Bill C-29 (Historical)

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2

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

Part 1 implements certain income tax measures proposed in the March 22, 2016 budget by
(a) eliminating the eligible capital property rules and introducing a new class of depreciable property;
(b) introducing rules to prevent the avoidance of the shareholder loan rules using back-to-back arrangements;
(c) excluding derivatives from the application of the inventory valuation rules;
(d) ensuring that the return on a linked note retains the same character whether it is earned at maturity or reflected in a secondary market sale;
(e) clarifying the tax treatment of emissions allowances and eliminating the double taxation of certain free emissions allowances;
(f) introducing rules so that any accrued foreign exchange gains on a foreign currency debt will be realized when the debt becomes a parked obligation;
(g) ensuring that amounts are not inappropriately received tax-free by a policyholder as a result of a disposition of an interest in a life insurance policy;
(h) preventing the misuse of an exception in the anti-avoidance rules in the Income Tax Act for cross-border surplus-stripping transactions;
(i) indexing to inflation the maximum benefit amounts and the phase-out thresholds under the Canada child benefit, beginning in the 2020–21 benefit year;
(j) amending the anti-avoidance rules in the Income Tax Act that prevent the multiplication of access to the small business deduction and the avoidance of the business limit and the taxable capital limit;
(k) ensuring that an exchange of shares of a mutual fund corporation or investment corporation that results in the investor switching between funds will be considered for tax purposes to be a disposition at fair market value;
(l) implementing the country-by-country reporting standards recommended by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development;
(m) clarifying the application of anti-avoidance rules in the Income Tax Act for back-to-back loans to multiple intermediary structures and character substitution; and
(n) introducing rules to prevent the avoidance of withholding tax on rents, royalties and similar payments using back-to-back arrangements.
Part 1 implements other income tax measures confirmed in the March 22, 2016 budget by
(a) allowing greater flexibility for recognizing charitable donations made by an individual’s former graduated rate estate;
(b) clarifying what types of investment funds are excluded from the loss restriction event rules that otherwise limit a trust’s use of certain tax attributes;
(c) ensuring that income arising in certain trusts on the death of the trust’s primary beneficiary is taxed in the trust and not in the hands of that beneficiary, subject to a joint election for certain testamentary trusts to report the income in that beneficiary’s final tax return;
(d) clarifying that the Canada Revenue Agency and the courts may increase or adjust an amount included in an assessment that is under objection or appeal at any time, provided the total amount of the assessment does not increase; and
(e) implementing the common reporting standard recommended by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development for the automatic exchange of financial account information between tax authorities.
Part 1 also amends the Employment Insurance Act and various regulations to replace the term “child tax benefit” with “Canada child benefit”.
Part 2 implements certain goods and services tax and harmonized sales tax (GST/HST) measures proposed or confirmed in the March 22, 2016 budget by
(a) adding certain exported call centre services to the list of GST/HST zero-rated exports;
(b) strengthening the test for determining whether two corporations, or a partnership and a corporation, can be considered closely related;
(c) ensuring that the application of the GST/HST is unaffected by income tax amendments that convert eligible capital property into a new class of depreciable property; and
(d) clarifying that the Canada Revenue Agency and the courts may increase or adjust an amount included in an assessment that is under objection or appeal at any time, provided the total amount of the assessment does not increase.
Part 3 implements an excise measure confirmed in the March 22, 2016 budget by clarifying that the Canada Revenue Agency and the courts may increase or adjust an amount included in an assessment that is under objection or appeal at any time, provided the total amount of the assessment does not increase.
Division 1 of Part 4 amends the Employment Insurance Act to specify what does not constitute suitable employment for the purposes of certain provisions of the Act.
Division 2 of Part 4 amends the Old Age Security Act to provide that, in the case of low-income couples who have to live apart for reasons not attributable to either of them, the amount of the allowance is to be based on the income of the allowance recipient only.
Division 3 of Part 4 amends the Canada Education Savings Act to replace the term “child tax benefit” with “Canada child benefit”. It also amends that Act to change the manner in which the eligibility for the Canada Learning Bond is established, including by eliminating the national child benefit supplement as an eligibility criterion and by adding an eligibility formula based on income and number of children.
Division 4 of Part 4 amends the Canada Disability Savings Act to replace the term “child tax benefit” with “Canada child benefit”. It also amends the definition “phase-out income”.
Division 5 of Part 4 amends the Royal Canadian Mint Act to enable the Royal Canadian Mint to anticipate profit with respect to the provision of goods or services, to clarify the powers of the Royal Canadian Mint, to confirm the current and legal tender status of all non-circulation $350 coins dated between 1999 and 2006 and to remove the requirement that the directors of the Royal Canadian Mint have experience in respect of metal fabrication or production, industrial relations or a related field.
Division 6 of Part 4 amends the Financial Administration Act, the Bank of Canada Act and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act to clarify certain powers of the Minister of Finance in relation to the sound and efficient management of federal funds and the operation of Crown corporations. It amends the Financial Administration Act to provide that the Minister of Finance may lend, by way of auction, excess funds out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund and, with the authorization of the Governor in Council, may enter into contracts and agreements of a financial nature for the purpose of managing risks related to the financial position of the Government of Canada. It also amends the Bank of Canada Act to provide that the Minister of Finance may delegate to the Bank of Canada the management of the lending of money to agent corporations. Finally, it amends the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act to provide that the Bank of Canada may act as a custodian of the financial assets of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2

[Marie-Claude Bibeau, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

moved that Bill C-29, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Madam Speaker, it has been just over a year since the previous federal election, and I think we would all agree it has been a tremendous year for all of us in this House. Twelve months ago, many felt the momentum building throughout the country. We were confident in our vision for Canada, and, as it turns out, so were Canadians.

In this past year, especially as a first-time MP, I have been thrilled to be working on behalf of Canadians, helping to impact their lives for the better. It is a pleasure for me to rise in this chamber and speak about the investments that the Government of Canada will be making to keep Canada and its people strong and growing for the long term.

Canada is one of the first countries in the world to put into practice the idea that when you have an economy that works for the middle class, you have a country that works for everyone.

In the last year we took some important steps towards helping families regain the confidence they will need to drive our economy forward. We cut taxes for close to nine million Canadians, and we introduced the Canada child benefit, which puts more money in the pockets of nine out of ten families with children.

We increased Canada student grants for students from low- and middle-income families and for part-time students. We increased monthly payments for the most vulnerable seniors. We signed an agreement with the provinces to enhance the Canada pension plan to provide young people and future generations of workers with a stable, dignified retirement.

We have also begun making unprecedented investments that will help the middle class grow and prosper today, while delivering economic growth for years to come.

We will continue to build on this momentum.

This second budget implementation act proposes items that will complete the implementation of outstanding measures from the Government of Canada's first budget, growing the middle class.

As a government, we are particularly proud of our first budget. This is a budget that puts people and family first. It introduces investments that take an essential step to growing the middle class. It is the first step of a long-term plan to restore hope and revitalize the economy for the benefit of all Canadians. This is a budget and a plan that is not only resonating with Canadians, but is gathering international praise around the world as well.

The Financial Times called Canada's approach a glimmer of light. The Wall Street Journal called our finance minister “the poster child” for the International Monetary Fund's global growth strategy. Christine Lagarde, head of the International Monetary Fund, praised our approach as well. At the recent IMF annual meetings, Madame Lagarde said, “Look at Canada.... They're using all possible levers to move the needle towards positive and more growth”. That is what all countries can do.”

Our budget earned these endorsements. I firmly believe that we as a government are focused on exactly the right things: on people, and on growing the economy for the long term in a way that will benefit all Canadians.

The bill before us today, budget implementation act, 2016, No. 2, completes the implementation of the measures we introduced in budget 2016. It provides additional assistance to the people who are the heart of our economy, Canada's middle class.

The bill we are debating today will help foster a strong Canadian economy and will enable Canadians in the middle class and those working hard to join it to keep more of their money to save, invest, and ensure economic growth.

This bill includes measures that will help families, give seniors a little more flexibility, protect consumers, and improve the quality and integrity of our country's tax system.

One of the cornerstones of our plan to strengthen the middle class is also a cornerstone of our first budget. In budget 2016, we introduced the new Canada child benefit. This benefit will help parents better support what is most precious to them, their children.

The Canada child benefit is simpler and more generous than the benefits it is replacing. It is also tax free and better targeted to help those who need it most in our society.

The Canada child benefit will lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty in Canada. That is because since the benefit was first rolled out in July, nine out of ten families are now receiving more money than they did under the previous system.

Whether that extra money is being used to buy school supplies, groceries, or warm coats for the winter, the Canada child benefit will help parents cover the growing cost of raising their children.

Let me explain how this benefit will help Canadian families. Parents of children under 18 will receive a maximum annual benefit of $6,400 per child under six and $5,400 per child aged six through 17.

Supporting this budget implementation bill will help ensure that the Canada child benefit will be indexed to inflation, so that families can count on this extra assistance today and for years to come.

This budget implementation act would also support seniors by helping them to retire in more comfort and with dignity. Canada's retirement income system has been successful in reducing the incidence of poverty among Canadian seniors. However, some seniors continue to be at heightened risk of living with low income. In particular, single seniors are nearly three times more likely to live with low incomes than seniors generally. Budget 2016 would help seniors retire comfortably and with dignity by making significant new investments that support them in their retirement years.

In budget 2016, we repealed the provision of the Old Age Security Act that increased the age of eligibility for old age security and guaranteed income supplement benefits from 65 to 67 years of age and allowance benefits from 60 to 62 over the 2023 to 2029 period. Restoring the eligibility age for old age security and guaranteed income supplement benefits to 65 will put thousands of dollars back into the pockets of Canadians as they become seniors and look to retire. That is the right thing to do.

Budget 2016 also increased the guaranteed income supplement top-up benefit by up to $947 annually for the most vulnerable single seniors, starting in July 2016. This is helping those seniors who rely almost exclusively on old age security and guaranteed income supplement benefits, and may therefore be at risk of experiencing financial difficulties.

These enhancements more than double the current maximum guaranteed income supplement top-up benefit and represent a 10% increase in the total maximum guaranteed income supplement benefits available to the lowest income single seniors in our country. This measure represents an investment of over $670 million per year and will improve the financial security of about 900,000 single seniors across our nation.

In this second budget implementation bill, we are delivering on the promise we made in budget 2016 to support senior couples who face higher costs of living and are at an increased risk of poverty because they must live apart.

This second budget implementation bill amends the Old Age Security Act in order to make the program more flexible. When couples who are receiving the guaranteed income supplement and the spouse's allowance have to live apart for reasons beyond their control, each of them will receive benefits based on their individual income.

By extending this treatment to couples receiving the guaranteed income supplement and spouse's allowance, the government is improving fairness for seniors and helping them live with the dignity they deserve and need in retirement.

Canadians deserve financial consumer protection that keeps pace with people's needs. In line with this, budget 2016 contains plans to strengthen and modernize the financial consumer protection framework.

Budget implementation act, 2016, No. 2 would amend the Bank Act in order to strengthen and modernize the financial consumer protection framework in our country. The financial sector plays an important role in supporting economic growth in this nation. Each day, the nation's financial institutions support the financial needs of consumers and large and small businesses, and enable payments and transactions. They form the infrastructure of our market system.

Canada's financial sector weathered the 2008 financial crisis well. We are seeking to build on this strength. We want to make sure that the financial sector is able to adapt to new trends, including emerging financial innovation and technologies that will challenge existing business models, evolving consumer preferences and customer relationships, changing demographics, and continuing globalization.

Budget 2016 proposes to modernize the financial consumer protection framework by clarifying and enhancing consumer protection in the Bank Act, and working with stakeholders to support the implementation of the framework. This legislation proposes to consolidate and streamline existing consumer provisions into one chapter of the Bank Act, and introduce amendments to the Bank Act to enhance consumer protection in the areas of access to basic banking services' business practices, disclosure, complaints handling, as well as corporate governance and accountability.

The federal government is showing leadership by implementing targeted measures to better protect consumers of financial products and services in Canada. These measures include improving access to basic banking services, setting limits on certain business practices, and improving disclosure of information to make it easier for consumers to make informed choices. These reforms reiterate the federal government's intent to have a system of exclusive consumer protection rules to ensure an efficient national banking system across the country.

Fairness is one of Canadians' fundamental values. That is why the government of Canada committed to implement an action plan to combat international tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance that contains new measures and builds on the efforts that are currently being made both here in Canada and abroad. This work will help protect the tax base and boost Canadians' confidence in the fairness of a system that ensures that everyone pays their fair share of the tax burden.

As part of an international effort to combat tax evasion, budget 2016 confirms the government's intention to implement the common reporting standard developed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD. Under the common reporting standard, Canadian financial institutions will be expected to have procedures in place to identify accounts held by non-residents and to report information on those accounts to the Canada Revenue Agency.

Tax administrations in foreign jurisdictions will likewise collect information from their financial institutions about accounts held by residents of other countries, including Canada. The CRA will formalize exchange arrangements with foreign jurisdictions, having verified that each jurisdiction has appropriate capacity and safeguards in place. Then the financial account information will begin to be exchanged on a reciprocal bilateral basis.

The introduction of the common reporting standard is an important global development, which will help enhance tax compliance and eliminate opportunities for tax evasion in our country. Canada intends to implement the standard consistent with our commitment to the G-20 and similar commitments by more than 100 other jurisdictions.

The budget also announced plans to implement a new requirement for country-by-country reporting. This is an initiative agreed to under the G20/0ECD project to address tax avoidance by multinational enterprises through base erosion and profit shifting.

Under these new rules, large multinational enterprises will be required to file information with tax authorities providing a high-level profile of their activities in each jurisdiction in which they operate. These reports will enhance transparency and assist tax administrations in performing effective risk assessments.

Going forward, Canada will continue to work with the international community to ensure a coherent and consistent response to tax avoidance. In addition to these new legislative tools, budget 2016 also announced $444 million in new resources for the Canada Revenue Agency to address offshore tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance.

In conclusion, budget 2016 represents a giant step forward in our plan to put people first and to deliver the help they need now while investing for the years and decades to come. With these investments, and inspired by a sense of fairness, we are ensuring that Canada's best days lie ahead. Our plan is about creating the necessary conditions to ensure that hope and hard work will not be wasted but will be rewarded in this country where our children and our grandchildren can flourish.

The Government of Canada is focused on the larger picture of ensuring prosperity for Canadians well beyond its 150th birthday. I therefore encourage all members in the House to support the bill. This is right for Canada. This is right for families. This is right for the middle class.

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

Madam Speaker, instead of calling it growing the middle class, they should be calling it breaking the middle class, because what we see is a deficit that is out of control.

I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance if, when he was campaigning a year ago, he was telling people at the doorstep that there would be a $10-billion deficit. What would they say to him had they known that we are now at $30 billion and growing, with no plan to keep spending under control? The Liberals are not helping the middle class.

We look at our job numbers. We look at what is happening to our youth. We have serious concerns in Canada in terms of the direction the government is taking us.

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

Madam Speaker, I welcome the question from my colleague, for whom I have enormous esteem for her interest in our economy. I had the privilege, as a member of Parliament and a parliamentary secretary, to criss-cross this country on budget 2016, from Moncton to Yellowknife. People told us two things: to help them and their families, and to grow the economy.

To help the middle class, we reduced taxes for the middle class. That is the first thing this government did for Canadians. We then introduced the Canada child benefit, which is one of the most innovative social policies in our country since universal health care. We went on to amend the CPP and made sure that we did something for seniors and students.

People asked us to be bold and to take the initiative to grow the economy. That is why we proposed to invest $120 billion over 10 years in our infrastructure. It is an historic announcement this government has made to invest in innovation. Canadians from Moncton to Yellowknife told us to invest in this country, invest in the middle class, and invest in Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, first of all, I find it truly ironic that in this budget the Liberals are taking credit for indexing the Canada child benefit. They had not originally intended to index the benefit, but the parliamentary budget officer's report forced their hand.

He indicated that by 2020 or 2021, the Liberal program would be less generous than that of the Conservatives. The same afternoon that the report was released, the Liberals announced that they would index the benefit starting in 2020 or 2021. I would have liked the government to be a little more forthcoming and at least admit that they made a mistake and that they had forgotten to index the program, which will obviously increase the cost of delivering it.

I would also like to follow up on an issue that was not mentioned by the parliamentary secretary in his speech, and that is the privatization of Government of Canada assets. Yesterday, in committee, Dominic Barton, chair of the Advisory Council on Economic Growth, did not deny that the government is moving toward privatization.

Could the member explain why he did not mention this in his speech? Could he also tell us when exactly during the campaign did the government talk about privatization?

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

Madam Speaker, I first want to commend the incredible work my colleague across the aisle is doing on the Standing Committee on Finance. It is a tremendous pleasure to work with him on that committee.

I am sure he did not mean to question my integrity or that of the Minister of Finance regarding the last budget. In the interviews he gave, the Minister of Finance clearly indicated that the benefit would be indexed, and that is what we are doing. This is included in the second budget implementation bill.

I understand that his wish has now been fulfilled. I am sure that he wants the Canada child benefit to be indexed, as do all parliamentarians.

As for his other question, we are pleased to have an advisory council that provides the Minister of Finance with innovative ideas on economic growth in this country. As we have said many times, we have asked the Advisory Council on Economic Growth to be ambitious and come up with innovative ideas to help ensure growth in Canada, and that is exactly what it is doing.

I would remind my colleague that these are recommendations, no final decisions have been made, and these are not government policies. We will consider any good idea that helps boost the country's growth. That is what Canadians expect, and that is exactly what we are going to do.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for that wonderful speech. I have a question for him regarding the Canada child benefit.

I spend a lot of my weekends in the hockey arenas in my riding. I have two young boys who play hockey. What I am hearing is how this fundamentally changes the lives of so many people in my riding. Parents can afford things for their kids that they could not before. People are now playing hockey and sports in my riding who were not able to before.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

You took the sports tax credit away.

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

Madam Speaker, tax credits do not work. We all know that if a person does not have the money to pay in the first place, boutique tax credits do not work.

I want the member to elaborate on how the Canada child benefit actually provides opportunities for so many children. Three hundred thousand children were lifted out of poverty because of this measure.

Would the member please elaborate on that?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I just want to remind members of the opposition that they will have a chance to ask another question. If they restrain themselves and allow people to speak, that would be great.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.

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

Madam Speaker, I could hear the members on the other side. Their interest in the Canada child benefit is very vocal, and we appreciate that. It is very good to hear them comment on it, because, as my hon. colleague mentioned, this is making a difference for families.

He talked about his riding. Let me talk about my own riding.

The Canada child benefit is helping about 18,000 children. Ten thousand families are better off now because of the Canada child benefit, which is tax free, which is more targeted, and which is providing more money.

When someone comes from a riding like mine, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, where we have gone through economic difficulties, where the economy is in transformation, and where the median income is probably among the most challenging in our country, and we give people that amount of money, we increase disposable income by about 5% to 10% for families. It makes a difference.

I would invite members on each side to talk to families, as we are on this side, to make sure that they understand the difference.

I have people walk into my constituency office saying that this is transformative for them and their children, because it is tax free, because it is targeted. That is what people were asking for. We went across the country. About a quarter of a million people engaged with us on budget 2016 and asked us to help them and their families.

This is what we are delivering. This is right for Canadians. This is right for Canadian families.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague opposite for his speech. However, I need to understand a few things. We all know that you made some lofty promises during the election campaign—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order, please, I would remind the member that she must direct her comments to the Chair.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals made some very fine promises during the election campaign, but what Canadians are most worried about are the things they did not tell people they would do, things they have been doing quite merrily for some time now. They brag about investing millions of dollars in infrastructure.

Promising money is all well and good, but when will they act on that promise?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I have a lot of respect for her, as she knows. She represents her constituents well.

I would like to talk about what we have said and what we have done. One of our campaign promises was to cut taxes for Canada's middle class. That was the first bill we introduced in Parliament. During the campaign, we also promised to help Canadians. That is why we created the Canada child benefit, which, as my colleague well knows, will lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty. I know the member personally, and I know that she is on board with lifting Canadian children out of poverty.

As the hon. member said, we made some very fine promises to our seniors. That is exactly why we improved the guaranteed income supplement and lowered the retirement age from 67 to 65, like seniors asked us to.

We also promised to help students and that is what we did in our budget. We promised Canadians growth and that is why we made a historic $120 billion investment over 10 years in infrastructure. We promised Canadians innovation and that is why we presented a plan for innovation.

As my colleague can see, we made fine promises, but more importantly for Canadians, we kept them. We will continue doing more of the same.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased and honoured, but also humbled, to speak on behalf of all my official opposition colleagues and on behalf of all Canadians who were literally duped by the Liberal Party a year ago.

The Liberal Party promised heaven and earth, but it is breaking its promises. Worse yet, we see that the billions of dollars invested, supposedly in development, is not working. The Liberal plan is not working and we can prove it.

We are gathered this morning to talk about Bill C-29 which, in a way, is the second budget implementation bill. The people watching us this morning need to understand that the budget was tabled, voted on, and passed. However, two bills are being enacted to implement the budget.

What we are seeing is that all the government's budget measures are not working. When we left office a year ago, we left the House in order. This week, the parliamentary budget officer confirmed what we knew, and what Canadians suspected, namely that we left a $2.9-billion surplus. That was a good thing. In fact, a $2.9-billion surplus is responsible, realistic, conservative, and Canadian. We will come back to the current situation later.

We left Canadians the lowest tax burden in 50 years. Canadians had never before paid so little in taxes as under the Conservative government one year ago. That was the mindset that we left Canadians. That was the economic situation that we left Canadians. The major difference is that we believe that Canadian entrepreneurs and businesses, not government, create jobs. Our Conservative policies created 200,000 jobs during our last term of office. A $2.9-billion surplus, the lowest tax burden in 50 years, and 200,000 jobs created by private enterprise, all made possible by Conservative policies. That was the situation one year ago.

Where are we one year later? The Bank of Canada, the parliamentary budget officer, the International Monetary Fund, and the OECD confirm that the Liberal government's economic forecasts must be downgraded. Although we had excellent momentum a year ago, today all economic observers agree that the Liberal plan is not working and that the economic forecasts must be downgraded.

Everyone can see that the employment statistics are worrisome. The Liberal government's measures were supposed to create hundreds of thousands of jobs, but we have not seen any results. Not only is the unemployment rate stable at 7%, but now we are learning that tens of thousands of jobs are being lost, and the Minister of Finance, pleased as punch, is telling Canadians that they will have to get used to part-time work. How inspiring. Way to encourage people to do more and promote job creation. It is not inspiring at all and it is so typical of the Liberals.

Let us now look at the backbone of government management: deficits and surpluses. Need I remind members that our government left a $2.9-billion surplus? This is not the first time I have said it, and I can tell my colleagues right now that this is not the last time they will hear me say it either.

Today, we have a deficit of tens of billions of dollars. I would remind members that, on page 76 of the Liberal election platform, it reads:

...the federal government will have a modest...deficit of...$10 billion...

The deficit will shrink, and after four years, it will magically be transformed into a surplus. That is the Liberal promise. The reality is that the Liberal Party brought in a budget that spells out a $30-billion deficit. In fact, two weeks ago, TD Canada Trust said that the deficit could be as much as $34 billion. On October 19, to celebrate his first year in power, the Prime Minister of Canada was interviewed on TVA, and he said that he did not know how the whole deficit thing was going to turn out. Great. Just great.

Should such an amateurish response come as any surprise? Is this not the same member for Papineau, Prime Minister, and Liberal Party leader who, in an interview two years ago, said that budgets balance themselves? Right. If, according to his economic theory, budgets balance themselves, then he can promise a $10-billion deficit that is really a $30-billion deficit, or how about a $34-billion deficit or who knows how many billions exactly.

That is classic Liberal Party, and it is totally unacceptable. The Liberal government keeps talking about how wonderful everything is because it has the most ambitious infrastructure plan in Canadian history. On our watch, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean, as Minister of Economic Development, headed a department managing an $80-billion infrastructure investment program. At the time, that was the most ambitious program in Canadian history. The difference is that we did it by creating a budget surplus, not a Liberal-style deficit.

The Liberals promised billions. They said that a growing deficit is not a problem and it is all good. It is not all good. Such a huge deficit is irresponsible because it is deferred taxation; we are forcing our children and grandchildren to pay the bill.

Let us look at what I like to call this government's grand gestures. As I said earlier, this government is not creating jobs; private enterprise is what is creating them. We therefore need to give businesses the tools they need to create jobs. We in the Conservative Party believe that the real job creators, the real backbone of the Canadian economy, are small and medium-sized businesses. They are the real wealth creators, and yet, these Liberal measures work against them.

Was the Liberal carbon tax included in their platform? No. Also, we have not seen the corporate tax cuts those folks over there promised.

The following is written on page 80: “As we reduce the small business tax rate to 9 percent from 11 percent”. That is not true; they are not doing that. They are keeping taxes high and even increasing CPP contributions. This is going to cost Canadian workers $1,000 more per year, and cost businesses $1,000 more per employee every year. That is $2,000 less for the economy and $2,000 more in government coffers for the pension plan. It is unacceptable.

Let us now take a look at exactly how this government is managing its much-touted program to help children, the Canada child benefit.

They said they were going to abolish the three programs our government put in place to really help families, namely the universal child care benefit, the Canada child tax benefit, and the national child benefit supplement. We had fashioned three programs to meet the needs of all Canadian families. However, in its boundless wisdom, the government said those programs needed to go. It says it is going to reinvent the wheel and that it is going to come up with the best program that Canada has ever seen. That is pretty much what it said.

However, the reality is that this government promised to make changes at no cost, but that was a mistake. This is going to put us $3.4 billion in the hole. It is wishful thinking by the Liberals: give people money, help them, and stimulate the economy. That is nice, but it is wishful thinking. Someone has to pay for all this at some point. Those people were elected on a promise to implement a program at no cost. It has not worked out that way. We are $3.4 billion in the hole.

[An hon. member]

A year.

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

Yes, my colleague is right, Madam Speaker. I thank him.

This year, it is going to cost an extra $3.4 billion and next year it will cost an extra $4.3 billion. What a farce, to put it mildly.

All of a sudden, these people realized that they forgot to index the program, and they are shocked. They forgot one small detail, however: if the program isn't indexed, people will have less money in their pockets than they did under the Conservative government. The worst part about it is that it was not even included in their platform.

I do not want to lecture anyone, but the facts speak for themselves. When managing their personal budgets, would any executives think that their groceries would cost the same in five years as they do now? No, and I do not think so either.

Are there any Canadians who believe that there is no indexing or inflation? No, there are not, aside from these fine people who are before us today. Their management approach is hard on the Canadian economy. It is us and our children who will have to pay for this bad management. Even though we are dealing with basics, the ABC's or one plus one equals two, the Liberals forgot to index.

Thank goodness for our Senate colleague, the hon. Larry Smith. I would like to pay tribute to him. I would add that he is a Conservative senator. This is a small detail, but I do not forget details. The senator asked the parliamentary budget officer some very specific questions and, as a result, last May the parliamentary budget officer showed that the Liberals had forgotten to index the program and that, if it were indexed, it would cost twice as much, which is no laughing matter.

When the parliamentary budget officer announced that the Liberals had forgotten to index the program, the government came up with an indexing measure on the fly to ensure that this program will cost $42.4 billion in total, and that number is from the report of the parliamentary budget officer. The Liberals only made a small mistake.

I know that I cannot pull out documents here. However, if I could, members would clearly see the inflationary curve that the government forgot about and which means that Canadians will have to pay tens of thousands of dollars more.

I have listened to the fine speeches by government members who have said that they are thinking of the children and families, that they want to help the poorest among us and do this in a balanced way. No, the Liberals completely forgot about indexation and inflation and, even worse, they are going to make our grandchildren pay for that. That is the irony of the situation.

The members over there gloat about their lofty principles and say they want to help families and children. Of course they want to help the children: they want them to pay the bill when it is their turn to work. That is neither responsible nor realistic. That is not the right approach in our opinion.

That is why when we were in power, when we were implementing these programs, we were also balancing the budget. That is the realistic and responsible way to effect change.

About their tax changes, those guys make such a big deal about leaving more money in people's pockets and cutting taxes. Hang on just a second. Once again, thanks to the hon. Larry Smith, the parliamentary budget officer meticulously analyzed the new tax measures. On page 1, he says, “PBO estimates this amount to be $1.8 billion in 2016”. That is the additional amount the government has to pay. In other words, a measure that was supposed to be revenue-neutral is going to cost $1.8 billion.

They talk about how we need to think of the poorest members of society, but this does not make sense. The new tax brackets mean that there will be no impact whatsoever for people earning $45,000 or less. I would like to remind the House that the average salary in this country is $32,000, so this will change nothing for more than half of all Canadians.

Who is really going to benefit from the new Liberal tax changes? Those who earn between $140,000 and $199,999. I will acknowledge my conflict of interest up front, because I, like all members of the House of Commons, am in that tax bracket.

Where is the supposed sense of fairness and generosity towards the most vulnerable among us? It does not exist in this new change. Sixty-five per cent of Canadians will see no change. It is going to cost Canadians $1.8 billion more, and those who will benefit the most are those who earn between $140,000 and $200,000. It completely flies in the face of what they are claiming. The facts are there, and it is not the nasty Conservatives who are saying this, but the parliamentary budget officer, who was responding to a question from Senator Larry Smith. It is important to know this, and to inform and remind Canadians.

We already had an opportunity to talk about the changes the government is proposing to the Canada pension plan through Bill C-26. Basically, the reality is that the government wants to increase taxes on workers from 9.9% to 11.9%, which is a 2% increase. In concrete terms, this means $1,000 less in the pockets of each Canadian worker, and for businesses, $1,000 more that every company has to pay for each employee. Overall, it means $2,000 for every worker.

Every Canadian who gets up in the morning and goes to work will have $1,000 less, and it is going to take 40 years before it produces any results.

What is the actual impact of this measure on the economy? If we look at employment, GDP, private investment, disposable income, and private savings, all these economic indicators of real growth have been downgraded. At committee hearings, I posed questions to representatives of the Canadian Gas Association, Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association, and even the C.D. Howe Institute. They all said that the proposed changes to the Canada pension plan would negatively impact the Canadian economy and that it could take at least 40 years before there would even be a semblance of balance. That is bad for the economy and it is not the way to go.

We moved forward with our proposal and created the TFSA, a savings plan. We believe that instead of picking people's pockets, the government should give people the tools they need so they can choose how to best save. That approach makes good economic sense. That is great vision. There is a difference between our visions: the Liberal government takes money from people's pockets, whereas the Conservative government lets people choose, and provides the tools so that both businesses and individuals can contribute to economic growth.

The government has totally lost control of public spending. I could be here until Monday talking about all of the mistakes it has made, but I will have to stop because I only have about three or four minutes left. Day after day, this government keeps getting caught with its hand in the cookie jar because of its out-of-control spending. Let us remember the minister who paid $7,000 for a photographer in Paris. I have jokingly said, and I will say it again this morning, that she could have followed the Prime Minister's lead when it comes to photography since he is quite adept at taking selfies and his method does not cost a cent.

Members will also recall that the Minister of Health gave her Liberal friend a contract to drive her around in a limousine. When she was caught red-handed, her friend changed the name of the company to indicate that it provided car services rather than limousine services. The minister apologized and promised to repay the costs, but she should not have to be caught to acknowledge that she made a poor decision and that she should repay the money. Members must make wise choices at all times. I could go on like this for three days, but the point that I am trying to make is that the Liberals have lost control of the public purse. They have also completely lost control of public spending. They were elected on a platform that included a $10-billion deficit, but here we are saddled with a $34-billion deficit, and the Prime Minister is saying that he does not know what is going to happen. It makes no sense.

[An hon. member]

Where are we going? There is no oversight.

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

Madam Speaker, government spending and the deficit are out of control, but the Liberals have decided to impose an additional tax burden by increasing CPP premiums and implementing their carbon tax. Was the Liberal carbon tax part of the Liberal platform? Maybe it was. I read it and reread it. If somehow it was part of the plan, I would ask hon. members to show me where. To my knowledge, it was not planned and now they are imposing it. That is not right. This only goes to show that this government sadly does not know how to count. It simply forgot to factor inflation into its family benefit.

They are poor managers, as well. It is worrisome because under our democracy, which we respect and honour, they will be holding the reins and purse strings of government for the next three years.

We know that the minister is due to table an economic update next week. We hope he will get his act together and grab the bull by the horns and that he will pursue a realistic and responsible approach to management. The government has clearly earned the triple crown of bad management. It has lost control of the deficit and government spending, and it is overtaxing Canadians. That is the triple crown of bad management. The Conservatives had the triple crown of good management and the best economic record of the G7. We are very proud of that. Before concluding, I will move a motion.

I therefore move, seconded by the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

“the House decline to give second reading to Bill C-29, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures, since it proposes to continue with the government’s failed economic policies exemplified by and resulting in, among other things, the current labour market operating at “half the average rate of job creation of the previous five years” as noted in the summary of the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s Report: “Labour Market Assessment 2016”.”

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The amendment is in order.

The hon. member for Louis-Hébert.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my colleague and neighbour from Louis-Saint-Laurent. I always appreciate his eloquence and theatrics. It will probably take me the entire weekend to lead us out of the intellectual labyrinth he lured us into with that speech.

Still, let us start with the $2.9-billion surplus he says the Conservatives left us. Does he realize that that surplus was achieved in large part by selling GM shares? That is like me telling my spouse that we are mortgage-free but that I had to sell the car.

Does he realize that the previous government and the former prime minister, whom he so admires, left behind a $150-billion debt and that, despite the debt, we had the worst GDP growth in 69 years and the worst jobs growth since the Second World War? It is pretty rich of him to say all those things with all the conviction in the world when Paul Martin's Liberal government left the Conservatives a $12-billion surplus.

Since my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent said it was important to tell Canadians the facts, does he know how many people in his riding were benefiting from the increase in the TFSA contribution limit, which benefited only the wealthiest 10% of Canadians?

Does he know how many people in his riding benefited from income splitting, which also helped only the wealthiest 10% of Canadians?

Does he realize that it was the previous government that liked to give tax breaks to the rich?

Now, does he know how many children in his riding will benefit from the Canada child benefit? I will tell him: 20,820 children in his riding will have more money thanks to the Canada child benefit. It is just unbelievable that the Conservatives are voting against this measure.

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

Madam Speaker, I salute my colleague, whose company I always enjoy and for whom I have a great deal of respect and esteem.

As for our government's economic and financial record, I would remind the member that we had the best record in the G7. Among the strongest countries in the world, we fared the best, following the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

Like all countries around the world, we were dealing with major challenges, and yet, in terms of economic recovery, job creation, and balancing the budget, we were the best in the G7. You have to compare apples to apples, and we were dealing with the worst financial crisis.

Also, can the member for Louis-Hébert tell us how many people in his riding earn $45,000 or less a year and will have more money in their pockets? The answer is none, because the Liberal plan does absolutely nothing—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order, please. I would remind the member that he must address his comments to the Chair.

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

Madam Speaker, can the member for Louis-Hébert tell us how many people will have more money in their pockets thanks to these new measures? People earning between $140,000 and $200,000 a year will benefit the most from these tax changes. That is the Liberals' new way of doing things.

Can the member for Louis-Hébert tell us how many children in his riding, in 20 years' time when they are working, will be paying for this government's $30-billion deficit? He promised, during the election campaign in Louis-Hébert, as did others across Canada, a $10-billion deficit. That is the Liberal reality.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent for his entertaining speech. I now have the pleasure of sitting with him on the Standing Committee on Finance.

I would like to tell him about yesterday morning's meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance where we heard from Dominic Barton, who chairs the Advisory Council on Economic Growth. We heard some very interesting things, including the fact that the so-called infrastructure development bank being considered by the Liberal government will attract about $40 billion.

We do not know where this money will come from, but it will probably be taken from the current infrastructure program. The bank will be given $40 billion in public money in order to attract $160 billion from the private sector, either from public pension funds or private equity funds. This is about privatization. The Conservatives are not necessarily against this. The NDP obviously does not support it. However, if there is one thing we agree on, it is that this was never promised during the election campaign.

I would like the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent, who is the Conservative finance critic, to comment on this very controversial idea of creating an infrastructure development bank. With people like Dominic Barton, Michael Sabia, and Mark Wiseman, this could result, sooner than later, in the privatization of public assets in Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, first, I would like to commend my colleague. What I like about him and his party is that, at least, their positions are clear and definitive. We know where they stand. They are on the left and we are on the right. That is obvious. They took quite a hit during the last election, but I commend this party for its honesty and its intellectual and political integrity. I share maybe 3% or 4% of their opinions. That is democracy. That is what makes our country so beautiful and great.

We are certainly not against private investment or the idea that private corporations contribute to Canada's development. That is why we are always saying that entrepreneurs are the backbone of the Canadian economy. They are the ones who create jobs and wealth. The government needs to do everything it can to help them.

The investment bank in question is a proposal that was made by an advisory committee. It is not a public policy. We will see what the government plans to do with that proposal. Not to make any assumptions, but we will more than likely find out where the government stands on this idea on Tuesday when we get the November 1 update.

Yesterday evening, after hearing some of the questions posed by my NDP colleague, I reread the election platform and there is no mention of this proposal.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his passionate speech.

I want to talk about jobs. The government always talks about creating jobs, but if we want to be fact and evidence-based, the data says we have fewer jobs now than when the Liberals came into government. Hundreds of thousands of people in the oil and gas sector have lost their jobs. The government had a chance to help Bombardier, but did not, and 2,000 more jobs were lost. It made a deal with Air Canada and more jobs were lost. In my riding, the infrastructure minister has not given me $12 million to create 3,000 jobs. The government has not done anything about softwood lumber, the TPP, and CETA. It goes on and on.

Maybe there is a plan that I have not seen. I know my colleague sits on the committee, so I will ask him the question. Has he seen any plan to create jobs?

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

Madam Speaker, I have great respect for my colleague. I miss her, because we were neighbours until a few weeks ago for our first year in the House, and I had the privilege of working with her. By the way, she is a very good singer, especially when she sings O Canada. The first time I met her, we were in caucus, and we sang O Canada. I was very impressed. She was behind me, so I clearly heard her.

The real problem is that the government is not a friend of the private sector, the backbone of the economy, particularly small and medium-sized businesses. The Liberal carbon tax will not be good for the economy. There will be huge compensation paid by workers, businesses, and business owners for the Canada pension plan.

Also, the Liberals are not doing what they said they would do in their electoral platform. The small business tax rate is staying at 11% instead of being reduced to 9%, as they were supposed to do, according to what they said during their campaign. Those three elements are not good for the economy and not good for creating jobs, because it is not the government that creates jobs, but the private sector with the help of the government.

Unfortunately, the government is not doing anything to help those who create jobs and wealth in Canada.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-29, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-29. I do in fact want to talk about this, because it is a budget implementation bill that follows a budget that we believe is deficient in many ways.

What I find most deplorable is that the bill, which is over 200 pages long and amends over 130 sections, was introduced Tuesday morning. The technical briefing to members of Parliament was Tuesday evening.

Here we are three days later, on a Friday, beginning to debate a bill that has not been read by 95% of the members in this House, I guarantee, and may never be read. Still, it is a very important bill, because it implements several budget provisions and leaves out many other elements that should have been in the bill.

I found it funny earlier when the parliamentary secretary talked about everything the government had done. Regarding the Canada child benefit, which is being indexed through this budget bill, I asked why the government was refusing to admit it had forgotten to index this key measure. The parliamentary secretary replied that it was not true, that the Minister of Finance had mentioned indexation before. Well, I did a bit or research. The Minister of Finance did not mention indexation at all before the parliamentary budget officer tabled a report pointing out this serious flaw. The PBO stated that if it was not indexed, the Canada child benefit would be worth less by the year 2025 than the Conservatives' former program.

Answers like this from the government regarding such important measures are really insulting. Liberals are far from perfect; however, to hear them talk, it sounds like they are the most progressive and innovative government in recent years, which is absolutely not the case.

The bill does contain elements that we cannot argue with. For example, we certainly cannot be against indexing the Canada child benefit. If it is not indexed, its value will decline over time and it will help fewer and fewer people. The bill also contains provisions to help put a price on carbon at some point in time. On this side of the House, this is something we cannot disagree with.

However, many things were left out of the bill. The Liberals promised—like we did and like the Conservatives did—to reduce the small business tax rate. Of course, the NDP was the first party to propose reducing the small business tax rate from 11% to 9%, in 2008. The Liberals maintained the first reduction to 10.5%, which had already been made, but broke their promise.

In terms of tax evasion, the bill contains provisions aimed at meeting OECD standards. Again, we cannot disagree with that, even if, frankly, the efficiency of these standards should be challenged and analyzed because it is becoming more and more apparent that they are lacking in that regard.

My colleague from Joliette had introduced a bill that questioned the tax agreement signed with Barbados. I asked some questions about that today. The Liberals opposed it, except for a single member.

These tax agreements, which are supposed to be treaties to prevent double taxation, actually make it possible to avoid paying Canadian taxes altogether. This is costing Canada billions of dollars. It is not illegal. It is legal, because Canada made it legal by signing the treaty.

When I hear the meaningless answers given by the Minister of National Revenue who does not seem to know what we are talking about when we talk about these tax agreements that are not working or these treaties that are being signed to share tax information with certain countries and that, ultimately, provide us with no information, it soon becomes quite clear that this government likes to look good, but really, it has no intention of making any changes whatsoever to the structure of our Canadian economy.

I will stop there in terms of my comments on Bill C-29 because many other members from all parties want to debate this bill.

I wish to draw the attention of the House to one issue in particular, namely the government's intention to move towards the privatization of our infrastructure. This is not a conspiracy theory. It is clearly written in black and white, and it was expressed when the budget was presented in March 2016. At that time, in March 2016, the government included the following:

New institutions could provide Canada an opportunity to improve infrastructure management across the country by working with our partners to:

Where it is in the public interest, engage public pension plans and other innovative sources of funding—such as demand management initiatives and asset recycling—to increase the long-term affordability and sustainability of infrastructure in Canada;

That was written in black and white in the federal government's budget 2016.

What do we mean by asset recycling? Asset recycling is another way of saying privatizing assets. It is basically taking money and trying to convince provinces, municipalities and the federal government to privatize the infrastructure that belongs to them. However, when we have to deal with provinces and municipalities, we entice them to privatize their assets so they can raise money to invest in other infrastructure. This is called privatization. It is black and white in budget 2016.

What do we see these days? Last week, we heard that the federal government asked Credit Suisse to study the benefit of privatizing airports. Credit Suisse has an interest in this. It is buying airports. It will advise the government on the benefit of the government privatizing public infrastructure. This is what is called asset recycling. This is one part of the infrastructure that the government intends to privatize. We are not going to ask a bank, which is in the business of buying airports, if we should or should not privatize our airports. It wants to buy them. The money the government might get will actually be part of the money it intends to put into this Canadian infrastructure bank.

Yesterday morning we heard from Mr. Martin, who is the head of the advisory council on economic growth. We learned that it was the intention of the government to find $40 billion to put in that bank, which would attract private assets, private retirement funds, which could be a caisse de dépôt et de placement, or CPP board, or whatever other funds, but also private equity firms such as BlackRock could put money into it. They will not do that out of the goodness of their hearts. They will want a return on this.

How do they get a return on infrastructure that is being used by Canadians? There are not a thousand ways to do it. There are two ways. Either we give them infrastructure to manage, so privatizing the asset itself, or we privatize a stream of revenue, basically saying the government will keep the asset, the infrastructure. The property will still belong to the federal government, but we will have tolls, or fees, or whatever that people will pay for the use of it. That income stream will go to those private investors because they will want a return.

Michael Sabia, who, if I am not mistaken, used to be the head of Bell and is now the CEO of the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, has clearly indicated that he is looking for new places to invest in order to get better returns for the Caisse than it is currently getting, since, in some cases, it is getting negative returns. He is therefore looking to make these investments profitable.

We are talking here about pension funds. Some may say that this is not a bad thing because, if those funds get better returns, it will give people more financial security. However, it is not just pension funds. If we open this door, this will also apply to private investment funds and large private investment firms, such as BlackRock.

Do we want to put the ownership of all of our infrastructure—our bridges, our roads and our transit infrastructure—in the hands of investment or pension funds, so that those funds can make money from them by charging users additional fees? The Liberals never mentioned this approach during the election campaign.

On the contrary, the only time we heard anything about tolls during the election campaign was when the Liberals, following our example, claimed to be opposed to a toll on the new Champlain Bridge. For the rest, there was no mention of privatization, no mention of this infrastructure bank that could generate private investments of up to 80%. I cannot find the words to express how shocked I am at the cynicism of a government that is going in this direction, when it claimed it wanted to help the middle class and keep its promises, but failed to tell Canadians about this plan during the election campaign.

The privatization of airports to get money to allow us to privatize other infrastructure strikes me as a significant restructuring of the Canadian economy, and as such it should have been a major part of the Liberals' election platform, but it was not.

This is not a conspiracy theory. I can back everything I am saying with accounts from Dominic Barton or by citing budget 2016. I would like to say a few words about three of the members of the Advisory Council on Economic Growth that the Prime Minister was talking about.

Dominic Barton, who was appointed chair of the advisory council, has spent his life with the McKinsey group identifying ways to mobilize private capital in exchange for public capital investments. He has spent the better part of the past 10 years promoting the privatization of infrastructure. For his part, Michael Sabia, from Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, clearly wants to diversify his income and investments through Canadian infrastructure. Mark Wiseman, formerly of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, is now at BlackRock, one of the largest private investment firms in the world, and he too is on this advisory council.

There is no doubt that these people are going to recommend privatization.

It is very obvious. They will recommend that we create this Canadian infrastructure bank and provide $40 billion, and we do not know if it is going to be out of the $60 billion promised to cities or if it will be from the privatization of those other assets, in the hope of getting $150 billion or $160 billion of private investments. For those people who have an interest in doing this, like Credit Suisse, which has an interest in airports being privatized, I would be very surprised if their recommendation is otherwise. Dominic Barton was very clear on that yesterday morning. He does not see any problem with this.

We can hold a debate on privatization and we know what side the Conservatives will take. They are generally in favour of it. In fact, their finance critic already projected that in his response. We also already know what side we are going to take: a public asset should never be handed over for the purposes of privatization.

Recent studies by the OECD, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank clearly show that the privatization of public infrastructure assets did not produce positive results, not for the users, nor for the infrastructure itself.

The Conservatives' position is clear and so is ours. It is the Liberals' position that I do not understand. During the election campaign, they never mentioned that this infrastructure bank that was set up would be used largely for privatization. When Canadians heard the Liberals talk about their infrastructure plan, they expected the money would come from the government. They expected the infrastructure plan to be paid for out of the Liberals' deficit, which was supposed to be $10 billion and is now $35 billion, but that is a topic for another debate. It was never a question of privatizing our Canadian infrastructure.

We are at a crossroads. That is not the purpose of Bill C-29, which is one component of the Liberal government's economic agenda. It is one of the things that will come out ahead of the Minister of Finance's economic and fiscal update.

Will there be anything in the update about privatization, asset recycling and the Canada infrastructure bank? That is what we are going to find out on November 1.

I am wondering what will take place during this economic and fiscal update. Will he be talking about privatization? Will the minister be talking about asset recycling? Will he be talking about the Canadian infrastructure bank? We will see.

However, we also know that on November 14, there will be a meeting in Toronto with retirement fund and private equity investors who will actually be very happy. Obviously, Mr. Barton will be there, as well as other members of that advisory council on economic growth.

What do members think they will be talking about?

They will be talking about what we can do to improve infrastructure. Obviously, the fact that the government has neglected this for so long, the fact that we have reduced the fiscal capacity of the government to fix these projects, to improve them, to enlarge them, will not be part of it. We are not going to be talking about the $10 billion to $20 billion annually that we have lost through the reduction of the corporate income tax, since 2000, and the GST, as well. That money reduced, eliminated, the fiscal capacity of the government to invest in infrastructure over the last 15 years.

Now we are at the point where there is an infrastructure deficit in the country. It is largely due to the fact that the government has decided to shackle itself, has refused to invest in that infrastructure, preferring, instead, corporate income tax reductions that were supposed to promote private investment and promote real investment.

I can tell members we lost all that capacity to invest in our infrastructure without bringing a spurt of growth in real investment. For whatever reason, the private sector is still shy to invest all that money it received from the federal government in tax reductions.

There is no mention of how the federal governments, Liberal and Conservative, which have succeeded each other for the last 15 years, are responsible for the current situation we are in. We have the reputation, in the NDP, of not knowing how to manage money. We are over $650 billion in debt, without a single year of the NDP governing in this country. If we look at the record of the NDP provincially, in terms of fiscal management, it is very good.

However, we cannot say that the NDP has caused the problems that we have right now. We cannot say that the NDP is responsible for the infrastructure deficit that this country is experiencing. We cannot say that the NDP is responsible for the lack of ability of the federal government to invest in the needed infrastructure, and we certainly cannot say that the NDP is responsible for the fact that the Liberals, right now, are looking at the possibility of privatizing our public assets without having said a word to that effect to Canadians.

Members can be sure that we will be watching. Members can be sure that we will be making certain that Canadians know what is going on here. We will be watching very carefully what happens with the fiscal and economic update, because the direction the Liberals want to take us to fix the infrastructure problem is a solution that will be unacceptable to the majority of Canadians. We will ensure the NDP will be there with them to fight it.

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

Madam Speaker, I just heard the member opposite say that the NDP is not responsible for anything. I guess that is why, sometimes, you are characterized as being irresponsible. But we will leave the words—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

If the member could stop using the word “you”, it will be a lot easier.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member opposite who talked about this proposed idea to think about what an infrastructure bank might look like. I would like to hear his comments on some ideas that we have pursued, certainly I did as a city councillor in Toronto, around public-private partnerships, around the rehabilitation and delivery of public housing to people in need.

One of the partnerships we established was between hotel workers and their pension fund, a housing program, and a private developer to deliver a co-op with 45 units of housing. We have additionally worked with pension funds to revitalize neighbourhoods, to deliver almost 800 units of housing, including employment programs for young people to get into the skilled trades and enrol them in good unionized jobs as part of the process.

Would the member opposite not acknowledge that using pension funds to extend infrastructure spends, rather than replace, sometimes provides us with the additional capacity to deliver not only more social programs and more capacity in our social programs but also jobs, by using pension funds to hire people rather than simply just making investments?

Could he not see a possibility that the House would recognize that engaging pension funds to extend the infrastructure spend might actually get more infrastructure built rather than less?

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

Madam Speaker, the member shared an example about social housing in his city, which he knows so well.

In response to that one example, I can give 10 examples of public-private partnership programs that were dismal failures. Should I start with CHUM, the Université de Montréal hospital? Should I start with an example that will cost Quebec's treasury billions of dollars even though it was an outrageous waste and shameless mismanagement on the part of successive governments, which failed to keep things under control, and absolutely irresponsible investors? No.

The member failed to ask one basic question. This is not just about pension plans. This is also about private investment funds. This is about how BlackRock has more money than the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, money it can use to not only invest in infrastructure, but also acquire their very sources of revenue. We are opening up not only pension plans but private investment funds too.

There is no comparing a small-scale social housing program from Toronto to the impact this will have on the Canadian economy and the future of our infrastructure. They are just not in the same league.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague, our critic for finance, for his great work in making sure that people understand what the bill proposes.

In my riding of Courtenay—Alberni and certainly right in Alberni Valley, one-third of the children are living in poverty. I will just give the House some quick stats on what that looks like. Children in care were 281% above the provincial average in B.C.; teenage pregnancy, 371% above the provincial average in B.C.; and the percentage of children under 15 receiving income assistance is 274% above the provincial average.

When we look at the legislation and we talk about the child tax benefits that the Liberals always talk about and how important they are to lifting children out of poverty, we know these are not just percentages; these are real children who need help. I would like the member to talk a little about the impact of the Canada child tax benefit and how it is not being indexed and the impact that might have in tackling child poverty.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for a good question. It will be indexed in this budget implementation act. It was just not supposed to be before the parliamentary budget officer told the government that with the lack of indexation, there would be less money in 2025 for most of those families, most of those kids, than there was under the Conservative government.

When I raised that issue, the parliamentary secretary told me it is not true and that the Minister of Finance actually said it would be indexed. No, he never said it until the parliamentary budget officer presented a public report on this.

It was clear that the child benefit that the Liberals put in place would actually, initially, provide more money, but they were well content to let that money lapse slowly until it was brought forth publicly by the parliamentary budget officer. I thank the PBO and his office for their work in raising that important question and ensuring the children in my colleague's riding, in my riding, and everyone in the country would be able to count on that indexation past 2020 and further.

Let us remember the lack of indexation would ensure that there would be less money gradually over the next four years to the point where, in 2020, when it starts being indexed, a family of three earning $30,000 with a child would have a mere $500 more than they would have had under the Conservatives. That means about $500 a year more than they would have had under the Conservatives. It is not much and I am glad that the Liberals are correcting this mistake. They should have admitted they made a mistake in the first place.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a quick question.

I always like hearing what the member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques has to say. We often hear the official opposition oppose things, and we know that the member rarely opposes the same things.

In the interest of finding common ground, can the member tell us what he likes about this bill?

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

Madam Speaker, there will be things that we can agree on. Obviously, no budget gets everything right or everything wrong, but I am not going to spend my time praising the Liberal government. I am sure the Liberals are quite capable of that.

I am here as one of the few and probably the first to ask where the government is headed and to raise the important issue of the privatization of Canadian infrastructure. The government will not be raising the issue, and neither will its advisory council on economic growth, which is not calling it privatization, but asset recycling.

He spoke of leveraging private capital with public capital. There is no word on privatization, but this is the meaning of privatization. This is exactly where it is going.

If we can no longer voice outrage in the House over such a critical issue, what are we doing here?

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

Madam Speaker, I was really glad to hear my colleague's speech and comments today, which really underlined the fact that the Liberals are still very much marching to the same tune that was started by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s, the ideology of neo-liberalism.

The problem with asset recycling and privatization is that the public gets to accept all of the risk, and all of the reward goes to the corporations. What is often not talked about in this place is that corporations get to enjoy the public infrastructure assets that taxpayer dollars built for them. It allows them to conduct their businesses through the roads, bridges, and airports that our tax dollars have funded, and they are not paying their fair share. When corporations do not pay their fair share, the costs get downloaded onto the everyday population. We have seen privatization schemes blow up in Canada and around the world. In B.C., the B.C. ferries were privatized and the costs keep going up. If we look at what New Zealand did when it privatized its railways and ferries, it then had to buy them back because it was one of the biggest disasters it has ever had.

Therefore, I would again like to hear my hon. colleague's comments on the dangers of going down this route, and why we should be looking at alternatives.

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

Madam Speaker, when my colleague was asking the question, I was looking at the members on the other side, who were rolling their eyes when he talked about Thatcher and Reagan.

Yesterday, when I was listening to Robert Martin at committee, he was talking to the Conservative members, and one of them actually said that this should have been a Conservative measure. They will agree with this. They will agree with getting this infrastructure bank and the leveraging of private assets with public assets. If the Conservatives are in agreement with this, I think it should raise questions for many of the members of the government who call themselves progressive as to where their government is going, because it is going in the direction of Thatcher and Reagan.

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

Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise today to comment on this budget implementation act.

Canada is a country built upon optimism, often in the face of seemingly insurmountable challenges. However, this promise of a better life has been eroding in recent decades. The reality is that many middle-class Canadians have had their confidence shaken. While our economy continues to grow, middle-class Canadians are struggling. Many Canadians are working harder and longer as the cost of living continues to rise. Middle-class Canadians just do not feel as though they are getting ahead.

It is time to recapture the hope and optimism for the future that existed in previous generations. We must embrace the spirit of those early founders and build upon their legacy by providing the same opportunities for advancement and mobility they once unlocked. We already possess the keys to this future.

Canadians are among the most highly educated people in the world, ranking among the top of all members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. More than half of Canadians have a post-secondary degree. We are world-renowned for scientific research and discovery, and can often be found on the cutting edge of the clean technologies emerging right now on the world stage. We have abundant natural resources, outmatched only by the resourcefulness and diversity of our people.

With interest rates at record lows, now is the time to make the investments that will invigorate the heart of our Canadian economy, our middle class and those working hard to join it.

This is no small undertaking. The challenges this budget identified cannot be solved in one year, but we can and must take the next steps that will focus on growing the economy for the long term, in ways that will benefit every Canadian. The legislation we are debating today, budget implementation act, 2016, No. 2 will complete the measures we introduced in budget 2016.

This is a budget that offers a fresh boost to the core of Canada's economy, Canada's middle class. The bill we are debating today will build a strong economy for Canada, and it will give the middle class and those working hard to join it more money in their pockets to save, invest, and grow the economy.

This bill includes measures that build on Canada's economic and fiscal strength. It offers help for the middle class. It includes measures that protect consumers. It ensures tax fairness and integrity.

I would also like to discuss Canada's economic and fiscal strength. As I mentioned, many middle class and other Canadians are working harder but not getting ahead. There is a growing consensus in Canada and globally that governments need to invest, not only to boost economic growth in the short term but also to set the stage for long-term growth as well.

Canada has the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio of any G7 country, and interest rates are at historic lows. Now is the ideal time for Canada to invest in its future success.

I also want to talk about what this budget does to help the middle class. Obviously we can all agree, I would hope, that a strong economy starts with a strong middle class. When middle-class Canadians have more money to save, to invest, and to spend, 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 kids and grandchildren. When we have an economy that works for the middle class, we have a country that works for everyone. We must do for our kids and grandkids what our parents and grandparents did for us.

Also important when it comes to growing the middle class is making sure that we help young Canadians succeed. Budget 2016 makes post-secondary education more affordable for students from low and middle-income families and will make it easier for students to repay student debt. It will also help young Canadians gain the much-needed experience and income they need, and to be in a position to find good jobs after graduation.

Now more than ever, it is important that post-secondary education remains affordable and accessible. Young Canadians must have access to meaningful work at the beginning of their careers and must not be burdened by increasing student debt. Budget 2016 will address these concerns.

Budget 2016 also improves the employment insurance regime. Canada's employment insurance program provides economic security to Canadians when they need it most. Whatever the circumstances, no Canadian should struggle to get the assistance they need. To make sure that Canadians get the help when they need it, several changes are being proposed to the EI system. Changes to eligibility rules will make it easier for new workers and those re-entering the workforce to claim benefits. The waiting period will also be reduced from two weeks to one week, providing unemployed workers with hundreds of dollars more at the time they need it most.

