeches that Conservatives give in the House. They are truly amazing. We hear all about the balanced budget stuff. Conservatives try to give the impression that the Conservative Party is good at managing budgets. Seriously.

Stephen Harper took a multi-billion dollar surplus and turned it into a multi-billion dollar deficit even before there was a recession. That is the honest to God truth. That is the reality. Stephen Harper had deficit after deficit, and I would have to say it was for eight or nine years. He accumulated over $150 billion in deficits, and yet Conservatives try to give us advice on deficits.

By the way, as we know, the current leader just flip-flopped on his deficit projections. Now a Conservative government would take five years to get rid of the deficit. I can appreciate that, if we take a look at what Liberals have been able to do in the last little while because of many of the budgetary measures we have taken. We have seen the generation of over a million new jobs in Canada in the last three and a half years, because of some of the changes we have made.

The Conservative Party wants to ask about this tax or that tax, but what did it really do when it mattered the most to most Canadians?

The most substantial tax break given in many years by the House of Commons was in Bill C-2. We call it the middle-class tax break, the tax cut for Canada's middle class. Millions of families benefited all across Canada. Hundreds of millions of dollars were given to Canadians, to the middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it.

What did the Conservative Party do? The Conservatives voted against it. It is hard to believe that when it comes right down to voting, a Conservative Party that preaches about giving tax breaks voted against our tax cut. In fairness, the Conservatives also voted against a tax increase on Canada's wealthiest 1%, which is consistent with many of the different types of boutique tax credits the Conservatives like to come up with.

I would suggest that the Conservative Party and those deep thinkers within it, and here I am talking about people like Doug Ford and Jason Kenney, the potential leadership contenders in the next go-around, need to sit down with Stephen Harper and the current leader and start revisiting the types of issues they have to try to overcome between now and the next election.

When I go door-knocking and speak to residents of Winnipeg North, I am always happy to share with them the reality of the Conservative Party, and I must say that it can be very discouraging at times.

Criminal Records Act

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

Madam Speaker, earlier today I indicated that we look at the legislation and do a comparison. From day one, I have made numerous references to Bill C-2, which has given the middle-class of Canada a substantial tax break while at the same time increasing the tax level on Canada's 1% wealthiest. Today we are debating Bill C-93, which is in essence going to provide a pardon for simple possession of cannabis. Whether it was day one or today, this is a government that believes we should work hard every day.

Would the member agree, as we look at the next 14 or 15 days of the House's sitting, that we have a responsibility to do what we can to support legislation and see it come to a vote, believing that Canadians will benefit from members of Parliament who are prepared to work all the way to the very last day?

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

Madam Speaker, I disagree with the member across the way, which should come as no surprise. When we take a look at this legislation, much like many other pieces of legislation this government has been introducing virtually from day one, it is yet another piece of legislation that fulfills a campaign commitment that the Liberal Party made in the 2015 election.

However, I guess where we differ from the Conservative Party is that I believe, whether it is Bill C-2, which we brought in on day one of our mandate to give Canada's middle class a tax break while at the same time putting a special tax on Canada's wealthiest 1%, or Bill C-93, which we are debating today and which would allow for a pardon for individuals with convictions for simple possession of cannabis, these are all good, solid, sound pieces of legislation, and I am grateful.

The member is supporting this legislation, I understand. Would the member not agree that we should continue to look at ways in which we can pass legislation for every day that we sit. Would he agree that just because we are in the last 10 or 15 days, we do not have to stop passing legislation?

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

Madam Speaker, we hear members on the opposition benches say that we have 17 or 18 days left to go. From day one, this government introduced Bill C-2 that gave a tax break to Canada's middle class and put an extra tax on the wealthiest 1%. Today, we are debating Bill C-93 that will have a profoundly positive impact on Canadians.

Would the member not agree that the number of sitting days left does not matter, that if we are afforded the opportunity to do good work for Canadians by passing legislation that will make a difference in their lives, we should all support and encourage that?

Motions in Amendment

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

Mr. Speaker, this is yet another example of how this government has fulfilled campaign commitments, from the very beginning, when we brought in Bill C-2 to reduce tax rates for Canada's middle class, to this piece of legislation today, Bill C-93, which makes a commitment to pardon individuals for simple possession of cannabis. These are the types of progressive legislative commitments we made in the last federal election.

Would the member opposite not agree that Canadians have an expectation that all members of Parliament will actually work every day, all the way through? That means that for the next 12 to 14 days we should continue to sit and continue to debate important legislation that will have the same type of impact as Bill C-93 does for Canadians, and that is indeed a good thing.

Many of the members opposite seem to feel that maybe we should stop debating legislation. I think that would be bad public policy, given that we can still continue to work hard for Canadians and pass legislation. Would he not agree that we should continue to pass legislation wherever and whenever we can?

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to address Bill C-93 this morning. I found it actually quite excessive listening to my New Democrat friends on this issue. As the parliamentary secretary put it, I think it is important that we recognize that the NDP tends to grossly exaggerate its stand on a wide variety of issues. This is a good example of that.

In the last federal election, the New Democrats, under Mr. Mulcair, actually said that they were not in favour of the legalization of cannabis. That was their position. Now the member says that we should not hold them to account for what the NDP said back in the last federal election, but in the same speech, he said that he wants to hold us to account for what we said in the last election.

Let us talk about the cannabis issue. What did the government say back in 2015? The Liberals were very clear, and our leader was very clear, that we were in favour of the legalization of cannabis, because we wanted to protect our young people. We wanted to bring in strong regulations. We wanted to go after criminal activities. That was our justification for making that commitment to Canadians back in 2015. The Conservatives, on the other hand, wanted the status quo.

The NDP position was very clear. It did not want to legalize cannabis. It wanted to decriminalize cannabis. Reflect on that. I think the NDP is trying to find relevance in society today, because even the Green Party tends to outdo the NDP on the environment file. Many of the positions the NDP is adopting today are going to the Green Party. On this issue, it is following the Liberal Party. That is fine. We do not mind sharing our ideas with our NDP friends.

However, those following this debate should not be fooled by the type of information the New Democrats are providing on this issue. They argue for expungement, because they are grasping. A few years ago, they were not even in favour of the legalization of cannabis. During the 2015 campaign, we made a very strong presentation to Canadians, and Canadians accepted it, and now, through Bill C-45, we actually have cannabis legalized here in Canada.

The Conservatives and the NDP, that unholy alliance, I would argue, at times come together. The last few days, they have been saying, “Here we are with 18 days left to go in this session and the government is wanting to rush things through.” When we were elected, we made a commitment to Canadians to work hard every day. What do they expect us to do, say that with only 18 days left in this session, we are going to stop, as if there is nothing else for us to do?

From day one, with that very first bill, Bill C-2, to reduce taxes for Canada's middle class while at the same time increasing it for Canada's wealthiest 1%, until the last day we sit, this government's intention has been to continue to deliver for Canadians in a real and tangible way.

The legalization of cannabis took us a considerable amount of time. We cannot just bring in legislation and pass it. Legislation of that nature requires a great deal of background work, such as working with the many different stakeholders, provinces and indigenous leaders. We could not bring in this legislation before we even passed the other legislation.

This legislation is before us today because it is good, sound, solid legislation. This is the type of legislation that is going to have a profoundly positive impact on the lives of many Canadians. That is the reason we are debating it today.

Whether there are 16 days, 10 days or five days left does not really matter. At the end of the day, Canadians can know that this government will continue to work every day to advance good, strong social budgetary policies.

For individuals who have been convicted of simple possession of cannabis, this legislation would allow an expedited pardon for that particular conviction. It is as simple as that. This legislation would expedite it and ensure that there was no cost for receiving that pardon.

For those who have an interest in getting a pardon, this government has made it exceptionally easy for them to do. That is why this legislation is important. It is why we challenge all members of the House to support it.

With regard to the expungement argument being brought forward, a pardon is all that is required. It is far more than the NDP was prepared to offer in 2015. When its members say that it should be expungement, they should put an asterisk there to indicate that it is a lot more than what they were prepared to do back in 2015.

I know that the NDP had a change in leadership. I believe that the current leader says that the legalization of heroin and cocaine should be allowed. I believe that could be a potential election platform coming from the NDP. That is what its current leader has talked about in the past. Maybe the NDP might provide some clarity and transparency on that issue. We are glad that the NDP has accepted the idea of the legalization of cannabis.

The NDP had some influence with the Conservatives. Prior to the last election, the Conservative Party was outright against it. I remember the brochures, the propaganda and the myths being created. Even back then, the Conservatives were more focused on being critical of personalities than on substantive policy issues. The Conservatives were against it. They did not want legalization, and I do not believe they even favoured decriminalization. After the election, they started to talk about the decriminalization of cannabis.

A few of them are saying that they started talking about it a bit earlier. In fairness to my Conservative friends, that might be the case. Having said that, who were the biggest benefactors? I argue that it was the gangs and the criminal element that were the biggest benefactors of the Conservative policy on cannabis. Stop and think about that.

Resuming debate

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we had a very good example this morning with the member across the way.

Contrast that to another example where we had legislation which members of the New Democratic Party recognized that they actually liked. I think it was Bill C-37. I could be wrong on that but if members did a quick check of Hansard, they would be able to find out when members of the NDP supported time allocation. They wanted us to pass that legislation. They recognized the value and importance of that legislation. That is not the only time they did that. The NDP members on a couple of occasions have recognized that they like the legislation and want it to pass and have therefore supported our bringing in time allocation.

What we know is that all parties in this House actually support the concept of time allocation, if it is deemed necessary. Even when I sat in opposition, Peter Van Loan would bring in time allocation, and I remember standing in my place and supporting it, because if one is not getting the support and co-operation from opposition parties in particular and from the government at times, one may need to use time allocation. A lot depends on what is happening in the opposition benches.

I know the government House leader continues to want to work with opposition members. If the government House leader asks how many speakers a party would like to put forward on something or how quickly might we be able to get a piece of legislation through, it is not some sort of trap for the opposition parties. It is to allow for more debate on issues which the opposition members would like to have more debate on.

There are bills that are relatively non-controversial, like Bill C-81, which is historical legislation. I am not going to say that members should not be debating the bill, but based on my 30 years of parliamentary experience, when the will is there to see a bill pass, it passes really quickly as opposed to there being a filibuster. Maybe it would have been better to allow Bill C-81 to actually pass today. I would argue that would have been the right thing to do.

I listened very closely to the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan across the way. All he would say is that it will pass in due time and before the next election it will be passed. He indicated his support for it on behalf of the Conservative Party. The member is playing a game and he knows it. If the Conservative Party really wanted to, that bill could have passed and we could have been debating something else right now. We needed to get an indication to help facilitate debate inside the House.

There are many issues that I would like to debate and, in good part, I have been fortunate to have been afforded the opportunity to do that. The NDP House leader talked about an issue which I am very passionate about: pharmacare. That is not an NDP issue, although the NDP tries to claim it as one. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is an issue today because we have a Prime Minister who is committed to ensuring that we expand our health care system. That is the reason the NDP is talking about it today. It was years ago, when we first came in as government, through a standing committee that the idea started to really flourish.

I participate in a caucus and I have many discussions with my colleagues. We understand the value of it. We understand that we have to work with many different stakeholders. Then the NDP members catch wind of it and all of a sudden they say that they to get out in front of the Liberals on it. That is balderdash.

The NDP does not get credit for something of this nature. If anyone should get the credit, it is Canadians. It is Canadians who have been communicating, whether through the Prime Minister or through members of our caucus, about the importance of pharmacare. That is the reason we have prioritized it. We are looking forward to the report we will be getting toward the end of June.

NDP members talk about housing as if they are leading the file. Who are they kidding? I enjoy listening to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development. He is one of the most able-minded individuals I know, and he understands the issues of housing in Canada.

In the last federal election, the commitment the NDP made with regard to housing pales in comparison to what this government has put into place. I find it somewhat humorous that the NDP has attempted to stake claim to an area in which this government has moved forward.

From day one, whether in regard to budgetary measures or legislative measures, this government and the Prime Minister have been focused on Canada's middle class. Let us talk about our first piece of legislation. Bill C-2 provided a tax cut to Canada's middle class. Hundreds of millions of dollars are going into the pockets of Canadians. At the same time, the legislation allowed for a special increase in tax for Canada's wealthiest 1%. By the way, the Conservatives and the NDP voted against that.

That was a legislative measure. In our very first budget, we committed to a tax-free Canada child benefit program. Again, this is putting hundreds of millions of dollars into the pockets of almost nine out of 10 families, although I could not tell members the actual percentage. That initiative literally lifted hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty, and the Conservatives and NDP voted against it.

That is why I say that from day one, this government, whether through budgetary measures or legislative measures, has been very active at ensuring we continue to move forward. However, in virtually every initiative we have undertaken, and Bill C-81 is more of an exception, opposition parties have fought us.

Let us recall the last federal budget. Before I comment on some of the content of it, do members remember the day of the federal budget? It was not a good day for parliamentarians. The Minister of Finance wanted to address the House and Canada. All sorts of stakeholders were waiting to hear about the budget. Do members remember the behaviour of members of the official opposition? They were yelling and slamming their desks. They did not want the Minister of Finance to be heard. In my 30 years of parliamentary experience, I had never witnessed that sort of inappropriate behaviour coming from the official opposition. It was embarrassing.

The Conservatives are very focused on trying to discredit the person of the Prime Minister. We can hear it in their speeches. It is the personal attacks, whether directed at the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance. That is fine. It is the Stephen Harper type of politics, with more and more of Doug Ford's style getting into their caucus and in their policies. It is scary stuff.

One member opposite said that he is going to join our caucus. I believe that could happen sometime soon. If I were to speculate on the Conservative leadership at the end of the year or in 2020, I am thinking it could be Doug Ford, Jason Kenney, maybe the opposition House leader, and I do not know who else.

The bottom line is the Conservatives are so focused on character assassination instead of being a constructive opposition party. That is okay, because as they focus on that negativity, we will continue to focus on Canadians. The results are really showing in a tangible way.

I made reference to the hundreds of thousands of children, and there are also hundreds of thousands of seniors who have been lifted out of poverty as a direct result of this government's actions. In the last three and a half years, we have seen one million new jobs created by working with Canadians. We have seen incredible investments in infrastructure. In the last budget alone, there is a commitment to municipalities. In Winnipeg, I believe it is about 35 million additional dollars. If members were to drive around some of our streets, they would get a better appreciation of why that is such an important investment.

I started off talking about the historical legislation of Bill C-81. We have indigenous legislation that is before the House on language and foster care. These are critically important issues. It is historic legislation. These are two pieces of legislation that we still need to pass. That is why I am here standing in my place saying that we still have 19 days to go. Unlike the Conservatives and the New Democrats, we are prepared to work until the very last day. We are prepared to work late. We have a legislative agenda and we are committed to passing that legislation. We know that this government works for Canadians in every region of our country every day.