Budget 2016 will also improve the quality of life of seniors. The government, through budget 2016, will make significant new investments to support seniors in their retirement years. Increased benefits will ensure that Canadian seniors have a dignified, comfortable, and secure retirement.

Budget 2016 also has measures to support Canada's veterans. The Government of Canada has a social covenant with veterans and their families. It is a sacred obligation that we must meet with respect and gratitude. Our veterans have dedicated their lives to the defence of our country and they deserve our unwavering support, as I am sure all members of the House agree.

The government will give back to veterans who have given so much in service to all Canadians. Canada will restore critical access to services for veterans and ensure the long-term financial security of disabled veterans. Canada's veterans will receive more local, in-person government services, as well as better access to case managers. Our veterans deserve nothing less.

Budget 2016 also includes many measures to help protect consumers. Canadians deserve financial consumer protection in banking that keeps pace with their needs. In line with this, budget 2016 contains plans to strengthen and modernize the financial consumer protection framework, by proposing to amend the Bank Act.

Canada's financial sector was resilient enough to weather the 2008 financial crisis, and we are seeking to build on this strength. We want to make sure that the financial sector is able to adapt to new trends, including emerging financial innovation and technologies. What this legislation proposes to do is consolidate and streamline existing consumer provisions into one new chapter of the Bank Act, and to introduce amendments to the Bank Act to enhance consumer protection in the areas of access to basic banking services, business practices, disclosure, complaint handling, as well as corporate governance and complaints and accountability.

The federal government is exercising leadership by taking targeted steps to strengthen financial consumer protection. This includes measures to improve access to basic banking services, impose certain limits on business practices, and enhance disclosure to facilitate and inform the decisions being made by consumers. These reforms reaffirm our government's intent to have a system of exclusive rules for consumer protection to ensure an efficient national banking system from coast to coast to coast.

The budget also does much to ensure tax fairness and integrity. A fundamental Canadian value is one of fairness. This is why the Government of Canada is committed to a plan of action to combat international tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance that strengthens existing efforts at home and abroad and includes new measures.

Under the common reporting standard, Canadian financial institutions will be expected to have procedures in place to identify accounts held by non-residents, and to report information on those accounts to the Canada Revenue Agency. Tax administration in foreign jurisdictions will likewise collect information from their financial institutions about accounts held by residents of other countries, including Canada. The CRA will formalize exchange arrangements with foreign jurisdictions, having verified that each jurisdiction has the appropriate capacity and safeguards in place. Then the financial account information will begin to be exchanged on a reciprocal bilateral basis. The introduction of the common reporting standard is an important global development, which will help to enhance tax compliance and eliminate the opportunities for tax evasion.

In addition to this new legislative tool, budget 2016 also announced $444 million in new resources for the Canada Revenue Agency to address tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance.

Going forward, Canada will continue to work with the international community to ensure a coherent and consistent response to tax avoidance.

Budget 2016 and the budget implementation legislation are an important step, not only in the life of this government, but in growing Canada's economy, preparing the Canadian economy for the future. To do this, Canadians know that our government must invest in infrastructure and innovation, but, most importantly, invest in Canadians.

During the campaign, all of us were successful in being elected. Our success was due in part to listening to the voters in our own ridings; otherwise none of us, whatever side of the aisle we happen to be on, would be in the chamber today. We listened to Canadians. I certainly did.

In my riding of Newmarket—Aurora there was concern with what was happening. There was concern about whether or not people's children and grandchildren would have the same opportunities that we had. The budget clearly addresses many of those concerns.

Let us look for a minute at the Canada child benefit, which is an important social policy and also an important economic policy. There are nine out of ten Canadian families who are now receiving more through this child benefit than they were receiving previously. The effect that this has, among other things, is that 300,000 young Canadians will be lifted out of poverty. That is 300,000 young people with more hope for the future. That is 300,000 young people who can participate more fully in the lives of their communities. That is 300,000 more people who can participate in the opportunity that Canada offers to all of our young people. This is important, and it should not be overlooked.

There are people in my riding to this day who stop me and thank me for our government having taken this measure. I am fortunate to live in a riding that is relatively affluent, but, even among that affluence, there are pockets of need and pockets of want.

A few weeks ago, I was honoured to attend the opening of the Newmarket Food Pantry in my riding, and I was speaking with the executives and the great volunteers of that organization. They told me that even though it is located in the community of Newmarket, which has so much wealth and prosperity, more people use the Newmarket Food Pantry every month. The need continues to grow. None of us want that trend to continue. This is just one example of where some Canadians were feeling left out and left behind.

I was fortunate at that Newmarket Food Pantry to be asked to say a few words. I was a little overwhelmed by many of the clients at the food pantry. These are hard-working Canadians. These are Canadians who struggle. Many of them are single parents, many are single moms. I do not think anyone would not sympathize with people in this situation. The Canada child benefit helps the exact people that it is intended to help.

As I said, someone asked me to say a few words. I said that I would love to be around on the day that instead of celebrating the opening of the new expanded food pantry, we are celebrating the closing of the doors of the food pantry, not only in Newmarket, but in all of our communities, all food banks. Until that time, it is great to have volunteers and the great people who run these facilities. However, it would be much better to not need these facilities at all. I know everyone in the House agrees with that sentiment.

That is why the Canada child benefit is so important. It helps people who need it most. I can think of nothing more Canadian than that, and that is one facet of the budget that I am very proud of. We see it every day. However, the budget is just the first step in our plan. Of course, there is much more work to be done.

The other facet I am very eager about is the investment in infrastructure. The municipalities in my riding are growing very quickly, and they cannot keep up with the population surge. There is a gap in infrastructure needs, not only highways and sewers and waste water, but even things such as broadband. We have many small and medium enterprises, but even though we are half an hour or 45 minutes north of Toronto, we have issues with connectivity. That needs to be addressed, in all regions of the country. If we want to be part of the technological economy of the future, we have to make sure we invest now. There is also the infrastructure such as highways, transportation, sewage, and waste water, or any of these great infrastructure investments. Budget 2016 realizes that. There is much work to be done.

In the few minutes I have left, I want to discuss why this is a good time to invest. As I mentioned earlier, interest rates are at an all-time low. This is the time to borrow money, but it is not a time to spend recklessly. The borrowed money must be invested prudently, and it must be invested with the view to a return on that investment.

Many Canadians borrow money. Most Canadians borrow money to buy a house, a car. These are necessities. Therefore, taking on debt for important investments and expenses and the fundamental essentials of life is a prudent way of running one's household finances. The same applies to government.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with borrowing money to invest in important projects that are needed by Canadians and that are needed by the Canadian economy, especially when those investments will yield a return in the future. That is what a responsible government ought to do, and I am proud to be part of a government that is going to do just that. Investing now to build future prosperity for Canadians is something we should all be very proud of, and I know I certainly am.

Budget 2016 represents a strong first step in our plan to put people first and to deliver the help they need now while investing for the years and decades to come. With these investments, and inspired by a sense of fairness, we are ensuring that Canada's best days lie ahead. I therefore encourage all members in the House to support the bill.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member made a comment in his speech, saying that it is our responsibility as members of Parliament—the very fact that we are here actually attests to this, he said—to listen to our constituents. I think he makes a very good point and I would agree with him.

My question for the hon. member is this. In listening to his constituents, which of his constituents told him that they would like a carbon tax or a tax on everything, and which of his constituents said they would like a decrease in the amount of child benefits that low-income families take home each and every month?

I would also like to know which of his constituents said they would like a decrease in job numbers. In fact, the PBO just released a report the other day, saying that half the average rate of job creation of the previous five years is what Canada faces right now. Coincidentally, in those previous five years, of course, the Conservatives were in power.

As well, I would like to know which of his constituents want a $34-billion debt load added to our country. The hon. member could perhaps help me in understanding which of his constituents are advocating for this.

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

Madam Speaker, I can tell the member what my constituents told me. They told me they want our economy to grow. They told me that they have just lived through 10 years of the slowest economic growth, and deficits, and what they want is growth. They want hope for the future. That is what they want, and that is why I am so happy to be speaking about this budget today. We will deliver exactly what the great people of Newmarket—Aurora wanted when they voted for me, and I am happy to deliver on those promises.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened to the speech of the hon. member, and I was nonplussed by his arguments.

How stupid would a household, the government, or the private sector be not to borrow, like the government actually could right now, to fund infrastructure at 2.5%, instead of borrowing private assets and asking for a rate of return of 5%, 6%, 8%? It does not make sense.

I will note that the member was silent on my previous point that demonstrated his government is asking Credit Suisse to advise the government on privatizing airports when they actually have an interest in buying our airports. How is that not a conflict of interest? How is it not a conflict of interest that the people advising the Prime Minister, like Dominic Barton, like Michael Sabia, like Mark Wiseman, have an interest in the revenue stream of that infrastructure? They will be advising the government on this.

Why is the comparison of the borrowing of a household coming into play when we are seeing the potential impacts on the Canadian economy being played out this way?

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

Madam Speaker, that is a good question and I thank my hon. colleague for it.

The issue is that if we are going to borrow, we should invest it properly. I do not share the same fear of corporate involvement that my friends in the NDP do. If it makes more efficient sense to borrow money and be able to leverage that borrowed money with help from the private sector, then that is worthy of examination. We are open to any ideas or suggestions that any member of the House of Commons may make.

The best thing for us to do as Canadians, and as a Canadian government, is to listen and consider all options as to how best to leverage taxpayer money, how best to get results for Canadians, and how best to grow the Canadian economy. I am proud that our government is doing precisely that.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries]

Madam Speaker, personally, when I look at the investments and commitments made by our government over the past year, I feel compelled to describe just how much this has been a boon for my riding and for Canadians.

I will cite a few examples. The retirement age has gone from 67 to 65. We increased the guaranteed income supplement for people living alone. We made changes to employment insurance, which is very important in my region. The reform of employment insurance by the former Conservative government hit us very hard.

We invested in infrastructure and universities and colleges. We lowered taxes. We helped first nations. We made investments in fisheries, ports, and small vessels. These are just a few examples of what we did. I am surprised that the opposition is opposed to these measures.

The program that is closest to my heart is the Canada child benefit. According to some statistics, it will help over 112,000 children in New Brunswick alone. I would like my colleague to tell us more about this program, which I feel is essential for lifting many children out of poverty, and for him to explain what the Canada child benefit is all about.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Acadie—Bathurst for that question. I know how hard he works for the great people of his riding and how much they respect the work he is doing. He works very hard in our caucus and indeed in all his duties in the House, and I thank him for his tremendous efforts in that regard.

The Canada child benefit is the single most profound measure in budget 2016. It has helped people in my riding, as I alluded to. I am sure, as the member for Acadie—Bathurst just said, it is helping people in his riding. It is lifting thousands of children out of poverty.

Whatever components of the budget one may or may not agree with, I think we should all agree that this outcome is a positive step for Canadians. That outcome is a positive step for Canada, and that outcome is something we should all take great and tremendous pride in.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, it has been all about the child benefit. It is very important to point out that the child benefit, the extra money the government is giving Canadians, is about $1 billion a year and is gradually going to come down towards 2020. It equals about $27.77 per capita. That is something that has to be known by the public, because all this bragging about the child benefit is not true and is not growing the economy.

The labour market report by the parliamentary budget officer says that job creation is half the average job creation compared to the past five years. Compared to the past five years of the previous Conservative government, the current government is creating only half, and that will be the trend until 2019.

Are the Liberals going to stop talking about the child benefit that is giving Canadians nothing and start talking about job creation?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Edmonton Manning for his question. I know how hard he works for the people of his community.

It will not surprise this House to hear that I do not necessarily agree with the premise of the member's question. First, he referred to the Canada child benefit as doing nothing. I have met people who rely on that child benefit to buy groceries every month. Does that member want to tell those people that this child benefit is doing nothing for them? I do not think he does.

On the point of job growth and labour-market growth, that is precisely why we have to continue investing. We have to continue the steps we are taking to make sure we grow the economy. Canada's economic growth is slow right now. We need to prime the pump. That is exactly what budget 2016 would do.

I want to thank the member for Edmonton Manning for pointing out how important the measures in this budget are for all of Canada.

[Georgina Jolibois, NDP, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, I was just listening and heard about the benefit of the child benefit for families. Yet in my riding, I have single dads and single moms coming forward who have been cut because of the new plan. How can I explain it to them? I need an answer from the Liberals.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her question and for raising the concerns of her constituents in this House, which of course is our principal role as members of Parliament.

I am obviously not familiar with the particulars of those incidents, but my understanding is that there are more Canadians, nine out of 10 families, receiving child benefit payments under the new plan. Three hundred thousand Canadians have been lifted out of poverty. I am willing to work with the member and get my government colleagues to work with her to help if there are special cases that need addressing in her riding to make sure that every Canadian gets the benefits that she or he is entitled to.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Thank you very much.

First of all, I am not going to create the deficit. I would just encourage members not to use the word “you” in the House. It would be so much easier.

The member will have about two minutes left for her speech the next time this is before the House, plus her questions and answers.

It being 1:30 p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business, as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from October 28 consideration of the motion that Bill C-29, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

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

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise to speak to the second part of the government's budget implementation bill, Bill C-29. This second budget bill contains the technical legislative amendments that would make budget 2016 law.

I could get into great detail about these technical amendments. It is an area that has been of particular interest to me as a trained economist, someone who sat on the Canadian Accounting Standards Board's user advisory council for many years and someone who understands the importance of a strong banking system with relevant proper oversight.

Prior to being elected to Parliament, I had more than two decades of experience in the global financial markets, first in New York City working for J.P. Morgan for nearly a decade in corporate finance; then in Canada where I was employed by Dominion Bond Rating Service with the responsibility of coverage of the global auto sector; and then as a corporate debt analyst for Scotiabank, with coverage of over 100 companies and where the market value of the Canadian corporate debt market stands today at $418 billion.

I can speak to specific technical elements of the bill that deal with changes of the Income Tax Act, which exclude derivatives from the application of inventory evaluation rules or ensures that the return on linked notes retains the same character, whether it is earned at maturity or reflected in a secondary market sale. I can also talk at great length about the amendments to the Bank Act to consolidate and streamline provisions that apply to a bank or to an authorized foreign bank in relation to the protection of customers in the public. However, as much as these concerns are of great interest to me and as important as they are, I know I would put many people here potentially to sleep.

While the items contained in the legislation may not be the most exciting things, I cannot stress enough the importance of getting the fundamental economic variables correct. This means ensuring that all the technical elements are there and that all the regulations and legislation are in place to help move the Canadian economy and the country forward. I am very proud of our government's commitment to Canada's economic and fiscal strength, to tax fairness, and a strong financial sector. Perhaps most of all, I am proud of our commitment to helping the middle class and those working hard to join it.

I know that a strong economy starts with a strong middle class. While Canadians have more money to save, invest, and grow the economy, everyone benefits. Strengthening the middle class means that hard-working Canadians can look forward to a good standard of living and better prospects for their kids.

However, for too long, many Canadians have been working harder than ever without getting further ahead. I am proud that our government has recognized this and is taking concrete steps to address this. Certainly the measures contained in budget 2016 were designed to set the stage for future growth.

There is a growing consensus, both in Canada and around the globe, that governments need to invest, not only to boost short-term economic growth but to set the stage for long-term growth as well. We know that when we have historically low interest rates and when the debt to GDP ratio is the lowest of any G7 country, we have the fiscal capacity and it is the perfect time to invest in infrastructure.

When talking about infrastructure, I am not talking simply about roads and bridges, which are very important. I am also talking about our social, health, and education infrastructure. Investing in infrastructure will boost Canada's productivity, strengthening our economic foundation, and put us on a higher growth path trajectory. As commented recently by Bank of Canada governor, Stephen Poloz:

In the case of a targeted investment by government which is identified in such a way that it will be growth enabling, it's very likely to pay off very well...That is, it creates more economic growth for all those that use that infrastructure and that, of course, creates tax revenues and the system keeps turning.

Those are not my words. Those are the Bank of Canada governor's words.

In my constituency of Vaughan—Woodbridge, which incidentally the city of Vaughan is celebrating its 25th anniversary this year, we have experienced unprecedented levels of growth. Vaughan is the largest employment centre in York region, accounting for 38% of jobs. With over 10,000 businesses employing more than 194,000 people, the city of Vaughan is ranked the second-best place in Ontario to do business and among the top 25 best places to live in Canada. While our community has grown, much of the federal infrastructure has not kept pace.

Since our government took over, we have seen real substantial investment in Canada's physical, green, and social infrastructure. We have doubled funding for Canada student jobs, increased funding for new horizons seniors' grants, and boosted FedDev assistance to several businesses in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge, including Cutler Forest Products. Just a few weeks ago, in my riding at the Kortright Centre, I, along with my colleague from Hamilton, announced a $4.3 million dollar FedDev grant to Mohawk College for the development of new green energy solutions, a very real and tangible example of our government's commitment to clean innovative technology.

We have a lot of young families in my constituency, which is one of the many realities that attracted my wife and I to Vaughan. We are fortunate to have two wonderful daughters and both successful careers. However, like most parents, I want to ensure that my children have brighter prospects and are afforded even greater opportunities for success than I have had.

I am proud to be part of a government that believes we must do for our kids and grandkids what our parents and grandparents did for us to give us the promise of a better future. Toward that end, budget 2016 has invested in Canadian families through the transformational program like the new Canada child benefit that provides help to those families that need it the most with the high cost of raising children.

The child benefit system we inherited from the previous Conservative government was complicated, consisting of a taxable income-tested Canada child tax benefit with two components: the base benefits and the national child benefit supplement. It was a taxable universal child care benefit received by all families, regardless of income, even millionaires. It was a system that was both inadequate, in that it did not provide families with the support they needed, and insufficiently targeted for those who needed it the most.

Under the Conservative government, for example, families with very high incomes were still receiving benefit. That is not a Canadian value. Our government's new CCB is simpler. Families will receive a single payment every month. It is tax-free, so families will not have to pay back part of that amount received when they file their tax returns.

As well, the new CCB is better targeted to those who need it the most, specifically low and middle-income Canadian families. In addition, it is a far more generous program than the one it replaces. Nine out of ten Canadians will receive higher monthly benefits, and it is estimated that the new Canada child benefit will lift approximately 300,000 children out of poverty. Further, as contained in Bill C-29, in 2020, the Canada child benefit will be indexed to keep pace with rising costs.

Let me emphasize this point on how transformational Canada child benefit is in reducing income inequality. It is estimated that the CCB will allow for a reduction in the poverty rate for children in Canada from approximately 11.2% to 6.7%, or the Canada child benefit will lift approximately 40% of those children who currently find themselves living in the very tragic situation of poverty.

I was very fortunate to go to university, something that was not a possibility for my parents who immigrated to Canada through Pier 21 from Italy in the 1950s. My parents are ingenuous and hard-working people who benefited from having union jobs with decent pay and benefits. My parents helped as much as they could. Personally, I worked summers to pay for university at a pulp mill, a grain elevator and a fish cannery, and after school, including part-time jobs at McDonald's and Zellers, to help save and ultimately pay my way through two university degrees.

The costs for post-secondary education were significantly less than they are today. Now more than ever, in this high-skill global economy, it is of paramount importance that post-secondary education remains affordable and accessible to Canadians. To compete in today's knowledge economy requires an educated and highly skilled workforce and more years of training. The cost of education, particularly professional training, has been increasing exponentially and a greater financial worry has been placed on the shoulders of students and their families.

We, as legislators, need to work to ensure that young Canadians have access to meaningful work at the beginning of their careers, which means paying for more education and training so as not to be burdened by an enormous debt load. That is why our government has put measures in budget 2016 that make post-secondary education more affordable for students from low and middle-income families, and provides provisions that make it easier for students to repay student loans once they enter the workforce. Budget 2016 also includes measures to help young Canadians gain experience, earn extra income and find good jobs after graduation.

This government knows that the road map to a better future lies in recognizing the needs of all Canadians, to our children, families, workers and our most vulnerable populations, including our seniors.

Our seniors built our country. I believe very strongly that we have a responsibility to assist those in their golden years live with dignity and a secure retirement, and treat them as valued members of our national community. It is another reason I am proud of our government's initiatives in budget 2016. By rolling back the retirement age from 67 to 65, which placed $13,000 into the hands of new retirees over that two-year period, increasing benefits to the guaranteed income supplement by nearly $1 billion, which will help nearly one million seniors, including three-quarters of whom are women, improving in the GIS for single seniors, and making significant new investments to support seniors, budget 2016 is helping to ensure our seniors have a dignified, comfortable, and secure retirement.

Bill C-29 proposes to amend the Old Age Security Act to provide that in the case of low-income couples that have to live apart for reasons not attributable to either of them, such as illness, and, for example, one spouse being in a nursing home and the other staying at their primary residence, the amount of the allowance is to be based on the income of the allowance recipient only. This proposed amendment ensures seniors are not unfairly penalized due to a situation they have no control over.

Making our most vulnerable populations a priority shows this government's vision in working toward a smart, ethically responsible, and fair society.

However, fair-mindedness has always guided our government. As a matter of fairness, our government is looking to crack down on tax evasion and underground economic activity, aiming to close corporate loopholes which threaten hard-working Canadians. I am proud to say that budget 2016 has invested approximately $444 million over five years for the CRA to enhance its efforts to crack down on tax evasion and combat tax avoidance.

In fact, I am proud to state that I introduced the motion to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance, calling for an investigation into offshore tax havens. I am very pleased with timely and decisive actions taken by our government to present tax evasions and aggressive tax avoidance, both at home and abroad.

The Government of Canada will continue to address unintended tax advantages, including limiting the ability of wealthy individuals to use private corporations to inappropriately reduce or defer tax.

Bill C-29 would amend the anti-avoidance rules in the Income Tax Act that prevents a multiplication of access to the small business deduction and the avoidance of the business limit and the taxable capital limit. In addition, through Bill C-29, to improve transparency and adhere to international standards, we will implement the country-by-country reporting standards, as recommended by the OECD, for corporations with operations in various geographies. In addition, we will introduce rules to prevent the avoidance of withholding tax or rents, royalties, and similar payments, using back-to-back arrangements.

There is still work to be done, but our initial efforts have improved the fairness and integrity of Canada's tax system, as well will contribute to fiscal sustainability.

We continue to work in the best interests of all Canadians to ensure they have confidence in our tax system, that no one unfairly subsidizes our tax system.

Having worked on Wall Street and in the Canadian banking sector, I can say first-hand that Canada has world-renowned and one of the most stable financial banking sectors. We were one of the only nations whose banks were left intact and came out unscathed from the 2008 global financial crisis.

However, our financial sector did not become world-renowned by accident, and it will not stay that way without continued maintenance and oversight by Canada's regulatory institutions, primarily, through the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions.

I had a first-hand view of the global financial crisis. The regulations that govern our financial institutions, including strong lending practices and solid levels of tier 1 capital held by the banks, along with the role of CMHC and OSFI, allowed Canada to exit the global financial crisis in a stellar manner. Part 4 of Bill C-29 would strengthen the framework regulating financial institutions, while balancing the need for stability and competition with the needs of consumers and businesses.

Our government makes it clear that the shareholders and creditors of Canada's largest banks are responsible for their bank's risk, not taxpayers, not depositors. Canadians will not be stuck with the tab in the event of an economic shock. The changes proposed in the Bank Act reflect enhancements in the areas of corporate governance, access to basic banking services, disclosure of information, business practices, and public reporting.

The same section would amend the Financial Administration Act, the Bank of Canada Act, and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act to clarify certain powers of the Minister of Finance in relation to sound and efficient management of federal funds in the operational crown corporations.

It would amend the Financial Administration Act to allow the minister to lend, by way of auction, excess funds out of the consolidated revenue fund and, with the authorization of the Governor in Council, may enter into contracts and agreements of a financial nature for the purposes of managing risks relating to the financial position of the Government of Canada.

Also contained in part 4 are amendments to the Bank of Canada Act that would allow the Minister of Finance to delegate to the bank the management of the lending of money to agent corporations. Again, Bill C-29, the second part of the budget implementation bill, puts in place measures that would safeguard and strengthen Canada's world-renowned financial institutions. The Government of Canada will balance the need for stability and competition with the needs of consumers and businesses.

Budget 2016 would not only strengthen the financial institutions, it would strengthen our social institutions and our country's social safety net. Canada's employment insurance program provides economic security to Canadians when they need it most. That is why Bill C-29 contains several changes to the current employment insurance system. These changes to the eligibility rules would make it easier for new workers and those re-entering the workforce to claim benefits.

In addition to the changes in eligibility rules, the waiting period to receive unemployment insurance would also be reduced from two weeks to one week. These measures would provide unemployed workers with hundreds of dollars more, when they need it most.

I am proud of our government's efforts to extend employment insurance benefits in regions that have been severely impacted by the collapse in the price of oil and other commodities. In budget 2016, we promised those impacted by the cyclical downturn in commodity prices assistance. We will deliver with an approximately $2.5-billion investment in employment insurance over the next two fiscal years.

Make no mistake, we all want Canadians working. We all want Canadians earning a good living, with decent wages and good benefits, but in those times when Canadians are laid off, the Government of Canada will be standing there with them to make sure that they are able to stand on their own two feet and get back to work as soon as possible.

Division 6 of part 4 of the act, which amends the Royal Canadian Mint Act, would remove the requirement that the directors of the mint have experience in respect of metal fabrication or production, industrial relations, or a related field. This amendment to the Royal Canadian Mint Act would allow the government to draw on a greater pool of candidates with diverse experiences.

As I wind down my comments I would like to say a few words about a very important group of our society, our veterans. In November, we wear poppies as a symbol to remember the sacrifices made by Canadian veterans. The Government of Canada has a social covenant with all veterans and their families, a sacred obligation we must meet with respect and gratitude. In the past, all too often that covenant has unfortunately been breached.

Canada's veterans have dedicated their lives to the defence of this nation and they deserve our unwavering support. Bill C-29 would give back to veterans who have given so much in the service to all Canadians, by restoring critical access to services and ensuring the long-term financial security that disabled veterans so deserve. Provisions in this bill would mean that Canada's veterans would receive more local, in-person government services, as well as better access to case managers.

In closing, I would like to say how privileged I am, and what an honour it is to represent and serve the residents of the riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge, and how happy I am to have been able to speak on second reading on Bill C-29, the budget implementation act.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am just wondering about something. During the election, the Liberals never suggested that they would invest in Canadian infrastructure by privatization.

I noticed that the bill has some fancy words in it, like “asset recycling” and “flywheel for investment”. Could the member tell us what the government means by that? Is it for privatization or not?

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

Madam Speaker, when I say our platform commitment was to invest $120 billion over the phase one and phase two periods in infrastructure across Canada, I believe that is the right process for us to follow. We are in a period of low interest rates and we need to invest in infrastructure to enable our economy to improve productivity and to put it on a path of a higher long-term growth trajectory.

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

Madam Speaker, I admire the hon. member's sincerity, specifically the pride he shows not only in his area but his country, something we all could benefit from.

There are comprehensive common reporting standards in this budget implementation act. It is a one-size-fits-all program that was put in place by Ottawa to meet its OECD commitments. It really discriminates against small credit unions throughout this country and has caused a fair bit of grief, particularly as we already have similar American regulations to deal with, known as FATCA.

My question is this. Does the member support these common reporting standards as they are or does he believe, like many credit unions, that they do need to be changed taking into account the different structures of credit unions in this country?

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

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the question from my hon. member, who is an individual I have interacted with greatly in the House.

After the financial crisis in 2008, the world moved to common reporting standards for financial institutions globally across the board. What we are adopting in Bill C-29 are common reporting standards that all OECD countries have incorporated. If there are situations that present themselves where there is an anomaly, then those situations may be worth looking into. However, at the same time we need to ensure we have strong, stable financial systems and institutions that Canadians can have faith in, and that can lend to borrowers, to creditors, and to people wanting to buy a home while remaining sound.

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

Madam Speaker, in his speech the member referred to his experience in the banking sector and the strength of our rules and regulations over the last while. Could the member tell us a little about the impacts of weaker regulatory structures in other countries throughout the financial crisis in the last decade?

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

Madam Speaker, if we look at the experience of the financial crisis, where regulatory structures were insufficient to deal with the complexity of products that were being sold in the market, and where legislation dealing with subprime mortgages allowed for no verification of income and jobs when lending by certain institutions globally, we ended up with very bad and tragic results. We entered into a financial crisis not seen since the Great Depression. However, that was not the case in Canada. We had a robust regulatory system for our banks and financial institutions, and lending practices that were prudent. Therefore, our banks came out of the financial crisis unscathed. We cannot say that for many of the global banks both in the United States and Europe.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, during the election campaign the Liberals promised to reduce the small business tax from 11% to 9%. This is not found in Bill C-29, which is a budget implementation bill.

When will this measure be introduced, and why is it not in Bill C-29?

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

Madam Speaker, small and medium-sized businesses are the backbone of our economy. Yesterday morning, I met a lot of local business owners at a health and wellness expo in Vaughan—Woodbridge. I know these small and medium-sized businesses. Most, if not all, of the entrepreneurs put their heart and passion into running their businesses. It is something I am concerned about, and I want to make sure that they all succeed. In budget 2016, we have lowered, and will lower, the employment insurance premiums, which is a very significant step for them. Our small business tax rate is very competitive in Canada and globally. We offer a number of credits for our SMEs in Canada, which are the backbone of our Canadian economy. We introduced a tax cut that has benefited nine million Canadians. The introduction of the Canada child benefit will give Canadians $2,300 more tax-free income on average to spend at their local small business enterprise. That is a good thing. We need aggregate demand to drive our economy, and that is what we are doing.

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

Madam Speaker, again I go back to the issue of credit unions and the common reporting standards.

Credit unions, as we heard right across the country in pre-budget consultations, have had extreme issues in dealing with some of these FATCA regulations. I believe we heard from Desjardins that they have to submit 300-plus separate reports while some other banks only have to produce one. These commons reporting standards will add to that, particularly to smaller credit unions.

The member heard the Canadian Credit Union Association request that the same kind of exemption for low risk, under 2%, assets that are held by a foreign national in a credit union be waived.

Will the member agree that we should be looking at trying to make the burden on these small credit unions less, to help grow our economy?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very important question.

When FATCA was introduced by the United States, there was much negotiation between our two countries on this issue. I will say that we do not want to overburden any institution with regulatory burden and extra cost, but we need to balance that with having institutions conform to global financial standards that are introduced, whether it is with the United States or Europe, that we agree to, and we have agreed to that.

Of course, if there are anomalies that we need to look at, we should look at them. We do not want to hinder the intermediation process in financial institutions. We want to encourage competition among credit unions and banks, and we want to keep that healthy.

I am very cognizant that many credit unions exist and are operating in rural communities. Therefore, we do not want to hinder their competitive landscape. We want to make sure that they are there to serve the local residents. I fully understand that.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary budget officer was quite clear about the fact that we left a surplus at the end of the last fiscal year. We are very proud of that. In addition to leaving a surplus, we also planned to invest a significant amount in infrastructure.

The Liberals decided to add to that amount. The difference between us is that they are running a deficit of over $30 billion this year in order to invest a bit more in infrastructure.

Can my colleague tell the House who will foot the bill?

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

Madam Speaker, it is important that we maintain our fiscal capacity. In Canada right now, we have the fiscal capacity to invest in our economy, to invest in Canadians, and to grow our economy.

We have committed, as the Minister of Finance stated last week, to maintain our commitments and reduce our debt-to-GDP ratio as we move along in our infrastructure program which, again, is growing our country and making sure that all Canadians who want to work have good-paying jobs.

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

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to stand in this place and contribute to the debate on the budget implementation act. In this case, however, there are going to be some measures I will not be criticizing, such as the Liberals' favourite talking point, the middle-class tax cut.

Obviously, I would not be alone in pointing out that it seems almost unfathomable to give a tax cut to people who earn between $100,000 and $199,000, as the Liberals are doing, and to give absolutely no tax relief to those who are most in need, those earning under $45,000 per year. As much as this seems incredible, I will not criticize this measure, as it was a promise clearly outlined in the Liberals' election platform, and thus my view is that they have a mandate to make these changes.

The same applies to the Liberal child care benefit changes, as much as once upon a time the Liberals mocked our Conservative government for introducing direct-to-parent support for families, suggesting that it would be for a beer and popcorn fund. Today we know that the Liberals fundamentally supported this Conservative program, with the exception of adding a fiscal means limit for the benefits. Once again, these changes were part of an election platform, and in my view, there is a mandate from the public to carry them out.

However, beyond that, I have some serious concerns about the implementation act. For example, the Prime Minister promised modest deficits of $10 billion a year. I will not use unparliamentary language, as that is not my style. However, we all know that the Liberals have broken their promise. The only thing we do not know yet is by how much. The debt and deficit numbers seem to be growing by the fiscal quarter.

I suppose that if Canada was witnessing upgraded economic growth and increased employment, one could be more tolerant and supportive of deficit spending. After all, the former Conservative government took a similar approach. However, that approach was different in three substantial ways.

First, the spending was targeted specifically to real infrastructure and was basically targeted to shovel-ready projects. In this case, many regions of Canada are still wondering when they will see the promised Liberal infrastructure spending.

The second difference is that because the former Conservative government spent the money in the right places, we got results. Canada came out of the financial crisis atop all the G7 countries.

Finally, the Conservative economic action plan always involved a sincere commitment to return to a balanced budget, something the parliamentary budget office just confirmed would have happened for the past fiscal year had the Liberals not booked extra spending.

The Liberals promised Canadians a return to balanced budgets by the 2019-20 fiscal year, but I doubt that even Liberal MPs seriously believe that this will happen. That is my first major objection to the budget implementation bill, as it breaks the promise the Prime Minister made to get elected, and that should trouble all of us.

Another major concern I am hearing about is the proposed changes to the common reporting standard. I was fortunate to hear from a member of the finance committee earlier, the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge. Both at home in my riding and on the finance committee, credit union after credit union has warned of the very serious impact this one-size-fits-all, Liberal-imposed red tape will have on their ability to help generate economic growth and to focus on those things. To be clear, credit unions are absolutely non-partisan. The concerns we are hearing from them are very real.

I would add that credit unions in many parts of my riding, especially in smaller, rural areas, are critically important for the fiscal well-being of the community. Frankly, I am surprised that a Liberal government as obsessed with consultations and reviews to the extent this one is turning a blind eye to this and ignoring what every single credit union, large or small, has been telling us. That is concerning and raises another interesting part in the debate.

By including measures such as the common reporting standard in the budget implementation act, ultimately the BIA becomes omnibus legislation. I am not necessarily opposed to omnibus bills. However, I would point out that this is yet another broken promise from the Prime Minister, who promised not to use omnibus bills when he was in opposition.

On the same topic of broken promises, and one could say hypocrisy, I find it curious that when in opposition and when running for election, the Liberals told us that what they view as boutique tax credits were bad, and that is why they were eliminating the fitness tax credit for kids as well as eliminating the children's arts and cultural tax credit and the textbook credit for students. Parents of students lost what the Liberals called boutique tax credits for their children, then the Liberals introduced their own boutique tax credit for teachers who buy schools supplies.

I mention this because in effect, what the Prime Minister is really saying is that Conservative tax credits that helped children and their parents pay for those activities were bad but that Liberal tax credits that help teachers are good.

On the same theme, we now know that the Liberals will force a national carbon tax on Canadians that will also increase costs for families. It is not directly related to this BIA. However, it is curious that the Prime Minister promised a new relationship with the provinces only to turn around and force unwanted Ottawa-imposed taxation on them once elected.

That brings me to another subject that is provincially related. The budget implementation bill calls for additional money to subsidize ferry services in Atlantic Canada. Over $50 million is quoted. While it is not my intent to pit different regions of the country against each other, there is a question of fairness, and I question why B.C. Liberal MPs are silent that no additional funding has been promised to help B.C.'s ferries in this budget.

One other troubling action in this budget implementation bill is the Liberal proposal to dramatically increase costs for small business. The section I am referring to is big CPP. The Liberal government believes that increasing the cost of creating new jobs is somehow a good idea. To be clear, the Liberal government proposal will also increase payroll costs for employers not just for any new jobs but also for existing employees.

What is extremely alarming is that in the last week, the CBC revealed that even internal documents, obtained from the finance minister's own department, have revealed that an expanded, big CPP, whatever we want to call it, will actually be a drag on the Canadian economy at least until 2030. Even worse, this misguided policy will actually suppress jobs until 2035.

Let us all think about that for a moment. At a time when everyone in this room knows that our economic forecasts are being downgraded, at a time when everyone knows that our job numbers are a serious concern, the Liberal government is forcing a policy on Canadians that they know will harm the economy and hurt jobs for the next 15 to 20 years. That is completely unacceptable.

Worse is that this open and transparent government is hiding these internal documents. Is it any wonder that the CFIB is strongly opposed to this policy? The Liberals clearly do not care. They are forcing these increased payroll costs on Canadians anyway. That should concern all of us.

I could continue to criticize other aspects of this budget implementation bill, and there are many. However, I believe that it is important to also point out a few points that I support. One of those is the continued support for mineral exploration tax credits. Mining is an important industry in several areas in my riding and for that matter in areas nearby in my former riding.

I also recognize the government for continuing to support the CETA deal, the comprehensive economic trade agreement with the European Union. The former government spent considerable energy and effort getting to where we are now. Trade is not only important to many employers in my riding but provides expanded opportunities for farmers and other producers. As much as a former Liberal government used NAFTA as a political chip, it is refreshing that it is not the case with CETA. Now if only we could get such a clear position from the Liberal government regarding the trans-Pacific partnership.

While there are certainly some measures in the bill I support, which I have briefly touched on, there are of course some omissions, and frankly, I remain stunned that the Liberal government continues to do nothing to better promote internal trade.

I may no longer be the critic for internal trade, but I will point out that the government is willing to impose a national carbon tax on the provinces. How could it be afraid to elevate the Comeau decision of the Supreme Court and seek clarification that internal trade is the right of all Canadians?

Not everyone supports international trade, but I have yet to meet someone, aside from, apparently, the Liberals, who does not support the principle of buying Canadian, and that means all Canadians in all jurisdictions.

When people from Europe or the U.S.A. visit Canada and hear that it is still illegal for a winery in British Columbia to directly sell to a customer in Ontario, they shake their heads in disbelief. There are a few people shaking their heads in disbelief over in the corner, and that is a good thing. I am glad to see that we all find that component contemptible.

This budget implementation act could have attempted to fix it. In fact, in the budget document, there is one word on internal trade, and that is the word “internal”. It is no secret that the former Conservative government made strides to eliminate federal barriers against internal trade, and I will continue to encourage the Liberal government to do the same.

One other measure missing from this budget, which I am sure will raise some eyebrows, is the restoration of a $10,000 tax-free savings account contribution. I mention this because it is not a secret that investment in Canada is currently on the decline. We need investment. Investment is what helps create jobs and often produces the shiny new green technologies that Liberals are often very keen to subsidize. For many Canadians, their TFSAs are invested, more often than not, in Canadian companies. Even if they are invested in savings, those savings are then loaned out to Canadian companies.

Expanding the TFSA contribution is a great way to encourage not just savings but investment. Let us not forget that all deposits going into tax-free savings accounts are net after-tax dollars. While the returns people make in tax-free savings accounts may be tax-free, rest assured that when they withdraw that money, often to complete a major purchase, they typically pay sales tax or excise tax on that purchase. Expanded tax-free savings account contributions would be a great way to encourage investment in our economy.

Also missing, in my view, is any incentive to increase the supply of new housing. If we can increase the supply of new housing, we could help combat higher prices and significantly support local economies and create jobs. More importantly, if we could increase home ownership down the road, we would increase home equity, not to mention that if we could get more people out of rentals and into home ownership, thanks to new supply, that would open up the rental market and increase affordability.

There are changes in this budget implementation act that focus specifically on the Excise Act. Offering a change in the amount that is rebated, the threshold amount, would help with affordability and would have the benefit of stimulating growth, particularly in markets where growth is desperately needed.

In fact, this budget implementation act is totally silent on these points. Based on the changes the Liberals made to the mortgage rules, it is obvious that the Liberals' answer to unaffordable housing is to ensure that fewer Canadians will qualify to buy homes. Frankly, that is unacceptable. Even documents from the finance minister suggest that these one-size-fits-all Liberal-imposed mortgage changes could lower the housing market by almost 10% in the first year.

Let us not forget what that really means. It means that 10% of Canadian families who have been scrimping and saving to buy homes will be told, sorry, it is not that they cannot afford their own homes, it is that they just do not qualify under the new rules that have been put in place. This is from the government that is all about the middle class, as long as they are not middle-class prospective home owners.

Yes, Toronto and Vancouver have troubles, but these Liberal government-imposed mortgage restrictions adversely impact all Canadians. Yet Vancouver area Liberal MPs say that they were not even consulted on the changes, nor for that matter were mortgage brokers, realtors, or anyone else who makes a living in the real estate industry. I suppose the message to them is that it would be better to attend a $1,500-a-plate fundraiser with the minister next time around.

Before I close, I am going to make a few predictions. The first is that this budget implementation act, which already breaks the Prime Minister's promise of a modest $10-billion-a-year deficit, will only be the tip of the iceberg for massive amounts of more Liberal debt. I will also predict that economic growth will continue to be downgraded over the next few years. That is something we have heard at the finance committee. That is something we have heard from the Governor of the Bank of Canada. It is something we have heard from the parliamentary budget office.

I also think that job numbers will not significantly rebound, nor investment dramatically increase, yet taxes will continue to rise. Eventually, at some point down the road, some very difficult decisions will need to be made. This is where the budget implementation act is taking us, which is why I am opposing it.

I would like to thank the members of this place for taking the time to hear my comments today. We often have our disagreements. However, I know that those who come here all care considerably for their constituents, for the success of our country, and for the opportunities we can grow for our people in the short term and the long term. That is something we all take very seriously.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting to hear from the member from the opposite side about the decade of darkness. They had over 10 years to act on the housing market, to make sure it was a sustainable market. Instead of ensuring that they did something, they watched that market overheat and overheat, and did not do anything. They did not even do any studying on the issue. Finally, we are faced with a tough decision of how to make sure that what the economists call “a bubble” does not happen, that we do not see a bursting of that bubble, that we can ensure that people do not lose value in their homes and lose their homes eventually, like in the United States in 2008. Therefore, I am surprised by what the member is saying, because he is essentially asking us to do nothing.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member opposite. I certainly appreciate his contributions here and also in finance committee.

First, for a reservist to be talking about the decade of darkness and to somehow allude that it came from the previous Conservative government, I do not think is necessarily the right term to use. He knows very clearly that the decade of darkness was in the 1990s and had to do with the military.

Former minister Flaherty, and after that minister Oliver, worked very hard to work with the financial industry. We removed the ability to utilize 40-year mortgages. We brought it down to keep the market in a stable position. His is the party that has suggested to young people, “Vote for us. We'll increase growth. We'll increase opportunities for you.” However, they made it more difficult to save for a home by cutting the tax-free savings account. They have made it more difficult to qualify for a home. They have made it more difficult to pay off student debt by adding extra carbon taxes and adding on to CPP. Most of the students will not benefit from the middle-income tax cut they have offered. I think that is wrong.

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

Madam Speaker, I have an individual in my riding who called me this last week. His name is Brian. He is a young husband, father, raising a family, making ends meet. He called and was very distraught about what he is seeing coming down the pike from this government for young families in regard to a carbon tax and CPP. He indicated that his wife is a stay-at-home mom, and wants to be that, but now they are facing the reality that she will have to go to work to try to make ends meet.

I would like the member to comment a bit more on what he sees as the hazards of this particular—

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate what the member is saying. I am hearing many similar concerns in Summerland and West Kelowna in regard to the qualification regarding mortgage. The signal they are being sent is that the goalposts have been pushed back, they would say almost indefinitely, and with little or no consultation. It seems that this is about appeasing concerns about the Vancouver market. We have heard from credit unions, and they have asked us not to do anymore market interference. The changes from the B.C. government's foreign held property tax are new, and they want to let the market adapt to that. However, the government has added more things to it.

This goes, again, to the way that the Liberal government talks and then the way it does not follow through. The Liberals talked about Canada summer jobs. They gave more money to it. They gave more jobs, but they actually reduced the number of weeks that someone could qualify for. Everyone got a little less, and they spread it out a lot more.

These are the differences. As opposition, I know it is our job to scrutinize and criticize. I want to support things happening in Canada. I want to see growth. However, let us be up front with Canadians with what is actually happening. I am concerned about economic growth. I am concerned that the plan that the government has put us on will not provide the jobs and investment we need.

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

Madam Speaker, when we look back at what the Liberal platform involved in October 2015, in last year's election, specifically on the subject of infrastructure, there was mention of the establishment of a Canadian infrastructure bank to provide low-cost financing for new infrastructure projects, and the federal government using its strong credit rating and lending authority to make it easier for municipalities to make these kind of investments.

What we were starting to hear last week, though, and I expect more details will come in tomorrow's economic update, is this new phrase of “asset recycling”. We are quite concerned in the NDP that this is opening the door to privatization of some of the major infrastructure projects that our tax dollars have funded over the years. We are concerned, of course, about the higher rates of holds and user fees that might be passed on to the Canadian consumer.

While I appreciate that the Conservative Party may have a different philosophical approach to this, I am wondering if the member could comment on the differences between what was promised in the Liberal platform and what seems to be emerging during this week's economic update.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that member is a fellow British Columbian. It is always welcome to talk about issues that are close to our province.

First, I may not always agree with the NDP. Quite frankly, when we have campaigns in my riding, usually the NDP is very firm and very principled. However, New Democrats ran on a platform, just like I did. We may have disagreements on what is good for Canada, but we both put out to the people what we think is the right remedy, given this time and space.

What we have seen is that the Liberals ran on a very clear program, and, once in office, they did not want to talk about that program as much. We have seen economic forecasts continually constrict, and now we know why. It is because the plan is not what Mr. Barton, the head of the government's own Advisory Council on Economic Growth, has said. He has put forward a program, a menu, that was not put to the people, and I think that is a tacit admission that the government is in trouble. I think all parties need to start being very clear with Canadians on where we are and what it will take.

I do not know if it is because governments become insulated or want to only see their view prevail, but I do not see that the government is going to admit that its programs, its whole stimulus of $30 billion, that it has proposed in this year's budget, is doing what it should. The government might want to use tomorrow as an opportunity to step back from that dangerous path and maybe get on to an economic program that will put us on the path for jobs and growth.

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

Madam Speaker, I am sure the member would not be surprised if I said I totally disagree with his assessment. At the end of the day, what we have seen is a proactive government that has come up with a plan that will put more money in the pockets of Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it. It enhances the child benefit program. It has the most significant infrastructure from every region of our country.

I believe that Canadians understand and appreciate the degree to which the government truly cares about the economy, and we see that in the actions the government has taken. We could also talk about trade and so forth.

Would the member not agree, at the very least, that the Canadian economy as a whole is doing better than other countries around the world in economic performance, and acknowledge that there is a different approach and style of government between this government and the Harper government? We have a more proactive government wanting to see the economy do better, and, in particular, a special focus on the middle class. That was lacking from the previous Harper government.

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

Madam Speaker, if the member had listened to my speech, he would know that I said there are areas, such as the child care benefit changes and the middle-income tax cut, as the Liberals like to call it, that were part of the platform and they had a mandate to implement that.

I would step back and say that we have projections from the parliamentary budget office that the tax cut will cause us to go into deficit. If we are reducing taxes for people who are in the $100,000 to $199,000 income range, and they end up having to pay that money back later on, it is a wash.

Going to the child benefit, all you are doing is redistributing the same amount of money but in fewer hands. Bloomberg did a study that said only 15% of that amount has actually gone out, when your government expected 50% of that to be invested in the economy.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the member that when you are speaking, you need to be speaking to the Chair and not to the individual members. Resuming debate.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to share my time with the member for Gatineau.

It is with immense pleasure and pride that I rise to speak in favour of Bill C-29, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures.

Our government knows that many Canadians are struggling to get ahead. These struggles are very real in my home province of Alberta, where people are continuing to face an economic downturn brought on by the extended low price of natural resource products.

The people of Edmonton Centre, and Albertans at large, asked for a partner in the federal government, and our government has responded with historic investments. It did so and will continue to do so because it knows that Alberta helped the Canadian economy for years. It is committed to helping Alberta in its time of need. It also did so and will continue to do so because it makes good economic sense at this time.

What exactly has the federal government done? It has provided $250 million to the Government of Alberta as a fiscal stabilization fund; $750 million to the EDC to assist with companies that are looking to export and provide financial services to SMEs in the oil and gas sector; $500 million from the Business Development Corporation for loan guarantees and services to SMEs directly in the oil and gas sector; and recently, another $0.5 billion from the BDC, matched by the Alberta Treasury Branch Financial corporation, to help with stressed businesses.

In addition to that, there was $307 million through the disaster financial assistance arrangement, through the Government of Canada to the Province of Alberta, to help Fort McMurray recover. That was the first time in history that the Government of Canada has moved so quickly to respond to a natural disaster in partnership with a provincial government.

There is a growing consensus in Canada and around the world that governments need to invest, not only to boost short-term economic growth, but to set the stage for long-term and sustainable growth as well. In fact, Christine Lagarde, president and CEO of the International Monetary Fund, has said that Canada's investment strategy needs to let loose, needs to go viral around the world, because our policies are smart economic policies for the long term.

Canada has the lowest debt to GDP ratio of any G7 country, and interest rates are at historic lows. Now is the ideal time for Canada to invest in its future success. That is why Canadians elected us on a platform to make historic investments in public transit, green infrastructure, and social infrastructure.

These investments mean good, well-paying jobs for tradespeople, engineers, architects, labourers, and suppliers. Each of these jobs has a family behind it, and each of these jobs means that those families have income to support other businesses. Such investments are not only important, they are vital for Canadians and Albertans during these tough times.

That is why our government, working with the Government of Alberta, is investing $1.08 billion in public transit, water maintenance, in Alberta. That multiplier effect will mean over $3 billion in real projects taking place on the ground in Alberta. It is why we have worked with the Government of Alberta to invest $130 million more into affordable housing. It is why we have made the historic down payment on the Fort McMurray rebuilding program.

This is only phase one. This government is there for Alberta now, and will continue to be a partner in growth for all Albertans. We understand, as well, that 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.

Too many middle-class families are having trouble making ends meet with the tough times in Alberta. Our government stepped up to the plate and implemented the Canada child benefit, a coherent, common sense policy that will help nearly nine million Canadians every year. The time has come for the Government of Canada to help the families who need it most and give them the money they need to be able to afford to raise their children.

It is why our government created the new Canada child benefit, or CCB, which will directly help middle-class families with the costs of raising their children. I have heard it in my own riding. Time and time again, people have come up to me and said, “Thank you. I am receiving the monthly cheques. I no longer have to make the choice between food for my children or clothes on their backs. I no longer have to make the decision between school fees or paying my rent.”

Edmonton families are using the support from the CCB to invest directly in our community in a variety of ways, from enrolling their children in after-school care, sports programs, music lessons, leadership activities, and even saving for their own post-secondary education. It is startling to think that some of the most vulnerable families in our community have trouble even putting food on the table.

In this country, too many children are still living in poverty.

As members already know, on July 20, eligible Canadian families started receiving their CCB payments. These replace previous benefits and provide more support to nine out 10 families in this country.

We ended the damaging legacy of the previous government's poorly thought out taxable benefit that left thousands of families with a surprise tax bill at the end of the year. I heard this at the door, that people were surprised and not happy. They were disappointed by that mis-thought-out policy.

The Canada child benefit is simple. It is tax-free, and it targets the families who need it most.

Our Canada child benefit is improving the well-being of families across the country, and we are giving them an opportunity to succeed. In Alberta alone, it is raising 46,000 children out of poverty and giving each one of them the opportunity for a better life.

Now more than ever, it is important that post-secondary education remains affordable and accessible. I have four remarkable post-secondary institutions in my riding: NorQuest College; the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology, otherwise known as NAIT; the MacEwan University; and the Enterprise Square campus of my alma mater, the University of Alberta. I am so proud to represent these campuses and the tens of thousands of students who attend them.

Students must have access to meaningful work at the beginning of their careers and not be burdened by increasing student debt. In this regard, budget 2016 makes post-secondary education more affordable for students from low and middle-income families and will make it easier to repay student debt. This is enabling the economy of tomorrow. I know, because I had the opportunity to access student loans and debt forgiveness. I paid my loans back, but that made all the difference in being able to pursue my own education when my family was not able to support my tuition or living costs. That is exactly what we are doing now to make post-secondary education more affordable for more Canadian students.

We also need to ensure that we are supporting Canadians who need support right now. Therefore, Canada's employment insurance program provides economic security to Canadians when they need it most. Whatever the circumstance, no Canadian should struggle to get the assistance they need.

To make sure these systems are in place, we have proposed several changes to the EI system. Changes to eligibility rules will make it easier for new workers and those re-entering the workforce to claim benefits. To ease the burden, our government has also extended employment insurance benefits in all regions in Alberta. The waiting period will also be reduced from two weeks to one week, which will provide unemployed workers with hundreds of more dollars at the time they need it the most.

Our budget has made significant new investments to support seniors in their retirement years. Increased benefits will ensure that Canadian seniors have a dignified, comfortable, and secure retirement so that my mom and all of our parents and grandparents are supported as they age.

As a matter of fairness for all taxpayers, Bill C-29 will prevent underground economic activity and tax evasion and will combat tax loopholes. We will take action to prevent tax evasion both at home and abroad. The government will invest in effective administration and enforcement of tax laws and will propose actions to improve the integrity of Canada's system.

Hard-working small business owners who create jobs and benefit the economy are the ones who need, and should be benefiting from, tax measures. Our efforts will improve the fairness and integrity of the tax system and contribute to fiscal sustainability. That is exactly what Albertans expect from us.

Finally, Canada's financial sector is world renowned and remained stable through the 2008 financial crisis and its aftermath. We have the last Liberal government to thank for putting the fundamentals in place for the most robust financial system in the G20. To keep Canada's financial sectors strong, the government will strengthen the framework that regulates financial institutions, and we will balance the need for stability and competition with the needs of consumers and businesses.

Bill C-29 also makes it clear that the shareholders and creditors of Canada's largest banks are responsible for their risks, not taxpayers. In this way, Canadians will not be stuck with the tab in the event of an economic shock.

The measures set out in this budget are essential to the proper development and well-being of all Canadians, including those who need it most, and that is why I am asking all of my colleagues in the House to vote in favour of Bill C-29.

Again, our budget is delivering on the needs of Albertans and Canadians. We were elected on a promise to increase prosperity for all Canadians, and that is a promise we are proudly delivering on.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, the eloquence and quality of my hon. colleague’s presentation are truly excellent. They were excellent as well during the election campaign. In his own speech, he himself raised the fact that the Liberals had promised a whole series of things in their latest plan, in the last election campaign, and one of those things was to incur just a little deficit of $10 billion over three years.

The first thing we found out, and are now realizing, is that that little $10 billion per year is mutating, not into $15 billion, not $20 billion or $25 billion, but $30 billion, maybe even $35 billion. Some observers are even talking about $40 billion for the first year.

Does my colleague consider that making promises during an election campaign and not keeping them afterward is a way of respecting all of his fellow citizens and Canadian voters?

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

It should be noted, now that we form the government of Canada, that our approach ensures that our economy will experience full growth. That is what is behind all of our planning.

Our two strategies, our two main themes, are to invest in our economy with historic infrastructure investments, and to provide impetus for and increase the number of immigrants we invite into our country.

It is important not to forget that the ratio of our deficit to our nearly $3-trillion economy is among the lowest in the world. We are going to ensure that that ratio will continue to fall. That is what we will be talking about, and that is what we will be delivering to Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, during the election, we had 12 community debates in my riding of Kootenay—Columbia. In every one of them, the Liberal candidate talked about how the Liberal Party, if elected, would lower the small business tax rate from 11% to 9%.

Small businesses make up almost 95% of the businesses in Canada and are very important in my riding and across Canada.

I would like to ask the member, what happened to that promise? Should a promise made during an election not be kept once a party is actually in government?

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I think what is important to note, and it is interesting that you had 12, and I think we had 13, and one of the things—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I would remind the parliamentary secretary to address the answers and questions to the House.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Yes, Madam Speaker.

What was important in our campaign, and since, is to make sure as a government that the ratio of our deficit to the size of the economy remains among the lowest in G7, and certainly in the G20.

What is important is that we continue investing in small businesses.

As my hon. colleague knows, the more money we have in the pockets of middle-class Canadians, the more they will spend in their local economies and the more that will feed small business. We know, as well as the hon. member, that small businesses are the backbone of our community and our country. We will continue investing in programs that will benefit small businesses from coast to coast to coast.

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

Madam Speaker, the Government of Canada, in the last number of months, has increased the GIS, amended the CPP agreement, and decreased the age of retirement from 67 to 65.

Would my colleague comment on seniors and how they have benefited under the government thus far?

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, it was important to us in the campaign and has been since we have been in government to make sure that we provide for the middle class, including seniors. After listening to Canadians for two years before the last election, it was clear that some of the most vulnerable Canadians are seniors. That is why we increased the GIS provisions for the most marginalized and poorest Canadian seniors; why we also made historic changes to the CPP; and why we are very committed to making sure that seniors, including my mom, aunts, and uncles, are able to retire in dignity across the country.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Edmonton-Centre for sharing his time with me.

As always, it is an honour and a privilege to represent the citizens of Gatineau in the House. It is a great honour for any parliamentarian to represent the views and perspectives of their fellow citizens.

It is my great pleasure to add my support to Bill C-29, a second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures.

Last spring, our government tabled its first budget. On the whole, this is a budget that respects and keeps our election commitments. Furthermore, it is based on judicious investments to make our economy grow, to better help our middle class, and to ensure that our communities and our country continue to grow. Bill C-29 is also a follow-up to the plan of my hon. colleague the Minister of Finance, the plan for economic growth and fairness in Canada.

This bill provides measures that will help families, provide seniors with greater flexibility, protect consumers, and improve the fairness and integrity of the tax system.

When working-class and middle-class Canadians have more money to save, invest, and grow the economy, everyone benefits. That is why, in budget 2016, the government decided to invest in the Canadian economy to set the stage for long-term growth. Canada has the lowest debt to GDP ratio of any G7 country and interest rates are at historic lows. Now is the ideal time for Canada to invest in its future success: in our young people, in our communities, and in ourselves. When we have an economy that works for the middle class, we have a country that works for everyone.

My colleagues opposite spoke of the pressure on families. We all have in our ridings families looking for more flexibility, for help making ends meet every month, and for ways for their children to have an equal opportunity to succeed in life, go to university and take part in sports, art programs, recreational activities and so forth.

Speaking of investments, we on this side of the House put in place what is probably the most important social innovation of the past 10 or 20 years in Canada: the Canada child benefit. On July 20, families in Gatineau received their first Canada child benefit cheque, as announced in budget 2016. In the riding of Gatineau alone, the Canada child benefit is helping 10,600 families and 18,480 children.

The average monthly payment in Gatineau is around $520. That is $520 every month, tax-free, that can be used for food, skates, clothes, child care expenses, school supplies and more. That is $520 every month that goes back into the local and national economies.

On this side of the House, we are extremely proud of this social innovation, this benefit for the middle class, the parents in my community and all across Canada. It is the most important public policy in decades.

Moreover, under Bill C-29, the Canada child benefit will be fully indexed to inflation starting in 2020. This will ensure not only that this important measure will be sustainable, but also that benefits will rise every year starting in 2020.

The budget implementation act also supports our seniors by helping them to retire in more comfort and with dignity. In budget 2016, we repealed the provision in the Old Age Security Act that increased the age of eligibility for old age security and guaranteed income supplement benefits from 65 to 67, and allowance benefits from 60 to 62, over the 2023 to 2029 period. Budget 2016, also increased the guaranteed income supplement top-up benefit by up to $947 annually for the most vulnerable single seniors, starting in July 2016.

I do not know if it is the same for my colleagues, but I get asked by seniors what it means to have $80 more than expected at the end of the month. They ask me what that means for seniors on a fixed income and for their quality of life. Well, it helps them pay the rent and buy groceries, and it may even give them the means to take part in sports and other recreational activities, for example. That is very important at their age. I get comments like this a lot, as do all my colleagues in the House, I am sure.

This measure represents an investment of over $670 million per year, and will improve the financial security of about 900,000 single seniors across Canada.

That is not all. In this second budget implementation bill, we are delivering on the solemn promise we made in budget 2016 to support senior couples who face higher costs of living and are at an increased risk of poverty because they must live apart. We are all aware of cases where, unfortunately, because of health concerns or for other reasons, spouses are separated from one another because one of them has to be institutionalized.

When couples who are receiving the guaranteed income supplement and the spouse's allowance have to live apart for reasons beyond their control, each of them will receive benefits based on their individual income.

For seniors in such a situation, it will mean an average increase to household income of $3,500 per year. That is very important for our most vulnerable seniors, who will be treated more fairly and receive more help from the government through the guaranteed income supplement. These new measures enable the government to treat seniors with greater fairness and allow them to live with dignity in retirement.

Canadians deserve financial consumer protection that keeps pace with their needs. We have seen this debate all over the world in the wake of the financial crisis. Bill C-29 would amend the Bank Act in order to strengthen and modernize the financial consumer protection framework. The financial sector plays an important role in supporting economic growth. Canada's financial sector weathered the 2008 financial crisis well because it was built on solid foundations. The government is seeking to build on this strength.

Bill C-29 amends the Bank Act to consolidate and streamline provisions that apply to a bank or an authorized foreign bank in relation to the protection of customers and the public. This was another consumer protection commitment our government made in budget 2016 that will contribute to the financial security of Canadians.

The federal government is showing leadership by adopting targeted measures to better protect consumers of financial products. Regarding the tax system, our government committed to implementing an action plan to combat international tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance.

All these measures contained in Bill C-29 or in the budget deliver on our commitment to get Canada's middle class back on its feet and make it once again a priority for the Government of Canada.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, during the election, the Liberals said that they would invest in Canadian infrastructure. That is on page 15 of their platform. During the last couple of weeks there have been reports suggesting the Liberals are considering selling off some of our public infrastructure, such as airports, bridges, and ports, which were not mentioned in their platform.

Since budget 2016, the government has mused about asset recycling and flywheel for reinvestment. What do the Liberals mean by these fancy words? Is it to privatize our public infrastructure?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, the commitment we made during the campaign was to double infrastructure spending to about $120 billion over 10 years, compared to the $65 billion mentioned or promised by the previous government. That is what we are going to do.

In communities from coast to coast to coast, including in Gatineau, we are starting to feel the effects of our basic infrastructure spending in social housing, recreational infrastructure, and so on.

Our platform also included the possibility of increasing our infrastructure spending through an infrastructure bank or some other alternative funding mechanism. The goal was to offer Canadians other ways to fund strategic infrastructure in order to increase exports, create jobs, and boost trade.

I hope we will continue this debate.

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

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on an excellent speech. He reminded the House about all of the promises the Liberal government made and has kept, promises relating to youth, seniors, the middle class, and economic growth.

Can my hon. colleague talk about the impact those promises have had on youth, seniors, growth, the middle class, and job creation in his riding? I am sure he can share many examples from his riding because the Liberal plan is all about growth.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saint-Maurice—Champlain.

Gatineau is a very dynamic city. It is constantly growing, and its population is younger than average. Its needs reflect that. The fact is that we have a growing need for basic infrastructure, such as roads, water and sewage, and waste water treatment.

The infrastructure investments our government will be making in partnership with the Government of Quebec and our municipal partners will enable us to meet the needs of a steadily growing community like Gatineau.

As a demographically young community, Gatineau has families and middle-class families with young children, all of whom benefit greatly from the Canada child benefit. For example, hockey and gymnastics clubs and our cultural associations will thrive because children will have more opportunities to participate in various activities. With an extra $520 or so per month tax-free, parents will be able to invest in their children. This measure will help them make ends meet.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to share my time this afternoon with the member for Richmond—Arthabaska.

It gives me great pleasure to speak to bill C-29, the budget implementation act. Seven months after tabling the budget, Canadians are beginning to recognize the consequences, and the picture is not pretty. Being as it is Halloween, it is appropriate that we refer to the budget as downright scary. It is like a vampire sucking the blood out of most Canadians. The Liberals love spinning the budget into a huge spiderweb to catch people. Small businesses are upset, thinking it is Frankenstein who has come back from the dead.

Even with the low Canadian dollar, the Liberals have generated 20,000 fewer manufacturing jobs in our country. I thought for a moment it was Houdini, because these jobs just vanished. My province of Saskatchewan has lost 4,000 jobs in August over the same period from last year. The trend continued in September with 6,000 fewer people working during the same period as the year before. We have 42,000 unemployed in Saskatchewan currently.

Doug Elliott, the publisher of Sask Trends Monitor, says that going back to 1986 this is the highest number of unemployment in the month of August. Saskatchewan could very well see its first year of negative job growth since the year 2001, and that is scary. We have not seen unemployment levels like this in over two decades. Small business owners do not want the trick or treat, they want an opportunity. They know how best to grow the economy. The Liberals promised a reduction in their tax from 11% to 9%, and we have yet to see that.

Then we have Dracula with his fangs out ready to suck more out of the economy with the proposed carbon tax. This dark cloud hanging over this haunted house will not help with job creation in our country. It is hard to suck blood out of a stone, but the Liberal government seems determined to try. The carbon tax was never mentioned a year ago during the election, and now we know it always was behind one of its trap doors.

To quote Marilyn Braun-Pollon of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the state of business health in our country has deteriorated. Hiring plans remain very weak, with only 10% of business owners looking to hire full time, while at the same time 17% are foreseeing layoffs. This is deeply concerning as we head into the holiday season where generally more opportunity exists, mainly though for part-time employment. Retail spending is effectively flat in our province this year, a broad category that includes everything from automobiles, to clothing, to furniture and food. When we adjust for inflation, that means the total sales volumes in the province have declined by more than 2% over last year at this time.

Even the finance minister was quoted as saying that Canadians should get used to the so-called job churn. No wonder our youth were upset last week at the Prime Minister during a briefing. Our youth right now are experiencing record unemployment, and it is not what was promised to these millennials by the Liberals a year ago. It was all about sunny ways. Now we find out the clouds have rolled in and the government has no answers.

The full moon though has returned. The Liberals have gone back to their old ways of pay to play. Have they not heard from their previous skeletons in the closet? There are more ghosts and goblins as the Bank of Canada has determined more bad news for this economy, downgrading the country's growth outlook yet once again.

Ted Mallett, who is the CFIB's chief economist, says that employment is a big area of concern. While employment plans tend to experience, as we all know, seasonal fluctuation, this October's downward turn was sharper than we have ever seen it in the past. Investment plans have also dropped to a post-recession low.

Nearly 50% of Saskatchewan's small businesses plan to freeze or even cut salaries. We have not factored in the cost of a CPP increase or the much talked about carbon tax. This is more evidence that now is not the time for this carbon tax. I guess it is like CETA. The Liberals played a disappearing act and now they want to be Casper the Friendly Ghost, but I want to remind the House that it was the Conservative government that did all of the heavy lifting for this CETA agreement.

While the Liberals promised a modest deficit of $10 billion to stimulate the economy, it looks like they were dead wrong. They continue to throw more deficit dollars at this problem. Let us remember that a year ago, the Liberals promised they could simply spend their way into prosperity. By most measures, I would say Canadian families are worse off than they were a year ago. Good jobs are in short supply and the vast majority of these new jobs created under the current government are really part time, which explains why weekly earnings for the average worker in this country are lower.

On the weekend, I was home in my riding of Saskatoon—Grasswood and had an opportunity to talk to several young people. Many said they had two and three part-time jobs just to make ends meet. Saskatchewan people, as many know, have always had a work ethic, but there comes a time when they see no light at the end of the tunnel.

Instead of growing the middle class, the government is breaking the middle class. Just last week, the Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed that our Conservative budget would have resulted in a $2.9 billion surplus for the year 2015-16, but we all know that a surplus is not in the Liberals' vocabulary. They continue to run massive debts. Where it will stop, no one knows. When will this circus stop?

The child care benefit will not be indexed until the year 2020. The PBO has estimated that indexing, in fact enriching, the CCB would cost over $42 million over the next five years. Where, then, will the Liberals get this money? This program would cost more than double the original amount budgeted if indexed over this five-year period.

The current government reminds me of the show a way back called The Munsters. It was televised back then in black and white. I ask the current government to step out of the dark ages and realize you are spending our children's and grandchildren's money, with no hope of ever balancing the budget.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I would remind the member to address his comments to the Chair and not the government.

Questions and comments, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.

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

Madam Speaker, for all of those watching and listening to us, what is really scary is that the Conservatives just do not get it. They voted against the middle-class tax cut, they do not believe in climate change, they do not believe in investing in Canadians, and they do not believe in a plan for growth. That is really scary. That is why people watching should be scared of members who voted against the tax cut for the middle class.

Our plan to invest in growth in this country, in Canadian families, in innovation, and in infrastructure was not only applauded by Canadians, it was applauded around the world. The IMF managing director said that she wished Canada's plan would go viral around the world. The front page of The Economist this week said that Canada is an example to the world.

My question is simple. Why did the member, for whom I have enormous respect, vote against the middle-class tax cut for Canadians in this country?

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that Liberals talk about nine out of every 10 Canadians benefiting. However, I should mention, because I am a former sportscaster in my city, that they eliminated the sports tax rebate and arts tax rebate. The middle class was what the previous government believed in. Families cherished those two programs, in particular. It provided a chance for kids to get off the couch and participate. Those are two programs that sorely need to be reinstated in this country right now.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's words. They were very haunting. Some of the statistics he mentioned were bone-chilling. It is quite spooky when we look at the horizon.

I am from Ontario and the member is from Saskatchewan. We see that the same staffers from Queen's Park who ran the McGuinty-Wynne Liberals have moved all the way up to Ottawa. We paid their expenses. They are welcome. When we look at their 12 years of massive Liberal spending, we see more taxes, more government red tape, and more jobs leaving. He listed a bunch of statistics about how his province is hurting, too. Maybe he could tell us how and why this type of thinking does not work.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Madam Speaker, yes, our province was the driving engine of this country for years, and now we are not. We are hurting, along with Alberta and Newfoundland and Labrador. We have seen commodity prices go down, but at the same time, the government wants to impose a carbon tax. Would our previous government in 2008 have imposed a tax against the auto manufacturers of Ontario? No, we did the right thing back then. We propped them up, because we knew the economy of Ontario was in serious trouble back in 2008 and 2009.

Here we are with a government that wants to impose a carbon tax against our province and the rest of Canada at a time when Canadians, and my province of Saskatchewan, simply cannot afford it.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, we are trying to address an ever-increasing child poverty rate. The last 10 years of the previous government saw this rate increase. I wonder if the member could comment on why today we find a poverty rate for children of over 11%.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Saskatoon West. In her former job as director of United Way in our city, she did a lot of work helping our community for years and years.

She knows, as well as everyone in our city, that we have a poverty issue with children in our city and in our province right now. The food banks are used more than ever before. However, with a strong economy we can hope that this poverty issue can get dealt with in our province.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Madam Speaker, when my finance critic colleague asked me whether I wanted to speak today to the government's budgetary measures in Bill C-29, I jumped at the opportunity. I would even say that I am pleased to speak to this bill today.

Those familiar with my political career know that before being elected to the House of Commons, this grand institution, I tried my hand at provincial politics and was the mayor of Victoriaville. They know why I am in politics and what my motivations are. Those have not changed since 2003, when I first considered entering politics. They are also shared by many Canadians.

One of the reasons I got into politics was my concern over how the government is managing public finances and the debt burden it is placing on future generations, our children and our grandchildren. I see every level of government taking the easy route and spending money, which always leads to Canadians paying more taxes, even if those taxes are sometimes used to fund investments.

The other very important reason I got into politics is the cynicism that people have about politicians. I will elaborate on that a little later in my speech. When I asked people what they thought about my going into politics, they told me that politicians never keep their promises. That seems to be true of those across the way, the Liberal government having failed to deliver on a number of its promises. I will name a few, but first I want to talk about federal public finances.

How many times have the Minister of Finance and his colleagues refused to accept here in the House a report from the parliamentary budget officer in which he confirms what we in the official opposition have been saying, specifically, that we left the House in order when we were voted out of office in the last election? Canada had sound public finances and was in the black.

Despite all that, at every possible opportunity and in every forum, the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister kept saying that we left the country in disarray and in massive debt. I invite those listening to consult the archives or even simply Google “Minister of Finance” and they will see the minister was in denial.

When he appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance on October 24, 2016, the parliamentary budget officer confirmed that the Conservative government left a surplus of $2.9 billion in the 2014-15 budget. For those who may not know this, the parliamentary budget officer is neutral. He is neither Liberal, Conservative, NDP, nor a member of the Green Party. He works independently to analyze Canada's public finances.

One of the government's first promises, which set it apart from the second official opposition party, was that it would only run up a small deficit of $10 billion. On the contrary. Today, as we can see, the deficit stands at more than $30 billion and it is spiralling out of control. It is not the official opposition pointing this out. The economists at Canada's major financial institutions have been telling the government for weeks to stop spending. TD Bank and the Bank of Montreal have told the government that enough is enough, and that it has lost control of its finances.

We are not against borrowing to stimulate the economy. There are times when we must. Everyone agrees with that. The problem with the Liberal government is that it does not have a repayment plan. I will use an analogy for the people watching at home. If a person wants to buy a house, goes to the bank, and applies for a loan to purchase a house worth about $200,000, what does the banker do? He evaluates the borrower and looks at his income to determine whether he can make the payments. Then with the help of a spreadsheet, the banker calculates the number of monthly payments it will take to pay the mortgage, which is the loan that makes it possible to create wealth, be a homeowner, and have access to a home for his family and children.

The government is borrowing money. The problem is that it does not have a plan to pay that money back. It is like me going to the bank and saying that I need $200,000 to buy a house but that, unfortunately, I do not have enough money to make monthly payments to pay back the loan and I have no plan to do so. I would have to ask the bank to wait four or five years before we revisit the issue and figure out how I will pay the money back. What would happen if I did that? They would send me packing and ask that I do my homework next time and present them with a realistic proposal. It makes me tear my hair out to watch this government continue to lie to Canadians by not giving them the real numbers, by telling them lies about the situation, and by not being straight with them.

When they voted for this government a year ago, Canadians had very high expectations. Today, no one knows how the government is going to pay back this out-of-control deficit.

We might ask ourselves what options the Liberal government has for repaying that money. It so happens its recent announcements shed some light on the matter. The Liberals intend to tax and tax some more. What is more, they are offering no constructive measures to stimulate the economy.

They claim to have provided tax relief to families. I am sorry, but the people that I talk to who want their children to be active or to get involved in cultural activities had their tax credit cut.

They even had the audacity to reduce the amount of savings that a father or mother can set aside and watch grow tax-free, money they can use one day when they need to purchase something, thereby keeping our economy going.

The Liberals are implementing a system that will make Canadian families pay more for the Canada pension plan. I think that once Canadians realize this, they might revolt and demand that the government not change the CPP, because everything the government touches seems to turn into a deficit later on.

What we need is not a government that runs deficits, but rather a government that creates wealth. Spending more and taxing Canadians is not the way to create wealth. Instead, we need to help businesses by lowering corporate taxes and introducing job creation and R and D programs.

When we look at the situation, we see that major institutions like the IMF, the OECD, and the Bank of Canada have downgraded their forecasts for Canada. It has become very clear that this government's approach is not working.

Today I ask this government to do its homework. I ask this government to stop taking more taxes and more taxes and more taxes from Canadians, and to listen to leading economists who are urging the government to stop spending in order to stimulate the economy. There are other ways to achieve that.

This brings me to my closing remarks. The Prime Minister broke his promises immediately upon taking office. He broke his promise of running a modest deficit by borrowing three times more than he said he would. He broke his promise to lower the small business tax rate from 11% to 9%.

He broke his promise to offer a revenue-neutral fiscal plan. He even said that family benefits would be cost neutral, but that did not happen, either.

I am pleased to have had the opportunity to speak to this issue.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-29, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

The House has five minutes for questions and comments.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is related to the budget itself. We saw a commitment to reduce the middle-class tax bracket, which would provide millions of dollars for nine million plus Canadians. We saw a special tax increase on Canada's wealthiest. What surprised me is that in the past the Conservatives talked about giving tax breaks to Canadians, yet when it really came down to it, the Conservative Party voted against the tax decrease for Canada's middle class.

My question is fairly simple. Why did the Conservative Party vote against the tax decrease for Canada's middle class?

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague opposite for his question.

The answer is extremely simple. When I take a good look at this budget and try to sum it up in a few words, it is pretty straightforward: more taxes, more taxes, and more taxes. An out-of-control deficit is enabling the government to spend money and make investments while downloading those costs onto our children and grandchildren. When I look at the statistics and the real facts, I see that there are fewer full-time jobs in Canada right now. If my colleague thinks that is good for Canadians, then we will never see eye to eye, unfortunately.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by saying that I greatly appreciated listening to my colleague, who managed to present a clear and concise argument that made it easy to understand why he is against Bill C-29, a bill to implement the Liberal government's latest budget.

I have a simple question for my colleague. Does he know any expressions to describe what the Liberal government did, in other words promise one thing and do another?

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for giving me the opportunity to identify the expression we use when someone keeps talking and talking but does not do what he says he is going to do. The expression is: if you are going to talk the talk then walk the walk. The government is failing at the latter.

We are asking that the government's actions reflect what it says. That seems simple enough to me. When we compare the announcements that are made here and there to actual facts, we see that the results do not line up with what was said.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, another aspect of the budget was the increase in the guaranteed income supplement for our seniors, which has taken some of the most vulnerable seniors across Canada, in every region, out of poverty, as well as the reduction in the age of entitlement for OAS from 67 to 65. These are two very positive measures taken by the government through the budget.

My question is the same as before. Why did the Conservative Party vote against those benefits going to Canada's seniors?

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for this additional question. It is a similar kind of question, so it will get a similar kind of answer.

We voted against this budget purely and simply because this government's actions will hurt future generations. The Liberals think they are doing the right thing, although we are not satisfied with what they have presented. All they are doing is dumping the problem onto future generations.

I said so in my speech, and I would be happy to explain it again. It is like when someone goes to the bank to borrow money to buy a house. The problem is not the act of borrowing. The problem is having no plan for paying back the loan and leaving one's children to foot the bill. What does the banker do? The banker tells the borrower to go home and do their homework, to look at their income and figure out how they are going to pay off the mortgage.

If this government is so responsible and really wants to create jobs, we are calling on it to do its homework and present us with a plan for economic growth and the sound management of public finances. It has not done that so far, and the numbers prove it.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a great honour to rise in the House in support of this budget, which would do so much good for so many people right across the country, from coast to coast to coast. It is indeed a privilege to speak about some of the benefits it would bestow, in particular, upon vulnerable populations of this country, populations that for a long time have been ignored. I say that because tax cuts, quite frankly, are not the only way to help these people, which seems to be all that we heard over the last 10 years.

In particular, I want to talk about the support that has been provided to families, specifically low-income families, with the child tax benefit. This motion in front of the House today tries specifically to lock in that support even further, not just this year but in the years going forward, to support those families as they seek to join the middle class or cement their places in the middle class.

Most important is that the House has managed to listen and understand that not every piece of legislation is letter-perfect and that when suggestions or improvements are put on the table, we respond in kind by embracing those ideas and making them better, because better is always possible. I am speaking specifically about indexing.

I would be remiss if I did not tell the Chair that I will be splitting my time with the member for Vancouver Centre. I neglected to say that off the top.

The second component is pensions and the guaranteed income supplement. We know that the most vulnerable people in our society are quite often women who, later in life, through no fault of their own, have found themselves in a position where they have not fully contributed to CPP and thus are not able to fully realize the benefits this country has bestowed on others, or where their partners have passed on and they are in very vulnerable situations.

The boost to the guaranteed income supplement is fundamental to lifting seniors and, in particular, elderly women out of poverty and into positions where their security, health, and their enjoyment of their later years of life are guaranteed by the additional support provided by this budget. These are two very specific groups, young families and single seniors, who quite often find themselves in the most marginalized of economic situations. This budget would address them directly.

Another group looking to this government for help is students. Support for students comes in many forms, but there are two specific measures contained within this budget document. One is the support provided to help students get into universities or colleges by providing support for tuition. These measures are taken specifically to reduce the cost burden of entry into post-secondary institutions, which give people the platform to succeed, thrive, and support themselves in this new economy.

The second is the support that would be provided through the doubling of the Canada summer jobs program. Additional measures contained in this budget would not only provide support for them to get into university but also keep young people in universities with access to good, quality summer jobs often related to their fields of study. That is good social policy that supports people with real work experience as they seek to get the skills they need to compete and thrive in the new economy as we embrace a new century.

The other component is EI reform. We know that not all cylinders in every economy fire at the same time and in the right way. We know that there are downturns in sectors from time to time, whether in the film and digital media sector in the city I represent, or folks in the oil patch out west, or folks on the coast who might be in the fishing industry. We know that EI has to be modelled around those employee groups to support them. We have taken steps in this budget to compress the time for the application of benefits and to make sure that benefits reach parts of the country that are most vulnerable, so that while help is on the way and being delivered, families do not go without, support exists, and is targeted for those sectors in a way that is very specific.

It is not a substitute for economic growth and it certainly is not a substitute for jobs, but we know that when Canadians fall on hard times, other Canadians need to support them. This bill would seek to change some of the dynamics around EI to make sure that folks who face that situation are not left behind as the economy moves forward in other parts of the country.

Also embedded in this budget are tax cuts and a series of tax reforms to make taxation fair. I think it was Richard Nixon who once said that taxes will never be popular, but they should be fair. This budget seeks to do just that, to make taxation a fairer proposition for Canadians so they are confident that the dollars sent to Ottawa are not being sent by one group at the expense of another, but that the tax burden is being shared based on the ability to pay. That is why taxes are focused on the top 1% and would provide tax relief measures to the middle class.

If we go through the budget document that is tabled in front of us, there are also measures being taken to tighten up the tax code, so that loopholes that used to be there are narrowed, if not eliminated. Doing so, again, would make the paying of taxes fair. It would give all Canadians confidence that those who have the ability to pay are being taxed fairly. It would give confidence that those who do not have the ability to pay and are in need of support are being taxed appropriately, if at all, and that supports are there for the unique circumstances across a broad range of issues that I have just discussed.

As we talk about the economic dynamics as a series of metrics, and its people as a series of demographic groups or folks fitting specific dynamics that challenge their economic reality, we also have to understand that the real goal of this budget is to do more than simply deal with the inequities. It is also to create an economy that is actually producing more, delivering more wealth to be redistributed, hiring more people, as the incentives are delivered to the private sector to help us build this country in partnership with the public sector and with the community.

The fundamentally most important part of this budget, from my perspective, is the investment in infrastructure that would deliver real housing to real people in real need right across this country, right across the full spectrum of housing needs that stretch across this country. That is whether they are folks living hard on the street through no fault of their own, who have fallen into chronic homelessness, all the way through to supportive housing and transitional housing, social housing, affordable housing, affordable rental housing. There are new programs to make sure that people gain access to the housing market, have their investments stabilized and protected, right through to the end, luxury and the private market affordability that is delivered to so many people.

The full spectrum of housing needs are spoken to in this budget. Most importantly, from my perspective, is that social and affordable housing are back on the federal agenda. It is back as a focus of interest for the national government. We are currently engaged with provinces and territories, and municipalities in particular, as well as aboriginal first nations, Métis, and Inuit groups, to make sure that housing is delivered right across this country, from coast to coast to coast, in a way that supports people as they seek to support their families.

This is the most important part of the budget from my perspective. It is certainly the reason I came to Ottawa. The reason I left city council and ran federally was to make sure that this housing program was re-established on a national level. I am extraordinarily proud to see the work being done by our ministers on these files. I am extraordinarily proud of the fact that the government is stepping in and stepping up, for the first time in my lifetime, in a way that is truly meaningful and will transition this country back into a situation where housing is no longer seen as a vulnerability, but one of the shining examples of how Canadians can pull together to make sure that all of us are adequately housed, adequately supported, and put in a position to thrive and succeed, despite some of the challenges we are delivered by fate.

The other component of this, which I think is just as important, are the transitions and changes we are making around transit and transportation funding. We have come through an extraordinary period of time, in which transit has not been properly funded by the previous government. We have seen projects picked out of the air, on fishing trips in the case of Toronto, where one project gets the funding, but a whole series of other projects are left behind.

We have seen, for the last two years, the cities of Vancouver, Calgary, Regina, Winnipeg, Toronto, Mississauga, Ottawa, Montreal, Halifax, and St. John's not receive a penny of new infrastructure investment. That was because the previous government liked to announce money, loved handing out the big cheques, but never actually wrote out a cheque to be cashed. It could cut ribbons, but it could not cut cheques. As a result, we lost years of growth in the transit file due to the sort of showmanship that was on display. It certainly was not good urban support or an urban agenda, by any stretch of the imagination.

As a result, lots of cities, lots of communities, and in particular lots of families, were left behind, as trains went by, packed full, unsupported by the federal government, or as buses never arrived because the dollars did not arrive in those cities either.

Not only have we stepped up historically on transit, but we have also done something else which is critically important for cities right across this country. We withdrew the firewall between state of good repair and new projects. In other words, if money arrived or it was promised, if there was any money on the table, it was only for new projects and new services, which quite often generated operational costs for cities and municipalities.

What we have done is we have removed that firewall. We have allowed state of good repair and capital maintenance to be included in the capital repair budget of transit operators across the country, and, in doing that, we are building stronger transit systems while also supporting the growth of transit.

Finally, with regard to the green infrastructure, there is an old saying at city halls right across this country, “If you don't manage the water, the water will manage your town eventually anyways.” The green infrastructure funds around flood protection, clean water, and environmental adaptations to make sure that we embrace the next century with confidence rather than fear as a result of climate change have been made in this budget.

Together, all of those investments create an economy that partners with the private sector to deliver a new society, a new level of infrastructure, new capacity, and new strength in the Canadian economy. This is exactly the platform we intended to create. It is exactly what the budget motion would deliver. In doing so, we are going to create the context for people to succeed in this country. I am proud to support this budget.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, during the election, the Liberals said they would invest in Canadian infrastructure. That is on page 15 of their platform, under the subject of infrastructure. However, during the last couple of weeks, we have heard reports which suggest the selling off of some of our public infrastructure, such as airports, bridges, and maybe roads, which is not mentioned in their platform. Therefore, I am wondering this. Since the budget has come out, it has mused about asset recycling, which I believe is a fancy word for privatization. Another new term is “flywheel for reinvestment”. I am trying to get an answer to this specific question. What do the Liberals mean by these fancy words? Is it to privatize our public infrastructure?

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

Madam Speaker, the infrastructure bank was certainly talked about in my election campaign, and it certainly has been talked about by this party for quite a while. However, it is not a replacement for infrastructure investments. The $60 billion we promised is $60 billion. The member can talk to his mayor in Hamilton to see how happy he is about the money arriving in Hamilton, for things like building the new LRT and the investments for housing. The mayor of Hamilton has endorsed our program as visionary, and has embraced it as a way of moving the city forward.

What we are talking about in an infrastructure bank is finding new ways to partner private capital with public good and public need, to see if there is a way to extend the capacity of this country even further by blending new mechanisms. I will provide a perfect example of why it is so critically important. There are small communities that cannot borrow against their assets and have no way of participating in the infrastructure program. The infrastructure bank might be a way for smaller communities to partner with these infrastructure funds, get ahead, and build the infrastructure they need, without having to borrow at even higher rates than they would have to currently. That is one of the things that the infrastructure bank could accomplish.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague spoke a bit about the increase in the student grants, which will help close to 350,000 low to middle-income students. I am wondering how this program will help students in his riding.

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

Madam Speaker, when we help students gain access to higher education at an affordable rate, it does two things: one, it gets them the education and the training they need to compete in the new economy, which is critically important for students who live in my riding, a riding that is home to three different universities and a number of different colleges; and, two, it allows students to graduate without as much student debt, which means they can enter into and spend in the economy in a more confident way rather than simply paying back debt. Therefore, it is a combination of measures. There is not any single one that is perfect, but, in concert, they are much better and much stronger. As a result, we are propelling students forward rather than holding them back. It is one of the reasons, again, to support this budget.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, I would like to talk about the issue I have raised a couple of times today regarding child poverty. I am quite disappointed that the government has decided to let the value of the child benefits erode over the next four years, with no indexing until after the next federal election. That means that many people in my riding will lose the equivalent of $500 in family benefits. The Minister of Families, Children and Social Development claims that these measures will decrease the child poverty rate from 11% to 6%. However, if that indexing does not happen until after the next federal election, will we actually see a decrease in child poverty? Or, will it start to increase again because the child benefit was not indexed right from the beginning?

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

Madam Speaker, I hear the concern from the member opposite, and I am glad that more indexing has been embedded into the proposal through this motion. I look forward to seeing what the committee does with respect to strengthening the child benefit, because I think it is a very effective tool. However, I would also add this. As an advocate for housing, the most important contribution that this government will make toward ending child poverty in this country is through the national housing strategy. It is currently being negotiated. That is the most important step, above all others. I hope we get the member's support to ensure it is as strong as possible, and as well funded as possible.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, I can either say that great minds think alike, or that because we both come from the two major cities in this country that are having problems with housing, that my colleague has spoken about something that I intend to speak about.

I want to support this budget implementation bill. As we heard earlier on, it is not just about lowering taxes for everybody, and it is not about boutique tax benefits or tax credits. One of the things that has always plagued my city of Vancouver a great deal is housing. Back in 1997, when I was a minister in the Chrétien government, we saw the problem of homelessness beginning to emerge. Later on, there was the inability to have access to affordable rental housing. We have seen people unable to buy into housing. We have seen the co-op housing system begin to weaken, because a lot of the co-op housing that was built in the sixties has begun to fall into disrepair.

We began to invest in housing. It is important. This was something that we started to do. It had begun to make an impact, but for a decade we saw very little investment in housing entirely. In my city of Vancouver, we can walk down the street and see tent cities, and that is a homelessness issue. We see people who cannot afford to take shelter. We know that there are many women who cannot afford to stay anywhere because of the fear of violence. They have to find a place to get housing that is going to shelter them.

We looked at the whole spectrum of housing in the budget, and that is very important. We looked at homelessness. We are looking at women who are fleeing violence, who are now getting safe shelters to live in. We are looking at the ability to have affordable rental housing. People do not understand, unless they live in a riding like mine, that we have a whole lot of people who cannot afford to move into their own housing, who cannot afford a first home, so they are staying in affordable rentals. The people who need affordable rentals cannot get into affordable rentals because of that bottleneck.

The ability to move into that next front is where we have come back into the housing market. We have done that. For the first time in a decade, the federal government is back into a national housing strategy, working with provinces, working with municipalities, and working with the private sector to build housing, so that people can afford to move out of affordable rental housing and move into homes and first homes. We have formed a very strong partnership with the cities across this country. We have seen them moving forward. We have seen that need for them to start to build, and we have seen provinces coming together with us to be able to build housing.

Housing is a fundamental human right. People who cannot afford housing live on the streets. People who cannot afford housing live in substandard housing. Their children get sick very easily. Their children cannot do homework, cannot go to school, and they cannot thrive. They cannot find that means to move forward so that the next generation can do better than this one. The issue of child poverty is inherently linked with the issue of housing. We have seen this happening in my riding over and over. People are housed in a two-bedroom place with five children and two parents, and quite often grandparents. For me, the most important thing is the ability to afford housing.

We put in $550 million over two years for the affordable housing initiative, and that is a doubling of federal funds in that category. We are supporting 100,000 households. That is a large number of people. We will be able to build new units, renovate existing homes, and provide rent supplements. There will be $30 million over two years for co-op rent subsidies. We know that co-op housing is an essential form of housing. It came in during the fifties and sixties and allowed people to move into a home of their own, where 50% of the people had market housing and 50% of the people had subsidized housing. This is an important way to allow people to live. Families grow up in co-op housing, and they have moved on from co-op housing when the children leave into single-unit seniors housing. It is a small village, where people begin to build their lifestyles.

We are continuing to allow rent geared to income in those co-ops, with $200 million over two years to seniors for affordable housing. I have a lot of seniors in my riding, and for many of them, if they are going to pay for their housing needs or rent housing where rents are going up and up, they cannot afford to eat.

When we talk about what a budget must do, it must not just help the middle class. That is what we are hoping to do. A good government needs to look after the most vulnerable, those who cannot afford the necessities of life that keep them healthy and strong.

Another part of the budget I like is the ability to help seniors. A lot of seniors are chronically ill. They suffer with diabetes or arthritis. They cannot afford to eat properly. They are filling the hospitals.

It is a case of understanding that when we put money into things like this, we save money at the other end in terms of health care.

Putting money into community housing and into home care units is important in allowing people to age in their communities and to have a good quality of life as they get older. These are really important problems we are trying to solve.

We are putting $208 million for CMHC towards supporting 4,000 units of affordable rental housing. We are exploring innovative ways to lower costs and risks. We are committed to developing a national housing strategy with the provinces, territories, indigenous governments, cities, and stakeholders. We will get a report from the minister on the consultations on this new housing strategy on November 22.

This is the first time we have begun to talk about the need for housing as an absolute staple in people's lives. In fact, the talk about getting back into housing has prompted some provinces to put money directly into housing. I know that the Province of British Columbia has committed $500 million to affordable housing in this fiscal year alone. It is the largest increase in B.C. history for housing. The City of Vancouver, which does not have a lot of money, has offered 20 sites, worth $250 million, on which the federal and provincial governments can build housing.

I cannot stress too much how important housing is. When I was a little girl, I grew up in social housing. I know the need for housing. I know the dignity of housing. I know the need to live in a place where one can be proud to bring one's friends home. I know the need my parents had to afford a place for me to live and to still afford to feed me and ensure that I got a good education. These are the kinds of things that help people move up the ladder so that future generations can do better, go higher, and begin to form stable lives.

Talking about seniors again, we know that many seniors cannot afford to eat food and live at the same time, so we have actually moved 900,000 low-income single seniors out of poverty by increasing the guaranteed income supplement. We have allowed people to get their old age security at 65. Many people at 65 have to retire, because they have been working in jobs where they have hurt themselves. They have back problems. They are not able to continue to work until age 67. That means that we are in touch with people. We were listening to what people were telling us they need.

We committed, in the spring, with the agreement of all the provinces, to do something that is really important: expand the CPP. We know that many people in this new world of work are working in precarious jobs. Not only are they working in part-time jobs with no security but they are working in jobs where they do not foresee retirement. Their employers are not able to give them the kinds of pensions we had about 20 years ago. We see people needing to put down those roots so that when they are seniors, they can be healthy seniors who are not in and out of hospitals in a health care system that is not able to support them, because we are all aging.

One of the things we see is that benefits will reach 33%, not only for seniors who are going to be retiring soon but for young people who are getting into the workforce who can look forward to about another 25 years of work. They can actually look at having a proper retirement and to being healthy when they retire.

I would like to say one final thing. Government is not just about taxes. Government is about ensuring that the taxes we get from the population go toward helping those who are most vulnerable. As a Liberal, for me, this is very important, because there are so many people in my riding who are extremely vulnerable. This budget is helping them.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague talked about retirement and the strength of the Canada pension plan. My concern is what the government is doing to allow people to save their own money. It is taking away a whole bunch of avenues for Canadians to actually save the money they earn.

She talked about the Canada pension plan. If someone is 64 years old and passes away, that money is gone. It goes back into the pot. Now the government is looking at expanding the Canada pension plan.

If there are options, the more options Canadians have the more decisions they can make based on their personal situations. I would ask my friend opposite how she expects Canadians to actually save for retirement when the government keeps taking away those options and increasing taxes and expects them to have some money left over at the end of the day.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, this is a virtuous cycle we are talking about. The virtuous cycle says that if we help people afford housing, help them get good, stable jobs, and help them get a pension from their employer, they are able to save money at the same time. They are able to save money, because they are not paying exorbitant amounts of money on housing. They are able to save money, because they know that they will have a pot of money at the end when they retire.

A secure retirement is essential to most people, and we do not have that anymore. We are seeing people unable to retire, because they do not have pensions anymore.

On the ability to save, there is still more than $5,000 for a tax-free savings account, and most middle-income people can barely afford that, but at least there is a place for them to put aside money, which encourages them. However, when we move to $10,000 in a tax-free savings account, many of the people we are talking about, when they become seniors, would not have the ability to live a good life. They could never afford to save that kind of money.

We are being realistic.

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

Madam Speaker, deficits are an interesting thing. Of course, the principle behind deficits is that we leave them to our children and grandchildren to pay. The government started during the election with a $10-billion deficit then went to a $30-billion deficit. I have heard figures as high as $47 billion.

It is easy to be in government if one is willing to write cheques whenever an opportunity comes forward, but I wonder if the member could tell us how much she thinks might be too much, in terms of accumulating debt.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, again, there is no one solution to any problem.

You talk about accumulating debt and passing it on to our children, at the same time—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I remind the hon. member to address the question to the chair.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member knows that if we actually give people assistance in getting their children an education and in getting an affordable, stable, safe, and secure place to live, we begin to start helping people along that cycle, and their children do better and get better jobs.

It is not simply a matter of saying how much debt when we are also helping the next generation to get jobs and when we are building new industries in the creative sector for those people to get jobs. When we are investing in skills, training, and education, we are at the same time lifting that next generation and are not placing them in debt.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her speech. Central to that speech was housing. I would ask the member how housing is the foundation for ensuring that all parts of our budget lead to a good and improved quality of life for people in her riding and especially for seniors, families, and the most vulnerable.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, housing is essential to the quality of life people live. The evidence shows us that people who live in substandard housing or people who spend more than 70% of their money on housing in unaffordable rental housing, which people are doing in my riding, cannot afford food. They cannot afford to feed themselves properly. Women cannot afford to go to work, because they cannot afford to leave their children with anyone, because they do not have the means by which to do it.

It is all about how one thing plays into another. If we look at this as a holistic thing, if we look at housing as being a bedrock for creating strong and stable families, then we are actually moving forward in the right direction.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I think there were a great many Canadians who were disappointed on how the New Democratic Party voted on the budget issue, and this is a budget implementation bill.

If we look at finances, we see a movement toward the equalization of the distribution of wealth. For example, there is a substantial increase in taxation for Canada's wealthiest and a substantial decrease for Canada's middle class of hundreds of millions of dollars, which will affect nine million Canadians. We are seeing thousands of the most vulnerable seniors being lifted out of poverty through the GIS. Through the Canada benefit plan, thousands of children are being lifted out of poverty.

For all intents and purposes, I and many would argue that this is a very progressive budget. Therefore, could the member tell members of the House and his constituents what budget was more progressive than this budget, and why the NDP would vote against it?

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

Madam Speaker, with the budget implementation bill being an omnibus bill, there were a number of items we agreed with, but there were also a lot we did not. The problem with bills like this is that they have to pass the House in their current form. Therefore, because there were those poison pills in the budget, we could not support it.

With respect to the tax breaks, we agreed to raising the tax rate for people who earned over a certain amount. It was the so-called middle-class tax cut, because the true maximum benefits for that came into effect for people earning between $89,000 and $200,000 a year. As I have stated in the House many times, that was the equivalent of every single Liberal member of Parliament giving themselves a tax break. However, when the median income in Canada is $31,000 a year, the constituents in my riding get nothing. I did not come to the House to give myself a tax break, and I certainly stand by my decision earlier this year.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to seize upon the question just asked by my Liberal friend from Winnipeg, who seems to assess the progress and nature of budgets by how big their deficit is. Certainly, burdening our future with the debts of today is not progressive. I would contrast this, and the hon. member touched on it in his speech, with the fact that in the last election the NDP tried to offer a plan for the future that was not just runaway deficits. Also, a number of the tax provisions the Conservative government provided for low-income families, particularly cutting the GST, which consumed most of the lowest income level earners household income, would be progressive.

In reference to what the member for Winnipeg North just asked, suggesting that the Liberals' budget was the most progressive in history, is that just from their running a deficit? I noticed he mentioned that the Liberals liked to run as the NDP in elections and then govern in an entirely different way. Would the member comment further on that?

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

Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to go over our electoral platform for the benefit of all members in the House.

The NDP is often asked how it will pay for these things, but no mention is ever made by the Liberals or the Conservatives about the current low corporate tax rates. That fits in nicely with the infrastructure programs I talked about earlier. A large number of the infrastructure that exists in Canada has been funded by the taxpayers. A lot of that infrastructure, such as the bridges and the rails we have built, benefit corporations because they are able to move their goods efficiently.

However, the fact is that we have put all that public money into that infrastructure and we still have a very low corporate tax rate. Therefore, what we argued in the NDP was that corporations, particularly the very wealthy ones, should pay a bit more to ease the burden off the rest of society. For far too long, we have had this trickle-down economic theory where we think that if we lower the corporate tax rate to these really low levels, somehow all of this money will magically trickle down to the lower classes. Instead, as the former governor of the Bank of Canada has pointed out, the corporate bank accounts are simply swashing full of millions of dollars right now, which is dead money not being reinvested into the Canadian economy. We asked for fairness, and that was what we ran on.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is my honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-29, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures. I am also pleased to rise today so I can express my complete disappointment with how the bill has been introduced and the structure of the bill.

Bill C-29 is 234 pages, has 146 clauses, and would amend 13 pieces of legislation. How is this bill supposed to get proper review, study, and consideration? It simply will not, and the government know that and it is counting on that.

This kind of behaviour comes from a government that either has something to hide or does not want the public to know what it is up to. I suspect that a government which has not lived up to its promises on so many fronts, such as electoral reform, on the relationship with first nations, on meaningful reform to the Canada pension plan, and on its commitment to help the workers and former workers at U.S. Steel Canada is now finding it is necessary to hide its real intentions, and that is to fudge the facts, invent new and meaningless buzz words, and obscure the truth.

I need to take a moment to speak about what is to me an unfolding example of the government's desire to mask its real intentions behind a wall of rhetoric and doublespeak. I refer to the government's plan to privatize public infrastructure by selling off public assets and creating a new infrastructure bank to monetize future infrastructure projects.

As a former city councillor, I know about the dire state of our local infrastructure. I know about the lack of assistance for municipalities to help fund vital infrastructure rehabilitation. I have also seen the effects of both the federal and provincial governments downloading the costs for infrastructure projects onto the municipalities. This has helped create a staggering crisis.

No one should be fooled by the government's plan for infrastructure. The Liberals plan to privatize. No one should be fooled about what this means. It means user fees. It means toll roads and toll bridges. It means downloading the costs onto me, other members and all our constituents.

The finance minister's advisory panel on economic growth issued a report, and we expect some of its recommendations in the minister's economic statement tomorrow. Among those recommendations were the following: first, develop a focused federal infrastructure strategy which is in line with the government's economic growth agenda; second, create a Canadian infrastructure development bank to leverage institutional capital and deliver over $200 million with the projects over 10 years; and, third, create a flywheel for investment by catalyzing the participation of the institutional capital in existing assets.

We all know and agree that there needs to be new investment in infrastructure. Canadians from coast to coast have been calling on the federal government to take meaningful and substantial action for years. However, we are concerned by reports of the Liberal plan to privatize our infrastructure.

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities has expressed some serious concern that the government will take money that has been promised for housing and local projects and instead put it into its new infrastructure bank. That would mean less money for local priorities. That would mean less money for communities that were counting on addressing urgent infrastructure needs.

There are also reports that suggest the Liberals are moving ahead with plans for selling off existing public infrastructure, like airports, ports, and bridges. Having failed to sell their privatization schemes by calling them “asset recycling”, they have now invented the new term, “flywheel for reinvestment”. Do not be fooled. This is just a new word for privatization. Why do the Liberals want to sell off the valuable infrastructure that hard-earned dollars of Canadians have built? It is to pay for their budget shortfalls. This is just another example of the government trying to keep its promises from and then trying to use sleight of hand to fool Canadians into thinking otherwise.

The bill before us today is just another example of how the government is trying to pull the wool over our eyes. The bill is far too big and far too complex, and the time allotted for debate is far too short to allow for the in-depth consideration and discussion that a budget should receive.

We have discovered, however, that the bill does contain some positive measures that the NDP has fought for, but it comes nowhere near what the Liberals have been promising, and nowhere near what is necessary to strengthen our economy and to combat inequality.

We are disappointed that the Liberals have decided to let the value of the new child benefit erode over the next four years, taking the equivalent of $500 away from families. We wanted to see more aggressive action to ensure tax fairness, including more to combat tax evasion by multinational corporations, and to close the stock option loophole for wealthy CEOs. It is also unacceptable that the Liberals are making adjustments to eligibility for small business taxes without restoring the promised tax cuts for small businesses.

Canadians were hoping for better from the current government. Many people have been left shaking their heads wondering why the government, which promised change, is acting like the Conservative government.

I can tell members that people in my community are shaking their heads, especially the 25,000 workers and retirees of U.S. Steel Canada, who thought that the current government would stand up for them through the bitter corporate restructuring currently taking place. Instead, we have seen a government and a Prime Minister turning their backs on the people of my community. This is a Prime Minister who, during the election, promised to do everything he could to help, but has left our pensioners and workers out in the cold.

One year after the election there has been not a word from the government or the Prime Minister about providing any help at all. It is shameful, and the people of Hamilton are not soon to forget. People in my community expected better, but like all Canadians, they have been left shaking their heads.

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

Madam Speaker, I am sorry the member feels as if the Prime Minister has left his constituents out. I can tell him that the Prime Minister has done no such thing. We have a Prime Minister who is committed, in a very significant way, to assist and work with Canadians with unprecedented consultations and policies that will make a difference for the everyday living conditions of all Canadians.

The member may want to reflect on some of the initiatives taken. We can talk about the tax breaks for the middle class, the additional tax on Canada's wealthiest, the Canada child benefit, the increase in the GIS, and many other initiatives that have been taken by this government in one year, which will do well for his constituents and in fact all Canadians.

Would the member not at the very least acknowledge that we have seen more done in the last year than we had in the previous 10 years under the Harper government?

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, yes, we have seen a little bit of positive change, but not what was promised when the Liberals rolled out their promises. Almost everything they promised to change has been watered down.

If you look at your child tax benefit—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I would remind the member to address his comments to the chair.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, if we look at the child tax money that the Liberals have handed out, they now do not even want to index it at the rate of inflation for another five years.

If we look at the Canada pension plan enhancement, people are surprised that it will only help future retirees and does not do anything for people now, or for people who are out there on disability, or for those who have been raising their children and do not get credit for having done so, because they did not make contributions.

To finish my answer, yes, there have been some changes, but they are watered down changes, and we expected better than that.

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

Madam Speaker, in my previous life I was mayor of a community called Cranbrook, and one of the burdens that our taxpayers ended up living with was a failed public-private partnership. A new recreational complex was built in Cranbrook, a public-private partnership that failed. The city ended up having to buy out the private partner, and we were locked into about 15 years' worth of loans at 8% that we could not even borrow money to pay down, because the loans were locked in.

What are some of my colleague's other concerns about privatization of infrastructure? It certainly was a failure in Cranbrook.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, there would not be enough time to say what happens when governments partner with private companies. Most of time when we join with private companies, they seem to get the bigger benefit and the public side always seems to get the shortfall. In Ontario, we paid millions and millions of dollars for Highway 407. Then it was privatized and all of a sudden its owners are making millions of dollars, which we said we could not do. I am having some difficulty with any kind of privatization, but if it is going to happen, we have to make sure that it will be of benefit to Canadians and not just to corporations.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Mount Royal.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to two aspects of budget implementation act, 2016, No. 2. This bill makes significant amendments to the Canada Disability Savings Act and the old age security program.

At first glance, these two programs seem to be different. However, they have the same goal, namely to ensure that the most vulnerable Canadians enjoy a good quality of life and live with the dignity they deserve.

First of all, I would like to remind the House that the Canada Disability Savings Act governs how the grants and bonds provided by the government are paid into registered disability savings plans, or RDSPs.

RDSPs were created in 2008 in order to help people with disabilities and their families save in order to provide long-term financial security. Canadian residents who are entitled to the disability tax credit can open an RDSP until the end of the year in which the recipient turns 59. Parents or guardians can open an RDSP on behalf of a minor. There is no annual contribution limit, but the lifetime limit is $200,000.

The gains accumulated are tax-free until withdrawn from the RDSP. The government contributes to the RDSPs of eligible recipients by providing grants or bonds, or both, up to a maximum amount.

The bill being debated today would amend the Canada Disability Savings Act. These changes are required because the act refers to the Canada child tax benefit. As all members know, that benefit was replaced by the new Canada child benefit last June. Every year, the amount of the grant or bond that the recipient is entitled to is calculated on the basis of adjusted family income.

With regard to RDSP benefits for youth under the age of 18, this adjusted income, the amount used to determine the government's contribution in the form of a grant or bond, was also used by the government to calculate the amount of the Canada child tax benefit. Since that benefit no longer exists, we need to amend the provisions of the Canada Disability Savings Act that mention that benefit. We also need to amend the provisions that mention “phase-out income”.

As members know, the amount of the bonds decrease for those with higher incomes. The threshold at which the bonds start to decrease is called the “phase-out income”. It is important to understand this concept because the formula used to calculate the phase-out income includes the Canada child tax benefit.

As a result, the following three consequential amendments will be made to the Canada Disability Savings Act. First, the references to the Canada child tax benefit in five provisions of the Canada Disability Savings Act will be replaced by references to the new Canada child benefit. Second, the definition of “phase-out income” will be changed to include the Canada child benefit income threshold in the formula. Third, the definition of “child tax benefit” in the definitions section of the Canada Disability Savings Act will be removed since it will no longer be necessary.

Thanks to these amendments, the income thresholds for eligibility for the Canada child benefit and the Canada disability savings bond will be harmonized. The increase in the income threshold will produce a slight increase in total payments made for the bond in the RDSP of persons with disabilities. Persons with disabilities are not the only group that needs additional government assistance. The income security of our country’s seniors is another government priority.

That is why we will be formulating provisions to help Canada’s seniors enjoy a good quality of life. Seniors are important members of our society, who contribute actively to the well-being of their families and of our community, as well as to the growth of our economy. We have one of the lowest rates of senior poverty in the world.

In 2013-14, the most recent year for which data were collected, the Government of Canada paid Canadians over $79 billion under the Canada pension plan and old age security. These programs have contributed greatly to reducing the low-income rate for seniors over the last 30 years. However there still remains a great deal of work to do.

In 2014, the most recent year for which data were collected, 3.9% of the country’s seniors were living below the low-income cut-off established by Statistics Canada, representing some 200,000 people. Nearly 80% of these low-income seniors, or the vast majority, are single, and most of them are women.

That is why we have also increased by $947 per year the amount paid as the guaranteed income supplement to low-income single seniors. This measure will support the most vulnerable seniors who depend almost exclusively on their old age security pension and guaranteed income supplement, and who are thus at risk of experiencing financial difficulties.

Similarly, this measure will improve the financial security of some 900,000 seniors all across Canada, and we estimate that it will help lift nearly 13,000 of the most vulnerable seniors in Canada out of poverty.

We already support senior couples, in cases where the two members of the couple are receiving the guaranteed income supplement, have high living expenses, and are at high risk of poverty due to the necessity of living apart, for example, when one of the spouses is forced to live in a nursing home.

In some senior couples, one partner receives the guaranteed income supplement and the other the spousal allowance, but they have to live apart for reasons beyond their control, such as one of them needing long-term care. We are in the process of amending the Old Age Security Act to ensure that such couples receive higher benefits based on each individual's income.

I would like to point out that the allowance is paid to people 60 to 64 years of age with low income whose spouse or common-law partner receives the guaranteed income supplement.

Our government also reversed the decision to increase the age of eligibility for old age security from 65 to 67, which should come into effect in 2023. That change will give low-income seniors up to $17,000 per year. With these key measures, we will provide essential support to the most vulnerable Canadians.

The Government of Canada cares about seniors. Canadians work tirelessly their whole lives. We should all have a chance to live into old age without worrying about making ends meet. That is why our minister was given a mandate to improve income security for low-income seniors. These measures are how we are keeping that promise.

We promised to help more Canadians escape poverty. To me it is unimaginable that in a country like Canada there are still people who are unable to meet their basic needs. This is unacceptable and we are doing something tangible to correct this situation.

I believe we all agree that no one should grow old in poverty or isolation. I cannot emphasize enough how important this issue is to our government.

I would also like to take a moment to discuss the Canada pension plan, another important pillar in our retirement income system. Retirement income security has to start with solid and stable public retirement plans such as the Canada pension plan.

We are also working with the provinces and territories to strengthen the plan. Earlier in October, we introduced a bill to amend the plan in order to help middle-class Canadians achieve their goal of living a dignified life in retirement with guaranteed income security.

We are making a considerable investment in the well-being of seniors. Canadians who work hard contribute to our society throughout their lives and our government believes that every Canadian deserves to grow old with respect and dignity.

Laurentides-Labelle has more of an aging population than most other ridings. The 2011 census found that the average age in the riding was 49.5. I look forward to the results of the 2016 census, but I would be surprised if the average age had not risen considerably.

Seniors' issues are crucial; we must improve their quality of life without delay. We can always do more, but I think we are on the right track with this bill and with this budget. Canada has always been a leader when it comes to delivering services to seniors. Our retirement income system is considered one of the best in the world.

I strongly urge my colleagues to help make sure it stays that way by supporting this bill.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to repeat in English what the hon. member said in French about senior citizens and the changes that are being made to allow senior couples, who have to live apart for reasons that are no fault of their own, to be spared having money come off the seniors' supplement. One party is earning money but they are not living together, which increases their costs.

I met a lot of couples like that in the election where one spouse was in a retirement home because they were too sick to live with their spouse. I was just wondering if my hon. colleague also had similar experiences in the election and met couples who were affected by that measure.

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

Madam Speaker, my own family was affected by this. My grandparents lived in adjacent units in Lac Saint-Louis, I think it was that riding, for the last couple of years of their lives.

We see the reality of the situation. It is very important that we take care of our seniors in every possible way that we can.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his very detailed presentation speech on some of the measures that are contained in the bill, which is close to 234 pages long. I am disappointed that it is being presented in this way and that we are not having enough time to really give it proper consideration and study.

I would like to share with my colleague my disappointment with one part of the bill; that is, the decision not to index the child benefits over the next few years. Actually, the indexing will not happen until the next federal election. That will have a bigger impact on low-income families, which are the majority of families in my riding.

I wonder if you would agree with me that was a bad decision and that indexing should happen sooner, not in the next election.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the member to address the questions to the Chair and not to the individuals.

The hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for drawing our attention to this very good program that, at least in my riding, is expected to help about 4,000 people out of poverty. It is an incredibly important program. It is an incredibly progressive program. I am really proud to support it. I am looking forward to the future changes that we make as we go forward.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a simple, common-sense question for my colleague. How does he explain the difference between a modest $10-billion annual deficit and a $30-billion annual deficit? How does a government member explain to the people of his riding, who placed their trust in him, this change in attitude once his party took power?

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

Madam Speaker, I have no problem explaining that. I believe that the deficit exists everywhere you go: it exists in our infrastructure, in our society, and in our government. Personally, I want us to invest in the future of our country, in our infrastructure, in all the programs that we need to implement. I do not want to ignore those things in order to achieve a certain number. I want to invest, and that is what our government is doing.

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

Madam Speaker, my question is with regard to the whole issue of consultation. I met an interesting individual, Kourosh Doustshenas, who had raised an issue with me. I want to ask the member what he thinks of consultation and the importance thereof.

For example, this individual talked about the homebuyers' plan and how it has helped close to three million people since 1992. He believes that the government needs to take a look at that particular program.

I wonder if my colleague would just talk about the importance of consultations.

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

Madam Speaker, for just over a year now we have consulted. My riding is a huge riding. I have 43 municipalities and 300-and-something city councillors. In my office, we met with all of my city councillors, my seven chambers of commerce, my four regional development agencies, every organization we could find to get their input, and that consultation is what fed our ability to contribute to this process.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order, please.

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Essex, Dairy Industry; the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan. Infrastructure; and the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou, Veterans Affairs.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Mount Royal.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today on this second act to implement certain provisions of the budget.

Many of my colleagues who were former municipally elected officials would join me. As mayors and councillors, we frequently passed budgets that were in the $50-million range and, in some cities, in the $1-billion range, like the regional government in Montreal, and yet meetings were very sparsely attended. There may have been one or two people in attendance to see a $1-billion budget pass and yet if there was a meeting on a dog run, there would be 400 people. The reason is that it is very difficult to understand bills that consist of 243 pages and go into very minute financial detail. It is not sexy, but it is important.

I am proud of the budget that we delivered earlier this year and I am pleased to talk about this bill, as well as the investments that the Government of Canada has been making to keep Canada and its people strong and growing for the long term.