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, commencing upon the adoption of this Order and concluding on Friday, June 21, 2019:

(a) on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, the ordinary hour of daily adjournment shall be 12:00 a.m., except that it shall be 10:00 p.m. on a day when a debate, pursuant to Standing Order 52 or 53.1, is to take place;

(b) subject to paragraph (e), when a recorded division is requested in respect of a debatable motion, including any division arising as a consequence of the application of Standing Order 61(2) or Standing Order 78, but not including any division in relation to the Business of Supply or arising as a consequence of an order made pursuant to Standing Order 57, (i) before 2:00 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of Oral Questions at that day’s sitting, or (ii) after 2:00 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, or at any time on a Friday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of Oral Questions at the next sitting day that is not a Friday, provided that, if a recorded division on the previous question is deferred and the motion is subsequently adopted, the recorded division on the original question shall not be deferred;

(c) notwithstanding Standing Order 45(6) and paragraph (b) of this Order, no recorded division in relation to any government order requested after 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 20, 2019, or at any time on Friday, June 21, 2019, shall be deferred;

(d) the time provided for Government Orders shall not be extended pursuant to Standing Order 45(7.1) or Standing Order 67.1(2);

(e) when a recorded division, which would have ordinarily been deemed deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on a Wednesday governed by this Order, is requested, the said division is deemed to have been deferred until the conclusion of Oral Questions on the same Wednesday;

(f) any recorded division which, at the time of the adoption of this Order, stands deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on the Wednesday immediately following the adoption of this Order shall be deemed to stand deferred to the conclusion of Oral Questions on the same Wednesday;

(g) a recorded division requested in respect of a motion to concur in a government bill at the report stage pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(9), where the bill has neither been amended nor debated at the report stage, shall be deferred in the manner prescribed by paragraph (b);

(h) for greater certainty, this Order shall not limit the application of Standing Order 45(7);

(i) when one or several deferred recorded divisions occur on a bill at report stage, a motion, “That the Bill be now read a third time and do pass”, may be made in the same sitting;

(j) no dilatory motion may be proposed after 6:30 p.m., except by a Minister of the Crown;

(k) notwithstanding Standing Orders 81(16)(b) and (c) and 81(18)(c), proceedings on any opposition motion shall conclude no later than 5:30 p.m. on the sitting day that is designated for that purpose, except on a Monday when they shall conclude at 6:30 p.m. or on a Friday when they shall conclude at 1:30 p.m.;

(l) during consideration of the estimates on the last allotted day, pursuant to Standing Order 81(18), when the Speaker interrupts the proceedings for the purpose of putting forthwith all questions necessary to dispose of the estimates, (i) all remaining motions to concur in the Votes for which a notice of opposition was filed shall be deemed to have been moved and seconded, the question deemed put and recorded divisions deemed requested, (ii) the Speaker shall have the power to combine the said motions for voting purposes, provided that, in exercising this power, the Speaker will be guided by the same principles and practices used at report stage;

(m) when debate on a motion for the concurrence in a report from a standing, standing joint or special committee is adjourned or interrupted, the debate shall again be considered on a day designated by the government, after consultation with the House Leaders of the other parties, but in any case not later than the 31st sitting day after the interruption; and

(n) Members not seeking re-election to the 43rd Parliament may be permitted to make statements, on Tuesday, June 4, and Wednesday, June 5, 2019, at the expiry of the time provided for Private Members’ Business for not more than three hours, and that, for the duration of the statements, (i) no member shall speak for longer than ten minutes and the speeches not be subject to a question and comment period, (ii) after three hours or when no Member rises to speak, whichever comes first, the House shall return to Government Orders.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Motion No. 30, which allows for the extension of the sitting hours of the House until we rise for the summer adjournment.

There is a clear and recent precedent for this extension of hours to give the House more time to do its important work. It occurred last year at this time and also the year before that. As well, in the previous Parliament, the hours of the House were extended in June 2014.

Four years ago, our government came forward with an ambitious mandate that promised real change. Under the leadership of our Prime Minister, our government has introduced legislation that has improved the lives of Canadians from coast to coast to coast. However, we have more work to do.

So far in this Parliament, the House has passed 82 government bills, and 65 of those have received royal assent. The facts are clear. This Parliament has been productive. We have a strong record of accomplishment. It is a long list, so I will cite just a few of our accomplishments.

Bill C-2 made good on our promise to lower taxes on middle-class Canadians by increasing taxes on the wealthiest 1% of Canadians. There are nine million Canadians who have benefited from this middle-class tax cut. This tax cut has been good for Canadians and their families. It has been good for the economy and good for Canada, and its results have been better than advertised. On our side, we are proud of this legislation. We have always said that we were on the side of hard-working, middle-class Canadians, and this legislation is proof of exactly that.

As well, thanks to our budgetary legislation, low-income families with children are better off today. We introduced the biggest social policy innovation in more than a generation through the creation of the tax-free Canada child benefit. The CCB puts cash into the pockets of nine out of 10 families and has lifted nearly 300,000 Canadian children out of poverty.

Early in this Parliament, in response to the Supreme Court of Canada, we passed medical assistance in dying legislation, which carefully balanced the rights of those seeking medical assistance in dying while ensuring protection of the most vulnerable in our society.

Also of note, we repealed the previous government's law that allowed citizenship to be revoked from dual citizens. We also restored the rights of Canadians abroad to vote in Canadian elections.

We added gender identity as a prohibited ground for discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act. Also, passing Bill C-65 has helped make workplaces in federally regulated industries and on Parliament Hill free from harassment and sexual violence.

We promised to give the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer the powers, resources and independence to properly do its job. We delivered on that commitment through legislation, and the PBO now rigorously examines the country's finances in an independent and non-partisan manner.

Through Bill C-45, we ended the failed approach to cannabis by legalizing it and strictly regulating and restricting access to cannabis, as part of our plan to keep cannabis out of the hands of youth and profits out of the pockets of organized crime. Along with that, Bill C-46 has strengthened laws to deter and punish people who drive while impaired, both from alcohol and/or drugs.

These are just some examples of the work we have accomplished on behalf of Canadians.

We are now heading into the final weeks of this session of Parliament, and there is more work to do. Four years ago, Canadians sent us here with a responsibility to work hard on their behalf, to discuss important matters of public policy, to debate legislation and to vote on that legislation.

The motion to allow for the extension of sitting hours of the House is timely, and clearly it is necessary. We have an important legislative agenda before us, and we are determined to work hard to make even more progress.

Passage of this motion would give all members exactly what they often ask for: more time for debate. I know every member wants to deliver for their communities and this motion will help with exactly that. We have much to accomplish in the coming weeks and we have the opportunity to add time to get more done.

I would like to highlight a few of the bills that our government will seek to advance.

I will start with Bill C-97, which would implement budget 2017. This budget implementation act is about making sure that all Canadians feel the benefits of a growing economy. That means helping more Canadians find an affordable home, and get training so that they have the skills necessary to obtain good, well-paying jobs. It is also about making it easier for seniors to retire with confidence.

Another important bill is Bill C-92, which would affirm and recognize the rights of first nations, Inuit and Métis children and families. The bill would require all providers of indigenous child and family services to adhere to certain principles, namely the best interests of the child, family unity and cultural continuity. This co-drafted legislation would transfer the jurisdiction of child and family services delivery to indigenous communities. This is historic legislation that is long overdue.

We have another important opportunity for us as parliamentarians, which is to pass Bill C-93, the act that deals with pardons as they relate to simple possession of cannabis. As I mentioned, last year we upheld our commitment to legalize, strictly regulate and restrict access to cannabis. It is time to give people who were convicted of simple possession a straightforward way to clear their names. We know it is mostly young people from the poorest of communities who have been targeted and hence are being left behind. This bill would create an expedited pardon process, with no application fee or waiting period, for people convicted only of simple possession of cannabis. Canadians who have held criminal records in the past for simple possession of cannabis should be able to meaningfully participate in their communities, get good and stable jobs and become the contributing members of our society that they endeavour to be.

Meanwhile, there is another important bill before the House that we believe needs progress. Bill C-88 is an act to amend the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and the Canada Petroleum Resources Act. This legislation only impacts the Northwest Territories, and its territorial government is asking us to act. This legislation protects Canada's natural environment, respects the rights of indigenous people and supports a strong natural resources sector. This bill will move the country ahead with a process that promotes reconciliation with indigenous peoples and creates certainty for investments in the Mackenzie Valley and the Arctic.

Earlier this month, our government introduced Bill C-98, an act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and the Canada Border Services Agency Act. This bill would create civilian oversight of the Canada Border Services Agency. It would provide citizens with an independent review body to address complaints about the CBSA, just as they now have complaint mechanisms in place for the RCMP. Let me remind members that it was our government that brought forward Bill C-22 that established the national security intelligence committee of parliamentarians, which has tabled its first annual report to Parliament. We are committed to ensuring that our country's border services are worthy of the trust of Canadians, and Bill C-98 is a significant step towards strengthening that accountability.

We have taken a new approach. We, as a government, have consulted with Canadians when it comes to our legislation. We have seen committees call witnesses and suggest amendments that often times improve legislation, and we, as a government, have accepted those changes. We were able to accomplish this work because we gave the committees more resources and we encouraged Liberal members to do their work.

Likewise, currently there are two bills that have returned to the House with amendments from the Senate. I look forward to members turning their attention to these bills as well. One of those bills is Bill C-81, an act to ensure a barrier-free Canada. Our goal is to make accessibility both a reality and a priority across federal jurisdictions so that all people, regardless of their abilities or disabilities, can participate and be included in society as contributing members. Bill C-81 would help us to reach that goal by taking a proactive approach to getting ahead of systemic discrimination. The purpose of this bill is to make Canada barrier free, starting in areas under federal jurisdiction. This bill, if passed by Parliament, will represent the most significant legislation for the rights of persons with disabilities in over 30 years, and for once it will focus on their abilities.

The other bill we have received from the Senate is Bill C-58, which would make the first significant reforms to the Access to Information Act since it was enacted in 1982. With this bill, our government is raising the bar on openness and transparency by revitalizing access to information. The bill would give more power to the Information Commissioner and would provide for proactive disclosure of information.

There are also a number of other bills before the Senate. We have respect for the upper chamber. It is becoming less partisan thanks to the changes our Prime Minister has made to the appointment process, and we respect the work that senators do in reviewing legislation as a complementary chamber.

Already the Senate has proposed amendments to many bills, and the House has in many instances agreed with many of those changes. As we look toward the final few weeks, it is wise to give the House greater flexibility, and that is exactly why supporting this motion makes sense. This extension motion will help to provide the House with the time it needs to consider these matters.

There are now just 20 days left in the parliamentary calendar before the summer adjournment, and I would like to thank all MPs and their teams for their contributions to the House over the past four years. Members in the House have advanced legislation that has had a greater impact for the betterment of Canadians. That is why over 800,000 Canadians are better off today than they were three years ago when we took office.

We saw that with the lowering of the small business tax rate to 9%, small businesses have been able to grow through innovation and trade. We see that Canadians have created over one million jobs, the majority of which are full-time, good-paying jobs that Canadians deserve. These are jobs that were created by Canadians for Canadians.

That is why I would also like to stress that while it is necessary for us to have honest and vibrant deliberations on the motion, Canadians are looking for us all to work collaboratively and constructively in their best interests. That is exactly why extending the hours will provide the opportunity for more members to be part of the debates that represent the voices of their constituents in this place, so that we continue to advance good legislation that benefits even more Canadians.

It has been great to do the work that we have been doing, but we look forward to doing even more.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to members in the unholy alliance of the New Democratic Party and the Conservative Party asking why the government did not bring in this legislation earlier. The first thing that came to my mind is that we have had a very busy government, as the parliamentary secretary indicated, from day one when we brought in Bill C-2 dealing with the tax cut for Canada's middle class. However, no matter what piece of legislation this government brings in, the opposition always believes it has to talk more about it. The difference between the Liberal government and the opposition, the combined opposition, is that we actually believe in working, and there are still 20 days left.

My question to my colleague is this: Would she not agree that 20 days still allow us to continue to work hard, as we have done from day one, on an important piece of legislation? Just because there are only 20 days does not mean that everyone gets a break. We work to the end. Would the parliamentary secretary not agree?

Canada–Madagascar Tax Convention Implementation Act, 2018

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

Madam Speaker, I have listened to the debate on Bill S-6 this morning and I must say there are plenty of things that one can draw upon in order to shed more light and to be a bit more forthright with respect to the bill.

The Government of Canada and the Liberal Party of Canada recognize the important role that trade plays in the development of our nation. Having observed the NDP for many years now, it is my experience that as a general rule that party does not support trade agreements.

There have been dozens of trade agreements. On one occasion, the vote was not a recorded vote, so NDP members claimed not to have voted against the bill. They might have voted in favour of one other bill. A couple of MPs have indicated they have voted in favour of trade, but as a general rule the NDP does not support trade agreements between Canada and other countries, and that is somewhat unfortunate.

Bill S-6 is about a tax treaty with Madagascar. Madagascar has wonderful opportunities for Canadians, and individuals from that country have opportunities here in Canada. We have many tax treaties with countries around the world, and tax treaties provide significant benefits to both countries.

That is why it is with pleasure that I rise today to address this legislation and to add my comments on a wide variety of issues, all stemming from our economy, social justice and the tax laws that we currently have. I have a fairly wide spectrum to work from based on the debate I have heard so far today. Let me attempt to do it in the best way I can.

The number that comes to my mind, which ultimately demonstrates what this government has been able to accomplish by working with Canadians, is one million, and that is a fairly recent number that has come out relating to employment.

It is worth mentioning that since we took office in October 2015, we have seen the generation of over one million new jobs. That is historic, in the sense of the last 40 or 50 years. It is an incredible number of jobs, and it is due in good part to the policies that this government has put in place, budgetary measures and legislative measures, all with the idea of supporting Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it.

Day after day, for weeks, months and years, our government has taken Canada's middle class seriously. We have developed progressive measures to assist middle-class Canadians, bringing forward policies that will support them, policies such as the Canada child benefit program and the guaranteed income supplement for our seniors, which have added great value to our economy.

We hear a lot about taxation. People expect to pay their fair share. From day one, our government has taken this very seriously.

Members will recall that during the last election, today's Prime Minister made a commitment to Canadians that there would be a tax cut for the middle class. If members look at Bill C-2, which was our first piece of legislation, they will see that we delivered on that tax cut, which put hundreds of millions of dollars into the pockets of Canadians. I would argue that the money going into the pockets of Canadians enabled them to increase their disposable income, allowing them to spend more into the economy, and it is one of the reasons for the one million-plus jobs that have been generated. Working with Canadians, investing in Canadians, allowing Canadians to have more disposable income has allowed Canada's economy to perform that much better.

Taxation policy matters. The NDP and the most recent speaker talked about tax fairness and said that the rich need to pay more. That was an important part of the very first budget we brought forward, in which Canada's wealthiest 1% had to pay more. The millions raised through that one initiative supported giving Canada's middle class a tax break. The issue of tax fairness, much like the tax break, has been of the utmost importance to this government. It was one of the very first actions taken when we assumed office in 2015, recognizing some of the comments made today, whether it was the NDP talking about tax fairness or the Conservatives talking about the tax on Canada's middle class.

When the member for Calgary Shepard asked who benefits from the tax break that we gave to the middle class and then said it is members of Parliament who benefit, I think of the tens of thousands of teachers, the tens of thousands of nurses, the tens of thousands of factory workers or the tens of thousands of people who work for our financial institutions. Those individuals also benefited from that tax break.

I indicated that when I had the opportunity, I would put some facts on the record, and there is no disputing what I have said, because it is all factually correct. The government has consistently gone out of its way to develop policy through legislation and budgetary measures that has had a positive impact on Canada's middle class.

The tax treaty that we are debating today is all about international relationships and ways for these treaties to further advance Canadian interests. This is not the only tax treaty legislation that we have put forward in the last three years. Bill S-4 also dealt with tax treaties. It is not the first time we have had to deal with tax treaties, because we understand and appreciate the true value of having these types of treaties with countries. It allows us to have a better sense of taxes flowing, both here in Canada and in the country in question. It provides additional security, if I can put it that way, for investments flowing to countries with which we have tax treaties.

We recognize, as we do on the broader picture, trade and international relations. No government in recent history has done more with respect to trade agreements than this government. The previous government likes to say that it had 30-plus trade agreements, but that is just not true. Through this administration, we have been able to sign more trade agreements than any other government in the last 40 to 50 years. Since trade agreements have been tied into tax agreements or tax treaties, I would challenge any member in the House to list a government that has been able to accomplish so much in such a short period of time on that file.

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

Madam Speaker, there are many things that the member opposite has put on the record that I hope to be able to respond to when I have the opportunity to speak to the legislation.

The member, maybe through a guilty conscience, seems to have some remorse or regret in terms of voting against Bill C-2. Bill C-2 gave millions of Canadians a tax cut. The member opposite perhaps tried to justify his vote by saying that MPs were the beneficiaries of this tax cut. To try to sum it up in that fashion does a disservice to Canada's middle class.

When I think of Canada's middle class, I often think of our teachers, our nurses, our individual factory workers and those people who are working in financial institutions, all of whom are a part of Canada's growing middle class and all of whom were given a substantial tax decrease. Can the member explain to those individuals why he and the Conservative Party voted against that portion of our middle class?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Before resuming debate, I will again remind the hon. members, on all sides, that the bill at hand today is Bill S-6, not Bill C-2.

The hon. member for Central—Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member badly mischaracterizes Bill C-2. I am happy to remind him that Bill C-2 was in fact an omnibus measure that had multiple different elements to it. I proudly voted against it because it reduced the amount Canadians could put into tax-free savings accounts. The government attacked middle-income Canadians by reducing the amount they could save.

My friends across the way have clearly not looked at the data about who uses tax-free savings accounts. Tax-free savings accounts are demonstrably the preferred savings vehicle for middle-income Canadians, not the ultra rich, because of their tax treatment relative to RRSPs. Generally, for middle-income Canadians, TFSAs have relatively more advantageous tax implications compared to RRSPs. That is why those who open them and put money into them tend to disproportionately be middle-income Canadians.

The government's fundamental opposition and attack on the tax-free savings account was worth voting against. I will vote against the government's tax increases every step of the way.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting, to say the very least, to hear the comments from my colleague across the way. At times there needs to be a reality check.