This second budget implementation act proposes items that would complete the implementation of outstanding measures from the Government of Canada's first budget. As a government, and as the MP for Mount Royal, I am proud of our first budget. It put people and families first. It introduced investments that were an essential step to grow the middle class, such as, of course, the improved family allowance. I was particularly happy to see it targeted at families who needed it the most on a tax-free basis. This is the first step of a long-term plan to restore hope and revitalize the economy for the benefit of all Canadians.

This is a budget and a plan, by the way, that not only resonated with many Canadians but is garnering international praise as well. The Financial Times called Canada a glimmer of light. The Wall Street Journal called Canada the poster child for the International Monetary Fund's global growth strategy. Christine Lagarde, head of the International Monetary Fund, praised our approach as well.

The Economist magazine has put Canada's approach on its cover, with a story entitled, “Liberty moves north”. It stated, “the world owes Canada gratitude for reminding it of what many people are in danger of forgetting: that tolerance and openness are wellsprings of security and prosperity, not threats to them”. Our budget earned endorsements because we, as a government, are focused on the right things. We are focused on people, growing the economy for the long term, and doing so in a way that should benefit every Canadian.

Canadians deserve financial consumer protection that keeps pace with their needs. In line with this, budget 2016 contained plans to strengthen and modernize our financial consumer protection framework. Budget implementation act, 2016, No. 2, a very sexy title, would amend the Bank Act in order to strengthen and modernize the financial consumer protection framework.

Canada's financial sector weathered the 2008 financial crisis well, but we are seeking to build on this strength. We want to make sure the financial sector is able to adapt to new trends, including emerging financial innovation and technologies that would challenge existing business models, evolving consumer preferences and customer relationships, changing demographics, and continuing globalization.

Budget 2016 proposed to modernize the financial consumer protection framework by clarifying and enhancing consumer protection in the Bank Act and to work with stakeholders to support the implementation of this framework. This legislation proposes to consolidate and streamline existing consumer provisions into one new chapter of the Bank Act and introduce amendments to the Bank Act to enhance consumer protection in the areas of access to basic banking services, business practices, disclosure, and complaints handling, as well as corporate governance and accountability.

The federal government is exercising leadership by taking targeted steps to strengthen financial consumer protection. This includes measures to improve access to basic banking services and enhance disclosure to facilitate informed decision-making by consumers. These reforms would reaffirm the federal government's intent to have a system with exclusive rules for consumer protection to ensure an efficient banking system from coast to coast to coast.

As part of an international effort to combat tax evasion, budget 2016 confirmed the government's intention to implement the common reporting standard developed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Under the common reporting standard, Canadian financial institutions would be expected to have procedures in place to identify accounts held by non-residents and to report information on those accounts to the Canada Revenue Agency. Tax administrations in foreign jurisdictions would likewise collect information from their financial institutions about accounts held by residents of other countries, including Canada. The CRA would formalize exchange agreements with foreign jurisdictions, having verified that each jurisdiction has appropriate capacity and safeguards in place. Then the financial account information would begin to be exchanged on a reciprocal, bilateral basis.

The introduction of the common reporting standard is an important global development, which will help enhance tax compliance and eliminate opportunities for tax evasion. Canada intends to implement the standard, consistent with our commitment to the G20 and similar commitments by more than 100 other jurisdictions.

The budget also announced plans to implement a new requirement for country-by-country reporting. This is an initiative agreed to under the G20/OECD project to address tax avoidance by multinational enterprises through base erosion and profit shifting. Under these new rules, large multinational enterprises would be required to file with tax authorities information providing a high-level profile of their activities in each jurisdiction where they operate. These reports would enhance transparency and assist tax administrations in performing effective risk assessments.

Going forward, Canada will continue to work with the international community to ensure a coherent and consistent response to tax avoidance.

In addition to these new legislative tools, budget 2016 also announced $444 million in new resources for the Canada Revenue Agency to address offshore tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance.

Budget 2016 represents a step forward in our plan to put people first and to deliver the help they need now, while investing for years and decades to come. With these investments, and inspired by a sense of fairness, we are ensuring that Canada's best days lie ahead. Our plan is about creating the necessary conditions to ensure that hope and hard work will not be wasted but rewarded, where our children and our children's children can flourish. The Government of Canada is focused on the larger picture of ensuring prosperity for Canadians well beyond our 150th birthday.

There are so many times I look at the House and wonder whether partisanship can ever be overridden. I was so proud earlier today when the government congratulated the official opposition on the way it negotiated the CETA treaty when it was in government. Both acknowledged the other party's steps in advancing the treaty, working to put it forward, and getting it ratified. That was the House at its best. All of us should always strive to be at our best in the House. The budget implementation bill is something we should all look forward to supporting on a non-partisan basis.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, as a newer MP, my colleague has a great attitude as far as working together is concerned, but there are certain realities that we have to face. Coming from Oshawa, a manufacturing community, I recognize that even though we want to work together, sometimes we have to face certain realities when we are competing with our biggest competitor right next door. The Americans do not have policies such as state or federal carbon taxes. They are not increasing their payroll taxes, as we know the government is doing. He knows as well that we are saddled in Ontario with the highest electricity rates in North America.

I am wondering about his thoughts on our international competitiveness. If we start putting these policies forward, as former prime minister Mulroney was quoted as saying over the weekend, we should not foolishly put ourselves at competitive disadvantage. Is there anything he sees coming forward in their budgets that are going to compensate for those non-competitive policies that have been put forth by the Liberals?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Oshawa for his kind remarks at the beginning of his statement.

Former prime minister Mulroney is a fine man. I have had the pleasure of meeting him on many occasions, and while I disagree with his comments in this case, I think he also has a very open mind to look at things in a fair-minded way. We all have to do that.

I disagree. The budget is actually putting forward measures that would enhance Canada's innovation and would ensure that Canada is able to compete on worldwide basis. I also agree with my colleague that we need to look at each and every measure. We need to ensure we are on a level playing field. We cannot go to either extreme.

Government has a role and so does private industry. We have to work together to make them thrive. Therefore, while we may disagree on this point and on carbon pricing, on the whole, we agree in principle that government has a role in the economy, but so do other parts of the economy, including, very importantly, private business.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, obviously, I am in favour of the Canada child benefit, but under the bill before us, the benefit will not be indexed for four years. That does not create the new day care spaces we need. I was looking at how much it costs to put a child in day care. It can cost from $35 to $73 an hour. This benefit, which is not even indexed, will pay only a fraction of the cost of day care.

In addition to the Canada child benefit, why does the government not also create, as we suggested, day care spaces and affordable day cares that cost $15 a day to help women return to the labour market after having a baby?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Hochelaga for her question. I really appreciate it.

The family allowance is a very important measure that this government put in place. I am very proud of the fact that we are now sending money to those who need it most. We are going to lift thousands of Canadian children out of poverty.

During the election campaign, the NDP was the one that had a day care plan. The Liberal Party had no such plan. We said that we would rather give that money to the parents of the children and that is what we are doing with the family allowance.

I appreciate my hon. colleague's question.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his wonderful speech. I would suggest that he is a rising star in the House.

The Canada child benefit, the income tested tax-free child benefit, was a promise that effectively became our biggest strength during the campaign. In my riding we have young people who for the first time are involved in sports, in the arts and culture, and dance lessons. This is an incredible policy. Are you seeing the positive effects that I am seeing in your riding, such as food bank usage going down and things like that?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I am not sure if I am seeing the positive effect in his riding, but the member needs to address the question to the Chair.

The hon. member for Mount Royal, please.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would love to bring you to my riding to show you the positive effects that my colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour speaks of.

Yes, in the poorer sections of my riding where there are many people who really need government help, I have seen more kids involved in those types of programs. I want to thank him for his incredibly kind comments and let me return the favour by saying the same about him.

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

Madam Speaker, I would first like to thank my colleague opposite for mentioning the sometimes non-partisan work done by both sides of the House. The opposition's role is to acknowledge the government when it does something right. Unfortunately, the opportunity does not present itself very often. However, the government gives us ample opportunity to criticize it for not doing things right. Our job is to make Canadians aware of the government's mistakes, oversights and broken election promises.

We will always gladly collaborate at committee or through parliamentary associations to move issues forward, but sometimes, and people need to understand this, the role of the opposition is to look for things that might be wrong. This role is easier to play when the government gives us a lot of material, like the current Liberal government. Still, I wanted to acknowledge my colleague and his presentation, in which he mentioned the non-partisan work we do in this House.

I would also like to thank our new finance critic, the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent, who has done a great job since his appointment. To be put in charge of a file like a budget implementation bill and have to study it and give a speech on it with only a few days' notice is no easy task.

Bill C-29 implements the Liberal government's first budget. Honestly, I think our colleague has done a great job pointing out the inconsistencies in Bill C-29 and, therefore, the inconsistencies in the Liberal government's first budget.

Usually, we expect a bill to implement a newly elected government's first budget to include the new government's plan, the plan promised by the Liberals to Canadians during the last election campaign. After careful consideration of the budget and Bill C-29 which we are discussing today, I find that, instead, Parliament is faced with a glaring example of Liberal void.

I would like to go back in time a little bit. Since the Liberals came into power, the legislative agenda is the lightest it has been in two decades. I can quote one of my colleagues who did some research with the help of the Library of Parliament:

The first few months of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's government have been the least productive of any government in over two decades...

I am not making this up. The Library of Parliament looked into the matter.

Ten bills have been passed by Parliament during the first nine months of Mr. Trudeau's tenure. By comparison, the Conservatives passed 18 pieces of legislation, nine of which were passed in their first 23 days. These statistics, which were provided by the hon. member for Durham, speak volumes.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, pardon me for interrupting the debate, but the Prime Minister's name has been said twice now. I would like to remind my colleague that members' names are not to be used in the House.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I did not hear it, but if the member said the Prime Minister's name or that of any other member of the House, he should take note that names are not to be used.

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

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I did use the Prime Minister's name, and I apologize. I got a little carried away in my fervour, but I will not let that happen again.

Still, I can talk about former prime ministers, including former Liberal prime minister Paul Martin. Internationally, he was seen as indecisive, but he found ways to pass more legislation as he tried to keep his struggling minority government afloat. During his first nine months in government, 36 bills became law.

How about another one? During Liberal prime minister Jean Chrétien's first nine months in office, 34 bills received royal assent in 1994, and 38 more were passed after the 1997 election. The current Prime Minister has managed to pass a mere 10 bills.

It is with that in mind that we begin our study of Bill C-29. This being a budget implementation bill, one would expect to find the government's promises in it. It should include massive infrastructure investments, a modest deficit, tax cuts for small businesses, home mail delivery, an agreement on diafiltered milk, a softwood lumber agreement, and plenty more. Unfortunately, none of those things are in Bill C-29.

No one could tell me where those promises came from. From the beginning, the opposition has been reminding everyone and repeating the same thing. I took the time to confirm everything and went back a year in time to see exactly what these infamous Liberal promises were. I found a lot. I do not understand why they have not introduced more legislation, considering all the promises the Liberal Party made during the last election campaign.

First of all, let us talk about modest deficits. On page 11 of the Liberal plan, or what I call the Liberal void, it states:

We will invest now in the projects our country needs and the people who can build them.

They do say “now”, and not in 10 years or five years. Page 12 continues:

We will run modest short-term deficits of less than $10 billion in each of the next two fiscal years to fund historic investments in infrastructure and our middle class.

After the next two fiscal years, the deficit will decline and our investment plan will return Canada to a balanced budget in 2019.

That is one promise the Liberal government has broken. There was another promise about modest deficits. It is worth reading. Page 73 states:

We will be honest about the government of Canada’s fiscal position, and base our projections on the recent report by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, instead of April’s outdated budget figures.

If the parliamentary budget officer is so important to the Liberals, why did they refuse, about 50 times, to allow the parliamentary budget officer's reports to be tabled right here, before parliamentarians?

Once again, they say one thing, but then do the exact opposite once they are in power. There is another interesting promise on the same page:

We will run modest deficits for three years so that we can invest in growth for the middle class and credibly offer a plan to balance the budget in 2019.

That is just one more promise the Liberals have broken.

To sum up deficits, I will quote someone who is not an opposition member. A TD Bank representative said:

The federal government’s deficit this fiscal year will be about $5 billion higher than Ottawa predicted in its March budget...

That is what the TD Bank is predicting. It blames the sluggish economy. According to TD Bank:

Over a five-year span, the cumulative deficit is likely to be $16.5 billion higher than forecasted in the last budget.

The forecast in the last budget was not $10 billion. It was not a modest deficit of $10 billion annually, but $30 billion annually. TD Bank tells us it will be even higher:

The higher-than-expected deficit will soak up the $6-billion annual cushion and then some that the government built in to its finances to protect against unforeseen events.

This could go beyond that even. The Liberals promised modest deficits, but I have to say that they did not keep their word.

As such, when it comes to budget implementation, the opposition parties feel quite reticent about trusting the other measures contained in Bill C-29.

Nonetheless, let us move on because there were other promises in the Liberal plan, or the “Liberal void” I should say. The plan says, “As we reduce the small business tax rate to 9 percent from 11 percent”. Not only did the government not reduce the small business tax rate to 9%, but it imposed a tax on carbon, which will greatly hinder small and medium-sized businesses in Canada. That is another broken promise.

With regard to agricultural producers, we find this little sentence on page 16: “We will help Canada’s agriculture sector be more innovative, safer, and stronger.” How will they help the agricultural sector be stronger? They will “defend Canadian interests during trade negotiations, including supply management.”

The diafiltered milk problem was an urgent issue and a solution had to be found. The solution was simple, but it lay in the hands of ministers. Unfortunately, despite the numerous promises of the Liberal government and the fact that producers from all over Quebec and Canada came right here, to Ottawa, to practically beg for action on diafiltered milk, there is not even a single measure in the budget on this subject. There we have another broken promise of the Liberal government.

In the softwood lumber file, a file that directly impacts every region of Canada that has trees, those magnificent works of nature that grow and enable us to develop our economy, we were supposed to conclude an agreement. We had one year to try to reach an agreement with the Americans. Unfortunately, Bill C-29 contains absolutely nothing on the possible implementation of a new softwood lumber agreement.

However, the Liberal platform says, “Canada’s economic success relies on strong trade relationships with our closest neighbours: the United States and Mexico.”

Furthermore, the next sentence is really worth quoting: “Unlike the Conservatives’ short-sighted approach, our focus on rebuilding relationships will build a solid foundation for greater trade, stronger growth, and more job creation.”

Here is one last little sentence: “To underscore the importance of the United States to Canada, we will also create a Cabinet committee to oversee and manage our relationship.”

We have no results on the two issues that concern the Americans, softwood lumber and diafiltered milk. Where is this committee? What is it doing? Does it exist? Unfortunately, I must once again say that this is another unkept promise by the Liberals.

I still have many pages of broken promises to mention. Let’s talk a bit about Canada Post. On page 34 of the “Liberal void”, we read: “By ending door-to-door mail delivery, Stephen Harper is asking Canadians to pay more for less service. That is unacceptable.”

One year later, absolutely nothing has changed on mail delivery. The decisions that were made by the Canada Post Corporation, an independent organization, are still the same, and home mail delivery has nowhere been restored. Once again, these are false pretexts and another promise not kept.

This is what they had to say about Iraq: “We will end Canada's combat mission in Iraq.” They withdrew our CF-18s and sent our soldiers to the front, where they are in even greater danger. We had decided to send our jets to protect Canadian soldiers. However, they decided to withdraw our planes, for strictly ideological reasons, and to send our soldiers to the front lines instead, to help the fighters there do their part. Yes, Canada must be involved, but could we have the facts? Could we be told exactly what we are doing in Iraq? This is another promise that was broken by the Liberal government.

Last week, here, in the House, I witnessed some things that impressed me. Some Liberal members introduced very interesting bills that were given the nod by cabinet.

The bill to provide a tax credit for first aid courses was of interest to me. Cabinet members voted against the bill introduced by one of their own members even though we find the following on page 30 of the Liberal platform:

We will make free votes in the House of Commons standard practice.

We will give Canadians a stronger voice in the House of Commons by limiting the circumstances in which Liberal Members of Parliament will be required to vote with Cabinet.

I am convinced that cabinet members did not read these lines because they voted against the bill of one of their own colleagues. It did not happen once or twice, but three times. It is important to mention that the promise to have free votes is, once again, a broken promise.

The Canada child benefit will not give rise to any new administrative costs. It replaces and is based on the structure and success of the Canada child tax benefit.

In Bill C-29, the Liberals confirmed that they are going to index the Canada child benefit to inflation as of January 2020. The parliamentary budget officer estimates that indexing the Canada child benefit will cost $42.5 billion over the next five years. The parliamentary secretary said that they are going to move forward with the measure despite the financial pressure it puts on the public purse. The government did not provide for this indexing in the budget. The parliamentary budget officer showed that it will cost billions of dollars more than predicted per year. Where will the Liberals find that money? The Liberals have shown us where they will get it from the outset. They will find it in Canadians' pockets.

When the Minister of Finance introduced Bill C-29, he spoke about the future. He said that the purpose of the bill was to help Canadians. He spoke about a long-term plan and how things will be tough in the short term. In fact, this is going to cost Canadians a lot of money in the short term.

Let us talk a little bit about the vision of the Minister of Finance. I was shocked to read his comments in the Edmonton Sun this weekend. The article spoke about the Minister of Finance and talked about what young people and not-so-young people would do with all the time they will save as a result of technology. As everyone knows, today's technology allows us to do a lot more than before in much less time. Back in the day, we thought that would give young people more leisure time. However, the reality is quite the opposite. The Minister of Finance was asked some questions. I will read a brief excerpt from what he said, but before I do, I would like to say that I think that all young people should take the time to read this article.

The other day, Finance Minister...told Millennials, the generation most-addicted to high technology and social media, that they had best get used to a series of dead-end jobs and continuous retraining, coupled with bouts of unemployment, and a life where job security is a pipe dream.

That is unbelievable. What kind of message is the government sending our young people?

He called it “job churn,” as in never-ending job losses and job searches, resume rejections, and living day-to-day....

The Liberal plan for youth is to teach them to get fired, get a new job, get fired, get a new job, and so on. Is that the Liberal job-creation plan? Every new hire-and-fire will count as a new job. That creates zero jobs and puts us no further ahead.

The article quoted the Minister of Finance. Is that supposed to make young people feel hopeful?

The Minister of Finance said this:

“We need to think about, How do we train and retrain people as they move from job to job to job?”.... “Because it’s going to happen. We have to accept that.”

No, we do not have to accept that. Our young people have the right to stable jobs. Our young people have the right to work. Like us, they have the right to have a career, to succeed, and to hope for something better than going from job to job to job. The Liberal hire-and-fire plan is not good enough for us.

The economic forecasts are dismal despite the Liberal government's fine promises. The Bank of Canada, the Bank of Montreal, and TD Bank all say that the economic situation has not improved under the Liberals despite their fine promises.

I will vote against Bill C-29, and I hope that parliamentarians will vote in favour of the amendment proposed by our finance critic, the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent. His amendment amends the motion considerably, making it significantly more acceptable to Canadian taxpayers.

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

Madam Speaker, I take exception to a number of things the member has said. I have often talked about a number of concerns. Conservative members give the impression that when they lost governance a number of months ago, there was an actual financial surplus. They are not going to fool Canadians. Canadians know the Liberal government inherited a deficit. When Stephen Harper became prime minister, the Conservative Party inherited a multi-billion dollar surplus and turned it into a deficit of over $150 billion.

The Liberal Party has taken Canada out of deficits and into surpluses. It has provided surpluses in the past to Conservative regimes that have blown those surpluses. Could the member explain to Canadians, or at the very least explain to the House, why he believes the government should take any advice with respect to surpluses from a Conservative Party that has never really delivered a surplus?

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

Madam Speaker, I recognize the talents of my colleague from Winnipeg North, who somehow managed to tiptoe his way around the fact that the parliamentary budget officer confirmed many times over the past year that the Conservatives left a surplus in the last fiscal year.

What I do not understand is why the government continues refusing to allow us to table the parliamentary budget officer's reports in the House, so that all Canadians can read them. The member needs to explain this rather puzzling decision.

How can the Conservatives be blamed for a surplus which the Liberals deny when these same Liberals prevent us from tabling unbiased proof from someone who is not affiliated with any party in the House of Commons?

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure I understood correctly.

A Conservative member told the Liberals that they broke their promise to restore home mail delivery. If I remember correctly, during the previous Parliament, it was the Conservative government that made all those cuts and reductions to Canada Post's services.

Does this mean that the Conservatives now support restoring home mail delivery? If so, I say bravo.

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

Madam Speaker, I understand why my NDP colleague is a bit confused given all of the Liberals' broken promises. Eventually, it becomes difficult to know who said what and who promised what.

We never promised to bring back home mail delivery service. There is a simple reason for that. Canada Post is an independent corporation. The Conservatives did not decide to put an end to home mail delivery. It was Canada Post that made that decision.

However, the Liberal government promised to interfere in the management of Canada Post. How much is that going to cost Canadians?

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

Madam Speaker, new members of Parliament have come in as a result of the last election, and that member is one we are pleased with. I can assure his constituents that they are being well represented.

In regard to the Liberal question that was just posed, my colleague said that his government tried to table the facts. The truth of the matter is that last week the Liberal government tabled three big volumes called the Public Accounts of Canada. Those very documents show that we had a $1.9 billion surplus and that the books were balanced.

The Liberal member also mentioned how his party always brought forward balanced budgets under Paul Martin. Perhaps he could remind the House of how Paul Martin did that. He cut transfers in health care to the provinces. He cut back every transfer and balanced the budget on the back of provincial governments in all provinces.

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

Mr. Speaker, when such a well-posed question receives a worthwhile answer, all I can do is build on what was said.

Good Conservative management practices yielded good results. During the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, Canada had the best job creation record and the best economic growth in the G7.

We cut taxes to the lowest they have been in 50 years, such that a typical family of four saved over $7,000 a year. We did all that while working to balance the budget so that our children would not have to pay the price later.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Madam Speaker, I will get to it a little more quickly this time.

The member said that the role of the opposition, on the other side of the room, was to criticize the government. That implies criticizing for the sake of criticizing.

Does the member not think that the job of the official opposition should be to work with the folks on this side to come up with better policy on behalf of Canadians?

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

Madam Speaker, that is exactly what we are doing. The problem is that the Liberals are not listening. We are working very hard to show them the problems that their policies will cause for our children. We are showing them the problems that they will cause for our small and medium-sized businesses and for job creation. Unfortunately, no matter what tone we use or how, they never listen to give them the right answers.

The role of the opposition is to emphasize the government's small problems to ensure that it takes into account the opposition's excellent suggestion and amends its bills in order improve them.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his excellent speech, which was very topical and honest.

During the election campaign, we heard some promises. We then saw the sunny ways, here, in the House. We saw the Liberal Party break its promises one after the other. My colleague tore up almost the entire book; there is not much left to tear up.

Our children were told that they will have precarious jobs. My colleague said it very well: our children and our seniors deserve to have a better life.

Could he tell me a little about the pension bill? Will it impoverish our seniors?

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

Madam Speaker, once again, I know the page number of the Liberal promise concerning the Canada pension plan. During an election campaign, when a party sends its candidates out to campaign door-to-door in order to tell people that it is going to improve the Canada Pension plan, a 75-year-old might hear that and think that if the government is elected, their pension will increase the following day. People of that age do not think medium term or long term. In fact, at age 75, the long term and the medium term take on another meaning. Unfortunately, that is what the Liberals promised and that is what they are going to do. The enhancements will be felt in 40 years, and there is absolutely nothing for seniors now.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Before we continue, I would remind the hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable and all hon. members in the House today that when you have reference documents in hand you are not to tear them up.

I checked in the House of Commons Procedure and Practice and on page 612, chapter 13, it says:

Members may hold notes in their hands, but they will be interrupted and reprimanded by the Speaker if they use papers, documents or other objects to illustrate their remarks.

There was a decision from the Deputy Speaker on May 7, 1999. The Deputy Speaker at the time indicated that:

The hon. member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys is an experienced and capable member of this House and he knows it is quite wrong to use props. Tearing up bills and other papers in the course of his speech is surely using the document as a prop. I know that he is excited about the subject....

I just want to say that I understand that the member is very passionate about it, but that the House will not tolerate having papers ripped up and I assume that the member will be picking it all up and not leaving it for the pages.

Resuming debate. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

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

Madam Speaker, I was thinking of taking those very same papers and putting on them a piece of tape that said, “Promise kept.” Unfortunately, I will not be able to do that because it would be a prop and adding to what the member has cited.

What a privilege it is to stand in the chamber and talk about yet another very important piece of legislation that the government has tabled. Of course, it is all about the budget. When we think about the budget, we know it is all about priorities.

One of the things that today's Prime Minister stated a number of years ago when I was sitting in opposition with the then leader of the Liberal Party along with my colleagues at the time, was that there was an expectation. The expectation was that we as caucus members would go out and consult with Canadians and listen to what Canadians had to say about a wide spectrum of issues. I can say that virtually since our Prime Minister took on the role of leading our party he has been consistent on that very important issue that we need to work with Canadians, listen to what Canadians are saying, and then reflect what we are doing in this privileged House to ensure that Canadians are getting what they want the government to accomplish.

I would like to use an example. I have a constituent, Kourosh Doustshenas, who raised an important issue with me. It was dealing with budgetary types of measures. He raised the issue and I suggested that he maybe go out and do a petition on it, to try to show me and show the government some additional support. I want to provide this petition to the Minister of Finance because he and a few others, in particular members of the Winnipeg Real Estate Board and Manitoba Real Estate Association, had taken interest in doing that.

Let me share with the members of the House what that petition stated. Since 1992, the homebuyers' plan, the HBP, has helped over 2.8 million Canadians achieve their dream of home ownership. Also, the petition goes on to say that, due to inflation, the HBP has lost about $5,200 in purchasing power compared to 1992. It goes further to say that purchases resulted in over $2.9 billion in spinoff benefits and more than 22,000 jobs. The petition is calling for us to consider indexing the HBP to preserve its purchasing power and allow more Canadians to use it due to significant life changes.

I thank my constituents and I thank those who were involved. Most important, the reason I bring it up is because I truly believe that this government, more than many governments before it, is very genuine when it says that it wants input from Canadians. If we look at what the Minister of Finance has been able to accomplish in the last 11 months, it is overwhelming. I am going to do a year in review momentarily, but hundreds of thousands of Canadians have been reached out to by departments.

If I reflect on my colleagues within the Liberal caucus, I know there have been dozens if not hundreds of town hall meetings. In virtually every region of this great country, we have had MPs hosting or participating in town halls with the single purpose of trying to better understand what Canadians would like to see us as a government put in as priorities. I am proud to say that this government has delivered in many different ways.

That is unlike the Conservative Party, which lost touch with what Canadians wanted. I would suggest that had the Conservatives not lost touch, they might have done a bit better in the last election. Because they lost touch with real Canadians, we were provided an opportunity to form government. As the Prime Minister clearly indicated not only during the election but prior to the election, we can always do better. This is reinforced by this Prime Minister. In fact, many of my caucus colleagues genuinely believe that, and our efforts are in order to be able to achieve that.

When I look at this budget, I say it is all about priorities. What sorts of priorities have we seen from this government in the last year?

The first piece of legislation was a significant decrease in taxes for Canada's middle class. We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars being put into the pockets of more than nine million Canadians.

We will often hear from the opposition benches, “What about small businesses? Give small businesses a break”. Let me tell members that what drives Canada's economy is Canada's middle class. The healthier the middle class of Canada is the healthier our economy will be. If we put money in the pockets of the middle class, we will find that, generally speaking, the middle class will spend that money, which helps the economy.

That was the very first initiative. That was a promise given by the Prime Minister, and that was a promise that was kept.

I was very proud when the Prime Minister indicated that we were going to have a public inquiry with respect to the 1,200-plus murdered and missing indigenous women and girls, many of whom actually used to call Winnipeg North their home. This is an area I was truly concerned about. I believe that Manitobans and in fact all Canadians care passionately about this issue. Within a couple of months, we saw a commitment to have that public inquiry. I think it was long overdue. I had petitioned the government in the past. Many members of this chamber had asked the prime minister for that to take place.

These are but a couple of the initiatives that were taken right out of the gate.

The other day we were talking about gender equity and how important it is. We saw a Prime Minister, for the first time in Canadian history, introduce a cabinet with gender equity. I think that sends a very strong message. Not only do we have a better cabinet as a result; it demonstrates leadership from a Prime Minister that truly believes in gender equity.

We have seen a government that responded to what was taking place in Alberta. We are all concerned about the plight of many Albertans. For many years, Alberta, as a province, was contributing immensely to our nation. Many people would go to Alberta to generate income and would often go back to their home regions to continue to support families and so forth. Alberta is an important province. This has been demonstrated by numerous ministries. We have seen literally hundreds of millions of dollars spent in the province of Alberta, because we recognize how important it is to be there for that province.

We have seen employment insurance changes that have enabled individuals who are suffering hardship the opportunity to have a bit more money. Where we can help, we have offered additional stability. We hope, and we know, that it is only a question of time before Alberta is back in the role of providing that strong leadership.

There have been many issues since those first three months. Where do I start? How do I try to encapsulate the many different things that have taken place?

I do not know how many speeches I have given inside the House dealing with seniors. Seniors are such an important policy matter for all members of this House. I am so proud of how much we have done in such a short period of time.

I could talk about the fear factor of Stephen Harper, when he said that there was a crisis looming and we had to raise the age of retirement from 65 to 67. Many of my colleagues will recall that.

Within months of taking office, we reversed that decision. We know that Canada, as a nation, can in fact afford to allow individuals to retire at age 65. That is something I think sent a very positive message with respect to our seniors.

However, that is not all. We also introduced substantial increases to our guaranteed income supplement program. That one hits home for me because of the many doors I knocked on, and we all knocked on doors. Imagine the seniors who we talk to, the poorest, the most vulnerable of our seniors, telling us they do not know if they can afford to buy their medication because they have to put food on the table, or they say no to food, or go to food banks because they have to buy medication?

This is a very real issue for many of our seniors. With the increase to the GIS, the poorest and the most vulnerable of all our seniors will receive up to $900-plus additional a year. When they make $12,000 or $13,000 a year, that really helps. That is something of great substance we are giving to our seniors.

Many Canadians, and I have produced petitions on this, have argued the importance of our three seniors programs, those social programs that are fundamental, that make us feel good about being Canadian. I have talked about two of them. I will now talk about the third one, and that is our Canada pension program.

For years we sat in opposition and asked the Government of Canada, led by Stephen Harper, to do something about CPP. For years he turned his head and ignored the issue. There was no will at all from the former Conservative government to deal with the need to increase CPP into the future.

Just months ago, we were able to come to a historical agreement. Individuals who are working today will have more money in their pockets when it comes time to retire because of the leadership demonstrated by this government and its ability to work with the provinces.

Even though the Conservatives today oppose what we are doing with CPP, I should remind them that all the provinces had to agree. All that Ottawa could do was demonstrate the leadership, which we did, and encourage it. We had to get the support of other governments.

It pleases me to indicate very clearly to Canadians and to the House that we achieved that agreement. Because of that, many individuals will retire with more money. On the one hand, the GIS is lifting people out of poverty. On the other hand, the CPP will prevent future seniors from living in poverty. Seniors are important for the Liberal Party and the government.

Let us talk about the other end. We often hear New Democrats being somewhat critical. I think they are just looking for excuses for voting against this progressive budget. They often mention Canada's poor or those who do not make more than $35,000 a year. The Canada child benefit program has been greatly enhanced. That increase will allow literally tens of thousands of children to be lifted out of poverty. It will be based on a scale of affordability. We do not need to give multi-millionaires the same money we give a single parent who has two or three children and is finding it difficult to make ends meet. There is more fairness in the Liberals' Canada child benefit.

I would challenge my New Democratic friends, who saw fit to vote against the budget, to show me a budget in the last 20 or 30 years where they have seen such a redistribution of Canada's wealth, where there has been more of a will to try to assist those in need.

Think of indigenous people and the level of commitment that is there in a tangible way. We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars. However, it is not just the money. We are seeing a new era of recognizing the value of the many different stakeholders.

There is nothing more important, and the Prime Minister himself has said this, than the relationship with indigenous people and a nation-to-nation attitude. Does that mean we will be able to resolve every problem, such as foster care? Trust me, I know the issue of foster care well. I represent Manitoba, which has the highest per capita number of children in foster care, and that is not a good thing. There are a lot of wonderful things. I will talk a lot about the positive things in Manitoba, but when it comes to foster care, the answer is no.

Many of the issues correlated with indigenous people have become so problematic over the years that it might take some time, but I believe that we have started off on the right foot. That is because we have seen the level of interest in this government in working with others.

We saw another achievement here today. A big part of this government's agenda is jobs. We recognize the value of jobs. In fact, I suggest that if we were to do a comparison, we would find that past governments did exceptionally well. I am thinking of former prime minister Jean Chrétien and some of the policy initiatives he brought in. We can contrast that with the last 10 years, when we saw a government that took a back seat and said it did not want to get involved. We now have a government that genuinely cares and is prepared to get involved.

The CETA agreement was signed yesterday, and I applaud the Minister of International Trade and her efforts. I know the immense amount of commitment, time, and energy she personally put into that agreement. As the Prime Minister and she herself acknowledged, we appreciate the efforts of the previous government. The signing of that agreement has fantastic potential for Canada's economy, manufacturing, and jobs. We are a trading nation. The Liberal Party is very much aware of that.

The last time Liberals were in power, there was a multi-billion dollar trade surplus. We understand the importance of trade surpluses and are actively trying to reverse the hole the Conservatives put us into. When they inherited that multi-billion dollar trade surplus, they turned it into a multi-billion dollar trade deficit. It might take us some time to do that.

I only have one minute remaining, but I have so much more to say. We have helped students pay for their educations. We have ratified the Paris Agreement. I could speak for half an hour on the historic investments we have made in infrastructure. We introduced a new teacher and early childhood educator school supply tax credit. We have invested in innovation at Canada's post-secondary institutions. We have built new business relationships abroad. There is so much more. I have not even talked about immigration.

I will leave it at that. I hope there will be questions.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his comments. Many of us on this side wanted to ask some questions, but I got the luck of the draw tonight.

We are doing a study right now on poverty and poverty reduction strategies in the human resources committee. One thing we found particularly strange was how many departments had not actually costed the CPP increases, and also a carbon tax.

As was also mentioned by the minister, how are Canadians going to be able to afford the increases from a carbon tax, considering that they have tight budgets? Kraft Dinner is something that a lot of Canadians eat at the end of the pay period because they simply cannot afford anything more. Now we are going to put a carbon tax on top of it, plus a CPP increase. The CPP increase can be upwards of $3,000, and a carbon tax could be $3,000 as well.

The member talks about what the Liberal government is giving back to Canadians. What are you taking from Canadians?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I am not taking anything from Canadians, but I will certainly redirect the question.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, that question demonstrates very clearly why the Conservatives are so out of touch with what Canadians really want and expect of their government.

Both of the examples that the member referenced were not just something that the national government had to put into place. We actually had to work with the different provincial counterparts, whether on CPP or the carbon pricing issue.

Therefore, we have provinces from all regions of the country, with different parties providing governments, and all of them are saying that on both accounts we need to move forward.

Not only are we thinking about today, we are thinking about tomorrow's generation. This is something that a good strong government does. It demonstrates leadership and does not just think about today. We think about the future, and all governments recognize that. It is only the Conservatives who have lost touch on this issue.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind members that when someone is speaking, we allow that person to speak without having interruptions. The House is in process, so I would assume members would keep their voices down.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia.

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

Madam Speaker, I always appreciate the member's unbridled enthusiasm for everything Liberal.

Last week, I attended a precarious workshop convention here in Ottawa that was hosted by the NDP. It brought together employable youth from across Canada. I went there to listen to some of the challenges they are facing, and it was with problems in finding work at all. A lot of the work is part time. It does not come with any benefits, and it does not come with any pensionable future for them. It was to the point where one of the members at the table I sat at was in tears.

My question to the member is, if this government is so good, particularly for employable youth, why has it left youth in tears?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question, but I would say to the member that we have a Prime Minister who truly cares in terms of what is happening with our youth. It is one of the reasons we have the Prime Minister's council on youth. It is why members of Parliament will see that there are councils being established virtually in all of the different regions.

However, it is more than just talking about youth. We have doubled the budget for youth summer employment. Often that summer employment allows for the connections to be made that will ultimately lead to full-time jobs. We have also increased Canada student grant amounts 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.

This is a government that cares about youth. Not only do we care, but we have demonstrated that we can actually make a difference if we have the right policies in place.

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

Madam Speaker, it was quite wonderful to hear what my friend had to say about the past year, and what a year it has been. When I say this, it is because all of us give up a lot to be here. We take time away from our loved ones. Today I am particularly heartbroken because I am missing Halloween with my family. We all do that, across aisles. However, we see that we are working towards something. We are doing something. It is heartwarming to hear of all the things we have accomplished so far, and to know there is so much more.

One thing I hear about in my community a lot is about the need for work on immigration. There is always a concern about immigration, with families who want to be reunited, as well a desire to welcome more people, such as Syrian refugees. Could the member comment on that?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member asked that question because immigration is such an important issue, not just for me personally but also for the constituents I represent, and many other Canadians.

One of the things I take a great pride in is the fact that we have a Minister of Immigration who got the job done with regard to the refugee crisis. Also, and equally important from my perspective, is that we are seeing the processing times speed up. The family reunifications and marriages, particularly from the Punjab and other areas, was a huge priority for me. I talked a great deal about it. We are seeing a significant decrease in processing times for those, as well as a huge decline in that for citizenship applications. However, to quote the Prime Minister, we can still do better and the government will do just that.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

However, with regard to what he just said about immigration, I would remind him that at the Standing Committee on Official Languages, that is not at all what we were told. In minority settings, immigration is increasingly difficult for Syrians because of the language barrier. They speak neither of our languages and often have to rely on Arabic interpreters. If my colleague says that the minister got the job done, then someone, somewhere, misspoke because that is not what we were told in committee.

Could my colleague explain what the Minister of Immigration can do to ensure that immigrants in official language minority communities have the means to stay there?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I attribute Manitoba's success in good part to the provincial nominee program developed in 1998 or 1999 by then prime minister Jean Chrétien, which has been hugely successful.

We have seen that this government is one that believes in consultations and working with the different stakeholders, including provinces like Manitoba or communities like Saint Boniface, Manitoba. Whether large or small communities, we have a government that is prepared to sit down and work on the smaller details to ensure that immigration reflects the needs of the community as much as possible while at the same time addressing the bigger picture of demonstrating leadership on issues such as refugees.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the previous speaker for all of his information. I have heard that what the Liberals have done for the rich is take some tax money away, and what they have done with the child tax benefit is to make sure that poor people have enough money for their children.

However, what have middle-income people making $44,000 or less and without children received? Why are they still going to the food banks?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, sadly there is a finite amount of resources. I posed this question to the member when he gave his speech. At the end of the day, when we look at the budget, what we have seen over the last nine or 10 months is a government that understands the way we can best help people and the economy as a whole. That is by investing in Canada's middle class and those aspiring to become a part of the middle class. We are doing that through the middle-class tax break.

If we look at the most vulnerable in society, our single seniors, seniors in poverty or those who are trying to raise children, especially single parents and so forth, there are serious challenges. More than any other government over the last 20-plus years, the government has recognized that need and is delivering a massive redistribution of wealth. I would argue that that is lifting seniors, children, and many others out of poverty, while supporting the middle class at the same time. I think it is a win-win, and I would encourage the member to support this budget.

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

Madam Speaker, today I join my voice to that of my colleagues as we continue our dutiful work of adequately informing Canadians on Bill C-29, which seeks to implement the series of budgetary measures and tax changes announced in budget 2016, tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016. In so doing, we want to present Canadian taxpayers with the real, alarming, and absolutely catastrophic economic situation the Liberal government has willingly and irresponsibly put us Canadians in.

It is unbelievable that after being in power one year, this government has spent the Conservative government's surplus, which was $2.9 billion in March 2016. The Liberals lied to all voters of this beautiful country when it told them that, if they voted for the Liberal Party of Canada, they would be choosing a government that would run a slight deficit of $10 billion in the first year and that in four years it would balance the budget. Today, October 31, 2016, that is a lie. According to its budget for year one, the government expects to end the fiscal year in March with a deficit that is not the same, not double, but triple the deficit forecast in the March 2016 budget. That is huge — about $30 billion. The experts, whom I trust much more than this government, are forecasting a deficit of between $34 billion and $40 billion.

Our Prime Minister said that he has no idea of just how big the deficit is going to be. He is the prime minister of one of the most beautiful countries in the world, Canada, and he does not know when the wasteful spending will stop. I hope members will realize that that is irresponsible.

Tomorrow is All Saints' Day and All Souls' Day, and the Minister of Finance is going to unveil his economic update. Will he resurrect valiant Canadians of generations past, the ones that built our beautiful country? Will he tell them that the Liberal government is destroying Canada, this beautiful country that our dearly departed built by the sweat of their brow? Stay tuned.

For several months this government has been boasting of having put in place the largest infrastructure program to help our businesses create jobs. Today, we have a 7% unemployment rate. Let us ask them the question. What was the unemployment rate last year when the Conservatives were in power? It was 7%. What is the supposed benefit of the astronomical cost of the infrastructure program? There is none. It is unacceptable to make people believe that they are creating jobs.

The Liberals doubled the size of the summer jobs program last summer. They poured twice as much money into the program. They have plenty of money; they print the stuff. What happened? The unemployment rate is the same as last year. If they had not doubled the budget for the summer jobs program, what would have happened? Quite simply, unemployment would have gone up. I am not an economist, a tax expert, or a numbers expert, but I am a common sense expert, which is why my constituents voted for me.

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

They chose well.

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

I thank my colleague, Madam Speaker.

Let us talk about families. The Liberals say they want to help families. Some help. They took away the tax credit for kids who participate in sports. They would rather parents keep their kids inactive at home. Their thinking, their beliefs, their policies are just unbelievable.

These are artists, people, kids whose talent we want to develop. As a father, I want my son to play hockey and I want my daughter to dance, but the credit is gone. How is the government going to support Canadians and give them the tools to help them motivate their children to play sports and take dance classes? The Liberals took the credit away. What a great way to motivate kids. What vision.

The Minister of Finance was in such a hurry to help our Canadian families that he introduced a program to tell Canadian families hoping to buy their first house that they cannot do so right away and will have to keep working hard, trust the Liberals, and save more so they can maybe buy a house someday.

This is preventing young families from achieving their life goals and from dreaming. When a society stops dreaming, it means it is suffocating. This measure is unacceptable. The government introduced this measure because there was a problem in urban centres like Toronto and Vancouver. I have a great deal of respect for our big cities like Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal. I have no problem with them, but the Liberals need to stop choking our regions and start taking care of families.

This government is currently telling Canadian families that they need to be careful with their budgets, not waste money, and be responsible. Meanwhile, the same government is currently wasting taxpayers' money. It is spending $44 billion. Experts estimate the deficit will be about $40 billion, and there was about $2.9 billion to $3 billion to begin with. That adds up to $43 billion. Sorry, I was off by $1 billion, but that is no big deal, because according to the Liberals, that is only 30¢ these days. What they are doing is unacceptable. They lecture Canadians, but then spend themselves. Where is their credibility?

I was silent for the past few seconds on purpose. Silence can speak volumes and I am speechless. This government is inconsistent, and it has no vision and no plan. It wastes and borrows money recklessly and then asks people in our regions and Canadian families to tighten their belts.

In closing, I am going to jump ahead two pages and conclude with an acrostic of the word “Liberal”:

Lacking a plan and vision, this government spends recklessly.
It is irresponsible and has the same roots as the party caught with both hands in the cookie jar.
Beguiling, all this smooth talk makes him just “in” right now, but as the saying goes, he is all talk and no action.
Election promises made to Canadians have been forgotten by this smooth talker. In my book, honesty went out the window with nanny-gate.
Reality is the world the rest of us live in, while they plough ahead in the name of investment supposedly for the future of our children and grandchildren. I would say they are taking on debt at the expense of future generations.
At this rate, I can tell the House that in four years, the deficit will be $160 billion.
Loco Locass should sing their famous song Libérez-nous des libéraux to protect our country from the catastrophe that awaits us under the federal Liberals. There are three more years to go.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I would like to remind members that it is sometimes difficult for the interpreters to keep up when they talk too quickly.

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.

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

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

He paused to think about what his government has done in the past 10 years and to find alternatives to the wonderful platform that we have been able to implement over the past year. I would like to remind my colleagues that, in just 12 months, our government has implemented all sorts of measures. A few minutes ago, my colleague made a list of all of the measures that we have implemented, including the Canada child benefit, tax cuts, and support for students.

I would like to ask my colleague opposite whether he will acknowledge all the work that has been done by the government and all the practical measures it has taken to improve the lot of Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my excellent colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia for the good question.

What I want to say about our record over the past 10 years is that it was a successful one. We left the house in order. We left a $2.9-billion surplus.

It is being said that the economy has stalled, and it is not the Conservative Party, the NDP, the Bloc Québécois, the future Liberal, or backbenchers who are saying it. Do my colleagues know who is saying that? It is the International Monetary Fund, the OECD, and the Bank of Canada. They have said that, right now, Canada is a difficult place to invest. The situation is fragile.

It is not complicated. When you make a personal budget—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I will not disclose details about my personal budget. However, I will tell the hon. member that he must address his remarks to the Chair.

We have to make time for other questions and comments. The hon. member for Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent speech.

I would like him to tell us more. I am very interested in personal finance. We know the Liberals are in the red. As the saying goes, heaven is blue and hell is red.

I would like my colleague to tell us more about the Conservative government's successes.

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

Madam Speaker, I promise to address my remarks to you.

I would like to thank my excellent colleague from Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix for her comments.

As fathers, we have a family budget. All things being equal, if we spend $40,000 more than we have, and if we have no plan to balance the budget, what happens? Bankruptcy. The country will probably not go bankrupt, but it will lose its rating, which will result in investment instability. Nobody will want to invest here anymore. Small businesses are nervous, so they will keep their money in their pockets. That is the threat hanging over Canadians' heads.

On this Halloween night, I hope the Minister of Finance is not dressed up as a ghost. I hope he is working on tomorrow's economic update. I would ask him to take things more seriously and be more responsible, and I would like him to make job creation a priority for Canada's small businesses.

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

Madam Speaker, I am happy to get up. It is really difficult, following that last speaker.

I congratulate the hon. member on being welcomed to the House, but I have to say I think he needs a bit of a history lesson. While listening to the hon. member talk about all the wonderful things the Conservatives did, I tried to reflect back, off the top of my head, on what that was.

What sticks out most to me was the “65 to 67”, talking about seniors' pensions and changing the age of eligibility from 65 to 67. To me, that signifies what the Conservatives were about for the whole 10 years. Things like that are very significant moves. To them, it meant very little. The Conservatives did not think people needed to get their pension at 65, that it just was wasted money, and that they could hold off until they were 67. They clearly did not speak to the people in my riding or in many other ridings, and I suspect that was the case in the member's riding. We could talk about struggling and poverty, and all of the other issues around that.

We will possibly have an opportunity to talk about other issues to do with budgets in the upcoming weeks. However, I am here tonight to talk in favour of Bill C-29 for two key reasons. First, the budget places my priorities, and my community's priorities, up front. Families, children, seniors, students, and small business owners are all at the heart of our national financial plan. They are all the focus of this budget and this government's work.

As promised, the government's priority is the middle class and those working hard to join it. Unlike the twisted priorities of the Harper government that we heard about earlier, Liberals know that true economic success must be felt in only one place, around the kitchen table, when people are talking about how well they are doing or how poorly they are doing. It is not just about boardroom tables. Bill C-29 attempts to redirect the focus from the boardroom table to the kitchen table.

Now, just like any budget implementation bill, Bill C-29 is somewhat complex, but at its heart there are some important measures that directly impact middle-income families in my riding of Humber River—Black Creek. For example:

Division 2 of Part 4 amends the Old Age Security Act to provide that, in the case of low-income couples who have to live apart for reasons not attributable to either of them, the amount of the allowance is to be based on the income of the allowance recipient only.

We have often heard of elderly couples, and how when one of them has to go to a nursing home, they are separated, which of course affects the pension at the end of the day. This would correct that. This would mean seniors would not be financially punished for medical realities faced as a consequence of something as simple as their age. This would put money back into the hands of seniors at a time when they need it the most.

Similarly, there is a focus on the middle class:

Division 3 of Part 4 amends the Canada Education Savings Act to replace the term “child tax benefit” with “Canada child benefit”. It also amends that Act to change the manner in which the eligibility for the Canada Learning Bond is established....

Bill C-29 would also restructure the way the benefit is calculated by adding an eligibility formula based on income and the number of children. This may seem minor, but I assure members that the change is quite substantial for low- and middle-income families. We will hear a lot from those families as a year or two or three of our government passes, because it is going to substantially help the very people we want to join the middle class.

Again, the Liberals are proposing measures that put more money into the hands of young families working hard to put food on that table I referred to, to pay the rent, and to give their kids the opportunity for a great future.

I understand the complexity of these measures, but the impact on Canadians is anything but hard to understand. It has been just over a year since the Liberals were elected, but I can say that it has made a huge difference throughout Canada. No matter where we go, people are optimistic and they are hopeful. Our commitments are being implemented one at a time, every day.

I say this because Liberals understand that a strong economy starts with a strong middle class. When middle-class Canadians have more money to save, to invest, and to grow the economy, everyone benefits. That is what Bill C-29 is all about.

Many middle-class Canadians are working harder than ever, but simply not getting ahead. For nearly a decade, the previous government ignored the middle class and directed all recovery efforts toward big business. Its philosophy was one of reducing taxes for businesses and that these businesses would somehow reinvest that money into employing more people. It did not happen, no matter how much it wished that it would. This strategy had limited success on Bay Street, but ignored everyone living on Main Street.

Today, there is a growing consensus in Canada and around the world that governments need to invest not only to boost economic growth in the short term but to set the stage for long-term growth as well. Canada has the lowest debt to GDP ratio of any G7 country, and interest rates are at a historic low. Now is the ideal time for Canada to invest in future successes for our country.

As I have already mentioned, a strong economy starts with a strong middle class. People are not afraid to work hard, but hard work needs to hold the promise of an improved standard of living. This is the place for government now to really lend a hand. A strengthened middle class means that hard-working Canadians can look forward to a good standard of living and better prospects for their kids. This is not a terribly complex concept. Our changes to the CPP are one example of looking forward to being able to ensure that our children and grandchildren will have a better future.

When we have an economy that works for the middle class, we have a country that clearly will work for everyone. Now, more than ever, it is important that post-secondary education remains affordable and accessible. Young Canadians must have access to meaningful work at the beginning of their careers and not be burdened by increasing student debt. Budget 2016 makes post-secondary education more affordable for students from low and middle-income families and would make it easier for them to repay their student debt. Budget 2016 would also help young Canadians gain experience and extra income and find good jobs after their education.

Canada's employment insurance program provides economic security to Canadians when they need it most. Whatever their circumstances, no Canadian should struggle to get the assistance they need. To make sure that Canadians get the help they need when they need it, several changes are proposed to the current El system. Changes to eligibility rules would make it easier for new workers and those re-entering the workforce to claim benefits. To ease the burden, the Government of Canada would extend employment insurance benefits in regions affected by localized challenges. The waiting period would also be reduced from two weeks to one week. This would provide unemployed workers with hundreds of dollars more, at the time they need it most.

However, the goals of budget 2016 are not restricted to just seniors, students, or the unemployed. Budget 2016 is about shifting to a new way of looking at national fiscal success. We want to give Canadian families more help with the high cost of raising children. This is why the government promised the new Canada child benefit. We want to give Canadians a simpler, tax-free, and more generous benefit. This is why we replaced an ineffective boutique tax system with the tax-free Canada child benefit. As just one example, under the new Canada child benefit, nine out of 10 Canadian families will receive higher monthly benefits, and hundreds of thousands of children will be lifted out of poverty.

This past weekend, I hosted a public consultation with families in my riding. We talked about the issues that mattered most to them. In a nutshell, they are not asking for wealth or for fancy programming. The families, students, seniors, and new Canadians living in my riding are simply asking for a fair chance and a hand up. They need a partner to help them when times are difficult. This is precisely what Bill C-29 is attempting to do.

I am pleased to be part of a government that clearly recognizes the challenges that Canadians are facing, one that is determined to make the investments that are possible so people can move forward in a positive way and our young people are encouraged that there will be very good jobs out there for them and a chance to get a good quality education.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciated my colleague's comments.

At the beginning of her speech, she said I needed a history lesson. However, if I need a history lesson, perhaps she needs one in socio-demographic phenomenon, and perhaps she needs to brush up on her economics. When the Conservative government decided to raise the age of retirement from 65 to 67, a measure that had been spread out over several years, it was about planning for the future.

Now the Liberal government is restoring the retirement age to 65, but it is beginning to realize that it does not have enough money, so it is introducing a carbon tax and raising CPP premiums.

Can my colleague clarify how she sees this? I genuinely do not understand the direction this government is taking, while its members attack me and say I need a history lesson.

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

Madam Speaker, I certainly did not appear to be attacking him. He was just so rambunctious in his presentation of incorrect information, I was simply attempting to ensure he had the right information.

No document was produced by the government or elsewhere that showed the OAS at age 65 was not sustainable. In fact, it was exactly the opposite. The budget officer, who we all work with on all sides of the House, said that old age security for seniors was completely sustainable. There was no reason to be concerned about that part of it at all.

Anyone who has family or seniors who have worked in the construction industry, or mining, or maybe housework, realizes how difficult it is and how the body gets worn down. The idea of being able to work to age 67, alleluia for those who can. However, there are thousands of Canadians who cannot.

On the CPP file, it is about ensuring that the people who are behind us have a better future. By contributing a small increase every day and every month by the government or the employer and the individual, those Canadians will have a much better retirement.

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

Madam Speaker, some people in this place may not know that I love to cycle. One of the things I have been very happy to see is investments in active transportation. It is one of my main modes of transportation around the city. I have seen investments in bike share, bike trails, bike safety, and other forms of active transportation. I recently went on a ride with Bells on Danforth and Cycle Toronto in my community and saw how important it was there.

How is my colleague seeing the impact of investment in public transit infrastructure and in infrastructure in her community?

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

Madam Speaker, due to our investments, we will have light rail transit going right through the community in my riding. That very much will help people who have to get from the subway to get home. Transit is extremely important and our government is finally investing millions and millions of dollars to ensure that people can get from point A to point B in a safe, secure way.

However, then there is the issue of the carbon tax, about which people continue to throw around and banter. That money will go back to the provinces and be invested in transit or in the people who live in the province of Ontario.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have been in the House most of the day and have had a chance to hear the remarks of the members on both sides of the House.

One thing is crystal clear: this government has made decisions in its budget to create an annualized deficit, which is what it promised during the election campaign, specifically, a $10-billion deficit a year for about three years. Scotiabank issued a statement today, on top of all the others it has issued over the past few weeks, to inform Canadians that the deficit will not be $10 billion, as it had previously announced, but rather somewhere between $32 billion and $35 billion. That is three times higher than planned. In just one year, the Liberals will have created the deficit that was supposed to be spread over the next three years.

The government tells Canadians that it is going to invest, say yes to everyone, and hand out money like candy. However, at some point, someone has to pay for all this.

The difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives is that we managed to make many significant investments, in infrastructure among other things, without running a deficit.

During the election campaign, the Liberals said they would run small deficits of $10 billion. This is year one and we already have the deficit that was projected for year three or four. The fundamental problem with all this is that there is no plan to return to a balanced budget. I have heard that a number of times here today. No government member has talked about returning to balanced budgets. None of them have.

Later I will ask how it is that these members and this political party can run a deficit with no light at the end of the tunnel, because there is nothing to indicate an eventual return to balanced budgets. I am sure that my colleagues will continue to ask the same question tomorrow. This is an extremely dangerous road we are going down.

I heard my colleague across the way say that the government was giving an extra $900 to seniors. When the government says that it is going to hand out money left and right, the problem is that it gives with one hand from its own pocket and takes with both hands from the taxpayer's pocket. The carbon tax is a good example. It is a $2,500 tax. The government is giving $900 with one hand and taking $2,500 with the other.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I would like to inform the member that he will have seven minutes remaining when this matter returns before the House.

The House resumed from October 31 consideration of the motion that Bill C-29, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

The hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup has seven minutes to finish his speech.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will continue the speech I started late yesterday evening.

I feel it is important for me to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-29, which implements the measures announced in the budget presented back in March.

This budget was supposed to have a deficit of about $10 billion, but that figure is not even close to reality. The Liberal government is therefore not keeping the promises it made during the election, because it said that it would run deficits of about $10 billion a year for three years. In just the first year, it will run a deficit of $30 billion or more. The amount will probably be announced this afternoon in the government's economic statement. Not only is the government adding to the Canadian debt and placing the burden on future generations, but it is also failing to meet its commitments. More importantly, the desired results are not being achieved. Economic growth is weak at this time. Job creation targets are not being met. We have heard that the shortfall in terms of the job creation target and the actual number of jobs created is 50,000.

The economy has ground to a halt, despite the government's budgetary measures. The government spent and then spent some more. The Bank of Canada, economists at the IMF, and the OECD have all downgraded their economic forecasts for Canada for the next two years.

The current unemployment rate is 7% and has remained unchanged since the Liberals came to power. The parliamentary budget officer's report entitled “Labour Market Assessment 2016” indicates that 6,000 net jobs were lost over the past year. The government projected that 43,000 jobs would be created during that same period. That is a shortfall of 50,000 jobs, which is just terrible because we are here to create jobs. The government is spending money with no job creation to show for it.

The government should have immediately realized and admitted that it was and is going down the wrong path and changed tack. There is nothing wrong with recognizing one's mistakes and correcting them. There has been no indication so far that the government is going to fix its mistakes.

The government thought it could authorize the deficit with the stroke of a pen, but it has to answer to the opposition. The economic situation speaks for itself. It seems like the government cannot balance the budget. What I said yesterday during my three-minute speech is that the government thinks that budgets balance themselves. Anyone who manages a budget, whether it is a family budget or a business budget, knows full well that budgets do not balance themselves. There needs to be a plan to return to balanced budgets. Yesterday, not a single member was able to project a balanced budget in any way. The government seems to think that wishful thinking will balance the budget, but that is just not so.

I am still an entrepreneur. I am the co-owner of a business that employs 25 people. One thing I know for sure is that the government plans to impose new taxes. It has said as much. It also broke its promise to lower the small business tax rate from 11% to 9%. This would have helped businesses innovate and invest in new equipment to improve productivity.