The Conservatives like to talk as if they are the ones who give the tax breaks. The reality is that Bill C-2 has defied everything the Conservatives have tried to convince Canadians they do. Bill C-2 created a tax cut for Canada's middle class. That member and his caucus voted against that tax cut. They can say whatever they want, but they voted against hundreds of millions of dollars going into the pockets of Canadians. That is true. That is a fact. Look it up in Hansard. Look it up in the votes. There is no denying reality.

My question is related to this bill. We have talked about tax avoidance. We have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in two budgets to deal with the issue of international and national tax avoidance. That investment is making a huge difference. Again, the Conservative Party voted against the budget that went after tax evasion and tax avoidance.

Maybe the member can answer that as the second part of the first question regarding how he will explain to his constituents that the Conservative Party voted against tax breaks to Canada's middle class.

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

Mr. Speaker, in a question earlier, my friend across the way was talking about the issue of taxation. For me, I guess the proof is in the pudding. One of the very first things this government did, which I believe was in Bill C-2, was to give Canada's middle class a tax break, literally putting hundreds of millions of dollars in the pockets of Canada's middle class. That very member and the Conservative opposition voted against that measure.

Now, it is not the first time Conservatives voted against a measure of this nature. In the debate so far, the bill has often been referred to as a bill dealing with tax avoidance. When the government invested hundreds of millions of dollars, close to a billion dollars, to marginalize tax avoidance, again this member and the Conservative Party voted against it. This is money going into the pockets of Canadians.

The member can cite whatever he wants to cite. However, when it comes time to vote on the issue, can he explain why the Conservatives continuously vote against Canada's middle class?

Criminal Code

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, from day one, this government has been introducing legislation. I believe the first piece of legislation was Bill C-2, which gave the tax break to Canada's middle class. From that day to this day, this government has been very diligent in trying to pass legislation in as orderly a fashion as possible. At times we have had support from the NDP to use time allocation. The NDP on occasion has recognized the odd piece of legislation it prioritized. The idea of using time allocation has been recognized by all parties in this chamber. It is just that we have different priorities.

The government's priorities are to fulfill the commitments it made to Canadians in the last election as much as possible, and a good number of those commitments have to be done in the form of legislation. It might not meet the timing of my New Democratic friends, but this has been a very busy government on a number of fronts.

The justice file has been an important priority for this government. That is one of the reasons there are a number of legislative items in different stages. If the member wants to see them pass, it should make a suggestion. I would definitely recommend to the government that it accept unanimous consent to have this bill and other pieces of legislation passed right now. If the NDP has identified legislation it wants passed, I will be pleased to advocate on the NDP's behalf that we allow for the unanimous passage of government legislation. I do not know if the Conservatives will agree. We might have to lobby them together.

Opposition Motion—Finance Minister's assets

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I will give leave to have more questions. I am more than happy to answer them.

It is in the members' speaking notes to give false information, even the member across the way who just finished heckling. That is the reality. They have no qualms doing it. They will say that no one knew about it. I have news about that house in France. Not only did the commissioner know about it, it was actually reported in a newspaper a week after the last federal election. There was no hiding when it was published in one of Canada's newspapers. Maybe they can revisit that factoid when they make their presentations today.

What needs to be emphasized is that each and every member of Parliament has an obligation to go before the commissioner and declare his or her assets, and that is exactly what the Minister of Finance has done. I would suggest that Canadians, as opposed to listening to the opposition benches and the grossly exaggerated claims at times, allow the independent office to do its job. It was good enough for Stephen Harper. These are the very same rules there were under the former prime minister. We did not see any Conservatives back then jumping up and saying to change the rules.

The reason they are talking about it today is that they are trying to change the focus from what is happening today in the real world. We have a joint opposition continuously going after the Minister of Finance. Their focus is the Minister of Finance. That is fine. They can continue focusing on the Minister of Finance. This Prime Minister and this government are going to be focused on Canadians and the constituents we represent, even those we do not represent, because we appreciate what is important to Canadians. It is critically important that we look at ways we can improve the quality of life. We often talk about Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be part of it, because this government genuinely believes in Canada's middle class and has many initiatives that have been led by the Minister of Finance.

It is character assassination that has taken place against the Minister of Finance. Some of the members shake their heads and say that is not the case. When we hear individuals across the way trying to imply that the Minister of Finance became a member of Parliament because he wanted to enhance his financial fortunes, that is absolute rubbish. I am disappointed in any member in this House who tries to impute motives to other members who come to this House wanting to improve the society and the communities in which we live. The Minister of Finance is no different. The Minister of Finance is very passionate in wanting to invoke changes for the betterment of Canadians. Each and every one of us should know better than to make allegations.

We just had a speaker who talked about duty and honour. I suggest that we have a Minister of Finance who is committed to that duty and honour. I would challenge any member across the way to inform me as to when any other minister of finance has been so successful in the redistribution of Canada's wealth and in trying to make a difference to income inequality.

One of the first initiatives this government undertook, headed by the Minister of Finance, was when we decided that there was going to be a tax increase for the one per cent of Canada's wealthiest. What did the joint opposition do? New Democrats and Conservatives were more than happy to be critical of the Minister of Finance. They even voted against that special tax on Canada's wealthiest.

Another initiative, which I believe was under Bill C-2 and incorporated into the budget, was the tax break for Canada's middle class to put hundreds of millions of dollars into the pockets of Canada's middle class. Once again, we saw the NDP working with the Conservatives in opposing it. People should read some of the speeches by the members across the way criticizing the Minister of Finance or that policy, just like they are being critical in the motion we have today. They actually voted against that initiative.

Imagine the hundreds of millions of dollars that went into taxpayers' pockets. The NDP was very critical of the Minister of Finance back then and asking about the working poor or those individuals who needed more. What did the Liberal government do then? We brought in, as a government, the increase to the Canada child benefit program. We changed it so that millionaires would no longer be receiving that particular benefit. Hundreds of millions of dollars were being put into a program and literally lifting thousands of children out of poverty. What did the NDP do? It did the same thing the Conservatives did and voted against that initiative.

It does not seem to matter what the Minister of Finance is doing; they are critical of the Minister of Finance. That is what they are doing again today. In fact, I think this is the second day we have had a motion of this nature.

One of the initiatives the Minister of Finance brought in that I was exceptionally proud of, Winnipeg North as well as other constituencies across our country—

Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure and privilege to be able to rise to speak inside in this beautiful chamber.

Today, being November 6, is a very special day worth noting. We had four prime ministers sitting in the gallery. We had speeches by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the NDP representative, and the leader of the Green Party. They stood and recognized just how fortunate we parliamentarians are to be here, representing the interests and the will of Canadians in every region of this beautiful nation.

I want to start my comments by reflecting on how much I truly and genuinely appreciate representing the residents of Winnipeg North and the confidence they have expressed in me over the years. Having said that, let me get into the debate that is currently under way.

I have had an opportunity to ask a number of questions today and on a previous day when we listened to many opposition members speak about the budget. I want to reflect on some of those things I have been listening to. The most telling statements from the Conservative benches seem to focus on the deficit, which I have attempted to address by talking about how that deficit is not as bad as they try to portray it.

I asked one of my colleagues across the way if he could explain how Stephen Harper had turned a multi-billion dollar surplus he inherited as prime minister into a multi-billion deficit even before a recession got under way. At the end of the day, he continued to have deficit after deficit, accumulating more real dollars in overall debt as a direct result, in all likelihood more than most any prime minister.

I also asked my colleague why we in government should be taking advice from the Conservatives based on their historical perspective. The answer was interesting. He said, “Look at what we Conservatives did while we were in government”. My colleague talked about the debt-to-GDP ratio, as if that would excuse what the Conservatives did in terms of the size of the debt. Personally, however, I thought it was a good answer. The member has something there. The fact is the debt-to-GDP ratio is something that needs to be taken into consideration. It is something the government talks about. We have a very successful debt-to-GDP ratio that continues to go down. That is very healthy for our country.

In one sense, the Conservative member, unwittingly no doubt, conceded that the real issue is the debt-to-GDP ratio. On that account, the government is doing exceptionally well, especially compared to other industrialized nations, in particular in Europe, including the United Kingdom, and other countries like the United States and Australia. In comparison, Canada is doing exceptionally well.

If we are looking at results, there is a long list of things the government has accomplished in just two years. I will reflect on a number of those. At the end of the day, we have seen an economy that is envied around the world for what we have been able to accomplish. It is significant. There are over 450,000 new jobs. How does that compare to the former Stephen Harper government? In 10 years under that government, there were just over a million jobs; in just two years under ours, there are 450,000 jobs and counting. I would argue that the economic policy of this government is working. We are seeing significant signs.

One of my friends across the way talked about focus and asked why this government was not focused. I indicated that we are in fact focused, indeed very focused, on Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it. However, it goes even beyond that. Listening the last week or so to the opposition benches, and to be fair to the Conservatives, they are not alone, the longer we are in government the closer the NDP and Conservatives want to be. They want to focus on the negative as much as possible. They want to engage in character assassinations in the House, but we will continue to remain focused on what is important to Canadians. That is something this Prime Minister and our caucus are committed to doing, because we were given a specific instruction by our Prime Minister long ago to work with our constituents. Our responsibility is to bring their ideas to the House of Commons and what they have to say, as opposed to bringing Ottawa to our constituents. It is materializing in a very real, tangible way.

If we look at the last couple of budgets or initiatives this government has entered into, we get a better understanding why the economy, relative to any other country in the world, is doing as well as it is. We recognize that a healthy economy means investing in Canada's middle class. It is the middle class and those striving to be a part of it that drive the economy. That is how to create jobs: having confidence in the middle class.

I talked about the legislation, I believe it was Bill C-2, that set in place some of the things that enabled us to have that tax cut for Canada's middle class. We literally puts hundreds of millions of dollars, going into the billions of dollars, into tax cuts for Canada's middle class. Those tax cuts were in good part covered by the special tax increase on Canada's wealthiest 1%. We made great enhancements to the Canada child benefit, investing hundreds of millions of dollars in the children of our country, and lifting tens of thousands of them out of poverty. We saw the same thing done with our guaranteed income supplement, which again resulted in tens of thousands of seniors being lifted out of poverty. We are increasing the disposable income of Canadian, and by doing that we are seeing them invest that income in our economy. Finally, after seeing 10 years of very little, we see a government that is investing in our infrastructure in a very real and tangible way. Not only does it create jobs for today, it creates opportunities into the future.

On that particular note, we can talk about the agreements that have been achieved to invest in Canadians' future.

Opposition Motion—Minister of Finance and Conflict of Interest Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I was fortunate to have the opportunity just before question period to share some thoughts on the calling into question a number of issues with respect to the Minister of Finance, whether it is the motion before us today or the official opposition motion bought forward last week. Today, I would like to provide a different insight.

I was on the opposition benches, both in Ottawa and in my home province of Manitoba, for just over 20 years. I understand the role of opposition. We want to be constructive in our criticism and in opposition we are more inclined to look at where the government could improve itself in policies and so forth. I would argue that the opposition day motion today goes far beyond that for a couple of reasons.

Each and every one of us, including you, Mr. Speaker, will recall that when we were elected to this beautiful chamber, representing literally thousands of Canadians, there was a responsibility for us to establish communication with the commissioner's office. Forms need to be filled out and declarations were made to the commissioner. We also look for advice on what we need to do to follow the law, to be in sync with our obligations and to disclose our investments. I have done it to the very best of my ability. I do not have much, but I do have some.

I fulfilled my obligation to the best of my ability, as I know the Minister of Finance has done, as have members in the opposition. It is important to recognize that Mary Dawson and her office do not only handle cabinet. They are responsible for each and every member of the House of Commons. I suspect we will likely find there are ongoing investigations of some sort, or questions being posed by the commissioner's office to opposition members as well as government members.

When that contact is made and a member gets a recommendation from the commissioner, there is an expectation the member will follow the advice and recommendations of the commissioner. After all, that is the law. It is the very same law Stephen Harper had in place. When Stephen Harper was prime minister of Canada, his cabinet followed the very same process that this government's cabinet has followed. It is not only the government members. Even back then, it included opposition member as well, including me. We all had to follow the law.

From what I understand, the commissioner's office, directly or indirectly, has met with all 338 current members. There is a reason we have that. It is because at times it gets so politically charged in the House that it is somewhat hard for the opposition, and periodically even the government benches, to not be overly biased.

In my two years on the government side, time after time opposition members have united against the Minister of Finance. Virtually from day one, from Bill C-2, to budgets, to all forms of announcements, they have attacked the Government of Canada through the Minister of Finance, as well as the Liberal caucus as a whole.

I do not know if it was Winston Churchill who commented that Parliament and democracy were quite messy at times. Some have said it is a blood sport. Churchill went on to say something to the effect that it is still the best system in the world. I believe that to be the case, that we do have a fantastic system, the parliamentary process. However, there are certain aspects of the parliamentary process that we want to be truly independent. We have established officers of Parliament to ensure that independence.

One of those is Elections Canada itself. All Canadians are aware of Elections Canada and its fine work for all of us. That institution is known throughout the world for contributing so much to the well-being of democracy, not only here in Canada but outside of our borders. It has an independent officer of the Parliament of Canada. The commissioner is independent as well. We have an Ethics Commissioner who is independent, meaning that he or she should not be influenced by the government of the day, the Conservative Party or the New Democrats. That is the way it should be.

That is why it is really important that throughout this debate Canadians understand no violation has taken place by the Minister of Finance, despite the many assertions being made by the members opposite. The minister himself has made it very clear that to appease the concerns that are out there, he is prepared to divest himself of his personal finances in certain areas and to put other things into a blind trust. He sought the advice and recommendations of the Ethics Commissioner, and has followed that advice, as well as any recommendations provided to him. Moreover, he has seen fit to go over and above that in order to establish the right perception, which is important, because he wants to ensure that we can move on in the best way we can to what this government has said is its first priority since day one in office.

From a media outlet I found an interesting clip with respect to the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, the person who introduced today's motion. From what I understand, the member across the way, the person who has now decided to attack the Minister of Finance, is reported to have said that if there's a silver lining in this controversy, it is that it might push the government to close loopholes in the Conflict of Interest Act. With that sort of a comment, even the NDP recognize there is nothing illegal taking place and that the Minister of Finance has done virtually the same thing that every member of the House is obligated to do. The member is suggesting that maybe we should be changing the Conflict of Interest Act. I would much prefer to have that sort of a discussion, rather than the character assassination that we have been witnessing by both the NDP and the Conservatives and, I would ultimately argue, the undermining of the independent office of the commissioner. That is what I have been witnessing from both opposition parties. I say that because whenever the Conservatives or the NDP have any hint of an opportunity to be critical of this Minister of Finance, they have jumped all over it every time.

If we ask ourselves what the Government of Canada's priorities are, there is a litany of things that we have done to reinforce how important Canada's middle class is and those aspiring to be a part of it.

The Conservatives are so out of touch with what Canadians want and the NDP seem to so want to buy into the Conservative spin and the issues of the day that they vote together. Their opposition motions are now following each other's. I would suggest they are going in the wrong direction. One of the things that Conservatives have demonstrated over the last two years is that they continue to be out of touch with what Canadians really and truly want and expect of government. Instead, as I say, every opportunity they get, they are critical of the Minister of Finance.

I would like to go through some examples, and then argue, using these examples, that we have a joint opposition that is out of tune with what is important in the everyday lives of Canadians. We can start from day one of the government. Our Prime Minister who made a commitment to Canada's middle class that we were going to put Canadians as the number one priority. I believe it was Bill C-2 that provided a tax cut for Canada's middle class. It was incorporated into the budget bill.

There was a great debate on that first budget. If members followed the debate at that time, we had Conservative after New Democrat stand in their place, being nothing but critical of the Minister of Finance. The Conservative and New Democrat members criticized the government for giving a tax break to Canada's middle class, the most significant tax break in generations focused on the middle class, while at the same time increasing the taxation of Canada's wealthiest 1%. That is not an attack on the 1%, but rather it is saying that Canadians, including the constituents I represent, want a sense of fairness in taxation policy. In that very first budget, Canadians got to see a significant redistribution of wealth and responsibility in taxation. It was a fairer reflection of what it is that Canadians wanted to see. That is one of the reasons we got the mandate that we did.

Let us look at what happened immediately following that. Whether it was a Conservative member of Parliament or a New Democrat member of Parliament, they jumped all over it and criticized the government. In fact, all members need to do is read the Hansard. The difference between the two did not matter, because it was hard to tell the parties apart at times they were so close together. We saw both parties voting against the tax break for Canada's middle class. They voted against the tax on Canada's wealthiest 1%.

There were other initiatives in the budget that tried to deal with the economic conditions of Canadians. An example of that would be the Canada child benefit program. No surprise, because once again both parties voted against it.

The Minister of Finance brings forward something and we have the joint opposition being critical of the minister. On that particular point, I must say that it was the budget that ultimately ended millionaires' ability to receive the Canada child benefit, and gave more money to those individuals who had less. It literally lifted thousands of children out of poverty. I wonder if their criticisms were of the merits of the bill or if they had something personal against the Minister of Finance.

What about the guaranteed income supplement program? It is the same principle at play. What did the opposition parties do? We have to conclude that they just do not support the Minister of Finance, because when he made that change they were critical of the minister. It is hard to believe they voted against an initiative that would lift thousands of seniors out of poverty in every region of Canada.

The Minister of Finance is the one who leads the way. Let us go to the summer. Last summer, the Minister of Finance went out to all the regions. We had members of Parliament charged with the responsibility of listening to what their constituents had to say and report back. I am proud to say that Liberal members of Parliament did just that. From the initial announcement to the opening of consultations with Canadians, we saw tangible results from Liberal members of Parliament. They went into their constituencies and worked hard and effectively to improve and bring forward a fantastic tax change program that would make the system fairer. Once again we have the Conservative and NDP members screaming at the Minister of Finance whenever they have the opportunity to do so.

I see that I only have a few seconds left, so let me suggest to those who are following this debate that the Conservatives and NDP members have clearly demonstrated that they do not like the Minister of Finance. I can tell everyone that the advice of the independent office of the Ethics Commissioner is what the Minister of Finance is following, and he has made a commitment to continue to follow any such advice and recommendations by that office. He has even gone further, as shown by some of his personal actions.

Concurrence in Vote 1—Privy Council Office

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise this evening to debate the estimates process and the main estimates. Too often Canadians probably have their eyes glaze over, and I am sure some parliamentarians' eyes glaze over when we talk about the estimates.

The estimates are the foundational role that Parliament plays in this place. The business of supply or withholding supply is a fundamental purpose of this place, one that dates back many generations before the House was established to our forbearer in the United Kingdom. It was at Runnymeade in 1215 with the great Magna Carta that the power of the purse, and the supremacy of Parliament in the business of the supply process were fundamentally established.

Fundamentally speaking, the government ought not and should not spend a dime of taxpayers' money without the approval of this place, yet time and time again, we see the Liberal government abusing the very supply process which we are debating tonight.

In fact, just a couple of nights ago we were in this place debating the Salaries Act, a standalone piece of legislation to give pay raises to certain Liberal ministers. When the Prime Minister tried to establish a gender equal cabinet, he forgot he was giving his female junior ministers a lower salary than their male colleagues, so he decided to introduce the Salaries Act. It was a conscious decision by the government to introduce a piece of legislation to increase the wages of certain ministers, certainly something that is well within the right of the government to do.

The Liberals forgot something. They forgot that this piece of legislation has not yet been passed by the House. It has not been passed by the other place either. Instead of passing the legislation, the Liberals decided to abuse the supply and estimates process. It did not go unnoticed by members of this place or the other place.

The Senate Committee on National Finance reported, in its 13th report in March 2017, its grave concern of the abuse by the Liberal government of the estimates process. The report stated, “Senators and Treasury Board officials also discussed the larger issues of parliamentary authorities and approval, and the proper usage of the supply process.”

The report went on to say:

However, the Supplementary Estimates are not intended to be a convenient mechanism for the temporary funding of needs that were foreseeable and could have been planned, particularly in the case where such needs have their own source of authority in an Act of Parliament. The Salaries Act for ministers, like the Parliament of Canada Act for MPs and Senators, authorizes the payment of ministers’ salaries out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund and also fixes the amounts of those salaries.

In direct notice in speaking to the government of the day, the committee stated:

Our committee is concerned about the recurrent practice of using supplementary estimates to pay certain ministers' salaries prior to the enactment of amendments to the Salaries Act, and raises this question in the context of Bill C-24.

The member from Halifax was just talking about the new independent senators in the other place. This report included independent senators, members of the other place, who expressed grave concerns about the abuse of the estimates process. We are seeing this tonight as we debate the main estimates. Rather, they encourage the Liberal government to fundamentally follow the rules of this place and the other place.

Citing Debates of March 25, 1981, the other place recommends, “A supply item ought not to be used to obtain authority which is the subject of legislation.” However, in at least two occasions, we have had estimates come through the House using the estimates process in place of a piece of legislation.

It cites paragraph 937, “The government may not use an appropriation act to obtain authority it does not have under existing legislation.” It goes on to cite Beauschene's Parliamentary Rules and Forms of the House of Commons of Canada, which cites those statements. Of course, we are all big fans of Beauchesne's sixth edition in this House. Particularly around this side of the House, we are very proud of the great insight we have from Beauchesne's co-editor, Mr. John Holtby, a distinguished member of our team who is always providing us with great insight into the rules of this place. Certainly, the estimates is one of those issues.

Therefore, we have a process, and it is one that has unfortunately been abused on these issues by the government across the way. Too often, the members on the other side forget that, in fact, they are not members of the government; that only members of the cabinet serve as members of the government. Each and every Liberal MP who does not serve in the government is a member of Parliament first. Those members may sit as Liberal MPs, but they are not members of the government. Fundamentally, we need to remember in this place that we are members of Parliament first, and it is our duty to this place to properly undertake the review of the estimates process.

When I was reading through the estimates process, I was intrigued by some of the issues that are being recommended and encouraged. I happened to turn to page 228 of the main estimates, dealing with PPP Canada, Public–Private Partnership Canada. It is intriguing that in 2015-2016, there was no money spent for investments; again in 2016-2017 there was $267,700,000 allocated; and again in this current main estimates $267,700,000. Is the government planning to go forward continuing to fund PPP Canada? We do not know.

In fact, we do not even know what is going to happen to the infrastructure bank. As we speak in this place, the other place is debating the infrastructure bank. Indeed, the government could have used the provisions through PPP Canada where it has money, where, tonight, we will be voting on $267 million for PPP Canada. We could get that money out the door, enhance public–private partnerships, and reduce the risk on the taxpayer. That money is in the main estimates, and yet, in the other place, they are debating splitting it out. Indeed, just hours ago, the hon. Joseph Day, the leader of the Liberal caucus in the Senate, gave an impassioned speech in the other place about this very issue.

I want to quote from the blues: “The analogy that occurred to me as I read the bill is that Bill C-44 is like one of those Ukrainian dolls. You open up the first doll and there is another doll inside it, and you open up the second doll and there is another doll, and you keep going and peeling off the onion skins. As you open one, another one is revealed underneath and under that another and another and another. But while that may be fun as a doll, it is absolutely no way to present legislation for proper study.”

That is coming from a Liberal senator. I know the member from Halifax was just speaking about what he called the improved Senate, the improved process. This is one of the Liberal senators who is concerned about this. Of course, another issue that we see coming forward is the issue of an automatic escalator in taxation. In the other place, again, Senator Joseph Day, the leader of the Senate Liberals, said:

The “effectiveness” of the taxes. How much is raised, I would suspect is the effectiveness. Those are the words of the government official, not mine. Colleagues, that is certainly a rationale for government coming forward in a budget bill and asking to increase the applicable excise tax rate, but I fail to see how it is a rationale for allowing future rate hikes without parliamentary scrutiny or approval.

When the officials were asked for precedents for such an extraordinary provision, they pointed to the tax brackets for personal income taxes, which rise automatically with inflation. But, colleagues, that indexation works to taxpayers' advantage. If a tax bracket goes up because of inflation, we pay less tax. That is nothing like the automatic excise tax increase.

Indeed, in the budget bill that is being debated in the other place right now, there is an automatic tax increase without ever again having the approval of this place or the other place. It is fundamentally contrary to some of the basic principles of the power of the purse in this place, and it shows the degree of respect that the government has lost for members of Parliament.

If we look back in the not too distant Canadian history, in the 1970s, granted it was well before I was born, but in the recent past of Parliament, in 1975, that great Liberal, Senator Joseph Day, said that parliamentarians felt they needed more time to debate the borrowing itself. In 1975, the borrowing authority was broken out of the supply process, and set up in its own dedicated process.

In 1975, the Speaker in this place ordered a borrowing clause struck from the supply bill related to supplementary estimates on the ground that under the House of Commons rules then established, its inclusion in the supply bill virtually precluded discussion of the borrowing provisions. After that, every year the government would have to come to Parliament and request, in a borrowing authority bill, the authority to borrow a stated amount of money for that year.

This is a fundamental power of this place and too often, we forget that. It was not too long ago as a perfect example of the disrespect that the government has for this place, the recent botched, boggled, failed appointment of Madeleine Meilleur as Commissioner of Official Languages. Fundamentally, Parliament was not involved in that process. Members of this place were not involved in that process. They were not consulted, they were simply told in a letter dated nearly a month after Ms. Meilleur was informed she would be the successful candidate. That is not consultation. Officers of this place ought to be chosen with fundamental consultation by members of this place.

The estimates process, the business of supply gives us the opportunity to pass judgment on the continued confidence of the government in office. The confidence convention means that cabinet, in this case the Liberal cabinet, is accountable to the House, and confidence can be withdrawn by a number of provisions including the supply process, including a vote on main or supplementary estimates. In this case, our opposition does not have confidence in the government, and we will be voting against the estimates because of that lack of confidence.

I wish to highlight one matter in particular. It is our national debt and ongoing deficit spending. We all vividly recall in the last election the then leader of the third party, now the Prime Minister, promising Canadians, giving them his solemn word, that he would run tiny $10 billion deficits for three years, and only three years, but by 2019, in time for the next election, we would be back to balanced budgets. That quickly went out the window with the very first budget of the Minister of Finance. Now, over the next number of years, we will see continued deficit spending. In fact, the Department of Finance's own numbers show we will not return to balanced budgets until 2055.

Let me put that in context. My son Bennett just turned one on June 1. By the time the budget is balanced, Bennet will be 39 years old. He will be older than I am now, and that is pretty old. My daughter Ainsley, is about three years old. She will be 41 by the time the budget is balanced. We are putting the debt, the spending and the mismanagement of the Liberal government on our children's generation. It is unacceptable that by 2055, we will have $1.5 trillion in total debt, debt that will be paid back through the continued interest charges of future generations.

It is completely unacceptable that the government has given no plan for the return to balanced budgets. Our friend and colleague, the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent, the finance critic, asks the Minister of Finance on a very regular basis, when will we return to balanced budgets. Each and every time, the Minister of Finance waffles and fails to answer the question.

My constituents were hurt In my riding of Perth—Wellington. They are hard-working Canadians. They balance their chequebook each month. Small businesses balance their books each month. However, each and every month they find it harder and harder to continue to survive in their businesses because of the concerns and the issues being placed on them by federal Liberal government and the Liberal government in Ontario.

I spoke to one business owner not too long ago whose hydro bill tripled in the time that the McGuinty-Wynne Liberal were in office provincially. Now we are seeing at federal level the imposition of a carbon tax, which will only see the cost of running a business increase. It is not just businesses that are seeing their costs increase. Families are seeing their dollars stretched further and further each week because of the Liberal government.

I recall the very first bill brought before the House, Bill C-2, which was what the Liberals called a middle-class tax cut. No one making under $44,000 a year got a cent out of that tax cut. In fact, those making between $100,000 and $200,000 were getting the biggest tax cuts out of that, but those making under $44,000 got nothing, not a dime.

In the first budget, the Liberals took away the fitness tax credit. They took away the arts tax credit for families that decided to put their children in arts programs or in fitness activities to improve their health. They got rid of the text book and education tax credit. I was at Carleton University earlier today, talking with current students and former students, and the importance of fundamentally helping our young people survive. Again, the Liberals are making it harder and harder for Canadians to get by.

I want to speak to home ownership for a minute and the changes the Liberals have been placing on the burdens of buying a home for the first time. We should be encouraging and helping Canadians buy their first homes. A strong society encourages home ownership, encourages Canadians to buy that first home rather than discouraging them from doing so, as we are seeing in the recent changes.

I want to close on where I started, and that is about the fundamental importance of the supply process and the estimates process. This process belongs to the House, belongs to Parliament, the power of the purse, the ability for parliamentarians, each and every member of Parliament, whether they are government MPs or not. This is our opportunity to pass judgment on the confidence we have in the government.

I have no confidence in the government, and I will be voting against the main estimates when they come to a vote later this evening.

Resuming debate

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

Mr. Speaker, the debate concerning motion No. 14 is not about having a problem with working until midnight each evening—except, obviously, on topics raised by the opposition. I agree with what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons said in the House yesterday, that most of us are already working every day on a similar schedule.

In my previous career, I was already used to long hours. When I ran a global business, my European colleagues began calling me at 4 a.m., and my days would often stretch until midnight. This was necessary so I could meet with my employees and people in the plants and businesses in the Pacific region I was responsible for.

As the head of a North American refining and petrochemical company, I realized that maintaining customer relations and meeting deadlines to submit applications made for very long days.

The Liberal government said it wanted to make Parliament more family friendly in order to encourage women to get into politics. I support encouraging more women to get into politics, but I do not believe that many women would choose to work until midnight each evening, away from their kids.

Now, why did this government introduce such a motion, when theoretically it should oppose it?

As I have said, I am not opposed to working long hours. I said earlier today, and will say it again, Einstein was quoted as saying that the definition of insanity was repeating the same action hoping for a different result. The government has not accomplished a lot in the way of legislation. If we think about the 19 bills that have passed versus 52 in the same time frame when the Conservatives were in power, really not much has been accomplished. There is no prioritization of what is coming forward.

I want to take a moment to talk about what has already passed because it shows something important.

So far in Parliament the transparency for first nations has been removed with Bill C-1. Bill C-2 gave back to the middle class $932 a year in taxes and then Bill C-26 increased their CPP payments by $1,100 a year, with no benefit. Bill C-10 gave Air Canada a deal to get maintenance jobs out of Canada and escape a lawsuit. Bill C-14, medically assisted dying, was passed without protecting the rights of conscience. Bill C-17 addressed environmental items for Yukon. Bill C-18 was environmental change for Rouge Park in Toronto. Bill C-30 was a CETA deal that now has to be renegotiated with Brexit happening. Bill C-31 was the trade deal with Ukraine. The rest were all maintenance budget items that needed to be done. That is all we have accomplished in 18 months of the Liberal government's agenda. Everything else is lost in process, being amended in the Senate, and not coming forward.

What is the government going to achieve by making us sit every night until midnight, which, as I said, I am fully willing to do? I really do not think it is getting anywhere. Why is it not getting anywhere? Because it does not listen to the opposition's points of view.

The job of the opposition is to bring reasoned and intelligent arguments on why a government proposal is not good for Canada and to make helpful suggestions about what would make it better.

When bills are sent to committee, the committee's job is to make helpful suggestions and amendments that would make them something all Canadians could embrace. That is really what is happening. The government is not accepting amendments, not listening when the opposition talks, and again and again, when things go to the Senate, the Senate comes up with the same amendments and spends more time studying them, doing exactly the same thing that committees of the House are supposed to do. That is one problem.

Another problem is that there has to be trust when parties work together.

I am going to compare the antics that I see happening here with what I see in the business world. In the business world, people work together. People have to be able to trust one another when they make deals. They have to be able to follow up on things as they said they would.

From what I have seen, the opposition House leaders are trying to work with the government House leader but she is not keeping up her end of what she has agreed to. Every day I watch her stand in the House and misrepresent to Canadians that she just has a discussion paper, when really a motion has been rammed through PROC. I have seen her avoid answering questions that she is accountable to answer.

I would suggest that there has been a huge erosion of trust in the government House leader and sometimes that cannot be fixed in order to restore the ability to work together. The government should really consider changing up that position and coming back to a place where we can work together and trust that agreements that are made, amendments that are suggested, and motions that are brought forward are as agreed. That is really important.

There is another point that I would like to make that has not been discussed much here. I have listened to the debate on Motion No. 14 and I have heard a lot about the blame game. I hear from the Liberals that when Stephen Harper's government was in place, it did this bad thing or that bad thing, or whatever. Honestly, two-thirds of the Parliament are new. Some of us were not here in the previous Parliament. We have an opportunity to do things differently now. If we think something was previously done wrong, we have the opportunity to do it differently in the future.

When items come up in the business climate, not everything needs the same amount of time to be talked about. I have sat in the House and heard Liberal members stand up and say they support such and such a bill and I have heard Conservative members and NDP members stand up and say they do too, and then we talk about it for days.