I understand very well what that means because in the last few years that the Conservative government was in power, there were many tax cuts. This made it possible for us to continue to invest more and to create jobs. That is the complete opposite of what the government said it would do and, unfortunately, it did not follow through. In fact, it made an election promise to lower the small business tax rate from 11% to 9%, which it has broken.

That is making things difficult for businesses and it is really detrimental to job creation. The government increases taxes and does not lower the business tax. In a sense, that is tantamount to double taxation.

Then there is the carbon tax. This tax will be devastating for job creation not just for me, as an entrepreneur, but for all Canadians. On top of that, we have the mandatory increase in CPP contributions to look forward to.

This will have a negative impact on SME start-ups like mine. Actually, my business is not all that new. It is 25 years old. That being said, all of Canada's SMEs will have to pay higher CPP premiums for all of their workers and they will feel the effects. For me, this measure will mean that I will have to pay $1,000 a year per employee, for a total of about $25,000 a year. That represents most of one of my employee's salary. It is perhaps a little less but it is around there. That means that I might have to cut jobs. Given that SMEs are the backbone of the Canadian economy, imagine what will happen if they are all in the same situation as me.

I may be unable to absorb the cost of the CPP hike from my business profits, and I might eventually have to cut jobs. If all of Canada's SMEs have the same reaction, there are going to be job losses. Some economists already think that at least a hundred thousand jobs will be lost. What is worse is that the benefits of the CPP hike will not even be felt for 30 or 40 years.

This is a major problem for SMEs, and businesses are very concerned to see all these taxes adding up.

I would like to come back to the carbon tax. Businesses will not be the only ones affected. All Canadians will be. The cost of the carbon tax that companies have to pay will inevitably be passed on to consumers. The price of all consumer goods, including gas, will go up so that businesses can continue to offer the same products.

Many of the measures that the Liberals have put in place are contradictory, and unfortunately, Canadians will be the ones who pay the price.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech, which was very interesting.

He mentioned the International Monetary Fund in his speech. What would he say to Christine Lagarde, head of the International Monetary Fund, who said that Canada's approach, which is about investing in infrastructure when interest rates are low and the economy is in a slowdown, should go viral.

I have a second question for him. He talked about the previous government's corporate tax cuts. We now know that Canadian companies are sitting on $630 billion in dead money that is not being reinvested.

Does the member think there should be a tax cut across the board or more targeted tax credits for things like innovation and hiring?

I would like to hear what the member has to say about that.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for those good questions.

Ms. Lagarde does not live in Canada, so she does not have to pay the taxes that we Canadians have to pay plus the new taxes that are on the way. I believe Canada was also held up as a model of very sound management during our nine years in power. Our very meticulous plan enabled us to balance the budget while making massive infrastructure investments.

I would like to remind my colleague that, unlike the current Liberal government, we had a plan to balance the budget. They are spending like crazy and saying yes to everyone. The fact is, sooner or later, we will need a plan to balance the budget, and I am not sure my colleague will still be in his seat when the time comes to implement that plan.

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

Madam Speaker, I have questions for my colleague related to the carbon tax.

Has the member conducted any studies on the real risks and threats to our economy associated with climate change and the absence of any measures to counter those risks?

British Columbia's carbon tax has not had any negative impact on its economy. In fact, the carbon tax has had no negative repercussions whatsoever on British Columbia's economy. A carbon tax has been in place there for 10 years, and its economy has performed better than that of many other Canadian provinces.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

To the best of my knowledge, carbon emissions in British Columbia have not necessarily gone down in recent years. Our government committed to reducing emissions with very clear targets. For years, environmental organizations all over the world regarded us as a laughingstock on environmental issues. The reality is, the current government adopted exactly the same targets as the ones we had set.

British Columbia supports putting additional pressure on all Canadian businesses to meet the targets that we ourselves had set.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague one very simple question. Entrepreneurs across the nation have already told us that this increase in the CPP premium, and everything else, including the carbon tax, will kill their jobs. They will stop hiring people and put those responsibilities onto existing staff. Would my colleague comment on that?

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent question.

I have already mentioned a number of times that I am a businessman. Business people have decisions to make. Sometimes, when their business' very survival is at stake, they are forced to make extremely difficult decisions. When more and more taxes are piled on, there comes a point when they just cannot pay them anymore. The first thing they have to do, in the majority of cases, is not sell their equipment or buildings, but cut their staff. That is how they can reduce their expenses.

I would like to again thank my colleague for her question because it is very important to talk about Canada's economic development.

[Raj Grewal, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-29, an act to amend certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016.

I was elected to the House just over a year ago with all of my colleagues with the purpose of speaking up and advocating for the priorities of our local constituents. For me, they happen to be the wonderful people of Brampton East. My constituents are varied, ranging from young families trying to join or stay in the middle class to students and young Canadians entering the workforce, parents whose kids are growing up and leaving home, people planning for retirement, and seniors who too often worry about their finances.

In the last year we have taken monumental steps toward real change for all of these groups. We have cut taxes for close to nine million Canadians, introduced the Canada child benefit, increased student grants for low and middle-income families, and increased monthly payments for seniors. We are ensuring that Canadians today and tomorrow will be able to live comfortably and confidently. We need to build on this momentum.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Finance, I have had the opportunity to go through two pre-budget consultations. The first was in February, which gathered 92 witnesses in Ottawa, whom we heard from for over four days. These witnesses included individuals, NGOs, first nations advocates, and other valued groups. We also received 172 submissions online from individuals and groups. The responses we received varied in topic. The committee concluded its work with a report that offered 56 recommendations, many of which were included in the budget and this second implementation act.

We were elected one year ago on an ambitious new plan for a strong middle class and promised that we would do all that we could to help every Canadian succeed. Budget 2016 is an important part of fulfilling that promise. It offers immediate help to those who need it and it lays out the groundwork for sustained and inclusive economic growth that will benefit Canada's middle class and those working hard to join it.

Over the summer I knocked on doors every Tuesday throughout August with a team of volunteers. This allowed me to check in with the wonderful residents of Brampton East about their priorities for their families, their community, and future generations. This legislation would help those very same people we meet each day at the door, at our office, and at local events.

This second budget implementation act proposes items that would complete the implementation of outstanding measures from the Government of Canada's first budget, “Growing the Middle Class”. This legislation contains significant changes for seniors, improvements to protect Canadian consumers, tax fairness for Canadians, and last but not least, help for low and middle-income families with children.

The Canadian Association of Retired Persons estimates that roughly 600,000 seniors are living in poverty in Canada. This is far too many. Canadians would be shocked by that number. These seniors are our parents, our neighbours, our relatives, and our friends. For this reason, the government has made significant new investments to support seniors in their retirement years. Increased benefits will ensure that Canadian seniors have a dignified, comfortable, and secure retirement.

In Bill C-29 we are ensuring that Canadians would be protected financially by strengthening and modernizing the financial consumer protection framework in our country. Canadian families weathered the 2008 financial crisis fairly well because of our strong financial sector. We will build on this strength by ensuring that our financial structure is able to adapt to new trends, incorporate emerging financial innovations and technologies, and challenge existing business models, and more.

The bill would also modernize the financial consumer protection framework by clarifying and enhancing consumer protection. It would do so through amendments to the Bank Act to enhance consumer protection in the areas of access to banking services, business practices, disclosures, complaints handling, as well as corporate governance and accountability.

Of great importance to me is that this legislation is about fairness, one of Canada's fundamental values.

The bill ensures that the government has a plan to combat international tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance through new measures, while building on efforts that are currently being made both here in Canada and abroad. This work will help protect all Canadians and ensure that everyone pays their fair share. Canada has the lowest debt to GDP ratio of any G7 country and interest rates are at historic lows. Now is the ideal time for Canada to invest in its future.

Last but not least, the bill ensures that Canadian families will have a little more help with the high cost of raising children through the new Canada child benefit. Simpler, tax-free, and more generous than the existing federal child benefits it will replace, the Canada child benefit will give nine out of 10 Canadian families higher monthly payments and will lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty. This benefit will be indexed starting in 2020. We listened to the passionate advocates who said that the CCB must be indexed to inflation. As a result, supporting this budget implementation bill will help ensure that the Canada child benefit will be indexed to inflation so that families can count on the extra assistance, not just today but for years to come.

To conclude, the bill continues to deliver on this government's plan to ensure that Canadians are well served and that more Canadians will be able to join the middle class. With these investments and inspired by a sense of fairness, we are ensuring that Canada's best days lie ahead. I look forward to supporting the bill and I urge all my hon. colleagues to do the same.

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

Madam Speaker, one of the things my colleague mentioned near the end of his speech was indexing of the Canada child benefit, but what Canadians probably did not hear is that it will not happen until 2020. That is four years from now. If indexing is important, and we believe it is, why did the Liberals not include it in their spring budget? Why is it not happening now instead of waiting four more years, until well after the next election?

[Raj Grewal, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Madam Speaker, we campaigned heavily on the Canada child benefit because it would provide more money for families that needed it the most. The members opposite kept on campaigning on the fact that the universal child benefit had two problems: one, it went to millionaires across the country who did not need the benefit; and second, it was taxable. The Canada child benefit gives more money to those who need it the most. It is after-tax, and now it is indexed to inflation. It is a great benefit that helps middle-class families and the people who need it the most. I encourage the members opposite to support this benefit.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to further explore the hon. member's comment that Bill C-29 would ensure that Canadians are protected financially, and that this is an ideal time for Canada to invest in its future.

Is the member concerned at all that Bill C-29 speaks to the Liberals' infrastructure bank as a scheme that would use private and public financing? The issue of privatization inherent to terminology like “asset recycling” is of great concern. Could the member speak to that issue and how it conflicts with the financial security of Canadians?

[Raj Grewal, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Madam Speaker, we campaigned on revitalizing our economy and economic growth. There are studies across the board by economists suggesting that the best way a government can instill economic growth is to do two things. One is through innovation, which we are doing, and the other is through infrastructure. We think the infrastructure bank is a great idea, and Canadians recognize that as well.

Our partners at the provincial and municipal levels recognize there is a huge infrastructure deficit across our country from coast to coast to coast. This is going to make it easier to address those concerns. We are going to get people back to work. We are going to build Canada. We are going to ensure that middle-income families have more resources to get them back home on time, because we are going to invest in transit, we are going to build roads, and we are going to build bridges.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Brampton East for all his remarks this morning and all his hard work in his riding.

He spoke at length this morning about the budget implementation act. I wonder if he might take a moment to elaborate on the positive impacts of the middle-class tax cut that was implemented as part of budget 2016, as well as the Canada child benefit plan.

[Raj Grewal, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from Eglinton—Lawrence for the question. This young man is doing a great job in his riding. He is being a very accessible member of Parliament. We could all learn a thing or two from him.

His question is a very important one, especially on the tax cut. Nine million Canadians have more money in their pockets today because of our government. The Canada child benefit is helping nine out of 10 families. When I went door-knocking in August in my riding of Brampton East, the first thing people did was thank me very much for the extra help. They said they were very happy about the Canada child benefit because it really made a difference with back-to-school shopping and buying the necessary supplies for their children—new clothes, new backpacks—and putting an extra apple in their lunches.

This is about helping families become better, join the middle class, and stay in the middle class and investing in Canada across the board.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to debate Bill C-29, budget implementation act, 2016, No. 2, the Liberal government's first budget, which was much criticized and the source of much disappointment.

This budget implementation bill addresses many issues. Given that it is more than 250 pages long, I will focus on just a few of its elements, such as the OECD country-by-country reporting implementation announced in budget 2016. A number of other countries are participating in this project, which will fight tax evasion, a crucial issue.

I will also speak a little about the Canada child benefit, which was changed a bit in the budget implementation bill in response to some harsh criticism. Finally, I will try to speak to the principle of asset recycling, which was announced in the budget. This term is synonymous with Canadian infrastructure privatization.

Let us talk about country-by-country reporting. As I said, the idea comes from the OECD and has to do with multinationals that do business around the world, of course, through numerous subsidiaries. Unfortunately, some unscrupulous accountants and tax experts strive to make a living from getting around tax rules and finding the best way for multinationals to avoid paying their fair share of taxes in countries where they nonetheless benefit from public services and infrastructure, such as highways and airports. They also benefit from the money of taxpayers and employees who live in those countries. They do not pay their fair share of taxes and manage to evade the tax system.

Country-by-country reporting ensures that the subsidiaries of a same multinational whose annual revenues are 750 million euros or more are subject to new rules. Some experts criticized this threshold saying it was too high. Seven hundred and fifty million euros annually is a substantial amount. It is estimated that between 10% and 15% of multinational companies around the world meet this criteria. In other words, 85% of businesses will not be subject to these new rules since their revenues do not reach this 750-million euro threshold.

That being said, the companies concerned will have to report information in the countries where they are located. Again, there are a number of ways to avoid that. There are companies with “non-resident” status for tax purposes. Tax experts already have the means to get around the rules. Nonetheless, this reporting will ensure that these multinationals declare their revenues and how many employees they have in every country. This will help the Canadian government and other governments find disparities in the numbers.

Take for example a company that does very little business in a given country but reports all of its profits there. I will not name a country, but let us say that it is a Caribbean country with a small population where there is not a lot of business activity. In that case, country-by-country reporting would show us how much profit that company is making.

That would allow the world governments to identify discrepancies in tax returns and determine which companies could be committing tax evasion or abusing the transfer pricing principle, that is, when many subsidiaries of the same multinational corporation exchange services or bill each other for royalties or patent rights and then report their profits in countries with much lower tax rates.

This measure is still a step in the right direction. Although many other measures were presented to the OECD, this one was discussed and it is relatively good, aside from the threshold of 750 million euros. That was strongly criticized.

Some people mentioned that this amount could be lowered to $60 million. Take for example the Association of Canadian Financial Officers, which recommended lowering that threshold to $60 million a year and requiring the multinationals in question to provide the Canada Revenue Agency with more detailed information on their activities in every country.

I would like to mention that the Canada Revenue Agency should also publish this information so that Canadians can see the fiscal arrangements of these multinationals that they do business with on a daily basis. It might be interesting for consumers to have the option of looking at the tax practices of the stores they shop in at the mall.

I said I was going to talk about the Canada child benefit in my speech. I want to criticize the fact that this benefit was not indexed. When it was announced, there was no plan to index this benefit, and that was strongly criticized by experts, obviously.

Fortunately, after hearing these criticisms, the Liberals incorporated indexing into the budget implementation bill, indexing that will not take effect until 2020, unsurprisingly. They admitted their mistake, saying that it was not a good idea, that they had forgotten about indexing, and that they were not going to include it until 2020. What a huge oversight!

This will certainly have a major impact on families in Sherbrooke who receive this benefit. They will see a decrease in the real value of their benefits, which will remain at the same level until 2020. The cost of living is rising in Sherbrooke, as is the cost of groceries. People regularly tell me that their grocery bills are climbing, and that their incomes are unchanged. Their purchasing power is shrinking, and this mistake will not help the situation in Sherbrooke.

We hope that this will be corrected once again, and that the Liberals will listen to reason on this issue, just as they listened to reason in the case of very clear, concise arguments about the lack of indexing. So I do not see why they would not listen to reason on the idea that indexing should be introduced earlier, or even immediately.

On another note, I also wanted to talk about the issue of asset recycling, an expression used by the government in the 2016 budget document tabled in the House to announce the government’s plans for the following year. A number of people have wondered about the expression “asset recycling”. What does “asset recycling” really mean?

We have also heard rumours about the Canada Infrastructure Bank, which the Liberals talked about during the election campaign. They had previously alluded to this project to establish a Canada Infrastructure Bank. Perhaps we will hear more about this in today’s economic statement.

However, the government is considering the idea of privatizing existing infrastructure, which is known as asset recycling. Privatizing government assets or putting them back in private hands generates revenue for the government. How do you generate revenue from infrastructure? By introducing a fee system. That is how you can successfully bring in revenue.

The same principle would be applied to the Canada Infrastructure Bank, so that it could continue to grow and we could continue to invest. Obviously, private investors will demand a good return on their investment. To get a return on infrastructure, you put in pay stations so that users have to pay to use the infrastructure, which should be public and accessible to everyone.

As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, every person should pay his or her fair share of tax. If we pay income taxes, it is for the purpose of getting services from the government, and we should not have to pay a second time when the government provides services to us.

I hope the government will listen to reason on this issue as well.

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

Madam Speaker, I will pick up on the member's last point. I know a number of New Democrats have mentioned the whole idea of infrastructure and how it is ultimately paid for.

Four or five years ago, the NDP government in Manitoba dealt with it by bringing forward legislation supporting P3s, which included private sector and government-sponsored infrastructure projects. My question for the member is this. Obviously at the provincial level it is a different thing, but do the New Democrats at the national level believe that the private sector plays no role whatsoever in infrastructure?

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

First of all, I would like to say that a public-private partnership is not the same thing as the idea of having an investment bank that collects money from the private and public sectors to carry out projects that need to show a return. It is quite obvious that a bank does not work if there is no return. That is quite different from a public-private partnership. It is important to have good infrastructure, of course, but I do not think, as I said in my speech, that users should have to pay for infrastructure that has been paid for by the public. Who is the public? It is the users. Why would we ask users to pay for the same thing twice?

So I would tell my colleague to take money from taxpayers who pay taxes every year to provide infrastructure that they will use. However, I do not understand the idea of asking them to pay twice.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague had lots of good math facts in his speech. When it comes to the math facts about this budget, we hear a lot of rhetoric about the middle class, but it seems to me that if they give people a $900 tax cut and then take away $1,100 when they do the CPP and then they add a carbon tax and an Internet tax on that, they are really not helping them out. With seniors, I would say that giving them an extra $60 a month in GIS is nice, but then Kathleen Wynne comes along and takes away $130 a month, and then there is the carbon tax and the Internet tax, and they are not better off.

I wonder if the member could comment on whether he thinks this budget would make the people of Sherbrooke better off.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

It is true that taxpayers, and my fellow citizens in Sherbrooke, are being squeezed tighter and tighter. Their incomes keep shrinking, and the cost of living keeps rising. Clearly, the proliferation of measures that force them to pay more and more is not a positive thing. What we want as a government is to have fellow citizens who can participate fully in the economy because they have money in their pockets that they can reinvest in the economy. Citizens who have more money in their pockets are citizens who will go shopping more often and reinvest in the economy. The money does not vanish.

It is also important to have good salaries. To that end, I suggest that the government study the proposal to increase the minimum wage at the federal level. That would be a first step. Increasing the minimum wage creates a domino effect that makes the economy stronger and allows consumers to play a bigger role and spend more.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, we have heard for the last couple of days about how this budget would help middle-class people, especially at the level of about $180,000, where they would get a $900 tax credit. We have also heard in the last couple of days how this would help low-income families with children by giving them the child tax benefit.

Could my friend answer this question? How does this help the low-income middle-class people who are earning around $44,000? How would they benefit from this budget?

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

The short answer is, not at all. I used the word “taxpayer” a lot; perhaps that is because of my role as national revenue critic. Citizens who have incomes below a certain threshold are not getting any help from their government. In the government’s first budget, we learned that the members of the upper middle class were getting the most. Where we live, an income of $44,000 is relatively high. If we do not help people whose incomes are below that threshold, it makes no sense economically.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, today I am speaking about C-29, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016, and other measures.

We are putting into action our promise to Canadians to help build a stronger and more prosperous middle class. This is what we have done over the past year, and it is what we will continue to do, not only over the next year but for the long term.

The government has an ambitious plan to better the middle class, and with that, the entire country. We have received support around the world on the steps we have taken, from the Financial Times, The Wall Street Journal, the OECD, and the IMF managing director, Ms. Lagarde, who cites Canada as a role model for its ability to mobilize all possible levers to generate growth.

This is possible because our government has taken measure of the situation by listening to Canadians in tough economic times. We have not hesitated to take action either. Since July 1, Canadians families can receive up to $6,400 per year for a child under six, and $5,400 per year for a child aged six to 17. Nine out of 10 families have seen their benefits increase by $2,300, on average.

That is why I am proud to return to Surrey and speak with my friends, neighbours, and colleagues about how budget 2016 will positively affect their lives. Surrey Centre is home to young families who are keen on making their homes and lives in Surrey, and as a national government we have a duty and responsibility to support them when and where we can. The new Canada child benefit is our government's response to this. We are putting forward a more generous, simpler, and income-tested benefit that benefits more Canadian families than ever before.

It is with a vision to the long term for our country that this second budget implementation bill would amend the Old Age Security Act. It would restore to 65 the age of eligibility for old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. In this way, Canadians would have thousands of dollars more when they retire at the age of 65. Better yet, the 2016 budget would increase the amount to the guaranteed income supplement, which targets the most vulnerable seniors, providing up to $947 more per year.

With this second budget 2016 implementation bill before us today, we are delivering on the promise, set out in budget 2016, to support senior couples who must live apart for reasons beyond their control. If one member is located in a long-term care centre and find themselves suddenly faced with new and unexpected expenses, we are putting forward a proposal that ensures that they receive high benefits, based on the individual incomes of each individual. Again, the government is true to its promise of fairness to seniors and allowing them to retire with the dignity that they so deserve.

Our plan stimulates growth by giving more financial leeway to those who need it: middle-class families and seniors. Canadians also need to feel supported and protected as consumers. The federal government is showing leadership with the bill, as it would strengthen the framework that protects consumers who use financial products and services. We want to ensure that Canada's financial sector is capable of adapting to an aging population in an age of globalization, while still innovating and using the emerging technologies that challenge existing business models.

These new measures would include: first, improving access to basic banking services; second, imposing limits with respect to certain commercial practices; and third, finally improving disclosure of information to help consumers make better and more informed decisions.

Canadians also expect that financial institutions in this country have the means and resources to ensure that the integrity of our tax system is maintained. It is to ensure that everyone pays their fair share of taxes, and when I say everyone, I also include multinationals that operate in many jurisdictions. That is why our government is committing to working with our G20 partners to develop and implement an international plan to fight tax evasion and tax avoidance. It is a plan that will enhance our current measures and adopt new ones.

One of the key instruments behind our government's plan on cracking down on tax evasion is to help support the G20 and OECD declarations on tax evasion. This is an instrument that will force major companies to report on their activities in each jurisdiction in which they operate as well as the nature of these activities. This will also allow Revenue Canada to have a global view of these large multinational corporations. This is the first in the fight on tax evasion.

I should also add that the 2016 budget provides another important measure to counter tax evasion, allowing Canada to be part of the global standard for the automatic exchange of information, which was developed by the OECD. When this law is passed and these new measures are applied, Canadian financial institutions can and will identify accounts held by non-residents and will have to report these accounts to Revenue Canada.

Meanwhile, foreign financial institutions will collect more information on accounts held by foreigners, including Canadians. There are more than 100 countries and jurisdictions, including the Cook Islands, which just last week became the 106th jurisdiction to join the most powerful international instrument against offshore tax evasion and avoidance.

This government is putting forward a plan that is based on fairness. It would provide Canadians with an optimistic view of the future. We are working to ensure that Canada continues to move forward and lead the international community, particularly with the implementation of our bold economic policies that put a focus on growing the middle class to ensure the prosperity of our country.

I encourage all members to vote for the bill.

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

Madam Speaker, one of the issues that is covered in Bill C-29 is the indexing of the Canadian child benefit beginning in January 2020, which is four years from now. The parliamentary budget officer has estimated that this could cost an additional $42 billion over the next five years. In fact, it would double the original amount budgeted, yet the parliamentary secretary said the Liberals are going to go ahead with this measure regardless of what it is going to cost.

Where will the Liberal government find the money to pay for this inflated cost? Will it be through increased taxes, taxing our jobs and small businesses out of existence, or will it simply be to add to the budget deficit that is already ballooning and is currently at $30 billion? It is estimated that over the next 10 years, the interest costs alone on that deficit would increase by $10 billion. Where will the Liberals find the money to fund this promise?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, this government is implementing a budget that is based on infrastructure, innovation, and growth. It is through innovation, infrastructure, and growth that Canadians will increase the economy. Companies will be able to grow and expand, and therefore, our tax base will accordingly be expanded.

The costs of these measures will come from the growth of this economy, which has been stagnant for too many years and too long. It will expand through the growth of the revenue that will be received through much-needed infrastructure growth, and the income tax revenue from the middle class will increase when the growth of the middle class happens. It is all included in the growth strategy of this government, and I think these measures will be funded accordingly.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have asked this question to another of the member's colleagues, but I was not sure I received a satisfactory response regarding the understanding of the infrastructure bank and the terminology of “asset recycling”.

Canadian municipalities are sounding the alarm about the Liberals' plan to take promised money for housing and transit, and instead put it into their infrastructure bank scheme. Does the member understand that this new bank requires that a project pay a return on investment?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, I believe the infrastructure bank and its mandate are still to be determined. The rules and the implementation of it are still to be determined. However, municipalities and cities can rest assured with the commitment this government has made to infrastructure spending, and the 50% on infrastructure projects shall remain.

The goal of the infrastructure bank is actually something that a lot of these municipalities have been asking for, which is a base they can rely on for satisfactory funding at low cost to implement a lot of the infrastructure projects that they have been dreaming of for so long. We can go coast to coast to coast to the major cities in this country and we will see failing infrastructure projects, sewer systems that are outdated, bridges that are falling apart, and highways in need of repair. This infrastructure bank will only help in implementing those projects that are beyond perhaps some of the scope of the infrastructure funding.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am always happy to take part in the discussions of the House.

I had the opportunity to spend a good part of yesterday afternoon here, and I heard the speeches on all sides. I remain a little perplexed at what the Liberals are saying.

For my part, I am here in the House to present a timeline of the evolution of the Liberal plan.

At the beginning of the election campaign, in August 2015, they were talking about a modest deficit that would allow the government of Canada to create employment, and enable the Canadian economy to prosper and develop some infrastructure projects. Later in that same election campaign, we were hearing that the deficit would be quite small, only $10 billion. Last March, we were hearing that all the services the government wanted to offer Canadians would cost taxpayers $30 billion. We are not counting the same things: this is not what Canadians had been promised.

Recently, we heard that the deficit might be $35 billion or even higher. I wonder if our prime minister is going to wake up one day. The deficit may be even higher because he doesn’t really know how to count. He is spending our money, taxpayers’ money, my money, my daughters’ money and my grandson’s money. He is spending extravagantly. There is very little left for Canadians. Now who is going to have to pay this bill? I am going to pay part of it, but the biggest share will be paid by future generations, those who come after us, my grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

To listen to the Liberals, there seems to be no problem: look, they want a beautiful Canada for our children! According to the Liberals, it’s nothing serious if they don’t have any money later — they will see to that later on. I don’t know what they are smoking, but in any case, we are stronger on this side of the House.

We should have seen economic growth in the wake of the Liberals’ spending. We should have seen a difference. Given all the money they have waved under our nose, we should have seen that difference. But instead, what we are seeing at this time is job losses across the country and infrastructure investments with nothing concrete accomplished. They promised a lot of money for infrastructure. No one on either side of the House has seen the first ground-breaking ceremony. If someone has, please tell me, because in my riding I can say that nothing has been done.

They have talked about programs which, according to the Liberals, are helping nine Canadians out of ten, programs that will be paid for by their new carbon tax. They had promised us job creation. But job creation is stagnant. We have just learned, from the finance minister himself, that future jobs, the jobs of our children and those to come after, will once again be unstable jobs, seasonal jobs. We are well paid, here in the House, as we represent our fellow citizens, but there is nothing concrete for those who will come after.

Where are the Liberals’ fine promises? They have hoodwinked us. They think that, when they get up, the good lord goes to bed. They think they are the best, but the best at what? They are the best at putting us in the red, that much is true. They are the best at taking pretty pictures with people. All very pleasant, but it doesn’t provide anything to eat or anything for our children.

The mismanagement of public funds does not stop there, under the Liberals. In Bill C-29, the Liberals are going to index the Canada child benefit to inflation starting in January 2020. The parliamentary budget officer has estimated that this indexing would cost $42.5 billion over the next five years. Where are the Liberals going to find that money? In the pockets of my daughters, whose jobs are already unstable? In the pockets of Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Smith who are working for a pittance? Where will they find that money? Growing on trees? The environment is very nice, but if they have a tree that grows money, I would like to have one in my yard. That is not the way things work. What will we have to do to pay for the Liberals’ extravagance? Stop eating? Will we tell people not to pay their electricity bill because the carbon tax is costing them a bundle? We shall see next month: we shall see how the budget will be balanced. Is this what Canada’s Liberals stand for?

Meanwhile, the cost of living is not stagnant. There are fewer jobs and the cost of living is going up. It’s a simple calculation: Canadians will no longer have the same quality of life. The previous government, on the other hand, believed in the ability of Canadians. It believed that Canadians could think for themselves and spend their money as they saw fit. Their money stayed in their pockets instead of in government coffers.

The Liberals talk a lot about the middle class. For them, the middle class is made up of those who earn $90,000 or more per year. We are part of the middle class. I can tell you that, in my riding, the middle class is quite a bit poorer than we are. The middle class does not have the means to go to $1500-a-plate fundraising parties just to meet the pretty little MP who smiles and takes nice photos. I would not engage in that sort of thing either, because I have far more integrity than the Liberals.

With the Liberals’ budget, we ought to have rules introduced to guarantee the long-term stability of the real estate market. Well, we shall see. The Liberals have also said that increasing contributions to the Canada pension plan will be good for the economic health of Canadians in the long term, that is, in 40 years. My 86-year-old mother is presently ill and hospitalized. She could use that money now. I don’t think she will still be here in 40 years. I don’t think she will be able to benefit from this. I think that this is more hoodwinking of Canadians coming from the government opposite.

I find it deplorable that the government members across the aisle are holding Canadians hostage with their lip service, their big smiles, and their sunny ways. Sooner or later we are going to hit a wall, and average Canadians will be left to pay for everything, even though they are not millionaires and have no money left despite how hard they work just to earn a living. I believe in Canadians' capacity to think for themselves. I am tired of centralist governments that think that if things are going well, they are responsible.

We have to be realistic and stop being partisan. We have to look at the facts: this government is putting us in the red. I want to repeat what I said last week; my father often used to say that heaven is blue and hell is red. I really have no desire to be in the red because of this government.

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

Madam Speaker, I do believe that, in good part, the member has missed the mark if we take a look at something very tangible that the Government of Canada has done with the money and with taxpayers. We believe it is a reflection of what Canadians want, and this demonstrates the degree to which the Conservative Party is really out of touch with what Canadians expect of their government.

Let me give members a specific example. The guaranteed income supplement will in fact enhance incomes for the poorest of our seniors in every region of our country. Yes, it is costly, but people believe we need to support our seniors.

The Canada child benefit will also lift tens of thousands of children out of poverty. Yes, it is costly, but Canadians want us to deal with poverty.

Does the member not acknowledge that the government has a role to play in dealing with poverty in Canada?

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

If he thinks I do not understand, I would like to say that, just because I am a woman, does not mean I do not understand. Yes, I understand. Moreover, I understand exactly what my constituents are telling me.

Poverty has always existed. I myself have been poor, so I know what I am talking about. However, when I was poor and having a hard time paying for housing and groceries, the government did not come and take money out of my pockets. It let me keep my money, because I was having a hard time making ends meet.

Now the government is centralizing everything. I do not know whom it consulted, but it was certainly not the middle class or Canadians living in poverty. If that had been the case, there would be no carbon tax, and you would have stopped taxing Canadians, who would then have more money in their pockets.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I would remind the member to address her remarks to the Chair.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Windsor West.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, one of the things the member mentioned was the previous record of the Conservative government, and we are talking about consumption taxes. In particular, the Conservatives are responsible for the GST and then the son of the GST, which would be the HST. Therefore, the—

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Come on. We cut it.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order. The member will have a chance to answer the question. She needs to respect the person who has the floor right now.

The hon. member for Windsor West.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have never been heckled by the person of whom I was asking a question, but at any rate, it is never too late to learn.

The process of that was a $6-billion contribution—$4 billion to Ontario and $2 billion to British Columbia—at a time of a deficit. I had the House of Commons do some analysis about those borrowing costs. Because we were in a deficit, it is going to be more of an $8-billion to $10-billion expenditure with the borrowing costs rolled in.

I would ask the member about the history of the Conservative Party that actually borrowed $6 billion to $8 billion to $10 billion, approximately, to bring in a consumption tax that affects every age, every consumer, and every income, versus that of an income-based tax.

Again, why do the Conservatives feel that the HST was so important for Canadians? Generally speaking, consumption taxes hurt all, not just the individuals who should pay for those things.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, the party on this side of the House is the one that cut the GST.

I remember the 2006 election campaign, when I ran for the first time. Mr. Chrétien had promised to cut the GST, but that never happened. On the contrary, the Liberals increased the GST. Typical Liberal promises.

During the 2006 election campaign, we Conservatives promised to cut the GST, and we cut it to 5%. People can say what they want about the Conservative Party, but one thing is certain: when Mr. Harper, our former prime minister, promised something, he kept his word.

Over time, we have gotten used to the Liberals making fine promises in front of the cameras, but they have reneged on everything from the word go. I will vote against this budget because it is not good for the middle class.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, the member spent a vast majority of his time commenting on deficits, so my question is with respect to deficits.

I have said many times in the House that we provided Stephen Harper and his government with a multi-billion dollar budget surplus. Virtually every year since he took office, he had a running deficit. In fact, he had the largest running deficit of any other government in the history of Canada, in excess of $150 billion.

Given the track record of the Conservative Party on deficits compared to Liberal governments that have consistently had balanced budgets, why does the member believe the Conservatives have any credibility on the issue of balanced budgets?

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

Madam Speaker, I want to remind everyone that one of the ways the previous Liberal government balanced its budget was to cut $25 billion from the health care and social transfers to the provinces. Our provinces and municipalities are still suffering from those cuts.

What my colleague fails to remember as well is that our Conservative government paid down over $40 billion of the national debt. During 2008 to 2010, we did go into deficit to fund infrastructure projects and to create jobs. Our job creation record was incredible. It was the strongest in the G-7. Well over one million new jobs were created as a result of the investments we made, This is in contrast to what we find here of not one new job in spite of all of this borrowing.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member has a good recollection of the practices of Liberal governments of the past. He spoke about Canadians still suffering from their cuts. In 1997, the port of Churchill was sold, and look where we are now. We are still throwing money at that fiasco.

Is the member at all concerned with this suggestion of privatizing and selling assets, with the mention of asset recycling in the budget? Is the member concerned with this cost pressure on Canadians as well?

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

Madam Speaker, I have not done a lot of research into the actual privatization measures in the bill. However, I outlined in my speech clear concerns when it came to increased costs, for example, the child care plan that the Liberals implemented. The parliamentary budget officer has indicated very clearly the increased pressure this will place on the budget, up to $40 billion in additional funding. There is no mention in the budget as to where that money will come from.

I do not have a clear answer to the member's question, but I would be happy to discuss that with her later.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, government members talk about the Conservative record and the size of the deficit. My colleague was here during the world economic downturn that we had to navigate through. He knows the Liberals at that time were pushing us to make the deficit even larger. The world is not in a recession like it was back then. The Liberals are talking about making investments, but what are the results of those investments over the last year? Could my colleague point to any?

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

Madam Speaker, I cannot point to any results over the last year, but I can point to significant results with the investments our government made with the stimulus we placed in the budget. One of those investments was the knowledge infrastructure program, which invested in colleges and universities, allowing them to expand their facilities to train more workers. When it comes to skilled worker training, Conestoga College in my riding was the recipient of many dollars which helped it to expand its ability to train skilled workers, something our Canadian economy will need.

If we are to borrow money, then let us invest that money in something that will create jobs. Let us simply not continue to borrow money to operate our budget.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very honoured to rise and represent the people of Timmins—James Bay in discussing Bill C-29, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016.

It is fascinating, with the new Prime Minister. Besides his love of selfies, there are the words “middle class”. I do not think the Prime Minister ever gets up without saying “the middle class”. The Liberals have an interesting caveat: “and those wanting to join the middle class”. The whole government is supposedly about the middle class. I guess we have a different view, the Prime Minister and I, on what is the middle class.

I look at the implementation of the bill, and we see that the plan is to privatize public assets and sell off infrastructure. The Liberals did not run on that, but that somehow is going to help the middle class. It is failing to help small businesses, which most of us in Canada would agree is the backbone of the middle class.

When I look at the Liberals' original budget, when they brought in their middle-class tax break, if people earned $23 an hour or less, they got zero. If they made $50 to $100 an hour, they got the maximum bang for their buck. That discrepancy in value is the Prime Minister's notion of the middle class. I guess he and I just come from different places.

My family joined the middle class when my father was 42 years old. He was a miner's son, and my mother was a miner's daughter. In those days, the idea of going to university or college just was not on. My mom quit school at age 15 and went to work. My dad was working when he was 17, but when he was 40, he had enough money to go back to school. He became an economics professor.

That was the middle class: the belief that people could rise up. If they saved money and got an education, there would be something for them. What did the middle class look like for our family? It was seven people, three generations, living in a little townhouse in Scarborough, with a used car, but it was the middle class. It meant that my mom sometimes worked five days a week and sometimes Sunday to make sure that the bills were paid, but that was the middle class, because the middle class was about having the weekend, about having a pension, about being able to retire. It was a promise my father made that any one of his children could go to university without being burdened with debt.

I look at what this young generation is facing and at the erosion of the middle class, and I think something has significantly changed. Maybe the Prime Minister is not quite as in tune with that. Certainly his finance minister is not in tune with that, as he tells this young generation to suck it up and get used to the fact that they are not going to have pensions, that they are not going to have permanent work, and that they can live in the Uber economy. We have different views on the middle class.

We certainly have different views on the issue of small businesses. My wife and I ran a small business for 10 years. We paid the rent. We paid people who worked for us. There was never any money left over, but it was a good life, but it was hard.

The Prime Minister's notion of small business in the last election was that it was a tax dodge for millionaires. I was really shocked at how someone could be so out of touch on small business. He was talking about how millionaires set up front companies to avoid paying taxes. He would certainly know, as he set up three of these companies to his benefit: 90562 Canada Inc., which held his securities and investments; 7664699 Canada Inc., which was his personal holding company that listed $958,000 in short-term investments and $255,000 in cash; and JPJT Canada Inc., which brought in about $1.3 million over that period.

There is nothing wrong with making money. Certainly people should be able to make money, should be able to invest, but when his notion of a small business is a front that allowed him to get a break on taxes, it is very much out of touch with mom and pop operations. They work 50 and 60 hours a week, and their kids work there too. That is the disconnect. He promised that he was going to give a break to small business, but he did not.

The other area he promised a big break on in the election, when he was still running on the progressive platform, and we all remember that, was the closing of the corporate tax loopholes on stock options. Most Canadians do not have to deal with that, because most Canadians will never benefit from that. In fact, only about 8,000 insiders benefit. They benefit to the tune of $750 million a year in corporate tax breaks. The Prime Minister promised that he would close that, but of course, the finance minister, as soon as he was elected, told his pals and buddies on Bay Street that their interests were protected.

I think of that because I see a government that tells us that it cannot find $155 million to cover the shortfall in child welfare for children who are literally dying from a lack of mental health services and who are living in a broken foster care system. It cannot find $155 million for the 163,000 children who cannot get homes. However, it can find $750 million for 8,000 friends, probably many of whom know the finance minister.

While we are talking about tax breaks and the Liberals turning their backs on small businesses, a deep concern is their refusal to go after international tax havens.

One of the benefits in this bill, I notice, is that they will implement the multilateral competent authority agreement on reporting requirements for very large corporations. However, corporations only have to meet these kinds of reporting provisions if they are making over $750 million a year, which means that about 85% to 90% of the world's corporations will still slip under the radar. That is deeply concerning, because we see tax avoidance by the super-rich as one of the fundamental problems undermining the development of a progressive society, not just in Canada but around the world. We need to get serious about this, because more of these costs are being downloaded onto people who cannot escape the tax burden, people who, as the Prime Minister said, are part of that group that wants to be part of the middle class. If the Prime Minister were deeply serious about his commitment to the middle class, we would see him taking action to make sure that those who should be paying their share are paying their share and that those who are already paying too much of their share would get a break. However, that does not seem to be how this is working.

The Prime Minister promised a record amount of spending. This was going to be the Liberals' progressive vision. It was going to spend, spend, spend, but everyone has to pay for it someday, and they never explained how people would pay for it.

Now we have learned that the Liberal buzzword is “asset recycling”. I have the dictionary of weasel words, and I looked it up. “Asset recycling” is not in the dictionary of weasel words. It is a new weasel word that has come forward that the current government has embraced. It learned the weasel word from the expert on it, Kathleen Wynne, who ran on being a progressive and then started the sell-off of Ontario Hydro, which will be a hugely destructive process. We are actually seeing in our northern and rural regions of Ontario that people cannot pay for their hydro. However, that will not be a problem for insiders who have friends who will be buying into this.

I am deeply concerned about the Liberal government not being honest with Canadians. The Prime Minister never told Canadians that he would be looking at the implementation of toll roads, selling off bridges, and selling off airports. Who would the government be selling them to? It could be friends, perhaps, or foreign nations, who could be buying port authorities. Is this the idea of a progressive government? We saw this in Ontario with Highway 407, which has turned into such a huge boondoggle that we will be paying for it for the next 100 years, and it is making enormous profits year after year. In 2014, it made $887.6 million in revenue off Canadians who drive along a highway that could have been paid for with public spending and repaid to the taxpayer.

We need to have an honest discussion about what the government's plans are for the privatization of assets, because it will impact the bottom line for Canadians. It will impact services.

The fact that the Prime Minister was not honest with Canadians and did not explain how he would cover those costs is deeply troubling. We are seeing the first wave of that asset recycling.

I urge people in the rest of the country to pay attention to what happened with the Wynne government. Not only was there the sell-off of public resources; it was also doing cash for access to ministers. If we look at the front bench, they are a regular slot machine for industry types who go to private meetings and pay $1,500 to meet with them as the government is talking about contracts and is looking at the serious sell-off of assets. Who has their ear? It is not Mr. and Mrs. Ordinary on the streets of Canada. No, this is being done in corporate boardrooms.

Of all the outrageous things I saw with the previous government, it never tried to pull something like that, except once, with Bev Oda, but she gave the money back. However, these guys are carrying on, and that is not in the interest of the middle class.

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

Madam Speaker, for a number of years now I have unfortunately been in the chamber and have listened to many of the personal attacks the member across the way often gets into. I find that at times he is somewhat extreme in his comments, and I think that is most unfortunate. I believe that many of the accusations are outright wrong, on many different fronts, and I only wish I had the time to address each and every point the member consistently hits.

My question for the member is very concise. He wants to talk about being progressive. Why then is he voting against a budget that would lift children and seniors out of poverty and that would have a tax on Canada's richest people? These are the types of things the member spoke about and that he is challenging the government to do. In fact, the government is doing just that, not to mention the millions of dollars we would spend to investigate how we can end taxing—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

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

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague has accused me of being extreme. That is okay. I would rather be accused of being extreme than of being bizarre. When I hear that kind of question, I am not sure what the member is getting at. I looked through the budget to see that it would somehow look after all the little widows and orphans around the world, the way the Liberals are claiming it would. It actually looks like it would just help their friends.

Maybe that is a different view of what the middle class is. The Prime Minister thinks he is middle class, when his front-line ministers are engaged in cash-for-access private parties with the senior levels of all senior corporations. Liberals actually believe that this is somehow a good thing. They say, and we have heard it from the finance minister, that this is how they talk to ordinary people. I am sorry, but the ordinary people I know do not get invited to those insider rub-dubs. Maybe only Liberals do.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Timmins—James Bay for his comments. I paid particular attention to his comment about the Prime Minister indicating how small-business owners are trying to avoid taxes by having small businesses. The majority of the agriculture industry is small business. The farms in my riding are small businesses.

I wonder if the member could expand on how this budget would impact these small businesses and on the fact that the promise the current Liberal government made to reduce the small-business tax from 11% to 9% did not happen.

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

Madam Speaker, the question of small businesses is vital, because the Prime Minister promised that he would help small businesses, and he walked away from that promise. The Prime Minister has said publicly that he thinks they are millionaire tax dodges.

I will say that in the rural regions I represent, the farm communities take on an enormous amount of debt. The farmers need that debt to put assets in the ground so they can run a viable business. They carry a huge debt load, but in carrying that debt load, they are actually putting that money right back into the local economy, unlike the insider friends of the Prime Minister. They do not put that money back in the local economy. They seem to be putting it offshore. This is why we need to deal with the issue of offshore tax havens.

When we talk about lowering tax bills for the middle class, we are talking about putting that money right back into families' pockets and right back into the local economy.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Timmins—James Bay for his speech.

I think that the Liberals did not once use the word “privatization” during the election campaign. Instead, they talk about asset recycling and use other such esoteric language. I think it is a real shame. The people of Quebec will learn the cost of the CHUM, the Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, with the cost overruns, the longer deadlines, and all the profit going only to private companies.

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

Madam Speaker, during the last election campaign, the Prime Minister promised to be more progressive. It is not progressive to pursue a privatization policy to help his chum. It was not acceptable to Canadians.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the members who have taken part in the debate so far on Bill C-29, the second part of the Liberals' plan to implement and then break many of their election promises.

I will jump right in, though. The first thing I want to talk about is the indexation of the Canada child benefit. That is nice to see, because during the budget debate, I asked this question of almost every single Liberal government caucus member I could possibly ask. It was on page 240, annex 1 of the budget. The numbers are right there. They actually go down, starting in 2017-18, so it is nice to see that the government will be indexing this. It was something I was asking about repeatedly. Obviously the Liberals figured out that they had forgotten to index it to inflation. It is nice to see them listen sometimes, although I do note that the thresholds will only begin to be adjusted in 2020-21, so there will actually be a gap year for many families, who will lose access to the child benefit program.

As I said, it was a question I asked repeatedly. None of the members provided me with a cogent response to what I was trying to find out, but it is good to know that the Liberals are paying attention in the House and occasionally do change their policies.

Many government members today have lauded the government for their so-called middle-class tax cuts, but of course we know that the biggest bang for the buck, the most tax reduction, will be for those earning $199,000 and above. They will get the biggest tax credit out of this. It is nice to see that the Liberals are taking care of the people who probably can donate $1,500 for those special fundraisers they are occasionally hosting with lobbyists.

Those earning $199,000 and more are receiving the greatest tax cut. There is nothing in the budget for those earning under $45,000. Actually there is something for them, and it is a carbon tax, courtesy of this Liberal government. These are the people who are not getting a single tax credit. What they are getting instead is a brand new carbon tax, and according to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, it will cost the average household $2,569 by 2022. All of the tax credits for their kids that many of these families were taking advantage of will be gone. They are getting little in return, and are actually giving the government more of their after-tax pay. Then we have the CPP increases as well that will further reduce their ability to save and to pay for the day-to-day goods they need.

There is almost nothing in this budget on infrastructure, especially for Alberta. It is a pittance. When I hear the numbers for what the Liberals have actually spent on infrastructure in Alberta, it amounts to almost nothing. It reminds me that from fiscal years 1994-95 to 2005-06, the Liberals only delivered $351 million in aggregate to Albertans.

If we compare that to the Conservative government's record on infrastructure from 2005-06 to 2014-15, they delivered $3.4 billion in aggregate. When it comes to what Albertans need in public infrastructure spending in order to grow their economy locally, they know that the Conservatives have their best interests in mind. Here I am thinking in particular of the ring road that was built in Calgary and the ring road completed in Edmonton as well,

The past record of Liberal governments has been in very sharp contrast to what the Conservatives were able to do while in power, so what I am expecting over the next four years for Albertans from the government is pretty much nothing. Come election time, the Liberals will have to account for it. They will have to explain why they did so little for a province that right now is going through probably one of the sharpest recessions it has had in 35 years.

It started as what I would call a commodity downturn. Oil and gas is not so much a boom and bust business, but the prices do go up and they do go down. Maybe some are used to this. Albertans are used to this. This is not our first time going through a downturn. What is happening for the first time is that we have two levels of government that are intent on prolonging the pain, prolonging the recession.

I will just mention that 45% of organizations are now saying they will not hire more people. They will actually keep things the same. That is the lowest level this index, started by the Human Resources Institute of Alberta in 2014, has reached. It used to be under 20%. Most companies and organizations used to be growing all across the province, trying to hire more people. That is not happening today. Thankfully, 45% are saying they will keep the people they have, but many of them are still letting people go.

As a result of a policy decision by the Notley government provincially, it is making things worse and causing the downturn to turn into a full-blown recession.

I want to speak more about the Alberta HR trends report published this fall by the Human Resources Institute of Alberta. It has an interesting statistic, that the most common reason for leaving a workplace used to be termination without cause. That actually accounted for a significant proportion.

Two years ago, most Albertans were switching between jobs. There was so much opportunity out there that many people were switching jobs just for a few thousand dollars more in salary. The opportunities were there. If people wanted to work for a smaller company, they could do that. If they wanted to change the sectors they were working in, they could that. If they wanted to move their family to a different city, they could do that.

What can they do today? Not much of that anymore. They cannot do any of those things because of government decisions, the lack of pipeline approvals and the lack of negotiations on free trade agreements with countries where our commodities need to go. What the government is really doing is following through on what the previous Conservative government left for them to accomplish. There is nothing new going on.

Albertans need every single pipeline to be approved in order to get construction jobs from that, and so that oil and gas companies, the energy companies, have an opportunity to plan for the future, knowing whether or not they can move the commodity through a pipeline. Moving it by rail is extremely expensive. It cuts into the margins. They cannot have as many people working for them, and they cannot grow the companies.

Another interesting statistic is the temporary layoffs. This commonly happens in organizations as they try to adjust in a recession, which Alberta is going through again. Temporary layoffs are at an all-time high. That index, started by the Human Resources Institute of Alberta two years ago, is at 25% now. The number of companies making temporary layoffs has grown. A quarter of all organizations in Alberta are now making temporary layoffs, laying off someone for three or six months, and then maybe, possibly getting them back.

When StatsCan reports this type of data, many people are being captured as employed but are actually not being paid. They do not have any earnings. They still have a job, nominally, to go back to, but that might be six months or a year down the line. They are not earning anything. They are just waiting and hoping that the economy will get better. However, that will not happen if these policy decisions by the federal government, as well as the provincial government, continue and do not improve.

Just looking at some of the indices that we have provincially, the year-to-year totals show the number of active drilling rigs is down by 50% in Alberta, down to 126; and the number of wells drilled, 163, is down 50% from last year. Another good indicator of manufacturing strength and the strength of the energy industry in Alberta is electricity generation, which is down 10% year over year. That is a drop in demand, not so much a drop in supply. The electricity generation stations are still there; they have not gone anywhere. The coal-powered plants are still there; they have not gone anywhere.

Another statistic I want to talk about is the number of employment insurance recipients. It is up 62% year over year. That 62.4% is a whopping number for Alberta. I do not see any activity from the government. If this were the arms trade, and I remember the debate on that, member after member would be getting up and speaking about how important the arms manufacturing industry was, the tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of good-paying, middle-class jobs at stake. What about good-paying, middle-class oil and gas energy worker jobs? Where is the concern on that side? What is in the budget for them?

I do not see anything that will help end the recession in Alberta and turn things around. All I see is continued constraint on pipelines for Alberta workers and Alberta companies. The unemployment rate is now 8.5%, up almost 2 percentage points year over year. In Calgary, it is almost 10%, or one in 10. In my area, I would say it is probably one in eight people I meet in my constituency office who are unemployed.

Half of the geo-scientists, geo-physicists, in the province are unemployed. That is who is unemployed today. Let us think about the next generation, the younger workers who are exiting university at this point. They have no jobs waiting for them. Their choice is to leave the country. We spent a generation building up our labour capacity, our HR capital, the ability and the knowledge of our workers, of our youth to take on these jobs and to work in these industries.

Now, we are going to lose them to other places. They are going to leave the province, possibly leave the country, and many will not return. We have spent a generation trying to build up that capacity, and now we are going to lose it because of the policy decisions of the government.

Even though 2.3 million Albertans are still employed, that is down 2%. If we think of large aggregate numbers, it is huge.

In this budget, I do not see much for Alberta workers. I do not see anything in this budget for the 122,000 Alberta energy workers who are unemployed and those in the indirect industries who support them, such as the people who fix and pay for uniforms.

I will be voting against this budget implementation bill. There is simply nothing in it for Alberta.

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

Madam Speaker, one of the things I have noticed about Albertan Conservative MPs is that they sure know how to talk, but when it comes to walking the talk, we find them coming up short all the time.

The Harper government, the Conservative government, built not one inch of pipeline to tidewaters.

If members want to take a look at what this government has achieved within the year, there were over 72 projects, working with the municipalities in the province, dealing with infrastructure dollars.

Can the member tell Canadians, in particular Albertans, how many infrastructure projects were actually approved in the last four years of the Harper administration and how many inches of pipeline the Conservatives built to tidewaters?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for asking that question because I get the opportunity to correct him, which is great.

First, if he looks at the Alberta Clipper and the four other pipelines, he will see that all of the pipelines are connected together through different paths, so the Conservatives actually were getting energy to market. They were getting it down to the gulf coast. He should talk to Enbridge and figure that out. It is easy. They are large projects. He can figure this out by looking at a map of North America.

Second, in the last four years of the Conservative government, it sent $747 million to Alberta in 2011-12, $391 million in 2012-13, $390 million in 2013-14, and $333 million in 2014-15 for the province, companies, and municipalities to build infrastructure projects for Albertans to grow their economy. That is not the Liberal record. They did zero.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am interested to hear my colleague from Alberta talk about what is not in the budget for energy workers. I would put it to him that I would like to see energy workers in Alberta working in projects supported by Unifor and the CLC, such as to improve our refinery capacity.

We spend much too much time in this place, as my hon. friend from Winnipeg just did, imagining that somehow Canada's economic future rests in getting raw resources out of this country as quickly as possible to jobs in other countries, for other refineries.

In the 1970s, we had 40 refineries in this country. We now have 17. If they build the Kinder Morgan pipeline, that Chevron refinery in Burnaby will likely close because it cannot process raw bitumen, but the Kinder Morgan pipeline will be shipping raw bitumen that Chevron cannot handle to export markets instead of creating jobs in Canada. That is why Unifor opposed the Kinder Morgan pipeline.

Would my friend from Alberta agree with me that this country ought to start figuring out what to do to create sustainable, long-term jobs in ancillary infrastructure rather than focusing on rip-and-strip exports?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can call what Albertans do rip and strip. Do we accuse the lentil industry of not making soup in Canada because it found markets overseas to send upgraded lentils to? Do we accuse farmers exporting wheat of ripping and stripping from the natural landscape because they will not produce bread here and instead export their wheat to other countries?

The history of Canada is one of exporting our resources, especially in a margins-based business like the refineries. We have the Alberta government now proceeding with the expansion of the North West upgrader, a project that a former energy minister, a former boss of mine, is saying could put the Albertan taxpayer on the hook for up to $26 billion. Simply put, refining is a margins-based business. It is a difficult one to be in. It is a very local market. We cannot simply have large refineries refining product to ship across vast distances. That is one of the reasons we do not have private companies running to build refineries. It takes thousands of workers. It is a huge expense when we have refineries sitting idle in North America. It is easier simply to ship a product and refine it there for their markets.

This is a question for private companies to undertake. The Alberta government is undertaking it right now and it is a very questionable project for the taxpayer.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to rise on behalf of the hard-working and conscientious residents of my riding of Windsor—Tecumseh, who join our fellow Canadians everywhere in expressing our dismay at yet another budget implementation bill. It is the second since March of this year and, yes, it tries to push through more than a dozen acts in 234 pages in one bill, denying the proper study required, which is really unfortunate and disrespectful of the work we do in the House.

In the interests of time, I will not elaborate on the subterfuge of omnibus bills but will, instead, direct interested Canadians who are listening today to look up the reactions of not just my NDP caucus of the past but that of the Liberals when the previous Conservatives surreptitiously forced controversial agendas by abusing the omnibus method.

Indeed, it is imperative to immediately speak against the crucial issue of selling off Canada's assets in order for the Liberals to appear capable of managing deficits. This subterfuge, which is the privatization agenda, is being unscrupulously advanced.

This privatization scheme is to our great peril, as the actions of a previous Liberal government have proven with the sell-off of the Port of Churchill; as Ontario's manufacturers, institutions, small businesses, and residents, who are all facing out-of-control hydro costs, can attest to; and as our own health care system can demonstrate. It has been proven that privatization is the problem and not the solution.

Canadians were hoping for better from the current government. I and my NDP caucus agree that we do need to make new investments in infrastructure, and we anticipated the roll-out of a long-awaited infrastructure plan that our home towns, cities, and counties could applaud along with us. We know how important it is for front-line municipal governments to have the means to address the staggering infrastructure deficits across this country.

We were intrigued, in an encouraging way, when the mandate letter of the Minister of Infrastructure directed that the public-private partnership, or P3 screening for infrastructure projects, would be removed. Indeed, one of the top priorities is, to quote from the mandate letter:

making changes to the Building Canada Fund so that it is more transparent and approval processes are sped up, which would include removing the P3 screen for projects.

In hindsight, maybe we should have been more cynical and more suspicious of these sunny ways. Now we see the Liberals moving with a scheme to privatize public infrastructure, and that needs to be stopped in its tracks.

Never during the election did the Liberals suggest that they would invest in Canadian infrastructure by privatizing these public assets. Then, in budget 2016, they mused about exploring asset recycling, a deceptive term that really means privatization.

Recently, the finance minister's handpicked economic advisory council, which is made up of many advocates for private investments in infrastructure, has now recommended implementing an infrastructure bank and asset recycling, including private airports, toll highways and bridges, power transmission, and natural resource infrastructure. Liberals are clearly going ahead with the Canadian infrastructure bank, which will largely be funded with private funds that will be demanding a high rate of return, which will be provided by the privatization of revenue streams of this infrastructure such as tolls and user fees.

I am alarmed that this morning, during our debate, there are not more members of the House who have an understanding of what is going on here. Everyone needs to buckle down and read this. These are real impactful statements that are foreboding for the announcements that are to come very quickly.

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities has expressed serious concerns that the Liberals would take the money promised for housing and local infrastructure and, instead, put it into their new infrastructure bank scheme, meaning far less money for local priorities. Canadian communities were counting on this money to address urgent infrastructure needs, but now they may face red tape and new privatization hurdles instead of what was promised.

The fact is that, for private investors to want to take part in the Liberals' now questionable infrastructure bank, the scheme depends on projects creating new revenue streams, which means Canadians will end up paying the price through user fees and toll roads. The hopeful, progressive language in the mandate letter, along with the Liberals' campaign platform, is indeed a fluffy ball of cotton candy. Now we hear backlash from recent reports that poised the Liberals to move ahead with plans for selling off existing public infrastructure, like airports, ports, and bridges.

The CEO of the Vancouver Airport Authority said in The Globe and Mail, in reaction to the flywheel investment recommendations, “If you get a big cheque, that’s great, one time, but now there’s going to be a company run by a pension fund and an investment bank that is going to be taking a huge amount of money out of the airport to repay their investment”.

Once people begin to realize that privatization is behind asset recycling, which is happening, Liberals have created a more puffy ball of cotton candy, which has given us the term I just mentioned, “flywheel for reinvestment”. It gets better. A flywheel for reinvestment catalyzes the participation of institutional capital in existing assets. Is that not wonderful? Why do they want to sell off the valuable infrastructure that Canadians' hard-earned dollars built? It is to pay for their budget shortfalls.

The Liberals plan to take credit for infrastructure money they did not spend, while leaving Canadians to pay the price through things like new user fees and tolls. The Liberals never said a word about privatization during the election. They never explained to Canadian provinces and municipalities that they really proposed a flywheel of reinvestment when they spoke of a Canada infrastructure bank.

What we hoped for and recognized is that a Canada infrastructure bank would serve an agreed purpose as a smart and timely economic stimulant that would help provinces, territories, and municipalities access lower federal interest rates. Little did we know that this was so far from the concept envisioned by the Liberals.

Faced with the dual problems of declining investment and aging infrastructure, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities has estimated that Canada's municipal infrastructure deficit is $127 billion and will grow by $2 billion annually. We can see that investing in public infrastructure has its clear merits, and we are compelled to do so. Including job creation and economic stimulus, it addresses the repairs and upgrades our communities need on an ongoing basis.

Our current economic conditions present compelling reasons for investing in infrastructure now, and the Liberals have never presented their stance on economic stimulus to include a fire sale of federal assets. Canada has an opportunity to take advantage of historically low long-term interest rates and clinch a policy to accelerate the rate of investment in public infrastructure that it promised. This is a nightmare.

Flywheel privatization means the sell-off of more public assets to pay for public infrastructure and private companies that will profit from our use of public services. We have seen countless times what that means: cutting off sources of revenue for government, enriching private investors, and burdening the public with the added costs for services, along with the financial losses of government.

There is only one taxpayer, but there are plenty of other ways to generate revenue, such as restoring Canada Post. The NDP also champions the closing of tax loopholes and cracking down on offshore tax dodging, not taking advantage of ordinary Canadians who keep getting betrayed by this government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for an excellent speech and for taking the time to read into the details of this document. It is very disturbing when we talk about the infrastructure bank that is going to be created and the asset recycling principle. This is what it says in proposed new section 42.3(1) about the minister's powers:

The Minister may, for the sound and efficient management of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, lend money by way of an auction on any terms and conditions that the Minister considers appropriate.

We are talking about the minister doing cash for access with his Liberal buddies and lobbyists, the same minister who, starting with a $10 billion deficit, ran it to $30 billion and is now running it further, so I wonder if the member has any faith in the government to not waste Canadians' infrastructure assets.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it actually appeases me to a certain extent to know that other people are starting to read between the lines and raise these alarm bells, each for our own reasons.

As a matter of fact, the proposal of an infrastructure bank is just one way, as well as the chapter that was quoted by the member, that we are undermining the real work of the government and the initiatives that we have to take. We have a role and a responsibility, and the use of public assets is not the way to go.

In terms of transitioning to a green economy, to which the government has made indications it will commit, we are undermining that, and we are spinning ourselves backwards here. I hope more people will be able to focus on the merits of a real infrastructure bank, and not be confused with this scheme that just entices private investors to use our—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Questions and comments, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member believes there is merit in a national government working with the different stakeholders, actually consulting with them on a wide spectrum of issues that would deal with the infrastructure situation we have in Canada.

I would cite, for example, NDP governments in the province of Manitoba looking for P3 and coming up with legislation, and looking at ways in which the private sector could be involved in infrastructure. NDP governments have actually sold off government properties also.

The point is this. Should the national government actually demonstrate any interest in working with the different stakeholders, if the stakeholders are coming to Ottawa saying they want a national government? Is there an obligation, from her perspective, for Ottawa to be listening to what provinces and cities are saying with respect to infrastructure?

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the quick answer is yes. They should be consulting, but not for $1,500 a ticket.

What we need to do is have a real, meaningful consultation process. These are the lines we always hear. This has been done. We know that this process, the consultation that has taken place, and the things that have been rolled out now indicate to us that we do have an investment bank scheme. However, what kind of consultation has taken place? It is nice for me to tell the House what I think should happen. It is a little late. The member should read his Bill C-29.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think all Canadians know we have a very sluggish economy right now. The Bank of Canada recently revised our growth downward from 1.3% to 1.1%. We have a jobless environment, and trade has been really sluggish for the last several years now.

The Liberals came into power telling Canadians during the campaign that they would run three modest $10 billion deficits and balance the budget in the fourth year. The reality is that they ran a $30 billion deficit in their very first budget, and they plan on running another five of them.

They promised Canadians that their recipe for dealing with this was to build public infrastructure, not sell it. Therefore, my question is about asset recycling. They make it sound as if privatization is an environmentally advantageous step. What does my hon. colleague think about the government's plan to sell public assets like airports that make money for Canadians, instead of building public assets, as they promised Canadians during the election?

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's question and his comments with regard to the real profound impact of what is being suggested here with asset recycling. The privatization of public assets is also going to open the door to these investor state challenges that we are seeing coming up, not just under NAFTA but now under CETA and potentially under the TPP.

This is counterintuitive to what the platform has been for the Liberal government. How a government stimulates an economy and brings public assets to fruition is not through privatization. As a matter of fact, that erodes and leaves Canadians worse off than they were before.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-29. I have been listening to all the debate that has been taking place, and I note that we as members of Parliament seem to be debating lots of different things all at once, and not necessarily always Bill C-29, especially on a day such as today when we are eagerly awaiting the Minister of Finance's update.

Obviously today we are anticipating the fall update on the economy and the state of public finances. I look forward to that. Although I have the opportunity to deliver a speech now, I plan to take part in the lockup on the economic update.

We know that any minute now we will be getting additional financial information from the Minister of Finance, and some of the media reports that foreshadowed what we may see in that report have become part of this debate as if they were in Bill C-29. They are not, so we do not know much about what will be proposed. There are concerns, as many colleagues have raised, about what might be proposed around infrastructure, what might be proposed around specifics of an infrastructure bank. It is not in Bill C-29. We are also talking today about the budget document itself, and much of what is in the budget document is not in Bill C-29.

Let me just clarify for parliamentarians and those who may be watching us today across the country what Bill C-29 is.

I try to be as fair as possible in all circumstances, and I railed against the omnibus budget bills of the previous government such as the spring omnibus budget bill of 2012, Bill C-38, which changed more than 70 different laws and regulations and abolished important institutions of public policy such as the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. It did many things that were never referenced in the budget. It extended itself well beyond what a budget should usually do. This was the spring omnibus bill of 2012. The fall omnibus bill was Bill C-45, and it completely gutted the Navigable Waters Protection Act, while the spring omnibus bill gutted the Fisheries Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

I reflect on that just to say that there are different kinds of omnibus bills. There are illegitimate omnibus bills and there are bills that take into account many different measures but all flow from the budget. This is in the category of legitimate omnibus bills. There is nothing in here that is not required by what was in the budget document that we received last spring. Last spring's budget set out changes, particularly to the Canada child benefit. It set out changes to various aspects of the Income Tax Act. If Canadians were to pick up Bill C-29 and read it, I do not think I am making too much of a stretch to say that they would find nothing that would be alarming.

There are provisions to begin to understand how we measure carbon emissions in terms of emissions allowances, how taxpayers would account for that, and how Revenue Canada and the Department of Finance would account for that. There are certainly new rules for charities and extensions for what kinds of donations could be considered charitable donations. There are provisions that are purely to do with the tax code, as one would hope when one is looking at a budget bill.

It is not an illegitimate budget bill, but it does of course allow us to turn our attention to the budget and to reflect on what was there and what was not there in relation to the promises made in last year's campaign.

We are just about at the one-year mark for this new administration and it is fair to reflect at the one-year mark on policies related to budget matters today, so I will stay within the frame of budgetary matters in my presentation. However, I have to say, in providing commentary on Bill C-29, and I want to be honest with Canadians, there is nothing here that gets me worried or upset except for what is missing. I want to be clear about that.

What is missing is that the Liberal platform last year committed to getting rid of subsidies to fossil fuels. There were really only three bullet points under the Liberal platform commitment to climate action.

One bullet point was that they would attend at Paris and negotiate. The Liberals did that and they did it superbly. The second was that they would put in place a national carbon price, and that is a work in progress. I bemoan the fact that the starting price is $10 a tonne but the architecture of it is fair and will only top up those provinces that have failed to define how they want to price their emissions.

This missing piece really deserves much more attention.

The commitment was clear that subsidies for fossil fuels would come to an end. The 2016 budget on page 221 commits until the end of the period in which the previous government had already committed subsidies for a new class of subsidies for liquefied natural gas in 2015. Some may say that LNG, liquefied natural gas, is a fairly clean burning fossil fuel but when it comes from fracked gas, which the LNG industry in British Columbia is projected to come from, it has the same carbon footprint as coal. Seeing a provision in the legislation that would continue this well into the future is a concern. That should come to an end much sooner.

We also were promised a lot of spending on infrastructure but when we look at the actual budget figures, only one-tenth of what is promised on infrastructure will occur before the next election. I really am keen to hear what our finance minister is about to announce later today. If we are trying to stimulate the economy through investments in infrastructure, then we really have to make those investments in infrastructure and we have to do it sooner rather than later. We have only one chance of the money flowing to things like public transit, which we urgently need.

There is reference in the budget to a small amount of money over a two-year period for examining what we need to improve Canada's east-west electricity grid. We need that urgently. Canada is a big country and we tend to have far too many interprovincial barriers. We are familiar with talking about interprovincial barriers to trade but we do not think so much about the interprovincial barriers to electricity. Why is it that provinces struggling to go off coal are having trouble buying renewable energy from the province next door? We really do need to invest in what is a real nation building project. It would create jobs and the fastest route to de-carbonizing our electricity grid is to improve access across provincial boundaries.

We can look at the absurdity right now of what is going on in Newfoundland with respect to Muskrat Falls. Nalcor is building Muskrat Falls, and CEO Stan Marshall has already referred to Muskrat Falls as a boondoggle that should never have been built. Newfoundland will be coming cap in hand to the federal treasury to look for money to bail out that project but it will find that it is throwing good money after bad. Nova Scotia says it cannot shut down coal until it gets an underwater cable all the way from Muskrat Falls.

Hydro-Québec sits right next to the Atlantic provinces. Hydro-Québec's electricity could get exactly as far as Moncton, turn a switch, open up the electricity grid, and work out the financing. Part of the problem may be that Manitoba Hydro and Hydro-Québec prefer to sell south to the United States because sales to the U.S. do not affect their equalization payments. If we start thinking like a country, we might figure out how to maximize the benefit from electricity generated in one province and ease access in another.

Going off fossil fuels as quickly as possible should be a national goal, while at the same time ensuring that the fossil fuels we use in Canada are the ones manufactured and refined in Canada. We have the beginning of a made-in-Canada solution for our energy, for our workers, for the Alberta economy, if we are willing to invest in refineries instead of pipelines and take away the subsidies to fossil fuels as was promised.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do share my colleague's concern about the slow pace of infrastructure spending. That $3 billion that the government has spent so far was spent on projects that were approved in the Conservative Party pipeline. Nothing else has come forward. I wonder if the member is aware of that.

The motion that was passed asking for a greenhouse gas emissions analysis on every infrastructure project, which the government supported, means that all of the infrastructure projects my colleague is talking about for public transportation and roads will not happen because they will not meet the criteria because the criteria has not even been set. I wonder if she could comment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have seen it in the past and many parliamentarians have forgotten that there was a greenhouse gas screen on infrastructure projects during the previous administration under former prime minister Paul Martin. It did not slow down infrastructure projects, not to my recollection. I have only been a member of Parliament for five years and I am plagued with a good memory. I have to say I remember when these things worked, so knowing that they worked in practice, I think they will work again.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I much enjoyed my hon. colleague's speech. She mentioned two things that made my ears perk up. First was the nation building projects, where I think back to the railway and things like that and specifically now the energy east pipeline would be a nation building project, taking product from Albert and bringing it to a refinery in New Brunswick, displacing foreign oil.

I wonder if the member is supportive of that project. Also equalization is new to me, as is this issue of selling electricity to the United States in order to maintain equalization payments. Would she agree that the equalization payments are sometimes a false incentive?

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

Mr. Speaker, those are two big topics. On the first one about electricity and selling to the United States, this was raised with the head of our local chamber of commerce in Saanich—Gulf Islands who said that when Quebec sells to another province it counts in the equalization payments, but revenues achieved out of the province do not.

The energy east as a pipeline project is often promoted as though it was taking Alberta product to refineries in eastern Canada. At the moment, there are no refineries in New Brunswick that can process raw bitumen. Therefore, part of the energy east product line will be Bakken shale and that portion can be refined in New Brunswick. However, the bulk, 70% of what energy east is proposed to carry, is the solid material bitumen mixed with diluent so it will flow and it would flow past the refineries and onto tankers. It would not displace foreign oil. We are getting about 0.7 million barrels a day of foreign oil into eastern Canada, while we are shipping out about two million barrels a day from Alberta to other countries.

As I mentioned earlier, we used to have 40 refineries in Canada in the 1970s. We were not closer to markets in the 1970s. We were not an oil-producing country in the 1970s. What has happened is that the people who make decisions about building refineries in the private sector have no interest in creating Canadian jobs or Albertan jobs. We, as elected officials, should care about creating the jobs that Peter Lougheed had in his original plans for how the oil sands should be developed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

I do not want to ask a question about the environment. However, I will use a term invented by the Liberal government that reminds us of the environment, and that is asset recycling. We approve of recycling. However, asset recycling means privatization. The Liberals never campaigned on the privatization of our infrastructure.

What does my hon. colleague think of the idea of selling our assets and making consumers pay twice as much for using federal infrastructure?

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

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

I completely agree with him. We did not hear the term “infrastructure asset recycling” during the election campaign. It is not until the end of Bill C-29, on page 228, that there is mention of what the Minister of Finance may do for the sound management of the consolidated revenue fund on terms and conditions he considers appropriate. Perhaps this would allow the creation of an asset recycling system. I believe it is essential, for everyone's well-being, that infrastructure remain in the hands of the public. Management of our public sector should not be privatized.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be addressing some of the points my colleagues have made.

I will start off with the fact that TD Economics recently announced that the deficit would be $34 billion this year. I will put that into some sort of perspective.

Although 30 does not sound like a large number, when we say 30 billion, we often do not even put all of the zeros behind it. Rather, we write “30” and the word “billion” behind it. To some degree it sometimes falls into the abstract. We know it is a large number, but we do not really have a definite reference point as to how much money it actually is.

This morning, I Googled the new Chrysler Pacifica minivan that came out six or eight months ago. It ranges in price from $42,000 to $55,000. I used a rough middle-of-the-road $50,000 for a new Chrysler minivan to make for easy math. Thirty billion dollars would buy us 600,000 new Chrysler minivans. I took the measurement of the new minivan and if we were to line them up bumper to bumper, we would have a line-up of brand new Chrysler minivans from Edmonton all the way to Toronto. That kind of puts into perspective what $30 billion would look like in hard, fall on our toes, ouch that hurt, kind of stuff.

Thirty billion dollars is a huge amount of money that the government is borrowing today to pay for projects that our children will have to pay for in the future. If these projects were happening and we could all see this burst in infrastructure spending around us, then we could say we were making a good investment. However, history has taught us that when we deal with the Liberals, they spend a lot of money, and typically it goes to pay their friends and donors.

They have said that they will spend all of this money to create jobs. That was their main point. They have pointed to the many years of stagnant growth in the economy, and have said that they need to invest all of this money now, in times of low interest rates, to ensure growth in the economy, and to create some jobs.

What has this done for the number of jobs? We have been here for a year and have seen this historic investment, as the Liberals like to call it. What are the job numbers? They have remained stagnant. We are still at 7% unemployment. If we were to narrow it down from across the entire country and look at places like Alberta, it has seen a spike in the jobless numbers and the unemployment rate since these historic investments have come into play. Clearly, if the Liberals have a plan, it is not working.

The Liberals claim to have created many jobs through this amazing summer jobs program. Frankly, if we think the summer jobs program is creating jobs, we fail to understand basic economics, and what value and production are. If these summer jobs are being paid for through the public purse, there is no incentive for production or to understand the concept of value. People are hired at an hourly wage to do whatever is required. This is great in that it gives young people a chance to get some job experience doing different things, but it does not necessarily instill in these young people the concepts of value and production that typically come with the free market interactions between labour and production.

I am an automotive mechanic by trade. We typically were paid about one-third of whatever the door rate was at the mechanic at which shop I worked. If the door rate was $100 an hour, the mechanic was paid about $33 an hour. This was based on the fact that we were busy. If people needed their vehicles fixed, they would come to our dealership. There was a sign on the door that said that we charged $100 an hour to fix vehicles. Although people realized that it might cost them several thousand dollars to have their vehicle fixed, they would make the calculation and pay me that $33 an hour to fix it because they needed it to go to work.

There is a series of calculations that goes into that in the private sector where people get paid, and that is set up by rational people making decisions for their own lives essentially.

However, for the summer jobs program, none of those calculations come into the equation. One applies for a position, sends in an application to the government to hire someone to do something for X amount of hours, and asks the government to fund it. The whole concept of value and production are thrown out the window in that case. Although it creates experiences, it is not necessarily typical of what a job should be and is.

Another thing I would like address on the new Liberal budget is that the Liberals seem to be starting in bumps and stops. They fail to realize that our entire economy is a delicately balanced system to some degree. When we push one spot in, another spot comes out essentially. However, it seems that the unintended consequences are not taken into account, and I will give an example of this from my riding.

There is significant oil and gas activity in my riding. One of the things that happens, especially in oil production, is that when we take the oil out of the ground, a lot of times we get natural gas or sour gas that comes along with it. Typically, there is a pipeline for the oil, but there is no pipeline to put the natural gas in. Therefore, they light a fire and burn the natural gas off right there. It turns from natural gas into water and CO₂ and everybody goes on their way.

However, starting about 10 years ago, the Alberta government worked very hard to get a system in place where people could use the natural gas they were burning off in a flare stack to produce electricity. They set up the market so rather than sticking the natural gas in a flare stack, they could buy a gas generator, run the natural gas in the generator, and create electricity. They could either sell the electricity to the grid or use it on site.

That whole system was set up to be revenue neutral. The oil company operating there was doing all of this for the environment. There was no cost benefit for the company. It cost it a bunch of money, but it was recouped over time. The company did not make money on it, but it did not lose money either. Therefore, for the sake of the environment, we would do this.

However, in comes the carbon tax from the provincial government, which now makes that cost benefit analysis so the cost is more than the benefits. It was at the break-even point, but now it costs more than the benefit. Suddenly, rather than buying the generator, putting it on site, hooking it all up, connecting it to the grid or a battery, or whatever the company was doing, it now costs too much and so it will have to just flare it once again.

This is one example where, if we do not take into consideration all the aspects of the economy, if we push in one spot, something else will pop out. This is a clear example of where the carbon tax, with its intended good to protect the environment, does the exact opposite.

I would like to think the government is unaware of these kinds of scenarios, but something tells me it is quite familiar with what is going on. The Liberals are betting against the Canadian economy when it comes to mortgage rules. They are saying that we are going to have a lack of growth going forward, market instability, and all of these kinds of things happening. Therefore, they have to ensure we do not have massive mortgage defaults. Therefore, the Liberals are saying that they are going to change the rules so we do not have massive mortgage defaults. They seem to be signalling that they know their plan is not going to work.

I know I am completely out of time. I probably have 10 more things to go over, but I will cede the floor and hopefully will get to some of them in questions.

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

Mr. Speaker, my questions are related to the agreements that have been achieved by the provinces and Ottawa.

The member and other members have made reference to the CPP. Provincial governments from all regions of the country, working with the strong leadership of this government, have come up with an agreement that will see future retirees receive a better pension. The Conservatives have really taken a philosophical approach to this, saying that it is a tax and a bad thing.

Would the member not agree that when it comes to issues around pensions for workers, even if it is for the next generation, that it takes a strong government to demonstrate leadership and ensures that we have adequate pensions for people who retire in the future? In good part, this budget is all that.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, CPP is one of the things I wanted to get to. I recently received a letter from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. It mentioned that bringing in the new CPP would restrict companies from hiring new employees. It said that companies would expect employees to work longer hours and do more work, rather than hire a new person, because that cost benefit analysis was going to come up.

Companies will say that hiring a new young person is not going to be as advantageous as keeping more senior staff members and paying them a little for to do more. Because there is a CPP cutoff, if companies can pay the senior staff members, those who already are past that cut off on the CPP maximum limit, a little more, the companies will get a better benefit.

On government leadership, it is important that the government show leadership on a wide range of issues. One particular issue I would like to see the government champion is the energy east projects.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

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

From what he said, he is strongly opposed to deficits and adding to the national debt. He spent much of his speech criticizing deficits.

However, I am having a hard time reconciling his statements with the record of the Conservatives, who ran deficit after deficit. They too added to the public debt non-stop during their time in office and then, at the very end, after juggling the numbers a bit, they were barely able to announce that they had balanced the federal budget. However, during all that time, they continued to add to the national debt. I am trying to reconcile all of that.

I would therefore like to ask my colleague the following question: when exactly is it good to run deficits? His party ran deficits and the party that is currently in office is doing the same, saying that it will stimulate the economy. When is it good to run deficits? Does the member believe that his party was right in running deficits and adding to the national debt when it was in power?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as to whether we did the right thing by deficit spending during the greatest recession this world has seen, the jury is still out on that. I do not think we are overly proud of what we did. However, I do know we are very proud of our record in bringing our country through the recession better than other G7 nations. We did not have a significant meltdown in our housing market. In fact, our housing market is as strong as it has ever been.

On the deficit we took on, we did that with some chagrin. The deficit would have been much larger had that member's party been in power. We would be in a place right now where we would be unable to take on more deficit. Because of our good fiscal policy, we had a great credit rating. Those kinds of things have allowed the current government to now take on its deficit spending.

If the government is going to spend the deficit as it says it is, I would like to see the job numbers it is promising.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise to speak to Bill C-29, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016, and other measures.

I had spoken about this budget, initially, when it was tabled. At that time, I was very concerned with the numbers and the spending that I saw, but today I am even more concerned, especially when we have seen a lack of growth and a lack of support, with a number of groups jumping off the bandwagon, saying the Liberals are not doing what they said they would do.

When the bill was initially tabled, there was $113 billion that was being borrowed. TD economic services has now estimated that there is going to be an additional $16.5 billion in new expenditures.

Let us go back to what the government promised during the 2015 election. The 2015 election was just a year ago. We have seen so many changes in terms of what the government is delivering compared with what it provided in its platform.

I would like to go back to a debate that I had in the city of St. Thomas. It was one of our final debates. There were six candidates. I recall the Liberal candidate, at that time, saying that they would have shovels in the ground by December of 2015. Obviously, I am here and I am very grateful for that. However, she obviously heard that as part of the platform. She was being told by her leader and by the leaders of her party that they were going to have shovels in the ground doing great work for Canadians and building infrastructure. I think they actually believed it. I believe many of the members who are now sitting across on the government side believed when they came here that they were going to be doing some good work.

As I said, December 2015 was when they promised to have shovels in the ground. I can tell members I have not seen too many shovels in the ground. I have not seen these projects they were talking about and that they were going to be working on.

The infrastructure minister will come out and talk about the projects that have been proposed, the projects that the provincial governments have submitted, saying that, yes, they are going to support these projects, but that is only stage one of this process. That means there is only a finite number of people who are working on this infrastructure build. They may be the architects, the engineers, or the administrative people who are putting in these applications, but it is not the people with the hard hats and the workboots who are out there doing that work. We do not see that happening yet.

Of all of these communities and provinces that were promised more roads and better infrastructure in the 2015 campaign, where is it and where is the spending? We have seen spending from the government, but we have not seen any results.

I go back to when we go to the bank and we talk about good debt versus bad debt. It is simple. It is something I say to my children. A good debt is when you go and buy a washing machine because it's something that you need and that washing machine is going to stay with you, not just one day or two days, it's going to stay with you, hopefully, for 20 years, which is the way I like to buy my washing machines, at least. That is a good debt. That is when we are investing in our homes and in the things in our homes. Going out and buying a gourmet dinner that might cost $200 or $300, however, is good for one day, if that, or it might be good for three hours. There is a difference between good debt and bad debt. I am very concerned that the government does not know the difference between the two and that we are spending a lot of money for things that are hot topics, but we are not spending on long-time prosperity.

The Bank of Canada has actually lowered the forecast for the GDP down to 1.1%. That has not even been within a year. It was 1.4% that was forecast in January, prior to this budget, and unfortunately the Bank of Canada is seeing the light as well and seeing that it is going to be 1.1%.

When this budget was tabled, it was not just organizations like the C.D. Howe Institute or the Fraser Institute but also the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, along with the members of the Conservative Party, that were very concerned with what was in the budget.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, we are seeing more groups, more organizations, and more individuals jumping on board, saying that this budget is not delivering the stimulus that they thought it was going to, this is not what the Liberals promised, and this government is not doing what it promised. I think that is one thing people are saying. Yes, they cast their vote in 2015, and like I say, we talked about seven million compared with six million, some of those people, 39%, cast their vote for the Liberal Party and many of those people are sitting there with voter's remorse, saying that they are not getting what they thought they had voted for.

We now see the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, and the Business Council of Canada all being much more skeptical of the spending being done by the government.

However, there are also other groups. This is one thing I was really quite surprised about. We have a Prime Minister who talks about building relationships and one of the key relationships he is going to have is with first nations and aboriginal peoples.

Last week the Standing Committee on the Status of Women had the opportunity to listen to a lady by the name of Tracy O'Hearn. Tracy was representing the Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada. She talked about the work they had done regarding violence against women and a program that was done through phase one under the Conservative government.

Phase one of their program had some fantastic results, but they are ready to initiate phase two. In the last year, the current government, which is trying to build relationships with first nations people, has not been part of these negotiations and has not been at the table to communicate with them. We are not seeing a progression. We have seen some great things started, but they are now halted because the Liberal government has not acted.

This building of relationships with first nations is something Conservatives see as another broken promise. The NDP opposition has also had to put forward some of these concerns, because we have a government that is not listening. It is promising but not listening.

There was also confirmation by the parliamentary budget officer that the Conservative government left a $2.9-billion surplus in the 2015-16 fiscal year. The government proposed to spend its way to prosperity. If we just take the numbers out and do not look at what the Liberals were spending, we see that the Conservatives did very well as a government.

When this budget was proposed, a lot of economists said deficits can be good and in the previous session an NDP member asked my colleague if it was right to have a deficit. In 2008, 2009, and 2010 when Canada went through the worst economic downturn, Conservatives actually spent wisely. We had shovels in the ground and created retraining programs. We did everything we possibly could to get people back to work. That is why we were one of the first countries to recover from the economic downturn.

The current government is saying that it will spend its way to prosperity, something that seems to be okay because economists have said, yes, it could go into deficit as long as it spends money well, but we have not seen the money being spent well. The government is going into deficit and we are not seeing anything for it. Instead, people in Canada are floundering. The government is looking at employment insurance reform and things of that sort, rather than creating jobs.

One thing I am very proud of is being the critic for families, children, and social development, so in the last two minutes, I am going to touch on the changes to the Canada child benefit.

Once again, in the election campaign, it was all about nine out of 10 kids doing better under the Liberals' program. I have done the numbers and there is a lot more money being spent. I am not going to say there is not, but once again, the Liberal Party was selling something on which it had never put a pen to paper to see what the actual numbers were. There were not true estimates done.

As we debate Bill C-29, the CCB is being indexed. Back in July when these payments started, the first thing the media noticed was that the money was not being indexed and the programs by the Conservative government were actually better than the ones by the Liberal government today. With the indexing now, there is going to be double the spending on the Canada child benefit. A program that is already very large and questionably sustainable is going to be doubled in the next five years. That is absolutely poor fiscal management.

Yes, there are going to be hiccups and difficult things in the first year of taking over as government, Conservatives understand that, but there seems to be no focus. It is about spending and spending, but not creating prosperity or opportunities for Canadians. The government thinks if families have problems, it will give them more money, not opportunities to be educated or build new roads. The government is not going to do those things. It will just throw money at the problem, and that is not what is supposed to be done.

This government is in charge of the country and in charge of its finances, and I am very concerned that the promises the Liberals made in 2015 are extremely irresponsible. I am very concerned about where we will see our government and our country by the end of October of 2019.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I would like to ask her a question about something that has been said a few times in the House about infrastructure.

Does the member have the same concerns as us about the $120 billion that was promised for infrastructure? In her speech, she mentioned that infrastructure was discussed in her riding during the election campaign.

Since the state of the public purse is not what it should be, is the member concerned about the fact that the government has taken an approach that will allow it to announce that it spent $120 billion, when much of that is private funding through an infrastructure bank?

Is she worried that this might be a smokescreen to lead us to believe that this promise has finally been kept when, in fact, it was accomplished in part with help from the private sector?

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

Mr. Speaker, in some sorts of infrastructure there needs to be partnership. When it comes to private businesses, if we are helping out there, there needs to sometimes be partnerships.

However, in the situation the hon. member is referring to, the public infrastructure, which is the roads, the hospitals, the things that we see in Canada where we have the provincial and territorial governments as well as the municipal governments, I am very concerned that the government will back out of some of those.

As I said, I compare it to a washing machine. There is good and bad debt. If a road is built, we have that road for decades and decades with a few repairs. I do not think that we are spending ahead of ourselves because we see that the Liberals have put themselves into a new position where we are expecting lower growth and not the revenues the government thought it would have.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue on the topic of infrastructure.

In the province of Alberta there have been a number of difficult times. The government has moved in many different ways to try to help Albertans as they go through these difficult times. We are very optimistic, as Albertans have a very strong spirit, that they will not only get out of it but will do well in the future.

One of the ways they will be able to capitalize on doing well is due to the government's commitment on infrastructure. In fact, there are 72 projects, working with municipalities and the province, that have already been approved to date. I am wondering if the member would recognize that through this infrastructure spending and working in co-operation with the province and municipalities all Albertans will directly benefit from this.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know the member said he was listening to my speech, but I think he missed a part of that speech where I said that there is phase one, the administrative part, the people who are building the plans and all of those things. It is not the men and women who are going back to work with the hard hats and the workboots, so phase one does not incorporate.

We may see these projects, but do we actually see shovels in the ground? Maybe the member will have this conversation with me outside, but how many of these projects are actually shovelling, taking the dirt, and creating new opportunities, or are they still architectural things where the provincial government has said it would allow this and the building will start in three or four months?

I think we have to question that, because we really do not know how far they have progressed.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government cut taxes over 160 times to reach the lowest level in 50 years and allowed the average family to save $3,400 per year, and we still balanced the budget.

What damage has the current government done to our families regarding taxes?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will just compare what we had with what we do not have any longer.

I am a mother of five, which I have probably said many times. My children had memberships all the time up to the age of 18 at the YMCA. Those were things I was able to use as fitness tax credits. My children play sports. One takes acting lessons. They all do different things. With the previous government, there was the incentive for parents to give opportunities to their children.

On one hand, the present government provides money through the child benefit, and as the Liberals like to say, those middle-class tax cuts. On the other hand, it gives us the bill for our CPP, it gives us the bill for our carbon tax, and it gives us the bill for our $130-billion deficit. It is short-term prosperity with long-term debt.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-29, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures. Since that time, we can say that sunny ways have come and gone. Over the past 12 months, we have seen countless promises broken, a ballooning deficit, and a stagnant economy.

We are also watching as the federal government picks too many needless fights with the provinces. The separation of powers that is a fundamental part of Canada's Constitution appears to be an afterthought for the Prime Minister and his government.

The cornerstone for the government is to tax and spend and get more and more involved in the day-to-day lives of Canadians. There is no decision too small for the government to make, no area in which it should not intervene. A day does not go by in the Chamber that I do not hear the Liberals take pride in repeating some platitude like “what we promised to Canadians is to help them throughout their lives”. We know that for the Liberals, government knows best.

Unfortunately, big government costs a lot, and the money to pay for it all comes from Canadians paying taxes on their income and on most goods and services, and from mandatory fees. To these Liberals, government is not the last resort, it is the first call. The idea that government should serve as a safety net has outlived its usefulness. Instead, the government should be omnipresent and helping Canadians each and every day.

Right now, the resource sector in western Canada is struggling because of low commodity prices, but rather than focus on the underlying long-term issue, which is the discount Canadian energy products are sold at due to a lack of access to markets, the Liberal solution is to provide a temporary bump in employment insurance to folks who are out of work. This bears repeating. Rather than put in place the conditions needed to create real jobs and opportunities, the government's preferred course of action is to increase employment insurance. This exemplifies quite well what the Liberal vision is.

I also find the ideological elastic demonstrated by the government on the child care benefit astounding. It was not long ago that the Liberal Party's official position on allowing families to make their own decisions when it came to child care was that parents could not be trusted, that they would spend more on beer and popcorn than on their own children. Now we learn that the new Liberal program for child care is fraught with problems. Bill C-29 would index the Canada child benefit to inflation beginning in 2020. The parliamentary budget officer has estimated that this would cost $42.5 billion over the next five years. That is double what the Liberals budgeted when they originally introduced the program.

I have spoken to many young families who wonder where the money for this is going to come from, how much debt will be incurred, and how much their taxes are going to have to go up in the medium and long term to pay for it. They do not want to trade short-term gain, if there is any, for long-term pain. Then there are those families that are receiving much less than they did in 2015.

Furthermore, the budget has cut the child fitness tax credit, the children's art tax credit, and tax credits for post-secondary education and textbooks. To the Liberal member for Newmarket—Aurora, who stated on Friday that “tax credits do not work”, can he honestly tell the House that the post-secondary students in his riding did not utilize the tuition tax credit?

“Big government knows best” is a broken model. European countries that have tried to spend their way to long-term prosperity have more often than not failed. This debate is about whether we believe, as a country, that the individual financial choices Canadians make are better or worse than those made by government.

Last week I noted that according to the 2016 Index of Economic Freedom, government expenditures presently represent 40.7% of GDP here in Canada. Australia, by comparison, sits at 35.7% and the United States at 38.9%. Are we better off in Canada than in Australia, for example, because more of our economy flows through Ottawa? I do not think so.

Is Canada a better place to live because this bill will compel banks to publish a description of the consultations undertaken with the public on their existing products and the development of new products and services? That is right. One particular measure in the bill will require financial institutions to provide a description of the consultations they have done to identify trends and emerging issues that may have an impact on their customers or the public. This should not surprise us, given how much the Liberals love consultation. In other words, the government is asking banks to make publicly available consumer and societal trends that would normally be considered commercial proprietary data.

Furthermore, major banks will also have to provide to the regulator a description of their consultations on matters on which the bank has received complaints. Why the federal government needs a description of the consultations banks hold on each and every complaint they receive is beyond me. While these legislative requirements will apply only to Canada's largest banks for now, is the next step asking smaller institutions, like credit unions, which are owned by their members, to do the same thing? The compliance costs for smaller institutions could drive them out of business. This would have a devastating effect in small communities all across the Prairies.

Let us look at the ways the Liberals have increased the overall tax burden on Canadians. They have given Canadians a carbon tax that will cost approximately $1,200 per person, and they have not even bothered to figure out how interprovincial emissions will be regulated or priced. They have raised contributions to the CPP from 9.9% to 12%. As a consequence, Canadians will get 2% less on each of their paycheques. This CPP contribution increase will cost families more than if the government had raised the sales tax from 5% to 7%.

It goes on. The Liberals are freezing a planned tax cut for Canada's small businesses, a planned tax cut they campaigned on and that they supported while in opposition.

They are also imposing a myriad of new regulations that just drive up the cost of doing anything for Canadians. For example, the Minister of Transport just introduced new regulations on railways that will order them to provide detailed information on the emissions produced by every single one of their locomotives.

Rail is the most environmentally friendly means of moving goods. A gallon of diesel can move a tonne of goods over 800 kilometres. What is worse, the minister based these new regulations on data collected before 2010, which is now completely out of date.

As railways are working to move western Canada's harvest to market, they are being faced with added red tape and tougher emissions standards, on top of the new carbon tax on diesel. Ultimately it is the farmers trying to get their grain to market who will see their bottom line affected. These regulations will inevitably lead to increased costs that will be passed on to consumers. It is just another hidden tax.

At the end of the day, all Canadians, including the families the government likes to talk about, are being asked to pay up to finance the big Liberal society.

In conclusion, more and more Canadians are expressing not only their frustration but their deep concern about the direction the government is taking Canada. Governments should always act with great humility and modesty, as its actions impact all Canadians and cannot be reversed quickly and without disruption. In the eight years I have had the privilege of serving as a member of Parliament, my belief that Canadians, not government, know best how to manage their finances has only been strengthened. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister and his government's belief in big government permeates this budget, and that is why I will not be supporting the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, a number of Conservatives have talked a great deal about small businesses. This government has listened to the needs of small businesses, and what most small businesses want to see is customers. One of the things we talk about is that the best way to create more customers is to put more disposable income in the pockets of Canadians. In this budget, literally nine million-plus more Canadians are going to have more money in their pockets as a direct result of a tax break, a tax break the Conservative Party unfortunately voted against.

Would the member agree, as basic economics tell us, that if we put more disposable income in the pockets of Canadians, those Canadians will spend that money, thereby creating more customers for small businesses? The first priority of small businesses is to see more customers coming through the door. Would the member agree with that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, and I have to say that there is probably very little the member opposite and I agree on.

I can say this. Only the Liberals would consider the $40-billion carbon tax, the 2% decrease in each paycheque, the tax hike on small business owners, countless new fees, and cutting the children's arts tax credit, the children's fitness tax credit, and the post-secondary tuition and textbook tax credit a tax cut. Only the Liberals would consider that all of these things they have done are good for middle-class Canadians.

When it comes to paying back the massive Liberal borrowing, every single Canadian's taxes are going to increase for many years, and Canadians know that.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

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

I would like to know what she thinks about what the Prime Minister said about small and medium-sized businesses. During the election campaign, he said that small and medium-sized businesses are just a way to avoid paying income tax.

Does my colleague share the Prime Minister’s view? He himself owns this type of numbered company, probably in an attempt to avoid paying income tax. Does she share the view that small and medium-sized businesses are just a way to avoid paying what is owed to society? Furthermore, would she be in favour of a tax reduction on small and medium-sized businesses, which create 80% of the jobs in Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely do not share the vision of the Prime Minister when it comes to small businesses. As I said in my comments, we know that the Liberals campaigned on lowering the small-business tax. They supported it when they were in opposition, and now they are doing something different. We know that the Liberals have made many promises that they have been more than willing to break.

I come from a rural community with over 60 small communities whose economies are supported by small businesses. There is great concern out there about some of the measures the current government has implemented that are going to have an impact on their bottom lines.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North talked about disposable income and giving Canadians more of their own money back to spend as they choose. I would argue that the Liberals are actually doing the exact opposite. They are actually taking more money out of people's pockets and giving them less to spend with their government-knows-best solutions.

I would also like to comment on the businesses, the wealth creators, in our communities. The Liberals' policies are putting them out of business. Here in Ontario, the hydro prices are out of control.

By putting policies in place that shut down businesses, how do the Liberals expect people to have that disposable income? If the people who put the “help wanted” signs in the window are going out of business, what do they have left? They have blight. Maybe my friend can comment on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, first I would have to say that I do not have an answer to that question. It does not make sense to me either in terms of what the Liberals say will happen as a result of the measures they have put in.

For the purposes of today's conversation, I am going to talk about what the previous government did that made tremendous sense when it came to the prosperity of Canadians and businesses in this country. We brought in approximately $35 billion a year in tax relief, which the parliamentary budget officer said was overwhelmingly directed at low- and modest-income people. We brought in the working income tax credit, a benefit that helped people get off the welfare rolls. We raised the personal exemption to take hundreds of thousands of people off tax rolls. They were people who had their federal income tax burden literally lowered by 100%. We lowered the small-business tax. We lowered the corporate tax. These were things that made a tremendous difference while we were in government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to take the floor on the budget implementation bill, since it gives me the opportunity to speak to the shortcomings or errors that the government has made in its budget. There are many of them, and I would like to talk about those that are related to the issues I represent for the NDP, namely public safety and infrastructure. Naturally, I will also be talking about the repercussions of the Liberal government’s decisions on the lives of the people in our communities and in my riding.

First of all, I would like to talk about Bill C-51. This is not a budgetary measure in itself, but it grants budgets to the various committees that oversee the national security agencies. I am referring in particular to the SIRC, which reviews the activities of CSIS and, in certain circumstances, of the RCMP. But it primarily monitors those of CSIS, which has always experienced difficulties with its operating budget.

In the 2015-2016 budget, before the Liberals came to power and while the Conservatives were still in power, the budget of the committee that monitors the activities of CSIS was increased, after the population had expressed its opposition to the passage of Bill C-51.

However, in the last budget tabled by the Liberals, last spring, there was a decrease of $2.5 million per year in this budget, spread over the years ahead. Coming from a party that said it wanted to address the shortcomings in Bill C-51 and increase transparency and oversight, this is totally unacceptable.

Considering the size of the budget of a country such as Canada, that $2.5 million may not look like much, but I am going to demonstrate the consequences of this change for the committee that provides oversight of CSIS. It is the equivalent of 11 full-time positions that will be lost. And those are not receptionists or people who fetch coffee: they are high-level analysts who look into CSIS activities.

If the government really wanted to increase transparency and oversight, it would not confine itself to half measures, and it would not reverse course and cut the budget of a group of experts that already exists to provide oversight of those agencies.

Moreover, it is important to note that these budget cuts are taking place in a context where CSIS is using the powers it was granted by Bill C-51. Therefore, on one hand, those powers are being used, which is very worrisome—our colleagues are well aware of our position on that bill—and on the other hand, cuts are being made to the budget of the only committee that currently exists to oversee CSIS’s activities, pending the establishment of a committee of parliamentarians.

I am sure I can anticipate the government’s response on this issue. It is the response that the minister gave me in committee. He told us not to worry, because they were going to strike a committee of parliamentarians. That is fine, and that is why we supported the bill at second reading. We also plan to propose some amendments to address a few of its serious deficiencies.

However, let’s be clear: all the experts we heard in committee as part of our study on national security and the study of Bill C-22 that begins today have told us that the committee of parliamentarians could not exist in a vacuum.

Independent experts are needed to provide oversight and review in partnership with the committee of parliamentarians. However, the government is in the process of slashing the budget of an existing independent oversight agency. That is completely unacceptable.

Since we are talking about public safety, we also need to raise the issue of the ability of the police to do their job. For us, at the federal level, that means the RCMP. By focusing all of our efforts on preventing terrorism, we are ignoring a number of other areas.

In the last Parliament, budget cuts were made to the Eclipse squad, and we saw the impact that had on cities such as Montréal, with the proliferation of street gangs and the radicalization of youth. We have to be honest: radicalization is not just about religion. The aim is not to profile a single community. Radicalization takes many forms. It involves young people, sometimes street gangs, and sometimes extreme right-wing groups. We are well aware that our police services lack resources, and we are not taking these other factors seriously when we focus on a single threat. It is not me saying this, it is the RCMP commissioner.

In committee, we asked the RCMP commissioner whether we were neglecting other types of threats by focusing on the terrorist threat. He replied that that was quite true. For example, the RCMP no longer pays enough attention to organized crime. That is not the fault of the men and women who work for the RCMP; it is due to the lack of resources. It is a negative trend that started under the previous government and is continuing under the Liberal government.

I also want to talk about infrastructure, another topic that has raised some very serious concerns over the past few weeks. We are seeing this government's true colours when it comes to investing in infrastructure.

During the election campaign, the Liberals promised that they would take a progressive approach to infrastructure. They said that they would work with the provinces and municipalities by investing, spending, and running a deficit. That is nice, but we are starting to realize that the government is planning to privatize.

The most glaring example of that is the involvement of Crédit Suisse in the discussions with the Minister of Finance. We know that Crédit Suisse specializes in privatizing airports. I would therefore ask the government to explain to me how it fails to see a conflict in interest when a private company that earns a living privatizing airports is working in close collaboration with the Minister of Finance. We are told not to worry, that there will be no privatization.

As my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques put it so well yesterday, this is letting a fox into the henhouse. This is troubling. We saw this tendency with CHUM in Montreal and with Highway 407 in Ontario. These seem to have inspired this government in the development of its infrastructure plan. It is completely unacceptable. We need to stand up and oppose this privatization. This problem is not just about foreign investment and the loss of control over our own infrastructure, which are public at this time, nor about the fact that taxpayers will then be accountable and assume all the risk while private corporations rake in all the profits. It is also about the user-pay principle. We will set up the toll booths, but the profits will go to private companies.

With regard to the Champlain Bridge, my former colleague from Brossard—La Prairie, Hoang Mai, the former members for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert and Saint-Lambert, as well as my current colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert and I all took a stand against the previous government. It is to the current government's credit that it respected that commitment. There will be no tolls on the Champlain Bridge.

However, if the government decides to sell the bridge to a private company tomorrow, and the company wants to introduce a toll system, that system will benefit only that private company, not Canadian taxpayers. It is completely unacceptable.

The clock is ticking, so I will wrap up with some comments on the local issues I mentioned. The most important issue for the City of Chambly is the dispute between the federal government and the municipalities over payments in lieu of taxes, an issue that has been festering for a very long time. As promised during the last election campaign, I introduced a bill about that as soon as possible after the election. Every year, the City of Chambly has to absorb a $500,000 shortfall because the Liberal government is not honouring its commitment to the municipality to pay its fair share of costs related to the Fort Chambly site. The timing is good because the Liberal candidate set herself up as the great champion of this issue, which I have been fighting for since I was elected in 2011. Of course, that is another broken promise because there is nothing in the budget for it.

That is another battle we still need to fight, and we could go on at length about it, but I see that my time is up, so I will take this opportunity to answer my colleagues' questions.

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

Mr. Speaker, sincerely, I am trying to understand what my colleague said at the beginning of his speech about CSIS and the committee of parliamentarians overseeing it.

Can the member comment further on that issue and help us understand exactly what he sees as being the problem?

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

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I am wondering whether my colleague listened to my speech because I explained exactly what I had a problem with. The problem is what is happening with the existing oversight committee, the independent committee that all experts told us, in committee, must work closely with the committee of parliamentarians.

This committee, which has been around since the creation of CSIS in the 1980s, is given a budget by the federal government. We are debating that budget today. The committee that oversees CSIS is going to have its budget cut by about $2.5 million a year if this Liberal government's budget is passed. As I clearly indicated in my speech, that represents the loss of approximately 11 full-time positions. There will be 11 fewer analysts to review CSIS's actions in fulfilling the committee's mandate to oversee CSIS and ensure that its activities respect the rights and freedoms of Canadians.

Cuts to an existing committee that must work with the committee of parliamentarians to ensure the presence of a parliamentary oversight committee and independent, expert oversight pose a major problem. That is a huge problem with this budget.

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

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

I would like to continue on his theme about oversight and the elimination of oversight. I have looked at the document we are studying today. In the Liberal government platform, the Liberals said they were going to have greater oversight of taxpayer dollars. In fact, they said they were going to change parliamentary financial processes so that the government could be held to better account by Parliament and the public.

However, in this piece of legislation we are studying, proposed subsection 42.3(1) gives the minister power to decide terms and conditions and to whom and how they would lend any amount of money from the consolidated revenue fund, without any oversight by cabinet, any oversight by the House, and any oversight by the public.

Ironically, the promise is on the same page as the one to end the use of omnibus bills, so maybe it is worth about the same amount. Could the member comment on that?

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

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

Although I do not agree, I can understand why the minister wants all this power. When it comes right down to it, I do not believe that he thinks he is accountable to the House or even to his cabinet colleagues, but instead is accountable to the people who can afford to attend one of his cocktail fundraisers. That seems to be the bad habit that this government is developing, and this is even more worrisome as we debate the budget given all the consultations that have taken place.

It seems that every day we discover that another minister attended a high-priced cocktail party with people whose interests are being catered to by this budget.

As my colleague said so well, that is not transparency, and it is not the so-called real change that was promised.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

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

What does my colleague have to say about the Liberals' grand promises concerning infrastructure and the billions of dollars that were supposed to flow to our communities for projects that were to get under way as early as December 2015, according to some candidates? These projects were supposed to kick off quickly and the money was to be allocated in the same year.

Does the member think that Canadians and community stakeholders, namely the municipalities and the provinces, are disappointed by how the government is managing the major infrastructure projects, which were to start up right after the election of the Liberal government with its ambitious major infrastructure plan?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is right. Despite what we have been hearing from the other side, projects were announced, but none have actually been completed. That is an important distinction to make.

My colleague is absolutely right in saying that the government can promise all the money in the world, but if the work does not get under way and if the projects never happen, the government should probably not be so self-congratulatory.

Promising all that money and all those wonderful projects is all very well, but if the government is sacrificing public infrastructure and selling it to private interests, and not just private interests, but foreign private interests, that is a problem, and we will not stand for it. We will demand accountability of the government because privatizing public infrastructure is completely unacceptable.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity on behalf of my constituents of Oshawa to express deep concerns when it comes to the frivolous spending of the Liberal government and, more importantly, the lack of results for hard-working Canadians.

We had an election last year, and a lot of promises were made in that election. Let us take a look at some of those promises.

Just a year ago, the Liberals promised that they could spend their way to prosperity. Hard-working Canadians trusted them to borrow just a modest sum so that they could create more jobs and put more money into the pockets of Canadians. What was that promise all about? Let us take a look at what modest means to the Liberals, because only the Liberals could say a $10 billion deficit is modest. Let us see.

The Liberals ran on the promise of a modest $10 billion deficit, but by March 2016, only three months into the year, the deficit was over $30 billion. On top of that, just last month the Prime Minister admitted that he did not know how big the deficit would be this year. How can the Prime Minister create jobs and promise economic growth when he does not even know how much money he is spending? If the PM does not know, how much confidence can Canadians have in regard to the Liberal record and the Liberal stewardship of our economy?

This is what we do know. Despite all of the money borrowed, the economy is stagnant and there is no economic prosperity for Canadians. The Bank of Canada, the IMF, and the OECD have all downgraded their forecast for Canada this year and the next. However, that did not have to be the case. The parliamentary budget officer has confirmed that Canada would have experienced a $2.9 billion surplus in 2015-16 if the Liberals had stayed on the path to prosperity created by our previous Conservative government. Basically, the proof is in the pudding. Despite all their expensive policies, unemployment remains at 7%, which is exactly the same as when they took office a year ago.

Let us contrast that with how our government approached the economy. Members who were here at that time know we were faced with an unprecedented downturn in the global economy. We were faced with a global meltdown. Over that period of time, our Conservative government created 1.2 million net new jobs. Now let us look at the Liberal record. In a very short period of time the Liberals killed 20,000 manufacturing jobs and 39,000 mining, oil, and gas jobs. I am going to address this a bit later in my speech. We are now seeing the results of the foolish decisions the Liberals made. Full-time employment has been non-existent under the Liberal government. The only jobs it did manage to create were entirely part-time jobs, meaning no benefits and very little security.

It seems that the government is entirely out of touch with the concept of competitiveness. We know that Canada plays on the world stage. Nobody playing in the world today lives in a little box, like the Liberals pretend we are in. On the weekend even Brian Mulroney mentioned how foolish it is to create policies that decrease the competitiveness of our country. We can debate the policies, and some of these policies might be good ideas, but if we are the first to jump off a cliff, it does not make any sense. Let us take a look at these ideas.

The Liberals put in a carbon tax. The Prime Minister has demanded a carbon tax across this country, which is going to cost about $1,200 per person in Canada. It is also going to cost business billions of dollars. How does that contribute to our lack of competitiveness? In Ontario and in my community, it will contribute hugely.

The Liberals have put in a new payroll tax, which is going to result in 2% less per paycheque for my constituents. Also, businesses will now have to add that extra 2%.

Ontario is stuck with the highest electrical rates in North America based on, again, irresponsible Liberal energy policies, but that is a whole other story.

We know that Oshawa, in Ontario, is an industry town, but what did the Liberals do? One of the first things they did was eliminate the minister of industry. I do not think there was a time in Canadian history that the Government of Canada did not have a minister of industry. What kind of message does that give to industry? I would say it is that they do not want industry. This is the message they are giving out.

What is really concerning to my constituents is, despite the depreciation of the Canadian dollar—and many people think it is going to depreciate even further under the current Liberal government—normally manufacturing employment increases in Canada, because we trade mostly with the United States. As the dollar goes down, we become much more competitive and jobs increase, but this is the first time in history that manufacturing employment has fallen by 20,000 jobs.

The PBO noted that this is a marked reversal from the gains that averaged 1,000 each year between 2011 and 2015. This is the difference between what happens when government works with manufacturers and what happens when, like the current Liberal government, it works against them.

In my community, we rely on manufacturing to provide well-paying middle-class jobs. Unfortunately, the Liberals have seemingly abandoned the entire sector. Members will remember that the Prime Minister, during the election campaign, went so far as to say that we should shift away from manufacturing. What message is he giving companies that want to invest in our communities? The reality is that to shift away from manufacturing is not possible in Oshawa.

I have been meeting with manufacturers and businesses throughout my riding to discuss how the House can help support them, and I hear continuously that the planned increase in CPP premiums is going to be hurting businesses. I think we hear that across the country.

However, here is the sad part. During the election—and members heard it—the Liberals said that they were going to increase CPP for seniors. They were telling seniors that it would happen right away. Well, guess what? The increase in CPP will take 40 years to be fully implemented, and so none of these new benefits will go to seniors in Oshawa who need it today.

As members know, some seniors did not work in the past, and they will not be working. Therefore, even increasing CPP is not going to help those Canadians who are really needy, who are looking at their retirement and wondering how they are going to make it by.

This policy does not even make sense. The Liberals did not even consult properly with business on it, but they put it in and decreased our competitiveness.

According to the CFIB, a full 70% of small business owners disagree with the notion that the proposed CPP increase is modest and that it would have a limited impact on their businesses. That is what they were saying, and the current government ignored them. Piling on a combined $2,200 per year on average Canadians and their employers is not going to result in more money staying in my constituents' pockets.

Dan Kelly of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business said that two-thirds of small firms say they will have to freeze or cut salaries by over one-third, and they will have to reduce hours or jobs in their businesses in response to the CPP hike. Yet, the Liberals are recklessly moving forward with this increase, despite the fact that 70% of employed Canadians oppose a CPP expansion if it means a wage freeze.

The math simply does not add up. We have businesses across the country telling the Liberals not to do this, please, and at the same time Canadians are telling them that they do not support it if it means a freeze on their wages. Do the Liberals not realize that Canadians understand that this is just a shell game?

Another significant concern for businesses and constituents in my riding is the job-killing carbon tax. It is widely recognized by my Conservative colleagues and all Canadians that Canada must do its part in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but that should not be at the expense of our economy.

Based on numbers from the British Columbia and Alberta governments, the Liberal carbon tax will add 11¢ per litre at the pump. The Canadian Tax Journal determined that it will add at least 15% to our natural gas bills and almost 10% to our hydro bills. In total, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation said that the Liberal carbon tax will cost the average family more than $2,500 each and every year, and it is only going to go up.

We have seen the Liberals develop these new terminologies as far as carbon pricing is concerned. One of them is decarbonizing our economy. What does that mean? It means shutting down any business, or anybody, that burns any type of fossil fuel. They have talked about carbon pollution. What does that mean? It is just about breathing, which causes a little bit more carbon pollution. Why did they change this terminology? It is because they want to tax it. How long will it be before the Liberals tax breathing, for heaven's sake? The challenge with these taxes is that there is no proof that they will have any benefit in lowering carbon emissions.

There is so much more I could talk about, but let us take some questions and see what we can do to help further this debate.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Oshawa referred to the lack of an industry minister for the first time in a long time. I would like to point out that the industry minister still exists and is now called the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development. He has the same department and a broader mandate to look to the future. Therefore, I am wondering if the member objects to innovation, science, or economic development.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely do not object. I think innovation is the way to move forward. What I was talking about is the message the Liberal government is sending industry. I talked about the language, the ideology, and how the Liberals have changed even the way Canadians talk. I said that 20,000 manufacturing jobs are gone, and it is 39,000 in the oil, gas, and mining sector, an industry that creates jobs. A record number are now gone within a year.

I get upset when I hear colleagues talk about innovation. There will be nothing left to innovate if we do not start concentrating on Canada's strengths. It was our strength in our manufacturing and natural resources sectors that brought our country to the forefront in the world, yet the current government seems determined to shut it all down. In other words, there will be no industry left if the Liberals continue forward with the way they are addressing this issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Oshawa talked about competitiveness, and how the Liberal tax and regulation regime has resulted in fewer manufacturing jobs when our dollar being this low typically results in an increase in manufacturing jobs. On that same vein, I would like him to expand on what he thinks will happen if we introduce a carbon tax, which the government is forcing on the provinces and Canadians, when our biggest competitor to the south is a few days away from a presidential election, and neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump has even said that they would act at all. They would not put a national carbon tax in place. Does the member think that will put us at a further economic disadvantage?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question because this is really the important part of this debate. He noticed that it is not even a topic in the United States. This is what frustrates me about the Liberal government selling out Canada's advantage. We all know that Mr. Obama goes to the climate conferences and signs on. However, at the end of the day, he also knows that the U.S. will not put federal or state carbon taxes in place. The states we compete against, Michigan, New York, Ohio, and Tennessee, will not be putting a state carbon tax in place. Therefore, when looking at competitiveness, the Liberal government is tying the hands of our industry not only today but into the future. It is also basically putting a halt to any new investment into our communities with respect to anything that utilizes carbon.

My colleague is absolutely correct that this is decreasing our competitiveness. It is foolish that the Liberals would move ahead without being in lockstep with the United States, our biggest trading partner. It is something we have to push back on, because it will kill our economy and our jobs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I felt compelled to stand up when the member opposite talked about shell games, because his government played the ultimate shell game with Canadians by balancing its last budget using money from the rainy day fund: the EI surplus and the GM stocks. They threw those in. That was the ultimate shell game the Conservative government was playing with Canadians. Obviously the results, which happened last year, are well documented.