This is not the way we should be spending our time. If the government had not squandered all of the time in that way, we would have more time and we would not have to sit late. In the same way, there are things that need to be discussed longer that cannot be rammed through, things such as the budget bill that has been combined with the infrastructure bank. When comments come forward, the government needs to lead. It needs to separate those things out so that the things that can be quickly passed get passed on. When I say passed on, I am saying that if we all agree on a bill at first reading and we do not need to change anything, then the legislation should be sent right away to the Senate. Why are we spending time doing second and third reading and committee and everything else? We need to be able to update some of the processes here.

I am not about just criticizing without providing recommendations for how I think we could make this better. Here are my recommendations, which I think the government could use to change some of the things that it is doing and which would result in getting legislation passed through in a better way.

When it comes to the rules of the House, I see an opportunity to modernize those rules but a change would need to honour the tradition of Parliament and have all-party consensus or at least the consensus of a majority of members to change things, because those things influence our democracy and they are important. Doing some of those things would, as the suggestions I have made about passing things we all agree on and everything else, clear the legislative agenda in a way that would move things forward more positively.

I also would reiterate that you have to have someone working with the opposition leaders who can be trusted, and I think that trust is broken.

The other point I would make is about amendments that are brought forward and are agreed to by the opposition members. It is not often that the NDP and the Conservatives play on the same team and sing from the same song sheet. That does not usually happen but lately it has happened a lot. When that happens, it should be a signal to government that this is an amendment that Canadians want to see.

The government needs to say what it is going to do and then it needs to own up to it. Some of the credibility loss that has happened has happened because the government said it was going to do something and then it did not. The government maintained it was going to be open and transparent and then facts have been hidden or things have not been well represented. The government said it was going to be accountable but then every day when we stand up and ask questions we get the shell game. It does not answer our questions, and this would not be acceptable in the business world.

These are some of the things that would help to get the legislative agenda flowing through. As a member of the opposition, I want to see the right things happen for Canada and I am willing to work with the government to see that happen.

Opposition Motion—Budget 2017

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

Mr. Speaker, the member across the way says she wants to see a plan. There is Bill C-2, a tax cut for Canada's middle class. How did the Conservative Party vote on that plan? The Conservatives voted against that plan.

Then we have Conservatives across the way talking about how they want to give advice to the government on balanced budgets. That has to be one of the weirdest things, because the Harper government never got it right. It had deficit after deficit, and it even created the deficit prior to the last recession coming into place. This government does not need to take any advice from the Conservative Party with respect to balanced budgets.

Why did the member vote against Bill C-2, which is a great tax decrease plan?

Oral Questions

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, during question period, the member for Outremont said that his party voted in favour of Bill C-2. I know that no member of the House would want to mislead Canadians, which is why I am tabling, in both official languages, excerpts from Hansard of September 20, 2016, which shows the member for Outremont and others from his party voting against the middle-class tax cut at third reading in the House.

Message from the Senate

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I have the honour to inform the House that when the House did attend His Excellency the Governor General in the Senate chamber, His Excellency was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:

C-2, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act—Chapter 11, 2016.

C-26, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act and the Income Tax Act—Chapter 14, 2016.

C-29, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures—Chapter 12, 2016.

C-35, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2017—Chapter 10, 2016.

S-4, An Act to implement a Convention and an Arrangement for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income and to amend an Act in respect of a similar Agreement—Chapter 13, 2016.

It being 4:53 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, January 30, 2017 at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 4:57 p.m.)

Canada Pension Plan

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member wants to talk about taxes. To me, that is not what this debate is about. This debate is about our future and those individuals who are employed having a better retirement fund in the years ahead. That is really what this debate is all about.

However, if we want to vote on the issue of taxes, all I need to do is refer the member to Bill C-2, something I have already provided comment on. That is a bill that put hundreds of millions more dollars into the pockets of Canada's middle class.

The Conservatives—and I know it is hard to believe—actually voted against it. They wanted to keep the money, not give that tax break.

Therefore, there is a bit of inconsistency in terms of the small business. Hopefully, in my next answer, I will be able to address that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a bit of a different perspective in dealing with the legislation before us today. Just over a year ago, Canadians went to the polls and voted for real change. The reason I say that because what we are debating today is not only symbolic, but it demonstrates, in a very real way, the difference between the current government and the previous government.

For many years, when I sat in opposition, I would look to the government and the prime minister of the time, Stephen Harper, for strong leadership on the retirement file, on the issue of CPP. It was not because it was coming from nowhere. The issue was coming from many different regions of our country. Many provinces wanted Ottawa to do something with the CPP. For years, the Conservatives sat in government and chose to do nothing. They have their own mindset about how retirement should work into the future.

I have always believed that the Conservatives were not really big fans of the CPP program. Through this debate, my belief has been reinforced.

Why the real change? Since taking office, seniors have been addressed in a very real and tangible way. Today, we are talking about the CPP. The Minister of Finance reached out to the provinces, listened to what Canadians wanted, and understood the demands of what the provinces also wanted to see. For the first time, we have seen a national government demonstrate leadership by going to the table and working out an agreement among the different provinces and territories on how we can deliver on ensuring a better retirement for today's workers. I believe Canadians as a whole want to see that.

We got the job done. The government introduced the legislation, after getting a historic agreement signed off with the provinces and territories. Now we are debating it today. Future workers will benefit when the time comes for them to retire. This is about having a vision, something the previous government did not have.

I then look at my New Democratic colleagues. They seem to want to continue to give the impression that only they care about seniors. They look at ways to criticize, not acknowledging that in fact what we are doing today is a positive thing. They look for ways in which they can be critical, even though a New Democratic premier is supportive of this.

I would suggest for my New Democrat elected friends across the way that even the vast majority of New Democrat members would in fact support and say positive things about this legislation.

Is it absolutely perfect? As we know, there is always room to be better. The Minister of Finance has made a commitment to bring those issues raised on the floor of the House to the attention of premiers to see if they can improve upon the agreement. However, at the very least, the New Democrats should acknowledge that this has been in the making virtually since day one with our government. Canadians have been waiting for this for more than 10 years.

The member who just spoke said that we had to be sensitive about our seniors and their needs and made reference to food. We have to take a holistic approach in what the government is doing on the senior file. The most vulnerable seniors today are getting a substantial increase in the guaranteed annual income. Tens of thousands of seniors will be lifted out of poverty as a direct result of our government's action to increase the guaranteed income supplement. This is good news.

Again, for my New Democratic friends, they do not have to stand and applaud when the government does good things, but at the very least try to reflect reality and express the truth of the matter at hand. The matter is that our government is committed to servicing and trying to improve the quality of life, not only for future retirement needs but also for those most vulnerable seniors who find it so difficult to make financial ends meet.

I know how serious it is. While canvassing in Winnipeg North, I spoke to seniors who said that they were having a tough time deciding on whether to buy food, or purchase the medications they required or other necessities. Far too many seniors go to food banks as a direct result of this. Our government clearly understands that and has delivered on making a difference by increasing the guaranteed income supplement. However, that is not all. We still have three foundation stones dealing with public pensions. I made reference to two of them. The other one is our old age supplement.

One of the first things this government did within a couple of months of taking office was reverse the decision former prime minister Stephen Harper took when he increased the age of retirement from 65 to 67. I remember it well. I sat on the other side and the prime minister was overseas when he made the announcement that we were in a financial crisis in Canada and that the government would have to increase the age of retirement from 65 to 67. There was nothing to substantiate it. It was a personal opinion of a prime minister who had no faith in other pensionable social programs in Canada. Within a couple of months, we reversed that decision. Now individuals know that when they hit age 65, they will be able to retire and receive old age supplements.

Today should be a happy day. This bill has received support from many different sectors of our society, in particular, our provincial governments that have signed off on enhancing CPP. The Conservatives, on the other hand, talk about why they oppose the legislation. They brought forward a series of amendments. Their argument seems to be that we should not allow for the increase in the CPP because it is a tax. Therefore, they will not support the bill.

It contradicts the actions of the Conservatives on Bill C-2. They voted against Bill C-2, which was hundreds of millions of dollars in tax breaks for over nine million Canadians. Their arguments are not consistent with their actions. When I think of the Conservative Party's real agenda on the CPP, I believe it would be quite content if the CPP were not there. The arguments the Conservatives are using today could be used ultimately in getting rid of the CPP.

I would challenge the Conservatives to change their position and vote with the rest of the members, the Bloc, the NDP, and the Liberals, support the legislation, and oppose the amendments that are being debated.

Motions in amendment

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, we voted against Bill C-2 because it is a false decrease of taxes in Canada.

I would invite my colleagues to chat with Senator Larry Smith, who has done great research and has put forward some amendments at the Senate committee on finance. This is research that shows, without doubt, that the decrease of taxes will only benefit households that make between $140,000 and $170,000 per year. It will not help any household with revenue under $100,000 per year. People with lower incomes are not better off with that. That is my answer to my colleague.

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

Madam Speaker, I hear a lot about tax breaks. This is a government that generally supports tax breaks. After all, we introduced Bill C-2, which gives a substantial tax break to Canada's middle class of hundreds of millions of dollars, and nine million plus Canadians are benefiting from that.

One could ask the question, why then, if there is so much focus on tax breaks, did the Conservatives vote against that most significant tax break?

Canada Business Corporations Act

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

Mr. Speaker, a number of Conservatives have stood up and made reference to the legislative workload. We can talk about Bill C-2, the middle-class tax cut; Bill C-26, a negotiated agreement where we have seen significant agreement across the country among different provinces and territories; and things like medical assistance in dying.

Right now we are debating Bill C-25, a bill for which the Conservative Party wants to assume the credit, saying that it is, in essence, a Conservative bill. If it is a Conservative bill and we are trying to move things along, why would the Conservatives not allow it to continue through the process?

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Government Expenditures

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows full well, this is a long-standing policy, one that has been in place for years, decades even, and that the former Conservative government updated a few years ago. We applied all the principles and rules.

The reality is that the former government still does not understand that voting against tax cuts for the middle class and a tax hike for the wealthy is good policy. It is disappointing that they voted against Bill C-2.

Taxation

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Kingston and the Islands for reminding us of something we know.

The last decade of low growth has been tough for middle-class families. That is why last December we introduced a tax cut for nine million middle-class Canadians. It gives a single person on average $330 more this year and a family on average $540 more this year. It is also why we introduced the Canada child benefit, which gives nine out of ten families $2,300 more this year.

Later today we will be voting on Bill C-2 to formalize these measures. I urge all members in the House to vote in favour of middle-class Canadians and in support of this legislation.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Regina—Qu'Appelle.

This afternoon, we are continuing third reading consideration of Bill C-6 on citizenship. Tomorrow, we are going to debate Bill C-2, which would amend the Income Tax Act.

If colleagues would not mind, I would prefer to dispense with the statement for next week's business if that is okay. What I will do is join my colleague from Regina—Qu'Appelle and associate myself with the very positive and appropriate comments he made.

Mr. Speaker, for you and me and many of our colleagues, the past few months have certainly been a learning experience. This is the first time in your long parliamentary career that you have served in this role that is so essential to democracy. On behalf of my Liberal colleagues, I want to say that we think you have done an excellent job, and we thank you for your service and for taking on the role of Speaker.

Criminal Code

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

Mr. Speaker, back in 2015, when this came out, a panel was set up by the former justice minister. However, I look at the work we have done today, and we can talk about these timelines. Let us be honest, this week we did Bill C-2, Bill C-6, Bill C-10, and Bill C-11. We had all of these things shifted off of the Order Paper.

What has happened here is this. Although it is a very important bill, unfortunately, when it came to the agenda of what we were supposed to be discussing and what we were discussing, a lot of political games were being played at that time. This took away the rights of the opposition members to debate this. We can talk about that. However, let us be honest about what happened this week. We lost hours of crucial debate because of the actions of the government.

Excise Tax Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Yes. We are going to see real change, Madam Speaker, with the new government, I can assure the member of that and I will talk a bit about that real change.

I suspect, if we would have had a dialogue with the Conservative minister of finance at the time, the types of arguments he would have been bringing forward would have been something to the effect of, “What is the actual cost?” and “Where are you going to get the money to replace it?”

We are talking an estimated $200 million a year, in terms of lost revenue. An hon. member has just indicated that it is less than $100 million.

I think we should take a look at the percentage difference, because it is important for us to recognize, and I do believe the member did, that there are current rebates. When we talk about the actual dollar amount, my understanding is that it is closer to $200 million over the years.

If we take a look at those selected boards where there are rebates, and we are talking about the municipalities, as has been pointed out, in I believe 1994 the rebate was raised to 100%, recognizing through our municipalities the important role they play. There were different types of stakeholders at the time that articulated why we needed to move in that direction, and it was 2004. I believe it was a Liberal administration back then that recognized that this was something that had some value to it.

We also give exemptions to universities and public colleges of somewhere in the neighbourhood of 67%. If we take a look at our school authorities today, and this is what the member is trying to enhance, it is estimated at about 68%. Then for hospital authorities, facility operators, and external suppliers it is based on 83%.

What we are really talking about is that gap between 68% and 100%, and this is what the member is advocating for.

I know a question was put forward to the member with respect to the type of consultation or representations that might have been made to the member. I am not too sure in terms of exactly where the provinces themselves might be at.

We also need to take into consideration, when we talk about school boards or school entities, that there are public entities and there are private entities. I am not 100% clear, but I believe that the member across the aisle, by his actions, is implying that it would apply to both private and public. I do not know to what degree there would be an additional cost, but I can assure members that there would be an additional cost factor to it if we have both private and public.

I think the current government has been very clear in terms of what our taxation priorities are. We do recognize the need for reforming our taxation. We have seen some of the most significant changes probably in the last 15 or 20 years in terms of taxation policy with an underlying theme that what we want is for taxation to be fair. We want people to be paying their fair share.

That is why one of our government's first initiatives back in December was Bill C-2 which provided a middle-class tax break which will ultimately benefit all Canadians indirectly and nine million directly. That was a very important priority of this administration. Along with that particular tax change, we saw a tax increase for Canada's most wealthiest, those who have an income in excess of $200,000 a year, again with the idea that Canadians expect a fair taxation policy.

The Government of Canada has not given up. We recognize there are many inequities within our taxation policies. That is one of the reasons we made a commitment to strengthen the middle class and grow the economy in the long term. The government made a commitment for the coming year to undertake a review of the tax system as a whole to ensure all tax measures are fair, efficient, and fiscally responsible.

It is very important to recognize that the federal government has a responsibility to work with the different stakeholders and get a sense from them where they believe the inequities are and how we might be able to assist in trying to cure some of those inequities while at the same time establishing some priorities as to where we might be able to act.

Would it not be wonderful if the Conservatives had left us in a better situation as opposed to a deficit? Would it not be wonderful if they had provided us with a better situation? Would it not be wonderful if we could just wave a wand and see if we could deal with all tax inequities and deliver the types of tax breaks that we on the Liberal side would like to deliver? It might take a bit of time in order for us to do that.

Do not underestimate the commitment of this government and our ability to work with others to deal with issues that come before the House of Commons, like the member opposite who brought forward Bill C-241. We recognize that is an issue which we will have to look at.

I would suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Finance that in the negotiations and the consultations that will take place going forward, one of the agenda items could very well be the issue of our school divisions both public and private.

I would encourage the member across the way to continue to lobby any way he can. I know through consultations with the Government of Canada what we have seen is a genuine commitment to work with Canadians, consult with Canadians on the very important issues of tax fairness. I can assure members as we witnessed even in that small window from the moment in which we took office to the time we presented legislation on tax fairness to the presentation of the budget, that thousands, and if we factor in the Internet, hundreds of thousands of Canadians were brought in to the circle of consultation in the hope of improving our system.

The good news to the member across the way, even if he does not get what he wants within this legislation, that at the end of the day, he is looking across the way at a government that is genuinely concerned about reforming our tax system. We will do our work in terms of talking to the many different stakeholders, because we want what all Canadians want, and that is a higher sense of tax fairness.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1

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

Mr. Speaker, before I get started, I want to acknowledge my mother since it was Mother's Day yesterday and I was not able to join her. I also want to acknowledge all the mothers in Fort McMurray and Alberta who could not be with their families yesterday. We need to honour them.

As the NDP spokesperson for small business and tourism, it gives me great pleasure to bring our voice and concerns about Bill C-15. Primarily, I will focus on the Liberal promise to reduce taxes for small business from 11% to 9%, and to help those who are not in the middle class to join the middle class.

Before I talk about the tax for small business, I want to touch a little on incorporate taxes in Canada, and the history of that.