Under regressive policies and trickle-down economics, the manufacturing sector in Canada was ravaged over the past 10 years. Therefore, I would like the member to give examples of where the manufacturing sector excelled over the past 10 years in Canada.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as for the first part of his question about the shell game, I hope the House recognizes what the member actually said, because at the end of the fiscal year, he may be eating some of those words. We know that the Liberals have a bit of an opportunity; I think it is $6 billion they may be playing with.

As for the second part of his question on whether manufacturing has really excelled in Canada over the last few years, it certainly has not in Ontario. Some 300,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost because of the policies of the provincial government in Ontario, the exact same policies the Liberals want to establish federally. The proof is there. Why would it replicate these job-killing policies from Ontario for the entire country?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on behalf of my constituents to talk about Bill C-29.

The first thing I note about Bill C-29, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament, is that it is an omnibus bill. In terms of size, it is 230 pages of omnibus legislation. I remember well when the member for Beauséjour was the House leader for the Liberals and they were the third party in the House, how he used to rail against bills of this size. It did not matter what was in them; it was the fact they were omnibus bills that created so much angst.

The member for Winnipeg North made a career in the last Parliament out of railing against omnibus legislation. It was said to be dastardly thing for a government to choose to implement its budget via a budget implementation act. That is what is happening today. We are talking about an omnibus budget bill. I guess the principles and policies the Liberals had when they used to sit in the third party seats change a little when they cross over to the government side. Now they are a big fan of omnibus bills. That was the first thing I wanted to mention.

This bill is supposed to be the plan to implement the budget. The government clearly has no plan when it comes to budgeting. During the election campaign, Liberals promised there would be a $10 billion deficit that would be paid back within the mandate of a majority government. How long did it take them to abandon that promise? Was it 10 minutes?

I remember Prime Minister Stephen Harper saying that the Liberals' position was that everyone should trust that it would be a modest, little deficit. How right he was. We are going to hear today at four o'clock just how much more than a $10 billion deficit the government has blown in less than a year. The fiscal update will show that the government is, by a magnitude of at least three times, past its initial deficit target. It misled Canadians during the election and has blown through it.

What do Liberals have to show for it? I would argue they have nothing to show for it. There is no increased growth and there are zero net new jobs. The parliamentary budget officer has confirmed that there are zero net new jobs as a result of $30 billion or so of borrowed money being spent. This was supposed to stimulate the economy and take us to untold heights. The Liberals have done nothing they promised and have blown through their deficit target, so they have no budget plan. The plan is just to borrow more money and spend it. Canadians know that debt has to be repaid, that borrowed money has to be paid back. If my generation does not repay it, it will be our children and grandchildren who get this bill, because eventually it will come due.

One of my constituents, a small businessman, has certainly seen that the Liberal government is no friend of his. He told me the government is like a teenager who has one parent who provides him with a credit card with no limit on it, and that parent is very popular, but the other parent who hands the credit card bill to the teenager and says it is his to pay back is the less popular parent. Right now, the Liberals are playing the role of the sugar daddy who hands out the cash, but what Canadians will soon realize is that the bill will be paid by them. That is clearly what is happening.

What have the Liberals done in less than a year? They borrowed $30 billion, as I said, and they have also misled small businesses. All parties agreed that the small business tax rate would be lowered from 11% to 9%. How long did it take the Liberals to break that promise? It was broken in their first budget. They broke their promise to small businesses, and I think we know why.

During the election campaign, the Prime Minister made it clear that there were an awful lot of people who were using small businesses to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. That is what the Prime Minister said about the industry that creates the most jobs in this country. He said that small business was just a tax avoidance scheme. We found out during the election campaign that he has set up some of those companies himself to avoid paying a lot of taxes, so perhaps he knew what he spoke of. However, that is not what was promised to small businesses.

I spoke earlier this month in the House about Bill C-26, a bill dealing with CPP rates. Again, that would do nothing for seniors. It would do nothing for people approaching retirement. In fact, the finance minister has admitted that it would do nothing for anyone for more than 40 years. However, what it would do is reduce the incomes of Canadian families by up to $2,200. That $2,200 is taken from the paycheques of Canadians to go into a fund they likely will never be able to access. That is in addition to the $1,100 coming out of the pockets of small businesses who are paying their portion of that tax.

So they are increasing taxes on small businesses. They are also increasing taxes on Canadians through a carbon tax.

I was honoured to be given the role of critic for natural resources. Since the government has taken office, over 100,000 energy workers have lost their jobs. What do we see from the government? We see no jobs plan. We see no lifeline to families in the energy sector. Instead, we see them being thrown an anchor, the anchor of a carbon tax.

What would that do? The member for Oshawa talked about what it would do for manufacturing.

I will tell members what it would do for the energy sector. It would put an already crippled energy sector at an even greater disadvantage vis-à-vis the people we are trading with, the U.S., which has no intention of implementing a federal carbon tax any time soon. They are our major customer.

When we moved a motion at the natural resources committee to have the Liberal members tell us what analysis they have done to show what impact the carbon tax would have on the natural resource sector, they voted against it. We know why. It is because they have not done any economic analysis of that impact. They do not care. They do not care about those 100,000 family-supporting jobs that have been lost. We have seen they do not care about that sector because they continue to layer regulatory burden after regulatory burden upon a sector that is already suffering. When there are pipelines to be approved, they do not allow for evidence-based scientific policy to take place. They layer on an extra political layer in which the minister will make the final decision, in which the cabinet will make the final decision, in which red tape is layered upon an already burdensome process. That would do nothing to protect public safety. It would simply add to the regulatory burden.

The government is fond of saying how it has cut the taxes of middle-class Canadians. It is just not true.

The average income of people in my riding is under $40,000 a year. Guess how much they receive from the income tax cuts from the Liberal Party? Zero. They receive nothing. The most vulnerable, low-income Canadians got nothing from the Liberal tax cuts, while people like members of Parliament, who make up to $150,000 a year, get the most benefit one could possibly get out of that tax cut. The Liberals have done nothing for an average family in Chilliwack—Hope with that tax cut, and anything they have done for some families, they are going to tax back with the extra carbon tax and additional payroll taxes. Canadians are not better off.

They also cancelled things like the child fitness tax credit, the child arts tax credit, and tax credits for textbooks. They said that is because they do not like to complicate the Income Tax Act. They do not like those boutique tax credits, they said, that help families, that help moms and dads put kids in sports and in dance lessons. However, what they do like are boutique tax credits for talk show hosts for Canadian shows, or for someone who needs to take a first aid course. They are all for those tax cuts. It does not seem to matter, as long it's not a family, as long as it is not people supporting their children. We do not want to support people like that. However, if people are creators of content, then they need a tax break from the Government of Canada.

Their priorities are wrong. They are not looking after Canadian families. They are looking after special interests. We have certainly seen that over the last little while, with the revelations about their fundraising practices, in which they are meeting with the well-heeled insiders they regulate, who are giving them money for access. It is not the right way to go. This is not a budget plan, and we cannot support it.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Chilliwack—Hope will have five minutes remaining for questions and comments when the House next returns to business on this question.

The House resumed from November 1 consideration of the motion that Bill C-29, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to congratulate the member for Chilliwack—Hope for his omnibus speech he gave before question period yesterday. A big part of the problem with Conservative omnibus bills was that they were also ominous bills. Whatever the title, the actual result was often the opposite. The Fair Elections Act, for example, was about how to interfere with, not promote, fair elections.

In the last Parliament, the member whom I worked for as a staffer was critic for, among other things, citizen services. The Auditor General's report, the year that we got that portfolio, dealt with the websites of the Canadian government and their focus on citizen services. What we learned was that the Conservatives had, immediately upon taking power in 2006, stopped all research into how people actually used government websites. Heaven forbid they cater to the needs of the people rather than to the desires of the government.

Our government consults extensively. We do policy on the basis of evidence and on the wants and needs of the country. There is nothing ominous about that.

Does the member for Chilliwack—Hope accept the evidence of evidence-based policy, or does he continue to believe that dogma is the most important factor in policymaking?

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

Mr. Speaker, I can understand why that hon. member does not actually want to talk about the budget implementation act, because he is probably, like most Canadians, ashamed of the economic record of the current government.

Just yesterday, after I gave my speech, the finance minister got up and said that after only a few months, he had already blown his economic projections out of the water in the wrong way. He had already had to use his contingency. The $6 billion contingency was gone. He had to borrow another $32 billion from future generations of Canadians.

So yes, we know that the government likes to consult Canadians, but at a cost of $1,500 apiece. We have certainly seen that from multiple ministers, selling access to themselves for $1,500 to well-heeled Canadians. I can tell the House that the 100,000 energy workers, who have been laid off since the current government took office, cannot afford the entry fee to consult with the government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was going to pose a question in terms of the mounting deficit. As we heard yesterday, another $32 billion on top of what is already there, and no plan to pay it back.

Could the member comment on how he feels that is going to affect the next generation?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is exactly right. This will affect the next generation.

As Canadians know, when they borrow money, they have to pay it back. The members of the government broke their word to Canadians to the tune of three times the deficit they promised, when they promised a $10 billion deficit that would be reduced to no deficit in their mandate. They have blown both of those promises out of the water. It is now a $32 billion deficit, and instead of being back to balanced budgets by the end of the first four years, the Liberals have no plan.

The finance minister was clear yesterday that he has no intention and no plan to bring this back to a balanced budget. We know it will be future generations of Canadians who will have to pay this back through higher taxes, or through critical program services cuts. The Liberals are good at that. They did it the last time they were in power. They cut $25 billion from the health care budgets across this country. We are heading down that same path with this out-of-control, reckless spending plan.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is quite rich, coming from the members of the opposition who spent 10 years, the vast majority of which, delivering deficits and accumulating a $160 billion debt. What did they have to show for it? What projects did they bring in that they can show for it? No, they do not even have jobs to show for it.

The decisions from this side of the House, in terms of implementing and adding to the deficit, are for real opportunities and real job creation. The projects that will be put forward will be ones that genuinely will get the economy moving again.

I find it quite rich to hear members from the other side of the House talk about deficits and trying to lecture the government on deficits. What do the Conservatives have to say about the $160 billion of debt they added to this country? What are they going to say to the future generations about that?

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

Mr. Speaker, had the member actually been paying attention in the last 10 years, he would know that the Liberal Party was demanding that we spend more and that we borrow more money.

We had a plan to get back to a balanced budget, and that is what we did. The independent parliamentary budget officer confirmed that the Conservative government left a surplus. We also left something else, a surplus of 1.3 million net new jobs. That is as opposed to the record of the government, which has borrowed $30 billion and has negative 6,000 jobs to show for it.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about the child tax credit and all the things being done for youth. Can he explain to the House why removing the tax credits for arts programs, sports programs, and text books for students is actually helping our youth?

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

Mr. Speaker, the new Canada child benefit plan is more inclusive. It is helping those who need it most. We made sure that the child benefit plan, the tax plan that is coming to middle-class families, goes to the ones who will get the most, and we decreased and eliminated it for those who have a family income of more than $200,000. This is going to directly impact families who need it most.

Also, our government has put in a policy that students who graduate and make less than $25,000 do not have to pay back interest on their loans.

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my hon. colleague a question related to his comments near the end of his speech. It related to the necessary measures to bring Canada from a low-growth situation to a path to greater prosperity.

Does the member have a particular thought on the types of investments and how we could ultimately amplify the proposed investments in the budget implementation plan in terms of what the Minister of Finance announced with respect to the infrastructure investment bank? Does he think that amplification by using private capital will help accelerate growth?

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

Mr. Speaker, in my riding of Kitchener South—Hespeler and the greater Waterloo region, we are getting light rail transit. This is an infrastructure project that is going to help our region move goods and services to market quickly, and we will be able to move people quickly around the city. Light rail transit, for our region, is going to increase the number of jobs in the skilled trades in our riding. Literally every street in my riding is closed down. There has been bit of controversy with some of the councillors, and we poke fun at them.

It is short-term pain for long-term gain in our region. I am really thankful for the infrastructure plan we have put in place.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned being out in the community and talking to members of the community. I am curious to know if, while he was out knocking on doors, he heard that a carbon tax is the answer or that moving from a $10-billion deficit to a $30-billion deficit is the answer.

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

Mr. Speaker, in my region of Waterloo we had a consultation on the environment. A lot of people in my riding were concerned about the environment, and they wanted to make sure that the government was taking positive steps. I received many emails after the consultation and after we announced it in the House. There was really good feedback on the approach we are taking, which is balancing the economy while maintaining the environment. The constituents in my riding know that we need to balance both, and we are doing that.

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to address the House on the debate on the implementation act 2016, the complete measures we have introduced in budget 2016.

We have completed more than a year in the Government and have brought the changes we promised to Canadian during the last year election.

I was successfully elected as the first member of Parliament from the newly formed riding of Brampton Centre. The mere reason for our success in the election was because our constituents believed us and the policies we gave to them. I believe we all must listen to Canadians, otherwise we will not be here the next time.

During my door-to-door campaign, I met many Canadians who told me stories of their economic condition. I was told that they were working hard, trying to make their life easier, but things were not working because of the bad economy and lack of jobs. People were struggling to make ends meet. They were working hard, but were unable to cope with their own expenses.

People were concerned about their children's care and maintenance, their education and then about their employment. They were worried about their jobs. We came across issues of employment insurance, affordable housing, and senior poverty anxieties. They were worried about how they would be able to better care for their kids and grandkids.

After over a year in government, we have brought many of the changes we promised Canadians. As a government, we are proud of our first budget. As we promised, the government will take solid steps to bring real changes for the betterment of the middle class, and for those working hard to join it. We know the middle class is the backbone of Canada. If the middle class is strong, Canada is strong. When middle-class Canadians have more money to save, invest and spend, everyone benefits.

The budget implementation act 2016, No. 2 complies with the implementation of the outstanding measures we introduced in budget 2016. It will build a strong economy for Canada. It will give the middle class and those working hard to join it more money in their pockets to save, invest, and to grow the economy.

I firmly believe that we as a government are focused on exactly the right things. We are focused on people and growing the economy for the long term in a way that will benefit all Canadians. Canada's middle class will drive our economy forward.

The following are a few important steps taken by the government toward helping families regain their confidence in the government.

To meet our platform promise, we told the 1% of wealthiest Canadians to pay more taxes, and we gave tax benefit breaks to those who earned less to help fund the middle class.

In budget 2016, we introduced the new Canada child benefit. This benefit will help parents better support what is most precious to them, their children, by putting more money into the pockets of families with children. The Canada child benefit will lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty. Nine out of 10 families now receive more money than they did under the previous system. The Canada child benefit is simpler, more generous, and also tax-free. Its attractiveness is that it helps those who need it most in our society. It will put extra money directly into the hands of families to buy school supplies, groceries, and warm clothes for the winter.

The Canada child benefit will help parents cover the growing cost of raising their children. Families can count on this extra assistance today for years to come because this Canada child benefit will be indexed to inflation.

Further, budget 2016 makes post-secondary education more affordable for students from low and middle-income families. It will be easier for them to repay their student loans. The increase in Canada student grants for students from low and middle-income families and for part-time students is a big incentive for them to join the workforce. It will also help young Canadians gain the much-needed experience, the income they need and to find good jobs after graduation.

Working toward poverty reduction, budget 2016 also improves the employment insurance regime. Canada's employment insurance program provides economic security to Canadians when they need it most.

Whatever the circumstances, no Canadian should struggle to get the assistance when they are in need. To ensure Canadians get help when they need it, several changes are being proposed in the EI system. Changes to eligibility rules will make it easier for new workers and those re-entering the workforce to claim benefits. The waiting period will also be reduced from two weeks to one week. This improvement in employment insurance will provide money to unemployed workers with hundreds of dollars more at the time they need it most.

In budget 2016, we increased the monthly payment for the most vulnerable seniors. The government reverted the pensionable age to 65 and will index seniors' pension.

Restoring the eligibility age for old age security and guaranteed income supplement benefit to 65 will put thousands of dollars back into the pockets of Canadians as they become seniors and look to retire.

This second budget implementation bill would amend the Old Age Security Act to make the program more flexible. When couples who are receiving the guaranteed income supplement and the spouse's allowance must live apart for reasons beyond their control, each of them will receive benefits based on their individual income.

By extending this treatment to couples receiving the guaranteed income supplement and spouse's allowance, the government is improving fairness for seniors and helping them live with the dignity they deserve and need in retirement. That is the right thing to do.

The government realizes that our veterans have dedicated their lives to the defence of our country and they deserve our unwavering support. We owe them. It is a sacred obligation that we must meet with respect and gratitude.

Budget 2016 has provisions for the measures to support Canadian veterans. The Government of Canada has a social covenant with veterans and their families.

Yesterday, in the House, our Minister of Finance highlighted in his fall economic statement and stressed that our government wanted to tell Canadians that we believed we should be focusing on making investments for today and for tomorrow that will allow us to have a higher level of economic growth in our country, and we are doing it in a fiscally responsible way.

As we promised Canadians, we will make a historic investment in green transport as well as in social infrastructure. We have already started making record investments, which will help the middle class grow and prosper today, while delivering economic growth for years to come. Infrastructure investment will shape the economy and make Canada economically strong.

I have my personal news announcement regarding infrastructure spending in my riding, which I want to share with—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about his government being a responsible government. Part of that responsibility includes having a plan to balance the budget. Could he explain to Canadians what that plan looks like?

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, people told us to do things that would help them and their families, and to grow the economy. We intend to do just that.

We have plans to help the middle class. We started by providing them with income tax breaks. We are reducing the tax for the middle class and asking the wealthiest 1% to pay more.

We made improvements in the Canada child benefit. Nine out of 10 families will now get the benefit. We have also given benefits to seniors. This is what Canadians want us to do.

Our government has also relaxed student grants, which will give students a chance to go to college or university and pay their debt at a later stage when they are employed.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his eloquent speech. I have a question for him about the Canada child benefit, which he mentioned a number of times in his speech.

He forgot to mention the glaring mistake that Canadians and experts noticed right away. The Canada child benefit is not indexed, and as such it will not be worth as much over the years. At the end of the day, it will be worth less than the benefit that the Conservatives came up with.

The Liberals listened to reason and announced that they were going to index the Canada child benefit, but not until 2020. I wonder why they chose 2020 to start indexing and why not 2019, 2018, 2017, or even this year so that the benefit does not lose value by 2020 and can continue to grow. Canadians' expenses keep growing, while their salaries, unfortunately, continue to stagnate.

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member wants to know why indexing was not done at the first stage and was considered later on. I would like to bring to the attention of my friend that whenever the government works on any plan, it works through the Advisory Council on Economic Growth. The council provides advice, not decisions. Decisions are made by the government at a later stage. A recommendation was prepared and given to the government, and it is up to the government to accept it or not.

We have helped Canadians. We are trying to boost the economy. We want to work with Canadians and give them what we promised them.

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-29 aims to implement a series of budget measures and tax changes in budget 2016, which was tabled in Parliament on March 22 of this year. We have heard from the government over the course of this year how going into debt would help the economy and would create jobs. We also heard from the government how increasing taxes would help the economy and the middle class and create jobs. We heard from the government how the tax-free savings account was not for seniors and not for students and not for people trying to save and get ahead, and therefore, it could be cut in half and it really would not make any difference.

Then we heard from the Prime Minister on September 8, 2015, while he was being interviewed by Peter Mansbridge, “a large percentage of small businesses are actually just ways for wealthier Canadians to save on their taxes”. Now even though there are 1.14 million small businesses in Canada, employing 8.2 million people, plus another 2.3 million people employed in medium-sized businesses, those small businesses did not get the reduction in taxes as promised in the platform by the Liberal government and to be clear, the promise was to reduce the small business tax from 11% to 9%, to assist with job creation. However, that did not happen.

Instead, the Liberals increased the CPP contribution so that workers would have to pay more and see less of their paycheques, and employers will also have to pay more, which goes against the internal documents from Finance Canada. Those documents show that financial officials advised the minister that higher CPP premiums will reduce job growth until 2035. That advice was ignored.

The government decided to implement the so-called tax cut for the middle class and then announced to the general public it was going to be revenue neutral. The plan is not revenue neutral. A report from the parliamentary budget officer puts the cost at $1.7 billion, which is now added to the growing tax burden for Canadians.

However, it gets better. The Liberal government told taxpayers that for a tiny small deficit of $10 billion, infrastructure projects will grow the economy and create jobs. The Liberals burned through a $1-billion surplus and created a deficit that is over $30 billion, but it still gets better. With all these job-creating measures the government has come up with, one would think that jobs were really being created. This is not so. A report just released last week by the parliamentary budget officer states that job creation over the past year was half of what it was over the past five years and that there have been no net new full-time jobs.

The Liberal job creation plan is simply not working.

Let us just recap. We have a $30-plus billion deficit, $7.1 billion spent overseas, $2.9 billion committed to an Asian infrastructure bank, new housing rules that will cost the economy $6 billion by the end of 2018, a national carbon tax that will increase the cost of heating, groceries, and gas, and just announced yesterday by the Minister of Finance was that he has spent the $6-billion contingency fund and is borrowing another $32 billion. As well, $15 billion is being put into a newly created infrastructure bank and the $15 billion “will be sourced from the announced funding for public transit, green infrastructure, social...and rural and northern communities”.

We already have a structure in place with $1.3 billion available and it is called P3 Canada. It was specifically set up to leverage private sector dollars. Pension funds can invest anywhere they choose; they do not need an infrastructure bank. That was stated by the CEO of the largest pension fund in Canada.

Let us hear from the experts. Craig Alexander, chief economist at the Conference Board of Canada stated, “The part of the fiscal plan that hasn't shown up is the infrastructure spending”. Stephen Poloz, Bank of Canada governor, said that in the data “there are no signs yet” of a boost to grow. Benjamin Reitzes, senior economist from the Bank of Montreal, said, “It's certainly very fair to say that impacts were overestimated”. The TD Bank and the Bank of Montreal projected that the government spending plan would add less to growth in 2016 than the finance department or the Bank of Canada had estimated. They have now publicly called on the government to halt additional spending.

There is a way to stimulate the economy and create the environment for job growth and job creation. The Liberal way is just not that way. Governments do not create jobs. Governments create environments in which job creation either flourishes or it stagnates. Unfortunately, what we are seeing from the current government is stagnating the environment for job growth through out-of-control spending, deficits, higher taxes, red tape, and frankly, not knowing what job creation really means.

Creating the environment for job growth means low taxes, less red tape, working with all levels of government to create livable cities, transportation to move people and goods to market, and fiscal responsibility to pay down any debt and balance the budget. In the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, the Conservative government had the lowest taxes in 50 years, balanced the budget, completed over 7,500 infrastructure projects, and created the environment for 1.3 million new jobs. That is how it is done.

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

Mr. Speaker, I stand back and I marvel at times at the Conservative Party's view that it was such a steward of the economy. We certainly saw over 10 years what regressive policies have done for the country: two recessions and a budget that was balanced at the last moment via the shell game I talked about yesterday.

The party opposite is so big on saying that our grandkids are going to have to pay for this and that we are mortgaging our children's future. However, it was the Conservatives' own finance minister, when they doubled the TFSA or tried to, who said that Stephen Harper's grandkids could pay for that.

I am going to ask the member opposite how she squares that her own former finance minister, in the past, said that Stephen Harper's grandkids could pay for the Conservatives' promises, yet for us it is the opposite. I wonder if the member can comment on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that my colleague marvels at us Conservatives.

We will talk about the TFSA because in my riding I have a lot of seniors, and one thing they really wanted was to have the contribution amount left at $10,000. Unfortunately, it was the Liberals who went on this rant that nobody had $10,000 just hanging around. That was not what it was for. It was for seniors. It was for students. It was for people who were trying to save. That is exactly what we put in place. We had the lowest taxes in 50 years and created 1.3 million jobs. I am sorry, but I do not know how that is wrong.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. colleague and I both share concerns about the huge debt that families are seeing. Especially over the last year, families have been carrying enormous debt. With that, we are seeing a significant increase in the rate of child poverty in Canada, which is estimated to be as high as 11.2% by the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development. In my riding of Courtenay—Alberni, in Alberni itself one-third of the children living in Alberni Valley are living in poverty, and one in five children in Courtenay are living in poverty.

I know the member cares a lot about child poverty so I want to ask her this. Why did the child poverty rate become so high under the Harper government? Maybe the member can answer some of the questions I have around that.

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

Mr. Speaker, actually Statistics Canada shows the child poverty rate went down overall. However, I would also admit that was not in all communities.

As the former mayor of the city of Surrey, we created our child poverty reduction plan. We have to look at each community in a different way. As we look at the country as a whole, there are measures we can put in but we have to work together with communities to make sure we are taking care of those left vulnerable. I am sure the member knows from his community the great work of Clyde Hertzman, who had a benchmark that looked at all the indicators that were causes of child poverty. We cannot take our foot off the gas on this issue. We have to continue to ensure that our kids and our communities are resilient, and that our kids are school-ready when they get into kindergarten.

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

Mr. Speaker, I met this morning with a particularly troublesome constituent to speak about the debt the Liberal government is accumulating. My two-year-old daughter wanted to know whether or not the member agrees that saddling her generation with multiple billions of dollars of debt and $10 billion to $15 billion more in debt financing charges is fair to her generation, and our children and grandchildren.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have met the member's beautiful daughter, and it just breaks my heart to know that child is going to grow up with that kind of debt.

When we see a government that has absolutely no plan to pay down the debt or to balance the budget, that it is not even on the horizon, this should be troublesome to every single Canadian across the country, because it will come back to haunt each and every one of us, our children, and our grandchildren.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, Status of Women; the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway, Health; the hon. member for Saskatoon West, Indigenous Affairs.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Joliette.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are debating the second and last budget implementation bill. Unfortunately, the needs expressed by Quebec citizens and organizations are still not addressed in the budget. With respect to the health, education and social service transfers, the cuts announced by the Conservatives have not been reversed. In short, Quebec still gets nothing.

Our students' education and textbook credits were cut and they have not been adequately offset. In the case of Quebec students, for example, we are talking about a net loss of $120 million. They have been shortchanged, and the bill does nothing to address the situation. That is very disappointing. The government has really disappointed us. There is nothing for our strong economic sectors such as the green economy, high technology, aerospace, and informatics, nor is there anything for our farmers and unemployed workers.

In short, we are disappointed that Quebec's needs are not among the government's priorities. However, that is not a big surprise. Canada and Quebec are such completely different nations that for years now millions of Quebeckers have understood that we would be rather better served by being masters in our own house.

This bill basically deals with two things. The first is the indexing of the Canada child benefit. It is reasonable and appropriate that it be indexed. The second is a host of small changes to close tax loopholes that allow tax avoidance. For example, the bill eliminates the possibility of claiming the small business tax credit multiple times. That does not make sense. Companies that own companies that own companies and so on down the line like nesting dolls will no longer be able to use this strategy.

However, if the government really wants to crack down on tax avoidance, it is missing the mark. It does not realize that, while it is trying to put out the fire in the recycling bin, the whole house is going up in flames.

When it comes to tax avoidance, the root of the problem lies primarily with the banks, the financial industry, and the multinationals that happily and legally send their billions of dollars to tax havens. That is shameful. For Canada's five big banks alone, we are talking about $6 billion a year in lost revenue for the governments, whether it be the federal government, the Government of Quebec, or the other provincial governments. That has nothing to do with the amounts announced in this bill. The Liberals have missed the boat.

What is more, we do not need to renegotiate international agreements to solve the real problem with tax avoidance. The government can take action right here and now.

I would like to remind members of a little known fact: no treaty or law authorizes the use of tax havens. For example, Canada's tax treaty with Barbados stipulates that companies entitled to any special tax benefit in Barbados, or in other words companies that are entitled to a ridiculously low tax rate of 0.25% to 2.5% rather than Barbados' usual tax rate of 25%, must pay taxes in Canada. It says so in article XXX of the treaty.

Tax avoidance is legal because of backdoor changes that have been made to Canada's tax regulations. Previous governments put these regulations in place without even allowing MPs to debate or discuss them.

I would like to make a positive contribution to the debate by suggesting one simple, practical thing that could be done to resolve an essential element of the problem of tax evasion. We simply need to get rid of two regulatory changes.

First there is paragraph 5907(11.2)(c), which invalidates article XXX of the Canada-Barbados tax treaty, a subparagraph that stipulates that taxes must be paid here. Thanks to that regulation, Barbados became a tax haven for Canada just over 20 years ago. That regulation passed quietly, and it might even be illegal.

That regulation was put in place without a vote in the House, and it made it possible for banks and multinationals to legally profit from tax havens. It is high time that we outlawed something that is unethical, in the name of justice and fairness.

We also need to get rid of the amendment to subsection 5907(11) that was passed in 2009. With the stroke of a pen in the regulations, the government opened up 22 other tax havens.

As soon as Canada has a comprehensive tax information exchange agreement with a tax haven, any profits that come back to Canada are tax-free, plain and simple. Once again, that amendment was passed quietly.

It can be found in a schedule to one of the mammoth budget implementation bills, tucked in the section “medical expense tax credit” even though it is totally unrelated. That shows bad faith, and not just a little.

Again, when it comes to tax avoidance, we have to tackle the root of the problem and make illegal what is unethical. Tax avoidance is a legal practice that puts enormous pressure on public finances. It is not right that people who are paying more and more taxes and user fees are seeing public services disappear, while big corporations and major banks shirk their responsibilities.

Inequality is growing and we have to change that. It is time to take action. However, we will have to start by changing the culture of Parliament and of successive governments. Even though Canadians generally deplore tax avoidance, as Quebeckers do, the banks have so much power that the government, the party in power, and the official opposition continue to wash their hands of the matter, just as Pontius Pilate did in a well-known story. The time has come for elected officials to start truly representing Canadians, rather than the economic interests of the giants.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I always enjoy his colourful speeches. I would also like to congratulate him on the work he is doing to fight tax havens, a serious issue facing our generation and one that the House must tackle as quickly and effectively as possible.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the part of the bill about country-by-country reporting standards for multinationals. If the bill passes and the OECD country-by-country reporting standards are implemented, multinationals with revenue in excess of 750 million euros will be subject to this new rule. What does my colleague think of that?

Also, what does he think of the 750-million euro threshold for country-by-country reporting, which would give Canada access to more information about the activities of multinational entities in all the countries in which they are present and trigger a more in-depth analysis of these companies and their activities?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his intervention and for the work he and his party are doing to combat tax evasion and the diversion of profits to tax havens.

Country-by-country reporting is a good initiative that was introduced as part of the OECD's work. However, it is but a very small step in the right direction, and infinitely more needs to be done immediately. There is no need to wait for every country in the world before we take action ourselves. There are things that Parliament could do right now to address this.

For instance, the 750-million euro threshold could be much lower. That is a small step in the right direction, but much more needs to be done right now, including getting rid of the two regulatory amendments that were mentioned.

Canada could be doing much more right now, but it needs to stop deferring to the banks. It needs to stop asking them for substantial assistance in the drafting of tax legislation. We need to represent our constituents and take action now.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech. He is young and I would like him to tell me how we can trust a government that changes its tune the way the Liberal government has in the past year.

A year ago, during the election campaign, the Liberal Party's platform promised a modest deficit of $10 billion over the first two years. It said that at the end of the next two fiscal years, the deficit would decrease and the investment plan would allow Canada to return to balanced budgets in 2019-20.

However, when the budget was tabled, we learned that the deficit would not be modest; instead we would have a massive $30-billion deficit. Yesterday, during the economic update, we found out that another $32 billion is being added to this debt over the next six years. In other words, the deficit will be $111 billion within the next few years.

Given the Liberal government's unimpressive results after just one year, does the hon. member believe that we can trust the government to manage the economy?

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

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

In fact, it is very worrisome. They are playing with Canadians' money. People want services in exchange for the taxes they pay. When managing the budget of a country like Canada, the government must always be conscientious and prudent. Our party is more concerned about Quebec's interests. If the government must run a deficit, it has to ensure that it will stimulate the economy in an efficient and effective manner. It certainly has not proven it will do that. We can reasonably wonder about people's confidence.

With respect to the deficit, I was referring to just the five major banks. If we closed the tax avoidance loopholes in tax havens made possible by regulations that were passed in secret without elected officials having a say on these amendments, we could recover at least $6 billion more a year.

That would mean less pressure on our finances. There is growing pressure on middle-class taxpayers, on ordinary people, while the big players, who have or at least seem to have ties to government, are getting a free ride.

It is high time that situation changed, and deficits should never be taken lightly.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by telling the House how disappointed I am with Bill C-29 and the measures it contains, or rather the measures it does not contain. More specifically, there is a significant lack of practical measures for SMEs, families, the middle class, unemployed workers, and the most vulnerable members of our society.

I would also like to point out that this bill, which was introduced on Tuesday, October 25, contains 146 provisions and amends 13 laws, and we started debating it just three days later. We had only three days to grasp the scope of the changes that these 146 provisions make to 13 laws. Members will agree that that gave us very little time to conduct a full and comprehensive review of the bill and to properly understand all the details and the scope of its content. It is very easy to see what is missing from this bill, and that includes larger health care transfers for the provinces and many other things.

As a progressive MP who represents the people of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, I am opposed to this bill because it is sorely lacking in substantial measures for middle-class families, unemployed workers, and the most vulnerable members of society. This party promised to stand up for the middle class, but we are once again seeing that all of its fine promises were nothing more than empty rhetoric.

Yesterday, we got the government's economic update. It offered no compensation for dairy producers and nothing for Bombardier. Basically, all it contains is a privatization plan that will take $15 billion of the funding promised for infrastructure and invest it in a privatization bank designed not to meet the needs of communities but to meet the needs of companies and provide investment returns. It means that much less funding for municipalities in my riding, which will be disappointed.

My riding has massive infrastructure needs, including the Casavant Boulevard tunnel, the Saint-Pie and La Présentation community centres, and dire waste water treatment needs. These are just some of the major projects that are very important to my riding.

Municipalities and citizens were under the impression that money would be allocated to these projects because that is what they were told repeatedly. What the Liberals never told us was that their plan was to make investments by privatizing our infrastructure. In the 2016 budget, they brought up the possibility of asset recycling. That sounds pretty good, but what it really means is privatization.

Why did this government not promise privatization during the election campaign? Because it is not something that works. That is why we did not hear a peep about this during the election campaign. On the contrary, any time we talked about tolls or the Champlain Bridge, the Liberals kept saying that they would never ask the bridge users to pay a toll. That might be true, but what they failed to mention was that they would charge tolls everywhere else.

When did the Liberals tell Canadians that instead of the public infrastructure and public investments promised, Canadians would have to pay user fees and tolls, because their taxes would not be used for those things? They never said anything of the sort.

Bill C-29 does contain some positive measures that of course we support, but its contents do not even come close to fulfilling the Liberals' election promises or combatting inequality.

As my party's critic for families, children, and social development, I am still disappointed that the Liberals decided not to index the Canada child benefit to inflation. They could have fixed that yesterday, but no, they are going to wait four years.

The result of that political decision is that families back home in my riding, and all across Canada, are going to be out over $5,000. The Liberals keep repeating that that benefit is going to lift thousands of children out of poverty, but in reality, families are going to have $5,000 less over the next few years.

In the end, this benefit lifts families out of poverty for a month or two. To a family struggling to make ends meet every month, $5,000 is a lot. It boggles the mind to hear my Liberal colleagues brag about lifting children out of poverty, when in fact, families are losing thousands of dollars.

Families cannot afford to wait for the new Canada child benefit to be indexed to inflation in 2020. By 2020, low-income families will be getting only $6.50 more a month than they were from the Harper government. The difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals is $6.50 a month.

Giving an extra $6.50 a month is hardly anything to brag about. That is not even enough to buy a loaf of bread and some milk. When I talk about this with organizations in my riding that work with low-income families, they are shocked to learn how much families will really be getting at the end of the day. They are disappointed and I understand that. They know that families have felt the difference since July and are disappointed.

This decision will clearly hurt families, especially low-income families that are counting on this money. In the next four years, low-income families will receive about $500 less. Canadians are disappointed with all these broken promises.

That said, I applaud the measure that will prevent a multiplication of access to the small business deduction, and prevents tax avoidance to some extent. This will help the government recover $55 million to $60 million a year, but many other measures could have been introduced.

For some time, the NDP has been calling for measures that would provide tax relief to SMEs, which are the real drivers of job creation. We are disappointed that the Liberals have broken their promise to reduce the small business tax. They had promised to lower it to 9% by 2019. Job creators in our ridings were counting on this tax cut. It is disappointing that another promise has been broken. The Liberals, and the Conservatives before them, gave huge tax breaks to the most prosperous corporations in Canada. They have once again let down our SMEs.

I am so proud to represent a riding with SMEs that are constantly innovating. According to a Canadian Federation of Independent Business study, Saint-Hyacinthe is the sixth most entrepreneurial city in Quebec and the 20th in Canada. However, in order to ensure that these businesses survive, we need to give them a leg up. That is why the NDP cannot accept a bill like this one that does nothing for families, SMEs, or the middle class.

In short and in conclusion, I want to repeat that I am disappointed, as are the people of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, with these measures that do nothing to help our SMEs, the many dairy producers in my riding, Bombardier, located in the neighbouring riding of Valcourt, municipalities, families, unemployed workers, the most vulnerable members of our society, or the middle class.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate my friend and colleague for her speech. We both sit on the human resources committee, and we have a passion to reduce poverty that is unequalled.

Some of the things my colleague said in her speech are a little puzzling. Let us not forget that the NDP ran in the last election on austerity and balancing the budget. I feel that it was a party that lost its way and obviously lost its base.

The member's party supported the UCCB, which gave the same amount to millionaires as it gave to those who make $20,000 a year. Will she not concede that the Canada child benefit is a much better program than the UCCB, that it is transformational, and that, starting in July, it will help families that are living in poverty?

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

Mr. Speaker, I said it before and I will say it again, poverty is not a partisan issue.

In the time that I have been working with poor families and low-income individuals, I have relied on facts. The fact is that the benefit these families have been receiving since July will not be indexed to the cost of living. As the years go by, and as we move toward 2020, they will be getting less money from that benefit. Those are the facts and that is why I am criticizing the fact that this benefit is not being indexed immediately and for subsequent years.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her passionate speech about the budget and life in her community, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, which is quite similar to what I am experiencing in Sherbrooke, which is a few dozen kilometres from Saint-Hyacinthe.

Since coming to power, the new Liberal government has promised major investments in infrastructure and much more of them. I was wondering whether anything has materialized in her riding over the past year and whether work on infrastructure projects has begun. Not much is happening in my riding. From what I can see, not much is happening across Canada.

Is my colleague concerned about how slow the infrastructure program is being implemented and the fact that the fine promises are not materializing? Is she concerned that the promises will not be kept because the Liberals are not taking this seriously?

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

Mr. Speaker, after the election a year ago, municipalities had very high expectations.

When I met with them, they all had projects, and they all expected those projects to be funded after the budget. After the budget was tabled, I had to tell them that there was nothing for small municipalities in ridings like mine. In the first year, everything went to big cities.

Their disappointment did not end with yesterday's economic update. They have massive needs. That is what they are saying.

I have not yet seen any infrastructure funding for my riding even though municipalities have submitted proposals and have needs as they cope with bigger and bigger responsibilities. Small municipalities are the ones having the hardest time meeting their obligations. As I have said many times, they are barely keeping their heads above water, so any little wave that comes along puts them under. Nevertheless, all of the funding is flowing to big cities.

Yesterday, the government announced that it will invest billions over an 11-year period, and I could not believe it. Municipalities are going to be disappointed for 11 years. That is unacceptable.

Many of us here in the House represent rural ridings that do not have big cities in them and we are not seeing any money coming in. We have to keep speaking out on behalf of these small municipalities that are always having to wait their turn.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Finance admitted to Canadians, in his fall economic statement, that his ideas are just not working. That is not what he said, but it is what Canadians understood.

GDP growth is lower than he expected in his March budget. He plans for another $31.8 billion in borrowing over the next five years. This is a fantasy number, given that the original promise was to run a modest deficit of $10 billion annually. What the minister was really saying is that he plans to keep throwing taxpayers' money at the economy, because eventually something good may happen if the Liberals spend enough.

Such an attitude has not worked in the past, but I guess the Minister of Finance has not learned that those who do not learn from the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat it.

As the Canadian debt numbers increase, the government hopes that somehow people will not notice. The Minister of Finance needs to tell Canadians what taxes he will hike and which programs he will cut to fund these expensive new promises. The Minister of Finance still has no plan to balance the budget, and the Liberals have no idea how to get Canadians back to work.

Given the gentleman's background in business before he entered political life, I am somewhat surprised that he is not more embarrassed by such a deficit, especially as he has no plan to turn things around. I can only surmise that he is also a student of history and understands that Liberal governments are only good at one thing: spending money that does not belong to them.

In March, the government was full of high praise for its budget. Eight months later, that praise seems more wishful thinking than reality. According to the parliamentary budget officer, job growth over the past year was half the average of the previous five years. There has been a drop in the number of full-time jobs. The PBO says that under the Liberal government, the Canadian economy has failed to create any new full-time jobs. That is a sad record.

The Prime Minister promised Canadians that if he borrowed billions of dollars, he would create jobs and grow the economy. Now, Liberals are full of excuses. Canadians must have missed the fine print. Borrowing billions has not created any jobs so far. A logical person would look at that record and conclude that that approach does not work. A rational person would look for an alternative that would help get Canadians back to work.

The Minister of Finance is borrowing more money, sinking the government and people further into debt under a spending program that has already been shown not to work. That suggests to me that he really has no idea what to do to create jobs.

The minister has announced changes to the Canada pension plan. This expansion will cost more than expected. Internal documents show that officials advised the minister that higher CPP premiums would be a drag on the economy until 2030, and that the negative impact on jobs would last until 2035. The PBO expects the fiscal cost of the expansion to reach $825 million a year by 2021-22, due to the tax deductibility of CPP premiums and increased spending on the working income tax credit.

When these changes are introduced, Canadians will take home less in their paycheques each week. The government wants us to think that the amount is not much, and that we will never notice it. However, every penny less in a person's pocket makes a difference to that person. The minister likes to think that increased CPP payments are not a tax, but money taken from a person's paycheque by the government is a tax.

A promise to return it with interest some years later remains just a promise. The government is good at making promises. It has not shown itself to be as good at actually delivering on those promises. For example, the government has promised a lot of money for infrastructure projects. The government says this money will create jobs. Well, we all know there are no jobs. No jobs have been created, so what has happened?

According to Bloomberg, out of the 860 infrastructure projects approved by the Liberals so far, only one has actually broken ground. That is not a very impressive track record. I wonder why the government did not choose to fund projects that were ready to proceed. Certainly, there was more than one infrastructure project planned in Canada this year that could have been implemented by now.

The government is also introducing new rules on mortgages that will make it harder for Canadians to buy a home. The Bank of Canada says that these new housing rules will cost the economy $6 billion by the end of 2018.

The role of government should be to create a fiscal environment in which businesses can create permanent jobs for the people of Canada. The government should not be introducing measure after measure that restricts economic growth and costs people their jobs. That would seem to be simple economics, but that has escaped the Liberals' grasp. Spending billions of taxpayer dollars with no results does not make sense.

We cannot spend our way to growth, just as we cannot tax our way to prosperity. What is needed is an economic plan, not a politically motivated and hastily conceived piece of legislation. These changes, by increasing government debt, will have a negative impact on all Canadians.

The results of the past year are dismal. We do not trust the Liberals to deliver results and, increasingly, neither do Canadians. Not only has their plan failed, Liberal tax hikes and red tape are making things worse.

First, they cancelled family tax credits for sports and art classes and cancelled the small business tax cuts. Now, they are imposing a CPP tax hike and a carbon tax that will cost families thousands of dollars every year.

The Liberals' only solution to those problems seems to be to borrow and spend even more money, money that will have to be paid back by Canadian workers, families, and job creators.

Conservatives understand that when we borrow money, we need to pay it back, with interest. That is why we are careful, not only with our own money but also with that entrusted to us by the taxpayers. I only wish that Liberals felt the same way and had respect for Canadian taxpayers.

The bill would implement measures from a budget that lacks concrete, targeted plans to stimulate economic innovation. In effect, it would ignore the pressing need to develop the latter initiatives. The government does not seem to know where it is going and how it will get there, but it plans to spend a lot of money along the road.

The lack of transparency surrounding the long-term costs of the Liberal economic policy is cause for serious concern. Canadians have the right to know how the government's fiscal plan, or lack of it, impacts them and the country. This not about the present; it is about the future of Canada. As custodians of taxpayers' hard-earned funds, it is our responsibility to act responsibly, not recklessly, with the nation's finances.

As the government moves deeper and deeper into deficit and the national debt grows increasingly large, someone, at some point, will be called upon to foot the bill. When our children and grandchildren are struggling to maintain essential services and climb out from under a mound of government debt, they will be asking why we failed to act in a responsible fashion. What will we tell them? Will we tell them that we truly believed budgets could balance themselves?

The Liberal economic plan has failed, and Canadians are paying for it. When it comes to managing the economy, we do not get a second chance.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would contradict what the member said, because we have seen a very progressive government in the last year taking a truly different approach.

Canadians wanted real change, because they saw a Conservative government lose touch with what Canadians were thinking. When we saw the election of our government, we saw real, substantial change. We saw an increase in taxes for Canada's wealthiest to help compensate for the middle-class tax cut. We saw the Canada child benefit program, which will literally lift thousands of children out of poverty. We saw a substantial increase in the guaranteed income supplement for single seniors. Some of the poorest seniors in every region of our country will get $900 more than they received previously. We have the most significant increase in infrastructure dollars and sense of commitment, with $180 billion planned for the next 11 years.

Canadians wanted change, and they got real change. This is the type of thing that is going to see Canada do well in the future.

Would the member not at the very least recognize that the Conservatives did lose touch, and that we are now seeing our much more progressive to getting Canada's economy on the right track?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Before I let the hon. member answer, I would remind hon. members that this is questions or comments. It does not necessarily have to be questions.

The hon. member for Edmonton Manning.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the member opposite, and he does not agree with me, as usual. I knew that he would contradict what I said.

However, it is not a heroic act to borrow money, spend it on people, and then tell people that you are spending money on them when it is coming out of their pocket. It is bad management, bad financing, and bad for the economy.

If the member understands the basics of the economy, he would understand that when we borrow money we need to pay it back. When we do not have the money, we do not spend it, but keep playing low for when there are economic difficulties in order to be able to manage the people's money.

It is everyone's responsibility in this country to make sure that Canadians' money is not up for grabs by any politician in this country, like the current government is doing.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

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

Regarding budget implementation act, 2016, No. 2, the second budget implementation bill, and the economic update delivered yesterday in the House, I wondered if my colleague thought that the government was going down the wrong path with its current strategy.

The past year's economic results show no sign of improvement; they indicate no positive growth or job creation. Does the hon. member think that the government is doubling down on a strategy that does not seem to working?

Albert Einstein said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Does the hon. member agree with that quote and our opinion that the strategies are not working and that the government should consider changing tack in order to create jobs and grow our economy?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoy sitting with hon. member on the finance committee.

What the member just said is exactly true. If the plan is not working, then we have to be very quick to change the plan to make it workable for Canadians.

To go deeper into debt, spend more and more money, and throw it at something that is not working is insanity. By any measure of economic, financial, and business standards, it does not make sense. The government is going in the wrong direction, and we know that the result is going to be devastating for every Canadian.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to respond to the economic update that was given yesterday and remind the House that the government is making Canadians even poorer by running this massive deficit. Today, Canada's future is bleaker and more unstable. I am worried about the future of my children and of generations to come.

First, I would like to point out that this was a very Liberal budget. It is all in the red. A balanced budget is a concept that no longer exists. That is worrisome. Middle-class Canadians know that they cannot live beyond their means forever. When a family buys a house that costs more than they can afford and then stops making payments, the bank will eventually foreclose. That is what could happen to us, but unfortunately, this government does not live in the real world. That is what happens when one is surrounded by so many people who have always lived safe, sheltered lives and have never experienced financial insecurity.

This economic update reminds me of a startling scene from a very popular Netflix series, Narcos. In it, drug lord Pablo Escobar keeps his family warm on a very cold night by literally burning millions of dollars. That is what the government is doing: burning hundreds of millions of dollars in a vain attempt to create some heat.

The difference is that, in this case, those are millions of dollars we do not have. It is a very high cost for paltry results. Yesterday's announcement tacks an additional $32 billion onto the deficit. It might be easier to understand the scale of that if I express it as $3,200 million. That seems a lot bigger because the truth is that $32 billion is a massive number.

They are adding $3,200 million to the debt, which will keep us in a deficit situation for an extra year. During their campaign, the Liberals promised to run modest deficits to stimulate the economy. They just forgot to tell Canadians their definition of a “modest deficit”. It is a minor detail, but in light of the logic espoused by the Prime Minister, who thinks the budget will balance itself, it comes as no surprise.

During the election campaign, the Prime Minister said we needed to grow the economy from the heart outwards. We are very familiar with this concept and see it often. This mentality is all well and good when you are improvising, but when you are managing a G7 economy, that does not necessarily work.

Unfortunately for Canadians, the prime sinister's, oops, I mean the Prime Minister's Care Bear mentality does not work. In spite of all the money the Liberals have squandered since they came to power, not one net full-time job has been created in Canada. As the Minister of Finance said himself, Canadians just have to get used to precarious employment, because that will be the norm.

The Liberals are proud to say that their deficit is lower than expected. I would like to remind them that this is a far cry from the $10-billion annual deficit promised during the election campaign. Based on that criteria, the Liberals seriously underestimated the deficit. In fact, it would be much larger if the government had not used the $6-billion cushion to improve the picture.

It was not through the rigorous administration of the machinery of government that the deficit got so big. That cushion disappeared from the forecasts for the next few years, and we do not know when the government will return to a balanced budget. My colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent, our finance critic, asked the Minister of Finance that question five times today, but got no answer.

Running a deficit during an economic slowdown or a recession is a practice that is generally accepted by society and economists. However, the Minister of Finance, a talented economist, said, “Our economy is growing, just not as fast as we would like”.

If the economy is growing, then how does the Minister of Finance justify the massive ballooning of the deficit? What would happen if Canada was hit with another recession? If $25.1 billion is not enough to stimulate a growing economy, how low is this government willing to take us?

We do not wish that on anyone, but we fear the worst. If we end up in a recession, then we will have to weather it on no credit, because we are living beyond our means. One of these days, this reckless spending will catch up with us and we will have to pay for it.

Another worrisome thing in this budget is the infrastructure bank. This measure will take $15 billion out of funds that are already committed to help communities across the country. By definition, almost all the projects that will be implemented through this new institution will be in major urban centres. That is where we find major projects that might attract large investment funds hoping to get a return on their investments.

After barely a year in power, the Liberals are already starting to abandon Canadians who live outside large urban centres. For them, there is no salvation. Who would want to take an interest in their problems and help resolve them? Certainly not the banks, whose private investors will be looking for a return on their investment. Certainly not the Minister of Infrastructure, who seems more concerned with having a tastefully appointed office than dealing with problems in Gaspé or the north shore.

As the saying goes, out of sight, out of mind.

They are taking resources away from small centres so that the larger ones have more. The Liberal government's sunny ways consist of centralizing everything, leaving everyone else in the lurch. Having someone else manage a large part of the infrastructure budget is an admission of the failure of the infrastructure program implemented by the government and the minister in charge.

If the government's plan is working so well, why does it need a new entity? The Liberals asked for Canadians' approval to go into debt so they could invest in infrastructure and stimulate the economy.

The Minister of Infrastructure and Communities is bragging about having approved a good number of projects. According to Bloomberg and The Huffington Post, only one of these projects is under construction. It is true that, coming from a minister who spent $1 million on his office, it must be a record amount. However, other than setting up a sumptuous office for a minister, what has the government done to get projects up and running in order to help Canada's economy grow? With the exception of a single project, it has done nothing.

Unfortunately, today we must give these very stern speeches, because we now have a deficit of more than $25 billion according to the government, which said that it had to run up a modest deficit in order to invest in infrastructure. There is not even a single project under construction. That makes no sense.

We all suffer from the Liberal government's foot-dragging on infrastructure, because it takes a lot of time for major work sites to get going. What we need to get Canada going is simple: rather than creating new structures to boost Canada's image, we need to keep our taxes low, properly manage our finances, and cut red tape. That is the best way to help Canada develop, and that is what we did when our government was in office. We made Canada the best country in the world in which to do business.

In closing, as a father, I do not understand how the Liberals can present such a document and then claim to be fiscally responsible. Mortgaging our future without delivering any results in the present is not responsible. Burning through billions of dollars is not good management. Greece tried that, without much success. I am worried that Canada is going down the same road.

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

Mr. Speaker, again, I want to point out that over the last 10 years of regressive policies and trickle-down economics, Canada was ready for a change. The previous government was one that oversaw two recessions and balanced its budget with a shell game, by throwing in the EI surplus, the GM sale of stocks and its rainy day fund. That is how the Conservatives balanced their budget.

Canadians wanted a change. It was known throughout the country. Experts said that Canada was in an infrastructure deficit. There was not enough being spent on infrastructure over the past 10 years across the country.

Does the member not agree that infrastructure spending is a way to stimulate the economy?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to remember the name of the riding of my colleague from Saint John—Rothesay, because I found he said some rather insulting things about the former government.

For 10 years, the former government navigated the worst global economic crisis. It made investments in infrastructure to get the economy back on track. As I mentioned in my speech, when there is a global economic crisis and the economy is flagging, governments can take significant measures to revive it.

Right now, we are in a period of economic growth; the minister said so himself. Modest growth is still considered growth. How then can the government justify jeopardizing our children's future?

I have a 13-year-old son and a 12-year-old daughter. How wonderful it will be for them in 20 years to have to pay huge amounts of taxes to pay off the current Prime Minister's debts, just like we are still today paying off the debts incurred when the father of the current Prime Minister put us in a tough spot.

I will not have anyone accusing the former government of doing a poor job. That is my right and that is all I have to say.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, under the current government, regions like mine could end up being penalized. The government is creating a privatization bank where interesting projects are ones that might attract investors and a return on their investment. Small villages like the ones in my riding could end up not seeing any investment.

I have a friend who lives in Rapide-Danseur, a small village of 300 or 400 people. Her village will likely not see any investment. The cost of living has gone up. Many things, such as groceries, cost more. On many levels, things are not improving.

It may be unfair to ask him to do the math in his head, but I would like to know if my colleague can calculate how much more debt my friend's eight children will be saddled with at the end of the Liberal government's term, after the 2019 election.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

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

I do not have a calculator, but off the top of my head I can say that after four years under this Liberal government, the deficit will be over $100 billion.

What I noted from her question is something I mentioned in my speech. The regions will be overlooked by this new approach involving the new infrastructure development bank. The government is centralizing things. Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, and perhaps Calgary will really benefit from the major programs, because private companies will want to invest in major infrastructure such as a toll train or another bridge, any big project . Those are the projects that make money. Private companies will not invest in projects if there is nothing in it for them.

Who will go and invest deep in the Abitibi? No one. That is why the ministers responsible for regional development made sure that investments were made in infrastructure in every region of the country. In Quebec, a minister responsible for regional development would ensure that the regions have the infrastructure they need.

The government is currently centralizing things to please the finance minister's buddies, who give him $1,500 cheques. The minister then finds them lucrative contracts, and a private company will invest in the project. That is how it works; it is not complicated. There is no point in kidding ourselves.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent speech.

Clearly the Liberals think they are qualified to take over where the good Lord leaves off, but that is not how it works in real life. We understand things too, but our understanding is not the same as theirs. I will not allow anyone to insult my colleagues because they see things differently.

I would like to ask my colleague a question. My daughter is no manager, but last weekend, she figured out that the cost per child is $44,000 right now. In 10 years, that will add up to nearly $100 billion. I am talking about the regions.

What about the army? Will they be giving the army any money?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague for her question.

Our children will owe an extra $1,000. The fifth grandson of a colleague of mine was born yesterday, and his debt went up by $1,000 the moment he entered this world. What a thoughtful gift from the current Liberal government.

Here is what I have to say about defence. In the first budget, which was presented in the spring, $3.8 billion of the defence budget was set aside. Once again, they manipulated the figures. They said the money would be available if needed, but money seems to disappear in the administrative twists and turns of each budget. What about that $6 billion yesterday? They said it was a cushion, a reserve. Since a $31.1-billion deficit makes the government look bad, it moved that $6 billion over, and now the deficit is just $25 billion. That is not so bad, is it? We all see what happened. Canadians will not fall for it.

There is no news on national defence, but we know that defence needs major cash because it is important. I hope the government will take a good look at what is going on with defence in Canada.

The House resumed from November 2 consideration of the motion that Bill C-29, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to start the debate today on Bill C-29.

Rather than getting into the technical tax elements of it, I would like to go on about my riding. People know from when I spoke about the budget previously how delighted I was at the number of things that were in it for the north. An unparalleled number of things were put in for my constituents. I could not even get to them all in a 10-minute speech and my colleagues were asking me what was left for their ridings. Nevertheless, I am very happy for everything that was received by my riding.

I will start with the huge increase to the northern allowance, from $16.50 a day to a maximum of $22 a day. This is a huge emphasis on the people of the north. We can see our northern strategy is based on helping the people of the north in a very high cost-of-living area, where poverty could easily occur. This is the type of support we need and it was wonderfully received, of course, by the people of the north.

Our two biggest sectors are mining and tourism. Mining is the biggest gross territorial product, basically, since the gold rush; and tourism is the biggest private sector employer.

In mining, we continued in the budget the mineral exploration tax credit and the flow-through share regime. These are very important, especially, for exploration companies. There may be only one or two hard rock mines operating, and they have a limited number of employees. Those mines have a product that they can get loans against and get financing against. Exploration companies really have no credit, they do not have buildings, they do not have product, and it is very hard for them to get financing.

The METC and the flow-through share regime are very important for them. I would certainly like to thank the Minister of Natural Resources for lobbying for this and the finance minister for putting it in place.

With respect to the tourism sector, my riding has the highest percentage of our gross territorial product related to tourism of any province or territory so that a cut to tourism marketing in Canada would hurt my riding more than anywhere else. That is why I am delighted with the $50-million increase to that this year.

With respect to infrastructure, once again, as everyone knows, the fact that the government planned to have the largest amount of infrastructure in history is music to the ears in our riding. First, we have kept the building Canada plan that was in place for 2014 to 2024, we have accelerated the approvals, and we added some categories such as recreation, which is very important to my communities. They really wanted to build recreation facilities out of that fund, and now they can.