Consecutive Liberal and Conservative governments have been reducing taxes over the last few decades. We have seen corporate taxes go from 28% in the late 1990s and 2000s to 15% today, which is a significant tax decrease. During that time, it has shifted the tax burden to the people. It is a reckless way to promote a healthy economy, and it is a failed experiment. It failed in Japan and Hong Kong, and it has resulted in what I believe is an unfairness in delivering taxes.

The result has created huge inequality in our society. The gulf between the wealthy and the majority is growing faster and more widely in Canada than in any other developed nation. The richest 100 Canadians now hold as much wealth as the bottom 10 million combined. However, when we look at small business taxes in comparison, they have remained at about 11% since the 1980s. While Canada's largest corporations have had record profits, they have a lot of dead money. We talk about dead money that is leaving our communities, sitting, and not circulating in our economy.

Recently, over the last few days, while we have been debating the bill, and on Friday notably, there was a lot of Liberal rhetoric about small business. The Liberals painted small business as tax cheats. They talked about small business as being bad fiscal money managers. However, these are the volunteers in our community. These are the people who donate to our local charities. They are the people who serve on our boards. They are the cultural innovators of our communities in Canada. Therefore, it is really disappointing to hear this rhetoric from a government that went across Canada and promised a small business tax break from 11% to 9%.

This proposal was put forward by the NDP in the last parliament, which the Conservatives supported and on which the Liberals ran. All parties ran on a platform to help small business, and this is a group of individual businesses and a business community that are the job creators in our country. They are the economic drivers of our country, and the government has failed them. Promises have been made for decades and we have constantly failed them. As a result, there is a lot of mistrust with small business.

This is a very important time. This is an opportunity for Ottawa to create trust with small business, to create that intimate relationship with it. Small business people are at the front line of our communities. They know when the economy is changing quicker than any other business group in our community.

I will link back to my experience as a previous executive director of a very successful chamber of commerce and as a business owner. I remember in 2008 when the greatest economic downturn since the 1930s happened in our country. There was a huge bailout for Canada's largest corporations, but small business people were left behind. They were left with no bailout and no help from the federal government. They felt betrayed. The distrust with Ottawa was apparent.

I was picked up by a taxi driver the other day and he brought up his story about how he had a car dealership. As he ran his business, he watched all these corporations being bailed out while he struggled to make ends meet. Finally, just a year ago, he lost his business as a result of the recession. He was hanging in there, trying to get behind the big mess that was created, and the government did nothing to help him. He felt no one in Ottawa, in the House, was standing up for him. We had failed to deliver promises to small business, and we are doing it again.

The cost of not delivering this tax break to small business, as we know from the parliamentary budget officer's report, is $2.2 billion over the next four years. On average, that is approximately $3,529 per small business. People were counting on this. I talked a little earlier about how 78% of all new jobs were created by small business. Medium-size businesses create 12.5% of all new jobs, while big business creates less than 10%.

When we talk about their role in economic development, small business plays a key role. We really need to start talking about what kind of economy we want. We want local ownership, we want local jobs, and we want to keep money in our communities.

There's an organization in British Columbia called LOCO BC. It does some great work. It has talked about money recirculating in the communities. It did some research and found that if $100 was spent at a business in the local community, $46 would be recycled in the community versus $18 at a multinational corporation.

We talk about economic development and doing it differently. If we invest the $2.2 billion that were promised for small business, that money will circulate 2.6 times, rather than what is spent on giving tax breaks to multinational corporations. This is an opportunity.

Instead the government has chosen to do the reverse. It told small business that it would get a tax break, then failed to deliver on that promise. This, instead of plugging the economic leakage in every riding across the country, and really keeping money in our communities.

Many small business owners were counting on that tax break. They were relying on it to buy new equipment so they could grow, maybe even give someone a raise in their small business. This is an opportunity right now for us to build trust with small business people, show them that Ottawa is listening, and start tackling inequality.

We keep hearing about the middle class, helping to grow the middle class, helping those who are not in the middle class to join the middle class. We saw in Bill C-2 that anyone earning less than $45,000 would get nothing. We know that a lot of small business people do not earn $45,000 a year. While we talk about helping those to join the middle class, it is not being delivered by the Liberal government.

I read a quote from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, from the vice-president for B.C. and Alberta. He calls the budget about as close as it can come to a betrayal as is humanly possible. He said that the Canadian Federation of Independent Business was hoping and expecting to see the tax cut, and the fact that the government had put it on hold was extremely disappointing.

This is, again, a tax break that was promised, door to door, city to city, community by community across the country. The government is failing to deliver on this promise, but it is clear that it is doing what Liberal Parties have done in the past. It is about big business and about protecting CEO stock options instead of taking care of the people who have built our communities.

Are the government members in the House willing to go home and ask their small business owners if they are okay that the government is not going to deliver the tax cut promised, 11% to 9%? I would like them to ask them how they feel about that broken promise.

In survey after survey, the number one thing small businesses have asked for is fairness in tax breaks, so they can get the same fairness that big corporations have been getting for decades.

Second Reading

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finance

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Finance, in relation to Bill C-2, an act to amend the Income Tax Act.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendment.

Instruction to Committee on Bill C-2

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

Mr. Speaker, I am just wondering why the member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques wants to debate a motion regarding a bill that he has already agreed to send to committee. He voted in favour of Bill C-2 at second reading on March 21. Why does he now want to change a bill he recently voted for? The member already had the right to vote for or against the clauses in the bill. There is a whole section of committee appropriately referred to as clause-by-clause consideration for this very task. The bill has already been referred to committee. I do not see why he is now writing new conditions for his support.

Why will the member not let the committee do its work and hold its own debate rather than pushing for unnecessary delays?

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

moved:

That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Finance that, during its consideration of Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Committee be granted the power to divide the Bill in order that all the provisions related to the contribution limit increase of the Tax-Free Savings Account be in a separate piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, as everyone knows, we are currently examining Bill C-2 at the Standing Committee on Finance. It was the first bill introduced by this government and it amends the Income Tax Act. When you look at the contents of the bill a little closer, it is clear that it contains two separate measures. The first measure has to do with changing the tax rates. The change this government is proposing targets the second tax bracket, whose tax rate would drop from 22.5% to 20%. The second measure has to do with the contribution limit for tax-free savings accounts, which the Conservatives had increased to $10,000 a year. This bill drops that limit back to $5,500.

I would like the House to instruct the Standing Committee on Finance to separate the bill so that the two issues can be addressed separately, because they are two fundamentally different issues.

Let us look at the TFSA, the tax-free savings account. Many people think or are under the impression, due to the way it was presented to the Canadian population, that it is basically a savings account for retirement, that people put money aside in that account after paying taxes on it, and that it can actually grow with interest and returns, and they will eventually be able to take that money out tax-free because they already paid tax on it.

If we look deeper into the TFSA, we see it is a bit more complicated than that. It is more complicated because it is not only money that can be put in this account. People can put all kinds of things in this account. They can put stocks, bonds, derivatives, and all kinds of financial tools.

The concern with raising the ceiling to $10,000 was the fact that it became something other than a retirement savings mechanism. It became, basically, a way to shelter returns on financial investments. If I invest in the stock market and make a significant return on my investment, I will not pay the same income taxes as most of the population. With this money, I will be taxed only for half of what I would be earning, and I will only pay taxes on a portion of that half, while people earning incomes through work will actually be taxed on the entirety of their gains. We are in a situation right now where capital gains have a different tax status from income tax gains, basically.

When the ceiling was raised, there was a possibility that it could be no longer used as a savings mechanism but as a slush fund, in which people would deposit money, play the market with it through a variety of financial tools, and eventually escape the capital gains tax altogether. This possibility, I would submit, is not available to the large majority of Canadians. Those who have the means to play the stock market or the derivative market is actually a very limited number of people.

Many analysts who are studying the TFSA and the impact of the increased limit have been concerned about this. The Parliamentary Budget Officer, among others, estimated that the limit increase would have some serious adverse effects. In his update of the analysis of the TFSA limit increase, he estimated that by 2080, the long-term fiscal impact of the TFSA would reach 0.65% of the GDP. That is almost 0.7%. We are constantly being told in the House that it is impossible for Canada to meet its international aid commitments of 0.7%, because there is not enough money. However, this TFSA limit increase would have nearly hit this objective, but just a small part of the population would have benefited. The Parliamentary Budget Officer noted this as well. He looked at the distribution of TFSA benefits by wealth.

If we divide the population into groups, each representing a 20% wealth bracket, we see that the 20% representing the wealthiest households would receive a greater tax benefit than the remaining 80% of families who are not high-wealth households.

Therefore, we see that the Conservatives' proposal was extremely detrimental to the country's fiscal situation. In fact, it opened the door to the use of this mechanism not only as a retirement savings tool, but more so as a tax shelter for capital gains. The capital gains tax is already much lower than taxes on people's income, for example on working income. The concern that is being raised by many is that instead of being a savings mechanism, it almost becomes a rather significant tool for tax avoidance, and it will not be used for the purpose it was intended when it was introduced and passed in the House.

That is one measure that the government finally wants to reverse. Instead of keeping the 2015-16 ceiling of $10,000, the government wants to bring it back down to $5,500. That is one measure we agree with. We floated the idea during the election campaign. We believed that the amount of $5,500 was sufficient for reaching retirement savings goals.

In fact, depositing $5,500 for ten years, for example, will yield $55,000 plus interest, which is tax-free. That is in addition to the other existing tools, such as RRSPs and the benefits people will have access to at 65, such as old age security and savings under the Canada pension plan or the Quebec pension plan.

The TFSA is an additional mechanism that can be used, a tool among many others. We believe that the $5,500 ceiling is adequate.

Now, there is a second measure in Bill C-2 which is extremely different from the ceilings of the TFSA. That is the modification of the tax brackets. The bill proposed to change a second bracket.

For those who might be listening at home, right now we have four tax brackets in Canada. The first one applies to income of $11,000 to about $45,000, which is at 15% right now. Then any income between $45,000 and about $90,000 is taxed currently at 22%. Then income of $90,000 to about $135,000 is taxed at 26%. Over that amount, income is taxed at 29%.

The bill makes two changes. It decreases the second bracket, so for all revenue, all income from $45,000 to $90,000 the rate is decreased from 22% to 20.5%, and it adds another bracket for those earning over $200,000 that will be taxed at 33%.

During that debate and during the campaign, I was actually a bit surprised at the low level of understanding of how our tax system works. That reduction on the amounts between $45,000 and $90,000 will not only affect those earning a total of between $45,000 and $90,000, but it will actually be applied on all income over $45,000.

Right now, somebody earning $150,000, an ordinary member of Parliament, for example, who earns about $135,000, will actually have a 1.5% reduction of his or her taxes on all the income between $45,000 and $90,000. Before $45,000, that income will be taxed 1.5% less.

Many people are under the impression that people earning over $90,000 will not be affected. On the contrary, they get the full tax reduction at that level.

We are going through the analysis. Much analysis has been done, including by the parliamentary budget officer. What we are seeing is that while the Liberals, during the campaign promised to have a middle-class tax cut, it is clear that those earning less than $45,000 will not see a single cent of that tax reduction. It is clear. It only affects people earning over $45,000.

I have been told in no uncertain terms that those who earn $35,000 to $45,000 might legitimately claim to be members of the middle class, which is a very difficult term to define. One way to define it is to look at all the income divisions in Canada, to exclude the 20% who earn the most, the 20% who earn the least, and that would give us a middle class that is anywhere between $20,000 to $60,000. That would be, roughly, what the middle class is in terms of income per year. There is a large chunk of that group who would not get a cent of that tax reduction. Therefore, to call this a middle-class tax cut is, in my mind, misleading.

There is a second part of it, which was supposed to pay for the lost revenues. That is the new tax bracket of 33% for income over $200,000. We know, and the government was forced to admit it, that it will not pay for the tax reductions. We all agree on that. Not only will it not pay for those tax reductions, but even people making an income over $200,000 would still have an overall tax reduction, even though this was supposed to impose more on them, because they still get the full tax reduction of that second bracket. That means someone earning $210,000 would still have an overall tax reduction. Someone earning $215,000 would still have an overall tax reduction. Is that what we mean by a middle-class tax cut?

For those of us on this side of the House, there is a problem. We agree with one large measure that would, if it is not addressed right now, have significant fiscal impact on the Canadian government. On the other side, we disagree with the measure that we find is misleading and which is not achieving the aims that were presented to the Canadian population especially during the election.

In addition, we still wanted to be constructive, since Canadians elected this government in part because of its promise to lower taxes for the middle class. We respected the verdict and we made a proposal to the government. Rather than excluding a large portion of the middle class, rather than simply reducing the second tax bracket, let us reduce the first tax bracket, the first level of income at which people have to start paying taxes. This tax bracket starts at approximately $11,000 because people are given a basic exemption that is not taxed. We proposed to reduce that tax bracket from 15% to 14%, a 1% reduction. What would that do? It would allow people who really belong to the middle class to benefit from this tax reduction. It would allow people who are currently getting a 1.5% reduction on income over $45,000 to have a 1% reduction on a similar income. It would make it possible to ensure that people who are earning $210,000 a year are not being given a tax cut. This is a series of measures that I believe all Canadians would agree with.

For reasons that cannot be explained, the government is opposed to this measure. So be it. However, I do not think that the government can disagree with the fact that the two measures in question are totally separate issues. I think that each one should be examined on its own merit. The Standing Committee on Finance has done some of the work. I also believe that it is in the government's best interest to move in that direction. We are offering the government an advantage on a silver platter. The media had a field day when these measures were presented to the Canadian public. We are offering the government the opportunity to hold two separate debates and two separate votes on the measures that it is presenting, measures it is proud of. It would be really worthwhile for the House to be able to vote on whether the bill should be divided. I know that I presented some extremely technical information, but it is hard not to get technical when we are talking about income tax. Finally, the two measures have completely opposite effects.

It goes to the notion of transparency and the notion of accountability as well that the House could actually pronounce itself separately on those measures.

We will have that chance in the finance committee. Bill C-2 is only 10 clauses long and we will do a clause-by-clause study. We will vote clause by clause in the finance committee, so we will have the opportunity to demonstrate in committee which clauses we are in favour of and which we are not.

Since Bill C-2 is the first bill presented by the Liberal government and it is one of the key measures that it wanted to bring forth to the Canadian population, it is important that the House have the opportunity to do the same and to vote separately on those arguments. It would be beneficial for the trust that the population puts in the Liberal government. It goes to the issue of credibility as well. It would go toward contributing to the answer to the question that many have asked so far.

Since we voted on the ways and means motion on which we could not divide per se, people were under the impression that starting on January 1, they would have a tax reduction if they considered themselves part of the middle class. Starting on January 1, when they saw their pay slips, they might have been surprised not to see any changes. They still do not understand.

I have not really heard the government so far in this debate talk about the technical aspects of it publicly. I hear the answers given either by the minister or parliamentary secretary saying that the government has given the middle class a tax cut, period.

This calls for some clarification. Here in the House, there are 338 MPs who represent all Canadians. The government would do well to clarify this. We are giving the government the opportunity to do that so we can debate these two points on their merits.

That is why we moved this motion to divide the bill into its two main parts. These main parts encompass all of the other elements, such as changes to the law and the tax credit formula for charitable donations. That formula generally uses the highest individual percentage, which will be changed, so it will have to be changed too.

This is not a very complicated issue. Can we divide the bill in two so as to deal with changes to the tax-free savings account and the tax brackets separately? That is what we are suggesting to the government.

I hope the members of the House will support this so we can clarify the work the Standing Committee on Finance is now doing and ensure that we are accountable and transparent to Canadians.

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to speak to the budget entitled “Growing the Middle Class”.

Let me start with a quote from the Minister of Finance himself. He really summed it all up in his opening remarks. He said:

Today, we begin to restore hope for the middle class. Today, we begin to revitalize the economy. Today, we begin a long-term plan that will use smart investments and an unwavering belief that progress is possible to ensure that Canada's best days lie ahead.

As I said, that really sums up what this budget is all about. It sums up the objective of the budget. However, the budget is made all the more difficult by what the previous government has left us, or has left us without. Program after program was cut by the previous government. Earlier, the Leader of the Opposition talked about how the Conservative government had a surplus. No it did not. That was a surplus on a monthly basis, but accounting is usually done over the long term. The Conservatives left this country with $160 billion of added debt imposed on every citizen in this country. Not only did they leave us with debt, as I said, but they also cut programs and services. Even worse, they created disunity in the country.

If we are going to bring Canada ahead as a federation, we need to have a government that is willing to work with the provinces, to work together to grow the economy, to put in programs that we can utilize together to create growth in the economy and jobs for Canadians.

In reality, the budget builds on the measures introduced in December which provided a middle-class tax cut. We are dealing with that now with Bill C-2. Really what that did is bring better balance to the taxation system by giving those in the middle class a tax break and balancing that by taking a little more from those who can afford it. This budget builds on that commitment.

One of the key parts of this budget is looking to the future. That is done with the Canada child benefit, assisting those families in raising their children, giving them better opportunities to spend money where it is needed. The Canada child benefit will replace the current complicated child benefit system.

The Canada child benefit will provide a maximum annual benefit of up to $6,400 per child under the age of six, and up to $5,400 per child for those ages six through 17. Families with less than $30,000 in net income will receive the maximum benefit. Nine out of 10 families will receive more child benefits under this program than under the current system. Specifically in my own province of Prince Edward Island, they will receive $47 million more in child benefits during the 2016-17 and 2017-18 period. That is a benefit to families. It is putting the money where the resources should be put.

Not only are we dealing with families, but we are also dealing with the education of students so that we build for the future down the road. We are making post-secondary education more affordable through this budget. We are enhancing Canada student grants to give young people the opportunity to be able to afford to go to university and college.

Budget 2016 proposes to increase Canada student grants by 50%, from $2,000 to $3,000 per year for students from low-income families, from $800 to $1,200 per year for students from middle-income families, and from $1,200 to $1,800 per year for part-time students. We are not only building on the very young people, but we are building the education system as well for all Canadians.

I know this area is a little controversial, but for all Canadians we are improving the safety net for those who find themselves in difficult times as a result of being out of work. We are improving the employment insurance system after the disastrous way it was handled by the previous government.

We are expanding access to new entrants and re-entrants by dropping the 910 hours' entrance requirement to whatever the regional rate is. We are reducing the two-week waiting period to one week. We are improving the program for working while on claim. That is extremely controversial. It was extremely controversial in my area, because under the previous government's system, a person was penalized for going to work. Even people who were on maternity leave were penalized for going to work and keeping up their skills, especially those who worked in a hospital setting for one day a week while on maternity leave.

I do not mind admitting that there is some controversy around the next point I will make, and that is extending the five-week pilot project to those areas that were hardest hit by the downturn in the economy. I would say there is some controversy in my own region over that because that five weeks was not applied in that particular region, but it is targeted to those areas which have been greatly impacted by the downturn in some of the commodities in the marketplace.

The minister has committed to look at that into the future. The minister has committed to review the employment insurance system and those measures going down the road. I look forward to that review, to ensure that we get fairness and equity throughout the total measures around employment insurance in this country.

We improved the safety net for those finding themselves out of work. I do not have the time available to go into it, but we do look beyond employment insurance and we are investing in skills and training. We are enhancing the investments in training itself, strengthening the union-based apprenticeship training, supporting flexible work arrangements, and improving labour market information for Canadians. We are trying to put that workforce in a place where their skills will be needed in the future and expand on those skills to grow the economy.

However, it is not enough to deal with today's reality. We are looking at the long-term future. During the election campaign we talked a lot about investment in infrastructure. While we are looking at $11.9 billion over five years starting right away, budget 2016 puts this plan into action with an immediate down payment on this plan: $3.4 billion over three years to upgrade and improve public transit systems across Canada; $5 billion over five years for investments in water, waste-water, and green infrastructure; $3.4 billion over five years for social infrastructure, including affordable housing, early learning and child care, cultural and recreational infrastructure, and community health care facilities.

We are investing in the future. Specifically in my comments I should make this point: Major transfers to Prince Edward Island will total $582 million in 2016-17, an increase of $29 million from the previous year; $380 million through equalization, an increase of $19 million from last year; $147 million through the Canada health transfer, an increase of $8 million from the previous year; $54 million through the Canada social transfer, an increase of $1.6 million from the previous year.

My point is, my province benefits from this budget in terms of the transfers, in terms of the programs, and Canada as a whole can look to the future with opportunity and excitement because of what this budget does.

It addresses the problems created by the previous government and puts in place investments in families, infrastructure, education, and skills training, which is what Canadians really need to grow, with opportunity and the hope for prosperity in the future. That is what the Minister of Finance has done in this budget. I ask everyone in this House to be supportive of that to help build Canada's future.

Public Service Labour Relations Act

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

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to stand in this place to share some thoughts on yet another very important piece of legislation, something that I suspect people should be supportive of.

I have had the opportunity on previous occasions to address different types of legislation. I would recommend that my colleagues, no matter what side of the House they are on, take into consideration that this legislation is before us because there was a Supreme Court of Canada decision that was made, and as a result legislation was then required. I would argue that this type of legislation could have, and possibly should have, been introduced long ago, even prior to the last federal election. I think it would have been nice to have had something in place.

I am very happy with the approach that this government has taken in addressing legislation, in particular with some of the labour issues. I truly believe that we can do much more in terms of improving the quality of the relationship between labour and management, not just within the private sector, but also the public sector.

A couple of weeks ago, I met a member of the public union at a local restaurant. He shared with me a questionnaire that was circulated among the civil service. It was discouraging. The questionnaire results were based, I believe from 2014. The results were very disturbing, in the sense that there is a high level of dissatisfaction, of mistrust. There is this sense that the Government of Canada was not listening to the needs of Canada's public service, or at the very least was not demonstrating respect for our civil service.

There has been a change in attitude since the last federal election. We have seen our new Prime Minister and the Canadian government take a different approach in dealing with our civil service, or unions in general. We recognize the valuable contributions they make to our society. This is ultimately recognized, not only here in terms of the citizenry of our country, but also in other jurisdictions in the world that have recognized the professionalism throughout our public service.

I tried to assure my constituent when he was sharing these very poor results from 2014 that there is a new attitude in Ottawa, in terms of appreciation and gratitude for the phenomenal work that our civil service puts in.

When I look at the legislation before us today, it is an extension of other areas in which the government is trying to demonstrate that things have changed. There was a four-month extension that was given.

I listened to the comments, whether they were from Conservative critic or the NDP member of Parliament from Elmwood—Transcona, about wanting to see changes. I have good news for them. The good news is that we within government want to see change in the way in which our standing committees themselves operate. If the opposition takes the gesture that is coming right from the Prime Minister and the cabinet, and in essence from the government benches, I would suggest that we will see amendments brought forward, not only potentially to Bill C-7, but to other pieces of legislation.

I had the opportunity to serve over 20 years in opposition, and I have often had a sense of frustration when I wanted to see amendments brought forward, and for whatever reason—usually because they came from the wrong side of the committee—opposition amendments were just completely outright rejected.

I am suggesting, as have other colleagues, that there is a new open attitude toward the way in which committees and standing committees could be working into the future.

I tend to agree with the Prime Minister that a lot of the heavy lifting and the hard work can in fact be done in our committees. Therefore, when the member for Elmwood—Transcona talks about some of the ways he believes we have fallen short on the legislation, let me suggest for him and for all members—it does not matter whether they are even on the opposition benches, so even for my colleagues on the government benches—that if they are prepared to do the work and the consultation and share their ideas in a proactive fashion, in a progressive manner, they should not be surprised to see their amendments actually accepted and ultimately improve the legislation.

That could happen with Bill C-7 or any other piece of legislation, but the onus and the responsibility in good part is on those who are sitting on the committee. At the end of the day, if we are passing legislation through second reading and a member has some thoughts and some ideas that could improve the legislation, the government is open to listening to them. Why would we not approve, or at the very least consider, amendments that would improve the quality of the legislation itself? All Canadians would benefit from that. The Prime Minister has spoken out on this. We want to see more effective and functional standing committees that will ultimately contribute to improving the system.

I recognize, in the hour or hour and a half in which we have had the opportunity to debate this issue, that there were a number of members who talked about the importance of amendments. Let me qualify that by saying—and the parliamentary secretary in particular made reference to a fairly extensive survey where literally thousands of RCMP officers were consulted and feedback was solicited, and we received a considerable amount of information—that we understand what is being asked of the government in coming up with the legislation as to what they would like to see in the legislation. I will make more reference to that a little later in my comments.

We have to look at amendments to legislation from a holistic approach, everything from the legislation itself and the impact an amendment would have on the legislation, to what degree we are hearing from the different stakeholders and the witnesses who ultimately appear before a committee.

One of the things I really enjoy, coming from a provincial legislature to the House of Commons, is the degree to which standing committees have the ability to bring experts from across the country to provide their input on legislation—and on other matters, but specifically on legislation.

When the bill ultimately goes to committee, we will hear from experts from virtually all regions of our great nation, coming forward, sharing their thoughts, and I suspect from a combination of what they, opposition members, and government members are saying, that we might actually see some amendments brought forward.

I decided to take some time to emphasize the importance of this because there is a time limit. I do believe there is some merit to see the bill ultimately pass in a timely fashion.

As has been pointed out, the Supreme Court of Canada made its decision in January 2015. It said we needed to change the law to enable our RCMP, a wonderful national institution, to unionize if it chose to do so.

We were given a year. We had to apply for that four-month extension. From a court procedural sense, we need to speed up the process if we can. However, it should not be only about the perspective of the court. Many members of our RCMP have been anxiously awaiting this. The sooner we put this in place, then the sooner we would be allowing those fine members, who have served us so well over the years, to do what they would like to do.

There are two good reasons why I would recommend to my colleagues, no matter what side of the House they sit on, that they allow this legislation to go to committee. The sooner it gets to committee, the more opportunity the committee will have to deal with the many different issues that have been raised so far in the debate. Ultimately it will come back from the committee, and looking at the actual number of sitting days and the government's proposed legislative agenda, we see that time is a scarce commodity in this chamber. We could do a great service by recognizing the value of getting the bill to committee stage.

A number of thoughts came to my mind while I was listening to the Conservative critic, and I wanted to pose a question for him in regard to those thoughts. Some of his remarks were a bit off topic, for example, when he referenced debt and deficit that he attributes to Liberal prime ministers. If he has been listening closely to what the government has been saying, he is probably finding it intellectually challenging as to why he might stay on that side, given the number of times he has quoted Liberal prime ministers. Rather than adding more comment on that particular issue at this time, I will wait until we get the opportunity during budget debate. Suffice it to say that, when the member referenced the deficit, I would suggest that the Conservatives had a huge deficit and debt issue, far exceeding any Liberal administration since Confederation.

The member also made reference to Bill C-4 as if it were bad legislation. I am from Winnipeg, and maybe it is because Winnipeg faced the general strike of 1919 that I tend to differ with the Conservative Party. I recognize the valuable role that unions play in society, both today and into the future, but the Conservative Party in particular does not recognize this. We saw that with respect to the questions the member put forward and his statements while addressing Bill C-7. The member was critical of Bill C-4, but he does not recognize that Bill C-4 would improve Canada's labour legislation, just like the bill we have before us today. If passed, Bill C-7 would improve the labour situation here in Canada.

Bill C-4 is not the government's first priority piece of legislation. Our first priority was Bill C-2, which concerned our tax break for the middle class. Bill C-4 is a priority because the Conservatives changed labour legislation to the detriment of the union movement in Canada. That particular piece of legislation was brought in to rectify a wrong that the Conservatives had put in place.

That is the reason why I suggested earlier that the Conservatives have a different approach to dealing with labour legislation, which has ultimately led to what we have in Bill C-7 today. They had eight or nine months to deal with the legislation in some form or another. They have talked a lot about the secret ballot. They had the opportunity to put that into the legislation if they were prepared to bring it forward back then. However, it was a low priority, even though the Supreme Court of Canada had ultimately made a ruling. I would suggest that the Conservatives were negligent on this file and, as a result, that has created a time crunch, and I hope and I trust that all members will recognize that.

Before I get into more of the details of the legislation itself, I did want to pick up on a couple of important points. The most important one is that this legislation was brought forward to deal and assist with a free bargaining process for our RCMP officers. I do not think that enough could be said about the incredible work that our RCMP officers do from coast to coast to coast. The RCMP is one of those great Canadian institutions from which Canadians as a whole get a great sense of pride, especially when we see the traditional red uniform with the hat. It is something I believe embodies a great sense of pride for Canadians. It is an iconic institution that is recognized around the world as one of the greatest police forces of modern time. I believe we should all pay tribute to the fantastic work that the RCMP does.

We need to also recognize that this is not the first time that a police or law enforcement agency is looking at the possibility of forming a union. We have had police unions in Canada dating back almost 100 years, so Canadians do not need to be fearful of a union, as some members on the other side might try to espouse. There is a great deal of benefit to recognizing the valuable role unions have played in police forces in Canada to date. It is not as if we are going into an area that has never been explored in the past. The opportunity for the RCMP to unionize is very real, and I suspect it will likely happen. However, at the end of the day, it is the RCMP that will ultimately make that decision. The important thing to recognize is its right to have a collective bargaining regime. That was the essence of the ruling that was made by the Supreme Court.

I will highlight this fact. In that massive consultation and surveying that was done with RCMP officers, there were a couple of points that need to be recognized. One was that there was strong support for a union throughout all of those consultations and so forth. There was also strong support for a single national bargaining unit, and the idea of binding arbitration versus the ability to strike.

With those very few words, I trust and hope there will be a few questions.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, perhaps there might be consent for me to table this very incisive statement that members are about to hear.

Today, we will continue our second reading debate of Bill C-6 on citizenship. Tomorrow, we will continue to discuss Bill C-2 on the middle-class tax cut. There have been discussions among several members, and I believe we will be able to conclude second reading debate tomorrow. Next week, as my colleague mentioned, we will be working very hard in our constituencies.

Monday, March 21 will be the final opposition day in this supply cycle.

On Tuesday, we will take up debate again on Bill C-6, until 4 p.m. I know that members on all sides are looking forward with great enthusiasm to the Minister of Finance presenting his budget at that time.

On Wednesday and Thursday of the week we are back, the House will have the two first days of the budget debate.

Finally, on a serious note, there have been discussions among the parties, and I believe if you seek it you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, one minister of the Crown be permitted to make a statement pursuant to Standing Order 31 on Friday, March 11, 2016.

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

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue with debate on the opposition motion that we began this morning.

Tomorrow, we will have the final day of debate at second reading on Bill C-4, concerning unions. I would like to note that the votes relating to this bill will be deferred to the end of the day on Monday, March 7, pursuant to an order adopted earlier today.

I want to sincerely thank my colleagues in the House for their co-operation in finding an agreement on this matter, and also on the ISIL motion, which was debated earlier this week.

Next week, as my colleague indicated, members will be working in their ridings.

On Monday, March 7, we will resume debate, at second reading stage, of Bill C-2 concerning a tax cut for the middle class. I would like to inform the House that Tuesday, March 8, will be an allotted day. On Wednesday, we will begin debate at second reading stage of Bill C-6 on citizenship, which was introduced this morning by my colleague, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship. On Thursday, we will begin consideration of Bill C-5 concerning public servants' sick leave.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I know that you have been looking forward to this. Pursuant to Standing Order 83 (2), I would ask that an order of the day be designated for the Minister of Finance to present the budget at 4 p.m., on Tuesday, March 22, 2016.

Employment Insurance

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my colleague across the way. I believe I did make reference to that aspect of the program in my speech, when I said we supported a proposal that would allow workers to choose which system benefited them individually.

What we have before us today is a motion. The real meat of the issue has to come in the form of legislative change. I would have preferred to have seen that legislative change come in Bill C-2, but unfortunately, the member's party had other methods that it wanted to pursue. Many of the changes we are proposing can be brought forward in a government bill. We do not need to wait for the budget. If we are serious about immediate action for those who are suffering, the government should bring us a bill, show us something we can work with, and we will look at some amendments if necessary.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I know colleagues look forward to this every week. I will be brief.

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

Tomorrow, we will resume debate on government Motion No. 2, which was moved by the Prime Minister yesterday, concerning Canada's fight against ISIL.

I am currently negotiating with the House leaders of the other parties to come to an agreement on the length of the debate. We will continue debating that motion next Monday and Tuesday. If we manage to conclude the debate on Tuesday evening, on Wednesday we will proceed with second reading of Bill C-2, an act to amend the Income Tax Act.

Finally, Thursday of next week will be an allotted day.

Canada Labour Code

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member always has very insightful questions in this House.

I cannot put myself in the shoes of the new government, and I certainly would not want to be in those shoes. However, if we look at the first 100 days—and there is a snazzy video out on the first 100 days—we can see the legislative agenda.

Bill C-1 is a formulaic administration-of-oaths bill; Bill C-2 was tax increases and the elimination of the TFSA; Bill C-3 was a massive injection of spending, in large part to cover a promise on the Syrian refugee resettlement; Bill C-4 is the unwinding of labour modernization from the previous Parliament, clearly a quid pro quo for support during the election; and Bill C-5 is undoing the sick day negotiation with the public service.

If we look at the legislative agenda of the new government in the first 100 days, it is tax, spend, and support the friends who got them into office. Contrast that with the previous government's first 100 days. There was the Federal Accountability Act, child care benefits for all families, and a GST reduction. It was about giving back to Canadians, not taking away.

Opposition Motion—Department of Finance

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Mississauga—Lakeshore.

It is a privilege for me to be here to participate in this important debate on today's motion.

I would like to reassure my hon. colleague that we have complete confidence in the abilities of the dedicated officials at the Department of Finance, who are currently working on the 2016 budget.

I can say that our budget will flesh out our plan to grow the economy, a plan that has the support of the Canadians who gave us a majority mandate last fall.

First of all, the government believes that all Canadians should have real and equal opportunities to succeed. This will be achieved by strengthening and growing the middle class. That is what we said throughout our election campaign, and that is what we are offering Canadians.

It will come as no surprise when I say that Canada is going through tough economic times. Although the recent U.S. economic performance is encouraging, emerging economies, especially China, are cause for concern.

Many analysts were counting on emerging economies, such as Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, to help stimulate economic growth. We now know that this will unfortunately not be the case.

Canada's economic performance was weak in 2015, which can primarily be explained by last year's drop in the price of oil. Make no mistake about it, the Government of Canada will post a deficit for the 2015-16 fiscal year, and this deficit is the result of what the previous government did and did not do. That is a fact.

The previous Liberal government left a $13-billion surplus in 2006. The Conservative government wasted this surplus and racked up more than $150 billion in additional debt, all the while managing to achieve the worst growth record since the Great Depression. Those are facts.

Our colleagues have told us all kinds of tales this morning, but what I just said is the truth. All of that, with no plan to grow the middle class, no plan to invest, and no plan for growth. That is the Conservative government's disastrous record.

It is quite likely that the global economy will remain unfavourable in the future and that the price of commodities will remain low. There is no doubt that, as we begin to put our plan for economic growth and long-term prosperity into action, we are up against fierce headwinds.

However, in the face of this real challenge, there is also real opportunity to put in place the conditions to create long-term growth. This growth will create good jobs and help our middle class, the lifeblood of our economy, to prosper.

This is a good time to make targeted investments to support our country's economic growth. However, I want to be clear. We are going to focus on smart investments that promote economic growth while maintaining a commitment to fiscal responsibility.

We intend to focus on two particularly challenging issues. The first is restoring economic progress for the middle class, the backbone of our economy. We simply cannot claim that our country is prosperous if our middle class is having trouble making ends meet.

That is why the government followed through on its promise by making a tax cut for the middle class the first order of business on December 7, 2015. I am proud to say that, as of January 1, approximately nine million Canadians are receiving significant tax relief. This is a fair measure, and it is the smart thing to do for our economy.

In order to achieve this goal, we introduced Bill C-2, an act to amend the Income Tax Act.

This bill is merely the first step in our plan to grow the economy in the long term, create jobs, and help Canada's middle class prosper.

More specifically, Bill C-2 will cut the personal income tax rate, dropping it from 22% to 20.5%, and establish a 33% tax rate for individual taxable incomes above $200,000. We are asking the wealthiest Canadians to contribute a little more.

Lastly, we are lowering the annual contribution limit for tax-free savings accounts, TFSAs, from its current $10,000 back to its previous amount, which was $5,500, and we are also reinstating the indexation of that limit. Our middle-class tax cut and the accompanying changes will help make the tax system fairer. As I mentioned, this bill is just the beginning of our government's measures to grow the economy.

In the next budget, we will introduce the new Canada child tax benefit, another important measure that will provide increased support to the vast majority of Canadian families and help lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty. That is right, I said hundreds of thousands of children. Unlike the existing program, the Canada child tax benefit will be simpler, more generous and more targeted to those who need it most. Plus, it is tax-free.

Together, these measures will help strengthen the middle class and help those who work hard to be a part of it. As a result of these measures, Canadians will have more money to save, invest, and help grow our economy. More generally, these measures will stimulate economic growth at a time when the global economy is cause for concern, to ensure that all Canadians will benefit.

The second challenge we are facing, and this may be the biggest one, has to do with creating the conditions for strong, long-term economic growth. Smart, targeted investments in infrastructure are essential to stimulating economic growth. Furthermore, now is the time to invest, while interest rates are at all-time lows.

Canadians made it clear that they want real change. They want their government to govern differently. They want to be able to trust their government and they want leadership that is focused on what is most important to them.

We are listening. Since early January, the Minister of Finance and I have been criss-crossing the country holding pre-budget consultations organized by the Department of Finance. We have gathered some very good ideas and excellent comments. Canadians have told us that they are concerned about the state of our infrastructure, including bridges, roads, public transit, sewers, and seniors' homes.

Canadian cities are growing rapidly, and all levels of government are facing the same challenge: making infrastructure investments that generate economic benefits for Canada and promote sustainable urban environments.

Over the next decade, we will invest $120 billion in public infrastructure. Our investments will focus on making life better for Canadians and developing more lucrative business opportunities for our exporters.

To ensure that we are making strategic investments, we will work with the provinces and territories to address their most urgent needs. That is what Canadians expect of us. They want us to work together to make progress and begin building a better Canada.

A number of initiatives are important to our government's growth strategy for Canada. First, environmental sustainability will be central to the development of our natural resources sector. Together with our North American partners, Canada can and should be one of the most efficient and responsible energy producers in the world.

We will also support growing businesses to help them attract the talent, capital, and innovation they need to capitalize on business opportunities in the global market.

We will work with the provinces to develop a skills and labour strategy that promotes greater participation of under-represented groups.

We will work with the provinces and territories to improve the Canada Pension Plan and help Canadians achieve their retirement income security goals.

These are important objectives that can have a significant impact on our long-term growth.

In closing, there is no quick and easy solution. We are lucky to live in such a diverse and prosperous country. However, the challenges we are facing today are real and to overcome them we must find common ground despite our different points of view. I can assure my colleagues that our government is prepared to meet these challenges.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to begin, I would like to address today's motion and reassure the hon. member that we support the officials in the Department of Finance. They are consummate professionals who are working hard drafting our government's first budget. Like the members on this side of the House, they know that a snapshot in time is just that. It does not tell the whole story. It is like looking at one's bank account before paying the bills.

Let us make no mistake. The projections outlined in the economic and fiscal update show that there will be a deficit in budget year 2015-16 as a direct result of the previous government's failure to prepare for a downturn in global oil prices and volatility in the global market.

Happily, we have a plan. After 10 years of weak growth, this government has a plan to grow the economy and create jobs by focusing on the middle class, investing in infrastructure, and helping those who need it most.

As the Prime Minister recently said, we fully intend to take all means necessary to support an economic growth strategy that will benefit all Canadians.

Our government was elected on ambitious economic measures. We know that there has never been a better time to make targeted investments to support economic growth. If the members opposite are patient, we will certainly provide them with our vision for the future and the details of these targeted investments.

Let me describe our starting point. As we embark on an agenda of economic growth and long-term prosperity, there is no doubt that we are facing considerable headwinds. Globally, we continue to experience what the International Monetary Fund's managing director, Christine Lagarde, famously called the “new mediocre”. In its latest world economic outlook, in January, the IMF said that it expects global growth to pick up modestly to 3.4% in 2016 and 3.6% in 2017. This is down 0.2 percentage points for both 2016 and 2017 compared to the October 2015 world economic outlook.

Although the recent performance of the U.S. economy is encouraging, the emerging economies, especially China, are causes for concern. Global crude oil prices remain at levels less than a third of what they were mid-2014, reflecting a persistent global oversupply and softening demand. What is happening beyond our borders has real and tangible effects for all Canadians.

In Canada, our economic performance in the first half of 2015 was poor, mainly due to collapsing oil prices in 2014. It has become obvious that growth in Canada will be lower than was expected in the previous government's last budget projections, in April 2015. This, of course, has important implications for our current fiscal situation. Indeed, the Department of Finance's own numbers in the economic and fiscal update, tabled in this House, show this. I find it strange that the members opposite only seem to respect the numbers from department officials when they feel that they can score political points with them. I urge them all to review the economic and fiscal update, and in the spirit of respect for this country's public servants, admit that they are dead wrong in believing that we will not be in a deficit by the end of this fiscal year.

The previous Liberal government left behind a $13-billion surplus in 2006. The Conservative government squandered the surplus and accumulated an additional $150 billion in new debt while still managing to deliver the worst growth record since the Great Depression. The “Fiscal Monitor” referred to in the member's motion is a snapshot in time and does not tell the full story.

Tough economic times call for bold measures to support the middle class and those working hard to join it. We in the government are prepared to implement these measures.

We maintain an enviable position here in Canada, with a low debt-to-GDP ratio, abundant natural resources, and one of the most educated and talented workforces in the world. Keeping our debt-to-GDP ratio on a downward path throughout our mandate remains a central plank of our economic agenda, alongside balancing the budget by the end of our mandate. To achieve this, our policies will strike a balance between fiscal responsibility and our commitments to Canadians.

One of the most important pillars of our plan is strengthening our middle class, the backbone of our economy, whose members have gone too long without a raise. This is why one of the government's first orders of business was to table a notice of ways and means motion to cut taxes for the middle class. We would cut taxes for nine million Canadians by asking the wealthiest 1% of earners to kick in just a little more. This is the right thing to do and the smart thing to do for our economy.

The middle-class tax cut and the accompanying tax changes would help make taxes fairer so that all Canadians would have the opportunity to succeed and prosper. I am pleased to note that Bill C-2, the bill to implement these measures, is now being debated in Parliament. The middle-class tax cuts would mark an important first step in our plan for economic growth.

Going forward, the government will introduce proposals in the budget to create a new Canada child benefit. Changes under the new child benefit would begin in July 2016. In addition to replacing the universal childcare benefit, which is not tied to income, the proposed Canada child benefit would simplify and consolidate existing child benefits while ensuring that the help is targeted to those who need it most.

Taken together, these measures will help strengthen the middle class and those working hard to join it, putting more money in their pockets to save, invest, and grow the economy. More broadly, they will help grow our economy in the context of a difficult global economic climate so that all Canadians benefit.

The second challenge the government faces, and the most important one, is creating long-term conditions for strong and durable economic growth. The international community, as well as leaders right here at home, have more or less arrived at the same conclusion: targeted investments in infrastructure are key to driving economic growth. With interest rates at historic lows, now is the right time to invest. Canadian cities have been growing at a rapid rate, and all governments have a shared challenge in making investments in infrastructure that create economic advantages for Canada and more sustainable urban areas.

For the next decade, we will make investments in social infrastructure, like affordable and seniors' housing, in green infrastructure, like water-treatment systems, and in public transit. We have pledged to make historic investments in Canadian infrastructure, and we intend to follow through. These investments will aim to get Canadians moving and will open more cost-efficient trade options for our exporters. These are big, meaningful measures that can have a significant impact on our long-term growth.

Unlike the previous government, we do not intend to recklessly add to the national debt on the backs of our children and grandchildren by making reckless and politically motivated investments. Rather, we intend to make smart investments that will build an even more prosperous country for our children and grandchildren.

Given the government's clear objectives listed today, I would strongly encourage hon. members to support the government in our efforts to strengthen the middle class and grow the economy.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, in spite of his best efforts, we just had a good example of embellishment right there. Why do I not focus on the very erudite question that comes on Thursdays that I know members look forward to all week.

This afternoon we will resume debate on the Conservative Party's opposition motion.

Tomorrow, the House will debate Bill C-2, which amends the Income Tax Act, at second reading, and we will continue that important debate on Monday.

Tuesday, February 2, will be another opposition day.

On Wednesday, we will debate Bill C-4, which repeals the Conservatives' unfair union bills. As colleagues know, this important legislation was introduced this morning.

Lastly, Thursday, February 4, will be another opposition day.

Opposition Motion—Energy East Pipeline Project

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member and congratulate him on his election as well.

As I mentioned in my speech, our Prime Minister made a promise in our election platform that this is the party and this is the government that is going to help the middle class. Every policy that is coming in is helping it. Bringing in Bill C-2, as I said earlier, reducing income tax from 22.5% to 20.5%, would help middle-class families. Bringing in a Canada child benefit would help the families who need the most. These are the types of policies we need, and these are the types of policies our government is going to deliver in the coming months and years.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I congratulate the nominees who sit in this chair, and I am sure the constituents of Nipissing—Timiskaming are very proud of the hard and diligent work you do, not only for your constituents but for Canadians.

I am proud to stand today to speak about our government's economic agenda.

This is a difficult period for the Canadian economy. China has slowed down dramatically, and commodity prices have dropped globally. The Bank of Canada has adjusted its economic forecast and has cut interest rates twice over the last 12 months. Now, more than ever, is the time for our government to look toward long-term growth, growth that will provide good jobs for Canada's middle class, the lifeblood of our economy. This is why we introduced Bill C-2, which provides a middle-class tax cut to support Canadian families.

My constituents of Surrey—Newton are happy to finally have a government that believes that they too deserve tax relief. The Liberal middle-class tax cut will lift $3 billion in tax burden from the backs of middle-class income earners.

Bill C-2 will reduce the middle-income tax rate from 22% to 20.5%. It will also reduce the contribution limit on tax-free savings accounts from $10,000 to $5,500. This will benefit about nine million Canadians, which accomplishes two important objectives. First, it will restore fairness to the tax system by treating middle-income earners on par with the highest earning bracket and corporate Canada, which received the majority of tax relief from the previous government.

Just as important, this is a middle-class tax cut that is designed to stimulate the economy. The Bank of Montreal's chief economist, Doug Porter, has stated that this tax cut will encourage an increase in consumer spending and might compel middle-class earners to work more, because they will be able to keep more of their paycheques in their pockets.

History has shown that a middle-class tax cut has one of the highest returns on investment for a government, because it spurs growth by encouraging spending in the local economy. This is why, in Surrey—Newton and across Canada, small businesses are also supportive of this measure. It means that they will see a direct positive impact.

However, this is not the only way this government is putting money back into the pockets of families. The new Canada child benefit creates a simpler, more generous, and tax-free infusion for families with children.

Investment does not stop there. We will also invest in cities, the economic engines that are critical to the success of our national economy. In Surrey Newton, we see the strain that is caused by rapid growth. The city of Surrey continues to welcome over 1,000 new residents per month, and we need to continue to improve our municipal services to accommodate this growth.

This Liberal government has committed to investing $125 billion over the next 10 years to upgrade public infrastructure and public transit. The newly proposed LRT line in Surrey is absolutely essential for strong public transit long into the future. Within the next 30 years, Surrey will emerge as the largest city in British Columbia, and easily accessible public transit is critical to that evolution.

Our government understands that investing in Canada's economy must be balanced, but it also means that we will never give up on working to get our natural resources to international markets. Our Prime Minister and this government will never forget that 1.8 million jobs are directly and indirectly attached to natural resources across Canada.

This government looks far into the future of Canada's economy and plans for long-term sustainability and growth. This will be accomplished in a number of specific ways: by ensuring that environmental sustainability is at the heart of Canada's resource sector, which will make Canadian resources globally attractive; by working with the provinces and territories to ensure that under-represented groups are represented in a new skills and labour strategy; by supporting growing firms in attracting talent and investment while still incorporating innovation in their operations; and by enhancing the Canada pension plan co-operatively with our provincial and territorial partners to ensure that all Canadians have access to a secure retirement. I cannot emphasize how important this kind of approach is to the future success of all Canadians.

In Surrey, we had the pleasure of being one of the six cities to host the hon. Minister of Finance during the pre-budget consultation tour. The minister was able to hear a wide range of perspectives from one of the most dynamic communities in Canada, and one of the key messages was this: Canada can no longer place all of its eggs in one basket. We must look for balance. We must invest in the middle class, in cities, and in different industries, and we must take the long view for our future generations.

These are the same messages we are hearing from Canadians from coast to coast to coast. We have reached nearly 150,000 Canadians in these pre-budget consultations, through technology and through in-person meetings. This is the largest participation in pre-budget consultations in Canadian history. We are proud of this inclusive approach, which will come to define everything our government does over the next four years. This is a government for all provinces, all territories, all cities, all financial profiles, all races, and all backgrounds. We are committed to listening to each and every perspective and opinion. This is why our mandate to grow the economy sustainably, responsibly, fairly, and with a long-term vision was supported in Surrey—Newton and across Canada. We will continue to show respect for every single Canadian voice as we work towards presenting our budget in the coming months.

I am proud to say that balance is back in Ottawa.