At the same time, phase two of the new infrastructure funding is going on. We have already announced the entire amounts of money for projects for most of my communities for the next three years. A lot of them are based on water and waste-water improvements, which is very important infrastructure. The minister has done extensive consultation. When phase two starts, we will be able to get more money for our transit. We do have a transit system in Whitehorse and it has already received money.

The green infrastructure fund is very forward-thinking.

I have been saying for a couple of decades, and everyone I think now knows, that climate change is affecting the north more than anywhere else in the world. It was very perceptive to allow funds to be put in the budget for mitigation and for preparing infrastructure to withstand the effects of climate change, which can be seen in the foundations of our buildings, under melting permafrost, and on our highways. Those funds will be welcomed.

Another thing is the social infrastructure. I visited some of the day cares that would like to expand the number of spots. That money will be very welcomed.

Then there is affordable housing and the national housing plan. I have been on the anti-poverty coalition for years. We hope that the infrastructure bank will work; I will talk about that a bit later. The AIDEA bank in Alaska is very successful in an economy like ours.

Finally, I would like to talk about the recently announced $2 billion for rural and northern regions for roads and bridges, green infrastructure, and Internet connections. Earlier in the day today, the opposition brought up how important the regions are. This is a massive signal. It is the biggest amount of money for the region.

For all those reasons, I am very excited about the budget and its initiatives. However, I do not want to let the finance minister off that easily. I want to now morph into our wishes for the next budget, based on consultations I have had in the riding. Some of these things could already be funded under the various programs I have just mentioned.

First, homelessness and the national housing strategy is very important to the people who gave me input on the upcoming budget. Affordable housing for employers is very important. They hire people. They come to the north and cannot find affordable housing, so have to leave again.

There is the suggestion of the electrification of transport routes so electric vehicles can be used. Of course, in the cities they can plug in and recharge. Along the Alaska Highway, for instance, we could have that all electrified.

Another suggestion, which happens to also be eligible and already announced, is the retrofit of old buildings and higher standards for new buildings.

Renewable energy of course is something people in my riding want to invest in, and it is a big part of the government's plan. There is a way of storing energy in off-peak hours, so a storage mechanism is also important. Certainly, that is eligible, and there are keen proponents of that in my riding.

Also, local food production in the north, rather than shipping things thousands of miles, and funding for social enterprises are suggestions.

A redundant fibre is very important for us. The Yukon has one Internet line cable going in and every time a backhoe cuts a line it shuts everything down. We would like to make a loop through the Dempster Highway through Inuvik. In fact, part of Nunavut and the Northwest Territories also only access through our hub, or only have one route. This would put a redundancy in place for a lot of people in the north so they could have access similar to what we have. These would be eligible under these new infrastructure programs, and I hope their funding is included.

We have one area where a hydro line needs to be replaced. We could go to several mines that would otherwise use LNG, and they would then contribute to greenhouse gases.

The IT sector is flourishing in the north now, because we do not need to transport heavy things. It is all done over the lines. We certainly appreciate the support for that.

We want the mining supports that I talked about earlier to continue. We would like the tourism marketing supports to continue. We would like support for business incubators. Once businesses have started, in many ways they have a record and they can get financing. They have partners, but when they are first starting up the costs for mentoring and cheap infrastructure, just getting going, is a hard part in the life cycle of a small business. We would like to support that.

There is room to support IRAP. It has been an incredible program for the last three decades at least. It is very instrumental for innovation. We would like to continue with that.

I said about 20 years ago, we need research in the north, by the north, and for the north. We have great research up there. We would like that to continue.

Yukon College has a plan, with the other three northern colleges, to take adults who may not be literate and upgrade them to the next stage. It is about $56 billion for the three colleges that cover half of northern Canada. That would be a great project to fund in the new budget.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his speech and for talking about investments in mitigating the impact of climate change in particular.

Right now, heavy rainfall has led to a state of emergency at the Tseshaht First Nation in Port Alberni. These flood warnings are expected to continue throughout the coming week.

We know that climate change has moved from a future threat to a present danger. Extreme weather events such as floods are increasing in frequency and in severity. The PBO predicts that storms, hurricanes, and floods linked to climate change will cost the federal disaster fund $900 million annually over the coming five years. That compares to an average of just $54 million a year for the period from 1970 to 1994.

The disaster financial assistance program operated by Public Safety Canada is heavily underfunded. Therefore, I would ask the member if he supports increased funding to mitigate climate change, to invest in a national flood strategy so that we have a plan, so that we can budget and pre-empt a lot of the costs that are going to be created by flooding in our communities.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. However, I think the member is preaching to the converted on this side. He might talk to his colleagues to the right.

For a long time, I have been supporting investment in mitigation, because, as I said earlier, it is hurting us more than anyone else. Therefore, I am certainly in support of this type of funding, and, in fact, even internationally. I tabled a bill about eight years ago for those people who had lost their country because of this type of disaster and had no place to live as their homes were inundated, and that would make them eligible for a category under immigration as refugees.

I certainly support the direction the member has suggested, but I do not know the technical details.

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

Mr. Speaker, when I think of the budget implementation bill, there are a lot of things that we could be talking about. However, one of the big policy announcements that was made early on upon taking government was the idea of having that extra tax on Canada's wealthiest, the 1%, and at the same time producing a tax benefit for Canada's middle class. This is something I expected all members of this House would support, but, unfortunately, that is not the case.

I wonder if the member would provide his thoughts in terms of how important it was to provide that tax break for Canada's middle class.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question, because it allows me say something else. As I said, I did not have time to get in a couple of other things from the budget that were so exciting for us, which were pan-Canadian.

First of all, of course, the middle-class tax credit goes to so many people in the north. It helps us more than anything else, because the cost of living is so much higher.

One of the reasons I got into Parliament was to fight poverty. We have increased money for low-income students, for the poorest of seniors in the OAS supplement, for women's shelters, and for services for veterans. There are also the categories for people in the housing strategy and poverty work, as well as money for the people who really need it, which is very important to me.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the BIA will not index the new Canada child benefit to inflation until 2020. The member spoke about his role in wanting to reduce poverty. I wonder whether he can comment on that, and if he would agree and urge the government to index it so that it would not fall behind with respect to inflation.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, yes, the child benefit is a sea change in Canada, it is huge. It is the biggest thing for my riding with thousands of new dollars for parents. I think it went way ahead, and would have covered indexing for a few years. The sooner indexing comes in, the better for me. I am happy when the government does put it in.

[John McKay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to participate in this debate. It gives me an opportunity to talk about a town hall I attended a week ago today. The town hall was at the University of Toronto's Scarborough Campus, UTSC, and was hosted by six Scarborough MPs: the members for Scarborough Southwest, Scarborough Centre, Scarborough—Agincourt, Scarborough North, Scarborough—Rouge Park, and myself, the member for Scarborough—Guildwood. It was a really good event. It was an opportunity to invite the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance to talk about the very subject we are discussing today.

As everyone can appreciate, this budget is of great interest to the people of Scarborough. In particular, as we know, Scarborough is the eastern cornerstone of the GTA. It has a population of 600,000 or 700,000 people and is very ably represented by all of its MPs.

The big message out of this town hall was transit, transit, transit. The reason it is transit is because this is a severely under-serviced area in the GTA.

The location where this town hall took place, as I said, was UTSC. UTSC is a community of scholars. At this point, there are 13,000 students, a mix of both graduates and undergraduates. It is going up to 15,000 in a couple of years, yet it can only be accessed by TTC buses. That is a very poor way of getting that volume of people on and off of the campus on a daily basis.

Principal Kidd introduced the evening by talking about this need, but also the larger needs of the campus, particularly with respect to infrastructure. He made the point, or maybe I made the point for him thereafter, that UTSC had been home to the top scholars at the University of Toronto for the last four years running. Think about that. This is a suburban campus in the eastern-most part of the GTA and for the last four years it has been home to the top scholars at the University of Toronto. This gives us a feel for the quality of education that one would receive on a campus like that.

In addition to UTSC, there is also Centennial College, which would probably have double the number students if we add in part-time and full-time students. We are talking in the order of 40,000-plus students coming and going in the eastern GTA, in Scarborough, from two of the top schools not only in Ontario but in all of Canada. Centennial College has received quite a number of awards recently for the quality of its scholarships and job training.

The point of the principal and of the people who attended the event, and the point of us in Scarborough, was that transit was the number one ask. That is entirely consistent with the direction this government is going. There is a consensus that governments need to invest not only to boost economic growth in the short term but to set the stage for long-term growth as well. That is exactly what the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister are doing today.

They are talking to some of the most savvy investors in the world, inviting them to give Canada a real look. In giving Canada a real look for potential investments in all kinds of infrastructure projects, we may actually be able to free up a serious amount of money so we can make the investments necessary to address what I and others have described as an infrastructure deficit.

The beauty of having a town hall such as this is that we get to hear what the people want. The worst thing in politics, and I know because you are a very successful politician, Mr. Speaker, is that 90% of politics is just showing up, listening to what people want. When we can have a useful and constructive dialogue such as we had last Monday night, we can then respond in a way that deals with fiscal realities, but also deals with the needs and wants of Canadians.

This is why that town hall in particular, which was well attended, was very successful. We heard from a variety of interests. Naturally because we were on a university campus, the interests of students was of considerable concern. They particularly appreciated some of the relief that had been given to students in the last budget. Naturally, and not surprisingly, they are looking for more. Nevertheless when we hear what they have to say and they hear about other competing needs, they realize the government has a bit of a balancing act to stay fiscally sustainable but simultaneously that they may also be able to meet many needs right across the spectrum.

We are rather fortunate as a nation that we have some fiscal capacities. The discipline from the Chrétien-Martin years has stood us in good stead. We drove down the amount of the national debt. We had our debt-to-GDP ratios down to levels that were sustainable. Because of the work of Prime Ministers Martin and Chrétien, we are able to contemplate investments in the future.

I would like to say the same would be true of Mr. Harper's government, but I would note that the Conservative government added $150 billion to the national debt. I would not say that totally constrains our fiscal capacities, but it does have some constraint. One wishes that some of the decisions around revenue depression and expenditures had been made differently, but we are where we are. It is still a position that is relatively good, and exceedingly good compared to many other nations.

Hence the sales job by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance gets a lot easier when they can say the debt-to-GDP ratio runs around 30% on an annual basis and is on track to maintain or reduce that slightly. That enables those who would be investing literally billions and billions of dollars in our country to have some confidence that the fiscal management of our nation is in good hands.

The final point I want to make is with respect to many middle-class Canadians feeling they are working a lot harder. This speaks to an alienation that we have seen reflected in other countries, but we are not immune from it. It is the distribution of the wealth in our country. There is a feeling of concern that some people are doing exceedingly well, referred to as the 1% and sometimes as the 1% of the 1%. In the efforts on the part of the government in the last budget and in this budget implementation bill to address that concern, there is a need to have some redistribution of wealth so all Canadians feel they have a stake in this nation.

We have seen populist uprising in a whole variety of nations. A lot of that is driven by the fact that some people feel they are getting left behind. Fairly, unfairly, rationally, or otherwise, that is the feeling. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance addressed that somewhat in the last budget. None of us are immune from that sense of alienation.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned the good management of the Martin-Chrétien years. I need to remind him that was done by simply cutting $25 billion from transfers to the provinces and municipalities. The municipalities are still suffering from those cuts.

Later on in his speech he said that the fiscal management of the government was in good hands. How can actually say that when we realize that the interest costs alone between today and 2020 are rising by $15 billion per year? The interest costs per year that we will pay on our deficit will be $15 billion higher in 2020 than it is today. Yet he says that the fiscal management is in good hands.

Could he square that circle for me?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has been here for quite a while. He would know that when Prime Minister Chrétien and then-finance minister Martin took over from the previous Conservative administration, the New York Times had designated Canada as an honorary member of the third world based upon its debt-to-GDP ratio, which was approaching, if not north of, 70%. Something major had to be done so there was some fiscal discipline imposed upon all levels of government.

I would take note that the relationship between the federal government and municipalities has substantially improved, primarily because we are now in a fiscal situation where we can.

On the interest costs, it is a Conservative double-think to prattle on about how the Conservatives think they are great fiscal managers when, out of the 10 budgets they presented, eight were deficit budgets and one was the biggest deficit budget in the history of our nation. They pretend they know something about fiscal responsibility. They added $150 billion to the national debt, and the rest of us are paying for that.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when my colleague mentioned that he thought politics was only 90% showing up, I hope he misspoke. Clearly the people from Essex who elected me to be in the House expect more than just showing up. If that is what the Liberal government represents, the member opposite will have questions to be answered in his own riding.

He mentioned setting the stage, and that is true. However, the government is setting the stage for privatization, something it has no mandate to do, something the Liberals were not elected to do. There is a danger in this.

As we face trade deals like CETA coming forward, the TPP, the potential of reopening NAFTA, there is a danger in privatizing things that are in the public sphere because of investor state challenges that can brought against us for doing so.

In these trade agreements, there are clauses called “ratchet” and “standstill” that determine things that can be brought back and forth between public and private. There is a real danger that once it is privatized, these deals will make it nearly impossible for us to bring things public again.

Does the member understand that this is a threat to Canadian democracy?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

I just take note, Mr. Speaker, that I have enjoyed some success in this place. I have gone through seven elections and this is my 19th year. When I offer my hon. colleague some advice, it is gratuitous. I appreciate that maybe it is not worth what is paid for it. However, I take note that Canadians like to be talked to. The strange concept is that they are asking us to talk to them because they are reasonable people and, by and large, they are. We return the telephone calls and answer the letters. When I say that 90% of the game is showing up at the events, that is actually fairly good advice, which I gratuitously offered to the hon. member.

As to trade deals, I have yet in 19 years to see a trade deal that the NDP could endorse—

[Don. Davies]

South Korea and Jordan.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

South Korea, son of a gun, we nailed one. I appreciate the clarification from the hon. member, Mr. Speaker.

As to privatization, there is good privatization and there is bad privatization. I will give an illustration of bad privatization. When I say transit, transit, transit, the 407, handled by the Conservative government of Ontario, was a bad privatization. It was a good privatization under the previous NDP government.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-29 and some of the budget provisions. I would like to put some things on the record and frame them in the context of what is happening in my riding.

Under Bill C-29 the child benefit will not be indexed. It is estimated that low-income families will lose roughly $5,500 by 2020. If we consider the rising cost of living, low-income families will lose roughly $500 in four years. It is sad that no one thought about the fact that the cost of living will continue to rise for families and that the child benefit was not indexed accordingly.

There are some things people fail to mention about the child benefit. For example, people keep saying the child benefit will help lift children out of poverty, but no one ever says that to be entitled to it we have to have an up-to-date tax file, as do our former spouse and our new spouse. If not, benefits will not be provided until the situation is rectified.

Some services are available only during tax season, which means that people can get help with their returns for the current year, but no help is available to them if they have not done their taxes for four years. Help is not available.

Every week, people come to my office to tell me that they have not received child benefit payments for months or years because they cannot get their Canada Revenue Agency file in order. They may be asked to produce documents proving that their child lives with them. In shared custody or access rights situations, among others, that can be extremely complicated. A parent with a two-year-old or a three-year-old who does not go to day care may have a hard time proving that the child actually lives with him or her. A friend has to declare that he or she knows the parent well and that the child lives with that parent.

Also, information provided by both parents has to match up. Is a former partner who does not receive the child benefit because he or she has access rights but not custody likely to get in touch with the Canada Revenue Agency in a hurry to sort things out? Sometimes the answer is no, and that can create very complex situations that result in some people being denied the child benefit for long periods of time.

My riding office has helped fix the situation for some people who have not been receiving any child benefits for years. They were sometimes owed $20,000 in unpaid benefits from the federal government alone. That money could have helped them when they needed it. However, this is difficult to do because the appropriate services are not in place. People do not always think to contact their MP.

In the past, there was a Canada Revenue Agency service counter in Rouyn-Noranda, in my riding, but it is now closed. The government no longer provides direct services to people. The counter is still there and the office is still open because there are still investigators who work there, but people can no longer go to the CRA office to get help. People are being left with no resources. Often it is those most in need and with a lower level of education who are unable to resolve their situation and get access to the money they are entitled to.

This bill does nothing about the tax system, which most people find extremely complicated. How many people are owed tax refunds each year but do not get them because they do not realize they are entitled to them? These people do not have the money to pay someone to file their tax return for them. They do their best to do it themselves.

Every year, some of the money that is earmarked to help poor people remains in the government coffers because people do not know that they are entitled to it. However, the government is not doing anything to fix that situation.

Child benefits can in fact help lift people out of poverty, but for that to happen, parents need to have access to those benefits and be able to receive that money. If CRA does not offer services that enable people to access their money, we go around in circles, because people are not getting help.

Consider the example of a family of four children where the eldest has a different father than the other three. More information will be needed on that child, because the statements from the two former spouses will not match. The child benefits will be frozen not only for the child in question, but for all four children, even though there is no problem with the other three children's benefits. We want to make sure that people can get their money if there is a problem regarding the amounts.

Also, the new calculation is done in July. This means that if any clarifications are needed, if there is a problem with the file, it will be frozen in July, right before kids go back to school, which is when parents need to spend a bunch of money on school supplies and clothes to make sure that their kids are ready for school. However, that is right when the family benefits would be frozen.

Often services are not accessible. A person tries calling and it may take three or four tries and three or four hours of waiting before they manage to get someone on the phone. People get discouraged. It takes months to correct the situation. For many people, the family allowance represents more than half their income.

I want to move on to something equally important and that is the infamous infrastructure bank, which is actually a privatization bank. The $15 billion that was earmarked for government-funded, public infrastructure projects is being put in a bank, and foreign investors are being sought to fund the infrastructure projects. Obviously, if we are getting foreign funding from private investors, they are going to want a return on their investment. What these private investors want is to get money back in exchange for their investment.

In other words, how do they get a return on their investment when we are talking about roads, bridges, and other infrastructure such as water systems? By charging surcharges, tolls, and user fees. The Liberals never mentioned during the election campaign that they were considering using these fees and privatizing our public infrastructure network to help rebuild what we need built.

What is more, these projects and programs are designed for big cities. What are the chances that I will be able to attract a foreign investor who is willing to invest in a bridge in a small town in northern Abitibi—Témiscamingue? They are very slim.

In reality, the small municipalities and rural regions will be the ones that suffer. They will be completely forgotten in the Liberal government's infrastructure plan. That is a surprise because the Liberals never spoke about privatization. Meanwhile, these municipalities will continue to struggle to try to find solutions to keep their heads above water.

In many cases, the needs are great because all the villages in Abitibi—Témiscamingue were settled around the same time. As a result, the infrastructure was all built around the same time and will all need to be replaced at the same time. That time is now. Some municipalities have five or six bridges in their villages that need to be replaced. They do not have the money to do that. It is impossible for them. What will the municipalities tell people? Will they have to buy people's houses from them and tell them to go live elsewhere because they do not have the money to pay for infrastructure and the government is privatizing infrastructure and investing in Canada's big cities? The government has completely forgotten that people live a few kilometres north of the St. Lawrence River.

That is not what we should have to tell people. Canadians who live in rural regions contribute greatly to Canada's economy. They make sure the large corporations in the big cities have the resources they need. If the government does not support Canada's rural regions, it will destroy our country's economy.

I look forward to my colleagues' questions.

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

Mr. Speaker, the concerns raised about small towns not having the borrowing capacity to participate in the infrastructure program are exactly why the campaign promise was fulfilled. We have moved to create an infrastructure bank that would give smaller communities, in groups, access to world markets, to borrow and to do things like build water plants, which cost an extraordinary amount of money, which small towns quite often do not have the capacity to build. It is not a program for privatization. It is specifically designed to give smaller communities access to world capital.

If this happens, would the member opposite not agree that the increased capacity to build cleaner water plants might result in the delivery of clean water to smaller communities at a rate they could afford, as opposed to previously, according to even her own admission, when they had no access to world capital because they were too small?

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleague to venture outside his riding and travel a little. He would realize that sometimes there are 30, 40, or 50 kilometres between some small towns. These people cannot join forces to build a water filtration plant. The cost of the pipes alone would be more than the cost of building the other plant. What he is saying does not make sense.

Yes, sometimes municipalities can work together to obtain certain services, such as snowplowing. However, for other things, towns cannot work together. What the Liberal government is doing will not help these people in the least. It seems that he really does not understand what it is like for these small municipalities.

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

Mr. Speaker, one issue that my colleague brought up was with regard to this particular budget. We have seen a significant amount of redistribution of wealth, if I can put it that way, including a substantial increase in taxes on Canada's wealthiest, a substantial decrease in taxes on Canada's middle class, a substantial increase in the Canada child benefit program, and a substantial increase in the guaranteed income supplement for seniors, not to mention the significant benefits given to students.

Given the fact that New Democrats are voting against the budget implementation bills, they are saying they oppose the budget. Can the member tell the House if she is aware of any budget prior to this one that provided so much redistribution of Canada's wealth, in which the greatest benefactors are the middle class or those aspiring to be part of it and, in many ways, some of the most vulnerable people in our society, literally lifting thousands of seniors and children out of poverty?

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is talking about the tax cut for the middle class. However, more than 50% of the people in my riding are not even part of the middle class and are not entitled to any tax reduction whatsoever.

Let us look at my situation, for example. My husband is not entitled to anything because he does not make the $40,000 required to belong to the middle class. However, I do not make more than $200,00 and therefore I can get the full tax reduction without any problem. The Liberals missed the boat.

We had suggested that they not apply the tax reduction to the second tax bracket, but to the first, so that everyone, including the poorest in our society, would get a tax reduction. They refused to do it. They do not realize that many people are still earning less than the $45,000 that would make them eligible for a tax reduction.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak about Bill C-26. In my speech, I intend to discuss how this bill is focused on the long term.

I would like to start by simply reminding the House of the stark difference in our approach. The previous government spent a decade seeing the provinces as hurdles or opponents. Negotiation was done one by one. It was negotiation through division. Our approach is different. It is collaborative.

Our Prime Minister and the cabinet of our government have been working with the provinces as partners. Earlier this year, Canada's finance ministers reached an historic agreement to make meaningful changes to the CPP. This is what a collaborative approach looks like.

First and foremost, we believe that every Canadian deserves a secure and dignified retirement after a lifetime of hard work. Today middle-class Canadians are working harder than ever, but many are worried that they will not put away enough money for retirement.

I think about my three kids, who are in their early twenties. They are all in school. They are hard-working and brilliant people. They did their homework, got good grades, and got into post-secondary education with few challenges because of their work ethic and thirst for knowledge. Even so, many of their generation and friends are in a tough place. They are not saving now, because they have to think about paying down their student debt, paying for car repairs, or saving for their first home, let alone the cost of weddings these days. There are a lot of big expenses—

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

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I believe that we are on Bill C-29, not Bill C-26. The member is speaking on a bill that was before the House previously.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I thank the member for bringing that up.

Often in the House members bring up different areas and make a roundabout way back to the topic at hand. Therefore, I will allow the hon. member to keep going. She has eight minutes left in her speech. I think it is appropriate that she be given a chance to show how she is going to relate it back to the topic at hand.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of big expenses looming in the face of young people these days.

I am proud of the work our government has done to help kids with the repayment of student loans. That makes a real difference for students once they graduate. However, there is still significant work to be done to get young people saving for the future. It needs to be part of the system. They need to have that money going into a reliable, secure place, where it will be there for them once they need it.

Financial experts have been saying for years that financial literacy is important for young people. I would like to commend the Ontario government for making financial literacy part of the high school curriculum and congratulate the Ontario Young Liberals on their work in putting that forward.

Each year, fewer and fewer Canadians have workplace pensions to fall back on. The private sector needs to do its part to support a strong pension system as well.

Seniors receiving CPP put that money back into the economy and into the brands and businesses in their communities.

We all must do our part, public and private, to make Canada a prosperous place for everyone and make meaningful changes to the CPP that will allow Canadians to retire with more money in their pockets.

We have been talking about the baby boomers and the generational shift under way for decades. We always knew that this massive portion of the population would retire, and we knew that we would have to take action to make the system sustainable for them and their children too.

The bill addresses those on their way to retirement by doing more to ensure that they have dignity, security, and stability.

The more than one-quarter of Canadian families nearing retirement, or 1.1 million families, who are facing a drop in their standard of living will be able to retire in dignity as a result of this enhancement.

The revisions in Bill C-26 are designed to help Canadians in every step of their lives: grandparents, parents, and children.

The deal will boost how much Canadians get in their pension from one-quarter of their earnings now to fully one-third. To make sure that these changes are affordable, we will phase them in slowly over seven years, from 2019 to 2025, so that the impact is small and gradual.

When l was going door to door in Brampton South in the last election, I met many seniors. I met seniors who were concerned about themselves but more concerned about their families' futures. They wanted to know if their grandchildren would have the chance to go through life with the same security that was there for them.

That is why the bill is important to me. When we talk about evidence-based and long-term growth, I think of the effects for Canadians tomorrow and five years from now. In both these scenarios, Canadians will be better off.

At the core of our plan is investment. Investment in the future is what past generations did when they built transport corridors that moved countless goods and people every day. Investment in the future is what donors to universities and colleges have done for decades. It is about giving back so others can follow.

Investment in the future is what the government did in the post-war years after World War II in building a system that is envied around the world.

In Brampton, while most of my constituents were born in Canada, there are those of us who were not. We came to Canada with our eyes on the system of compassion and mutual support.

That is why investing in the Canada pension plan matters today more than ever. We cannot wait, as some of my colleagues across the aisle might suggest. If past generations had thought to wait and save their pennies instead of investing them in the Canada around us today, we would be less well off.

Every Canadian deserves a secure and dignified retirement after a lifetime of hard work. Through this enhancement, we have taken a powerful step to help make that happen.

This investment is in the people of Canada and the public system that makes us more equal and more united. That is why I will be voting for Bill C-26, and I encourage all my colleagues from all parties to do so as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but ask whether the member who was speaking is going to be voting for Bill C-29, because that is actually what we are debating.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, even though it is Bill C-26, it is related to the budget, so I will answer according to that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from my colleague when she is talking about the importance of Canada's pension programs. We are talking about the CPP, which the member spoke so well about, but we also have the guaranteed income supplement. As she knows, the Government of Canada is substantially increasing the guaranteed income supplement. The government also reduced the age of retirement from 67 to 65. It is something the Conservatives raised from 65 to 67.

Given the member's obvious interest in the pension issue, I wonder if she could provide some comment on how important all three of those pension programs are: the OAS, the GIS, and the CPP.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as we know, this is the Canada pension plan. It has an effect on Bill C-29. The Canada pension plan provides payments to beneficiaries who are hard-working Canadians. With over $45 billion contributed last year, it will allow demand to increase. There is also a big impact on small businesses. Small businesses will grow, and if they grow, our economy will grow, so of course, it impacts our economy. If our economy is lavish, then Canadians' lives are also going to be lavish.

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

Mr. Speaker, when the member ran in the last election for the Liberal Party and there were big promises made about investing in public infrastructure, was she aware at the time that $15 billion of that money was actually going to be used as a pool to attract foreign investment that would then partially or wholly own that important public infrastructure the Liberals ran on a promise to build? If she was aware of that, where in the Liberal platform was that written down? Perhaps the member could enlighten the other members of this House.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yes the Liberal Party had a big platform, and we made promises, and we are fulfilling the promises step by step.

Regarding the CPP, it is a universal system, one that is available to everyone who works. We need to be invested in that investment so people can retire to a dignified life. The CPP Investment Board is very strong, and its management ensures that the funds Canadians depend on in their retirement are secure. This is a type of investment that is required to be collected for future retirement. That is what we promised in our campaign, and we are going to fulfill that promise.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will try to get the debate this afternoon back to the bill that we are supposed to be debating, the budget implementation act, Bill C-29.

This is about the third or fourth time now that I have had the opportunity to speak to the budget since it was introduced by the finance minister in the spring, and it does not get any better when I speak to it as we go forward. The financial situation just seems to be getting worse. In fact, we are debating a budget implementation bill that has already been effectively ripped apart by the minister's economic statement here a couple of weeks ago. It is a budget that fails to create the jobs and the growth promised by the government. The finance minister stood up in the House and said that the modest little deficit that was promised in the election campaign is going to bloom to some $30 billion and that the government is not going to give any indication as to when it can balance the budget again.

I will save the deputy government House leader from asking the question that he always asks when we make these relevant points, which is: Did the Conservatives not run a deficit at one point in time? The Conservative government did run a deficit because it was dealing with the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. However, the difference was that the Conservative government had a plan to get back to a balanced budget while the Liberal government has shown us it has no plan to get back to a balanced budget despite the fact that it was left with a balanced budget when it took office.

Lately, I have not heard the government saying that it did not have a surplus when it took over. I have not heard that lately from my colleague from Vaughan. All he has talked about this afternoon is the infrastructure bank that was in the Liberal's election platform. Not a word was mentioned in their election platform about the infrastructure bank. When those members stand up here and start talking about fulfilling their election promise, we all know that is not the case.

This budget has failed to address what it actually set out to do. It was set out to go deeply into debt so that jobs could be created. About two weeks ago the September-October Statistics Canada job numbers came out and the top line looked pretty good. It talked about 44,000 net jobs having been created, but then some Liberal math kicks in, because despite the fact 44,000 net new jobs were created, the country lost 23,000 full-time jobs while creating 67,000 part-time jobs. The group that was hit the most is who the government always talks about, the so-called middle class. Working men between the ages of 25 and 54 have suffered 63,000 lost positions since the Liberals took office a year ago. That is shameful. The government is not fulfilling its promise for why it is going into debt. There is no plan to get out of debt. There is no indication that going into debt is actually working.

We hear a lot about infrastructure. The budget was supposed to create infrastructure projects. I asked the Minister of Finance when he appeared before the finance committee about this, because a Bloomberg report said that out of some 860 projects that had been approved, only one has actually broken ground.

During our constituency break last week the infrastructure minister was running around the country spending other people's money. I saw he was in Edmonton announcing a $30 million flood mitigation program. I guess we will see how many jobs that flood mitigation program creates. It is ironic that it happened to be in Mill Woods, which, if we check, is the riding that this particular infrastructure minister represents. Not only is he spending taxpayers' money to redo his office, he is also spending taxpayer's money in his own back yard.

It reminds me a bit of the move that the immigration minister made, closing down the office in Vegreville, which happens to be, by the way, a Conservative-held riding and has been since the beginning of time. He moved it into a riding in the centre of Edmonton that a Liberal member happens to represent today. He will be a one-term member, because this is another effort by the Liberals to try to shore up their shaky ground in Alberta. Albertans are not going to be fooled again by this particular government.

Instead of the infrastructure minister running around the country handing out cheques that taxpayers are footing the bill for, he should be spending some time convincing his cabinet colleagues that there are other ways to create jobs in this country, indicated by one simple word: “pipelines”. The Minister of Infrastructure and Communities should convince his cabinet colleagues. All of the studies that have been done around Kinder Morgan, and everyone else, have recommended that the Kinder Morgan pipeline be approved, and yet his cabinet is sitting on that decision.

If cabinet said tomorrow that it would approve Kinder Morgan's pipeline, it would create thousands of jobs, not only on the construction of the pipeline but in Alberta for revitalization. Many of the full-time positions that the Liberals have lost over the last year are in Alberta in that particular industry. It could also get the process under way for the energy east pipeline. Despite some of the musings about our friends from Quebec, located next to us, who shake their heads and smile when my colleague from Calgary Shepard talks about jobs lost in the industry, energy east could save some of those jobs. That is a project that absolutely needs to go ahead and the process to get it approved has to move quickly.

Of course, now we are left with the much improved possibility of Keystone being approved by the new president-elect, once he takes office in the United States. I know the Liberals worship the outgoing president, whom we saw here in the House when he visited, but I think a lot of the things that the liberal president of the United States implemented in the last few years will be undone pretty quickly, although it is hard to come up with many accomplishments of his in the last eight years, whatever they were.

I will conclude my remarks with a couple of comments. As I said, the Conservative government left the Liberal government with a surplus. It is not even denying that any more. This is a budget that is out of date before it even passes the House. The finance minister acknowledged that in his economic update. The election campaign promise about modest deficits has now ballooned into a runaway budget deficit, and for that reason, I would like to move the following subamendment. I move:

That the amendment be amended by adding after the words “exemplified by” the following: “a stagnant economy”.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

The subamendment is in order.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Eglinton—Lawrence.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the aisle spent considerable time talking about the legacy that his party left. On that same note, the last time the Liberal government was in power for a sustained period was between the years 1996 and 2005. During that there was not a single trade deficit and there were nine straight fiscal surpluses. In the period after 2005, it left the Conservative opposition with a record $13 billion surplus, which was completely eradicated within two years on the basis of a program of austerity and cuts, and that was two years before the great recession hit.

Canadians rejected that in 2015, thankfully. They rejected trickle-down economics, which does not work. The way we are going to get ourselves out of debt is by investing in the middle class.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

So I wonder what my hon. colleague might say—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Excuse me, the hon. member for Eglinton—Lawrence, I am having a hard time from some buzzing in my left ear. Could the hon. members maybe keep it down while the hon. member for Calgary Signal Hill answers the question, if they do not mind.

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

Mr. Speaker, if we go back and look at the record of the previous Liberal government, it ended up balancing that budget on the backs of the provinces. If we look at transfer payments to the provinces, these went down every year. I know that for a fact, because I was a minister in a provincial government in Alberta during that time. The Liberals were cutting transfer payments to the provinces on an annual basis. When the Conservatives took over, the Conservative government reinstated those transfer payments. Look what is happening with the health care transfer payments right now. We are seeing it happen all over again.

It is one thing to balance the budget on the backs of the provinces. It is another thing to balance the budget by watching the spending. That is exactly what the Conservative government did when it left these guys with a balanced budget a year ago.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my political career began in local government. During the 1990s, the Liberal government at that time did the same thing. It cut $30 billion in transfer payments to local governments and the provinces. Instead of the federal government doing its fair share, the local governments had to increase taxes. The federal government did not directly but indirectly caused this massive tax increase across Canada in the 1990s.

I have also heard recently that Canadians are saying, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, it isn't going to happen again”. The government of the day has fooled Canadians and it is doing the same thing the government did in the 1990s. I would ask the member to comment on that. Is this another fool me twice?

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

Mr. Speaker, obviously, my answer to the other member's question was along the same lines as my colleague's question. However, the other thing the member alludes to is, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice and you'll pay the price”. We are seeing that.

If we recall, prior to our government's taking office, we had one of the largest scandals ever in government under the Chrétien-Martin Liberals. It was called the Quebec issue. What we are seeing now with all of these fundraisers, as a result of Kathleen Wynne's Liberal advisers now advising this government, is the same kind of scandal, which will bring down this government three years from now.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would just ask members of the House who keep standing and saying that the infrastructure bank was not part of our campaign platform to please go online. It is still there. They should read the section on affordable housing. I would ask them to reflect on the words, “We will direct...the new Canada Infrastructure Bank to provide financing”. Is that good enough for them to admit that it was actually in our platform?

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

Mr. Speaker, if it were part of the platform, quite frankly, I have not spent any time looking at the Liberal platform because most of it is no longer relevant anyway.

If that were part of their election platform, why did they appoint this advisory committee they now are giving all the credit to when they had this in their platform originally? I challenge the member with that comment.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise today and speak on the importance of Bill C-29, which seeks to implement key provisions of budget 2016.

It was seven months ago to the day that I rose in this place to address hon. members about the important impact that our budget would have on Canadians. Today, I am grateful to use the opportunity as a mid-term checkup to look back at what has been accomplished, how our budget has benefited my riding of St. Catharines and in fact all of Canada, and how it will continue to bring Canadians the real change we promised just over a year ago.

As I noted in my remarks on April 14, the shifting world economy resulted in many jobs lost in much of our heavy local manufacturing industry. Plants closed, thousands lost their jobs, and many more were forced to find new employment at significantly lower wages. These were unfortunate years to which I do not wish to see a return.

I also noted that there was light at the end of the tunnel. Little did I know at the time that our progressive and forward-looking budget would have such a positive impact for my riding and, in fact, for Canada.

I will start by discussing the centrepiece of our plan: the Canada child benefit. I cannot understate the significance and drastic impact that this benefit has had on families in St. Catharines.

St. Catharines is a perfect example of a middle-class community with a lot of individuals who are struggling. When we talk about the stagnating growth of the middle class, my community is an example of that. With the loss of jobs, we now look forward to regrowth.

The Canada child benefit provides nine out of 10 families across the country—and I believe that number to be higher in Niagara—with significant and much-needed assistance. It is a story I have told in this House before.

The first time I had an opportunity to rise in this place, I mentioned that 25% of the children in my riding lived below the poverty line. I received a call later that day from a poverty advocate who thanked me for speaking on the issue of child poverty, and mentioned that this number was a very conservative figure and was probably closer to one-third. In such a wealthy country, to have one-third of the children in my community living below the poverty line is unimaginable.

The Canada child benefit seeks to lift 300,000 children out of poverty, and independent analysis shows that it will; that is a 40% reduction. This really hit home again in July when my wife and I welcomed our first child. I should mention his name for the record of Hansard, Ethan. It really put into perspective the type of community I want to see for Ethan. Becoming a father strengthened my resolve to ensure that we do everything we can, so that each child in Niagara and across Canada has the same opportunities as my son.

As I mentioned, we said that the CCB would raise 300,000 children out of poverty, and I think we are safe to say that we are well on our way to delivering on that commitment. Giving families the financial assistance they need to get by is important, but more important is the need to provide jobs so that these families can continue to thrive.

I am proud of the work we have accomplished so far. Our commitment to building an innovative and forward-looking economy is the root of the success. The Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development has been diligently working to ensure that we continue to invest in key sectors of our economy, so that we deliver on our promises made in budget 2016.

The previous government spent 10 years focusing on natural resources, despite the loss of manufacturing jobs in Ontario, especially in southern Ontario. The telltale signs were ominous, and the shift was occurring not only in Niagara but across Canada and throughout the world.

I am proud of the commitment this government has made. One of the first announcements my colleague from Niagara Centre and I were able to make was on the creation of a foreign trade zone in Niagara. This was followed shortly thereafter by an incredible announcement for Niagara, the construction of a new factory, which has not happened in quite some time.

General Electric announced plans to build a $260 million facility in Welland, Ontario, creating more than 220 jobs, plus all of the incredible construction jobs that will happen over the next two years. This is policy that has led to concrete action, which will lead to significant benefits across the Niagara region.

Beyond that, in focusing on an innovative economy, I am proud that the minister has also allocated funds to post-secondary institutions. The Niagara region and St. Catharines are home to Brock University and Niagara College. Both are renowned post-secondary institutions that draw students from across Canada and around the world.

Niagara College is seen as a leader in advanced manufacturing, boasting thousands of square feet in lab space to train students in a hands-on environment. These labs also provide services to local small and medium-sized enterprises, giving them access to research and development labs as well as allowing them to access the brightest minds of today and tomorrow. This gives students essential first-hand experience in the rapidly changing workforce and is a draw for business both in Canada and across the world.

Not far away and within sight of my house is Brock University, which boasts a world-class biomedical incubator. It houses research and lab space and places students and researchers on the cutting edge of innovation. Like Niagara College, Brock leverages these labs and its students to help businesses across Ontario and Canada solve the problems of tomorrow.

I was proud, with the member for Niagara Centre, to be with the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development to announce $22 million for these two institutions to continue forward on their plan for innovation. Also as part of that, we were excited to see improvements to Brock University's co-generation facility, which will reduce greenhouses gases; so this is not only investing in innovation at Brock University but investing in a greener future for residents of Niagara and Ontario. Though the federal government committed $22 million to this project, it is a $64 million project that will again get the skilled trades to work. It will get construction workers back to work in Niagara, which is so desperately needed.

Another incredible aspect of our commitment to Canadians is our $20 billion investment in public transit. Niagara is a great place to live, but there are 12 municipalities within the Niagara peninsula, plus a regional government. Within that, there are eight transit commissions. For students at Brock University or Niagara College, which I just mentioned, who are looking to get around from one community to another, it can be a difficult experience. It is very difficult, and I have spoken to student union presidents at Brock University and Niagara College who told me about the challenges of trying to negotiate with so many different transit authorities. We have to get better in Niagara, and I am proud that the government has committed $20 billion, so that we can come up with a plan to integrate our transit in Niagara. It is a key focus.

I have heard far too often from individuals trying to escape the cycle of poverty, wondering how they get to a job in Niagara Falls if they live in St. Catharines and the bus runs infrequently. How do they make it to a shift if the bus only runs at limited periods of time? We want to help people. Not only does improved public transit help make for a greener economy and a brighter future, but it helps individuals and will help them break that cycle of poverty, which is so important.

Furthermore, we have a government that deeply cares about our veterans and respects the service and sacrifice our active and former military personnel make. We have a government that is willing to invest in them, and we have seen that in the opening up of those nine Veterans Affairs offices that were closed by the previous government, showing our commitment for our sacred obligation.

This has been an incredible year and incredible opportunity, and I thank the people of St. Catharines for that opportunity. There is a lot of work that is left to be done to improve lives in St. Catharines and across the country, but this is an incredible start and I am looking forward to a brighter future.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague across the way for his presentation on Bill C-29, budget implementation act, 2016, no. 2.

I want to reference something that was mentioned by earlier speakers about the infrastructure bank that is part of the commitment of the budget, $15 billion, plus another $20 billion of debt the Liberals want to fund this bank, for a total of about $35 billion.

Today the Prime Minister is in Toronto meeting with lots of institutional investors, and he is trying to attract them to invest $180 billion in Canada's crumbling infrastructure.

I do not argue whether that money is needed. We do have lots of infrastructure that needs upgrading, but when we attract private money to the tune of $180 billion, those investors will want a premium of 7% to 8% on that money.

Currently our Canada savings bond rate is at 1%, 20-year municipal debentures can be had for 3%. Even if we increased our Canada savings bond rates up to 3%, the difference between 3% and what those institutional investors will want of 7% to 8% is 4% or 5% on $180 billion. That is between $7 billion and $9 billion that will cost Canadians extra every single year to fund these infrastructure projects, and that is not included in your budget.

What are Canadians supposed to think of that extra $7 billion or $9 billion price tag that you are putting on to this?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I am sure the hon. member did not mean my budget. He meant to speak, through me, over to the government.

The hon. member for St. Catharines.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend brought up the fact that the Prime Minister is meeting with investors. I want to take this opportunity to highlight the work that not only the Prime Minister but many members of the cabinet have done over the past year.

I already mentioned General Electric, and even though provincial and municipal leaders put in a lot of work on the subject, the Prime Minister did meet with the head of General Electric to ensure and fight for a Canadian location, which will directly benefit Niagara and all of Canada.

We have heard positive announcements after meetings and consultations with Thomson Reuters, General Motors, and Amazon, so it has been an incredibly successful opportunity, and I look forward to seeing the results of this meeting with investors in Toronto.

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-29 fails on a number of levels: the broken promise to small businesses of reducing taxes from 11% to 9%, nothing for daycare, nothing in terms of capping credit card fees. However, I want to talk specifically about privatization of infrastructure.

By definition, the private sector will expect a return on their investments, which will lead to fees for use of public infrastructure.

I would like to hear from the member. How does having fees on public infrastructure help middle-class families and those working to become middle class, and those families living in poverty?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, from previous governments we have seen privatizations gone wrong, and we can learn from that, but this is an excellent opportunity to attract investment for projects that need funding from the private sector.

There are certain institutions where individuals pay fees; for example, a hockey arena. If we can bring in private sector investors, fees are paid, whether it is to a municipality or partially to the private sector. Public-private partnerships are a reality of our current system, and it is important that the government work for the private sector to invest, so we have lasting commitment and lasting change to our municipalities, to fix our crumbling infrastructure across the board.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the areas where the infrastructure bank is mentioned specifically is in the affordable housing section of our platform, which was out well before the budget, at least a year ahead, and it talks about using private sector investments to drive forward public housing projects like Regent Park in Toronto, where people pay a user fee. It is called rent, and that is how it is financed in part by the people who use it.

I wonder if the member had any other ideas about how the infrastructure bank could further infrastructure, especially in smaller municipalities that might not have the capital capacity to participate, as the economic downturn has hurt some smaller communities in this country.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very difficult question to answer in 35 seconds, but I will just echo what my colleague mentioned in terms of affordable housing.

In Niagara we are facing a crunch, as so many other communities have seen. Right now, individuals looking for a single bedroom unit are waiting upwards of seven years.

If the infrastructure bank can assist with that, as the hon. member said, I am looking forward to seeing the benefits and helping individuals in the riding who need that help.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise this afternoon to speak to the bill. There has been a lot of talk during this debate about pipelines as it connects to the budget and to Bill C-29, the budget implementation act. I would like to continue this line of discussion.

I want to call the House's attention to a statement made by the Minister of Natural Resources recently in The Globe and Mail in which he said that the federal government would not require full, prior and informed consent from first nations when the government decided whether to allow Kinder Morgan to build a new crude oil pipeline through British Columbia. That is really important. For the minister to say that he does not require full, prior and informed consent from first nations is essentially breaking a pact and is going to lead to a lot of trouble.

The minister is adopting the same “ram it through reserves” approach that the Conservatives had in the last Parliament. This attitude threatens to undermine careful work undertaken by others to move ahead with other types of economic development in British Columbia through genuine co-management arrangements with first nations.

I am not sure if many folks in the Liberal Party are aware that across Canada, except for British Columbia, we have treaties with first nations and this has allowed different relationships to develop with first nations in other parts of the country. However, in British Columbia, most of the territory is not covered by treaties. This means we are unique in this sense and it is a very important distinction that is often lost on governments in this place.

When British Columbia was settled by Europeans, Governor Douglas started signing treaties for first nations but then abandoned this and essentially divided up first nations and territories and gave it to interested parties without consent. Those treaties were never developed, although we have had a couple in modern times. Still the vast majority of British Columbia is not covered by treaties and this is very important. Court case after court case, from the Supreme Court and lower courts, has said that in order to proceed with projects, there has to be full, prior and informed consent from first nations.

The Minister of Natural Resources seems to totally ignore this. Perhaps some people might forgive him because he is a rookie MP who is unfamiliar with British Columbia, but even the most basic research reveals the folly of his approach. The threat it is going to have not only to our communities but also the business communities that want to do other projects and the trust that we built with first nations through co-management is now under threat because of this “ram it through reserves” approach by the minister.

Court cases such as Delgamuukw and the Haida decisions, and other unanimous Supreme Court decisions, recognize and reinforce the inherent rights of first nations to determine what happens within their traditional territories. Again, the only way that these projects, or any project, can proceed in these territories is through informed consent.

The most fruitful way forward for resource development in British Columbia is through true co-management. It is weird for investment bankers to call an NDP member of Parliament, but that is exactly what has happened to me. They have read the comments from the natural resources minister and they want to know what is it up with the guy. They want to know whether he knows this will jeopardize the projects on which they are currently working.

Co-management moves beyond mere consent to full partnership, which requires a tremendous amount of trust and good faith government-to-government negotiations and bringing in mature private sector partners to make these deals work. We are seeing this in other projects in the province, but if the Minister of Natural Resources and his colleagues decide to ram through a pipeline and ignore the need for this consent, then they are looking for a pile of trouble.

The amateurism of the Minister of Natural Resources reminds me of when the newly elected B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell held an ill-advised and racist treaty negotiations referendum in 2002. In his arrogance, Premier Campbell clumsily attempted to use a populist measure to override inherent indigenous rights. This approach to resource development in British Columbia angered B.C. first nations. It was perhaps best captured by a flaming arrow landing in a canoe full of paper ballots. It deeply damaged indigenous and non-indigenous relations in our province.

Gordon Campbell was forced to do a humiliating policy pirouette, or a 360, when business leaders informed him his actions undermined their attempt to negotiate resource development agreements with first nations, and it increased business uncertainty and decreased their willingness to invest in mines, forestry, and energy projects.

At that point, Premier Campbell was also a rookie, just like the natural resources minister. He blundered through his first year or two in office and set back first nation indigenous-non-indigenous relations by years. Then the business community reeled the premier in and told him he had to change this.

Kinder Morgan is going to love it, but I think the government is going to get calls from other companies asking it what it is doing. They are going to tell it that it is making a huge mistake. For 50 jobs, which is what the job count will be in British Columbia, it will put in jeopardy all kinds of other projects, and that is a mistake.

Here we go again. The minister has decided he can push a pipeline through the territories of over 100 first nations, most of which do not have treaties with the Crown, and 15 reserves.

The minister has said that he does not need prior and informed consent to push a pipeline through 15 first nation reserves. What will that do to British Columbia? This is a massive problem and a massive mistake by the minister.

If the minister wants to get infrastructure built, this is not the way forward. In fact, he has to learn to treat British Columbia differently when it comes to dealing with indigenous people.

Here is how this project plays out in the minister's mind. Alberta gets its pipeline, Kinder Morgan gets approximately $5 million per day in revenues, and the minister gets to gloat in Ottawa that he is better than the Conservatives in ramming through pipelines. However, this is what the minister is overlooking. British Columbia gets a mere 50 permanent jobs, according to the company, from this new pipeline. As well, it will have the joy of having to police thousands of temporary foreign workers admitted by the company that is going to build this pipeline, using steel from China.

This is a really bad deal for British Columbia. The arrogance of the government trying to push it through first nation territories without their consent is going to hamper other resource development and other development projects in our province.

The other thing we get with this pipeline is a hugely increased risk of land and water-based bitumen spills, with little or no capacity to clean them up. What British Columbians would be well aware of, although those folks from the government may not be, is that we just had a small spill in Bella Bella, which has not been cleaned up. This so-called world-class marine spill cleanup, or whatever it is, is about two guys in a rowboat. This is not world class. This is Ottawa sacrificing British Columbia for the ego of a minister.

By making this speech, people may not believe that I am pro-resource development person. Members can laugh at me if they want, but if we talk to any company in British Columbia, they know a bad deal when they see one, and they know this is a bad deal for British Columbia.

Businesspeople know only to take good deals. This is a bad deal for British Columbia. Again, the Conservatives and the Liberals can laugh at me, but British Columbians know this is a bad deal. Anybody who has looked at this knows it is a bad deal. A company makes $5 million a day and British Columbia gets 50 jobs and has to clean up the spill is a bad deal. The worst part of it is that we are risking a very long process of building trust with first nations within in British Columbia.

Kinder Morgan gets its pipeline. We still have to develop resources. For a mining company that wants to deal with first nations and make a co-management agreement, this is going to be soured because the arrogant minister has said that the government does not need their consent to ram a pipeline through their reserves. It is idiocy. I am deeply ashamed to stand in the House and listen to the comments of the ministers.

The government really has to rethink this and ensure it treats British Columbia with the respect it deserves.

Bill C-29—Notice of time allocation motion

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

Mr. Speaker, I regret to inform the House that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-29, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Essex, International Trade; the hon. member for Windsor West, Privacy; the hon. member for Trois-Rivières, Consumer Protection.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-29, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

Second Reading

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

Mr. Speaker, I disagree in most part with what the member attempted to put on the record. It is inaccurate.

We have had a new attitude, knowing full well how important indigenous people are to our country. We take very seriously the nation-to-nation discussions that have taken place, both from the Department of Natural Resources to the Prime Minister's Office.

When we look at the NDP approach to resource development, many would argue that its attitude is to just leave the resources in the ground and do nothing with them. Our government has recognized the value and importance of our environment and economic development. Both can be done in a sustainable way.

Does the member not agree that when it comes to Canada's natural resources, where it can be done in an environmentally sound way, as we have been moving toward, that it only makes sense to better serve Canadians to move forward? Does the member not agree that there are situations where it is okay to have economic development?

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is the bafflegab we get from the Liberals. They are on the precipice of making a decision with the minister saying that they do not need to meet the requirements that have been set down by the courts, in terms of consent from first nations, to put in their infrastructure projects. They can do whatever infrastructure projects they want, but they need consent to do it in British Columbia. They can ram projects through other parts of the country, but I am here to say that I stand up for British Columbia. I stand up for British Columbia first nations. I abide by Supreme Court rulings. The member should do the same.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Burnaby South for standing up for coastal British Columbians. The member understands how important social licence is in British Columbia. Where I come from, he knows in my community 25 years ago there was a plan to log 90% of Meares Island and a thousand people were arrested for standing up for what was important. We would have had a handful of jobs if we had logged Meares Island. Instead we have $100 million annual economy in Clayoquot Sound. We know it is important to us.

Perhaps the member could talk about what the impact might be of running a pipeline and increased tanker traffic on the economy of British Columbia should we have a spill. How many jobs would be at risk?

The member knows as well that we need consultation and accommodation from first nations so we can have true reconciliation, not just talking reconciliation and not acting it. These are fundamental principles. Perhaps the member could talk about why these fundamental principles are important for gaining social licence in British Columbia.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the member was head of the chamber of commerce in his community, which again shows something that is true, that the NDP understands business.

The Liberal side of the House only understands how to accommodate foreign oil companies running pipelines through first nations reserves without consent. That is a big problem, and they are going to hear from British Columbians.

The company itself has said that it would only provide 50 permanent jobs to British Columbians. However, the company has said in its National Energy Board application that we can get more jobs because local people can clean up the spills that the pipeline makes. It is right in its application. It is insulting. The project is insulting. Frankly, the government's approach to negotiating these projects is very insulting.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to address the House today and to speak on the issue of the implementation of the budgetary plan that this government is attempting to provide to the House, to make sure that Canadians have the best opportunities possible.

I want to draw the House's attention today to an article I read in The Toronto Star, which is actually quite important for this House to hear. It was about the incidence of child poverty in urban centres across the country. It looked at a relative rating of each of the cities in Canada, in regard to the number of children living in poverty in their homes.

I want to preface this by talking about how pleased I am with the government's cornerstone part of this budget, which is attempting to raise children out of poverty by increasing the Canada child benefit. I believe it is the largest, single most important piece of public policy to change the social nature and fabric of Canada.

Today in the paper it was reported that a group of leading institutions and agencies that address child poverty have looked at Toronto, the city I represent: 27% of children in that city live with a family income level that is below sustainable. That compares to other cities in Canada like Montreal, which is just below at 25%, Winnipeg at 24%, down to Edmonton and Calgary, which are doing quite a bit better than Toronto.

The article reports on two young women: Zara, who lives in Thorncliffe Park; and Sarah, who lives in Leaside. These are sibling neighbourhoods in Don Valley West. Leaside has the lowest rate of child poverty in the city of Toronto at just over 5%, whereas Thorncliffe Park has 58% child poverty. The nature of this is stunning.

Our party has been very clear on our agenda of ensuring that the middle class is raised up and that people aspiring to get to the middle class are also raised up.

I want to focus my attention today on those who are aspiring to join the middle class. One of my main agenda items is that, as we look at 2016, 2017, and 2018, we actually have a very aggressive platform to not only help the middle class, but to ensure that those who are in poverty, and in particular those children who are facing the kinds of struggles that some of us have known ourselves but others have only known about, have every chance and every opportunity.

Salma Jabeen is a resident in my riding. Her four-year-old daughter would like to have tae kwon do and gymnastics lessons, and to have the kinds of toys that she sees other children have. Salma's husband is a security guard, and on their income they simply cannot afford the kinds of things that other children in Canada have come to expect.

Equally, Sarah Jordan, who lives just across the valley in Leaside, recognizes that she is a privileged Canadian. I am very proud to say that she and her sister Claire have united together to form Sarah and Claire's Food Drive. They are looking at a way to partner these neighbourhoods to ensure that we in Canada have a way of distributing our resources to make sure that people have a fair start, that children have the best advantage in life.

Last Sunday the hon. member for Eglinton—Lawrence and I hosted a town hall on next year's budget. I cannot express how very proud I was, and what a great privilege it was for me to commend our Minister of Finance for his tremendous efforts toward lifting children out of poverty. The Canada child benefit is going to lift literally hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty. This is tax-free income going into families' households. It will make a difference. Parents will be able to pay the rent. They will be able to provide groceries, and to provide those special things that children want, such as lessons and activities, which not only sustain but enrich their lives. It will make sure Canada is the country we want it to be.

What I see in today's article is that those who have more also want to live in a country where all have more to benefit from, and more access to those things that are beneficial to their lives. As we implement this budget, there is an opportunity for Canadians to say they want the very best quality of life for every Canadian.

We want to make sure that Canadians who have been here six days, six weeks, six months, six years, 60 years, or for generations, or first nations who have built this country, can all share equally in the resources and the opportunities that we have. The cornerstone parts of this budget, looking at the way we live together, the covenants that we have as Canadians, are going to ensure that Canada is built upon the sense that we have of taking care of each other.

However, the report that came out today is disturbing. I think it should be on the mind of every member of the House of Commons that each of us has a responsibility to look beyond those who we might know individually on our own personal level, and look to those in our community who are hiding in places of poverty that we simply do not get to often enough. I think that when we open up our minds to that, we have the chance to actually make a difference in our world. I am very proud to support the budget and the implementation acts that will make sure that it comes into being, because it is the opportunity for us as Canadians to make sure that our country is built on those foundations.

Of course, my first concern are for the children in my riding, that child poverty is reduced; that we actually have targets, that we actually can say that at the end of the day we have made a difference so that there are children who are getting post-secondary education, getting the careers they want, and that they have enough food to eat to succeed well in school. I think this budget is doing that.

However, I will be a little critical of my own government, because I think it has put the emphasis only on the middle class without actually celebrating what this budget is doing for those who are beneath the middle class, and we have not lost sight of those people. In our communities there are people who are being left behind. Therefore, we are ensuring that we have better employment insurance, that we have old age security, that Canada pensions are stronger and better, that we bring the age of retirement back down to 65 from 67, that we encourage infrastructure spending that will create more jobs to make sure that people are employed, and that we have a foundation upon which to build. This is what this budget is about.

This budget, at its heart, is a people budget. It is people centred, and it is going to make a difference in the lives of people we care about, every one of us in this House.

I do not think that we have a monopoly on social care and social conscience on this side of the House. I have seen that exhibited by members in all parties across the aisle. I have heard their stories and I think that this budget is worthy of their support. They should have a chance to look at this budget so that every member of this House has an opportunity to say that it is a budget that is changing the nature of Canada. It is well funded. It has targeted investments. It is going to invest in infrastructure that is going to make a difference. It is going to help people get to work as we invest in transit and roadways. It is going to ensure that our country is being built on that strong foundation. It will make a difference in the lives of every Canadian.

Therefore, I encourage those on the other side of the House to take the time to read the budget. They will have the sense that this budget is changing the way Canadians covenant with each other to build the economy and make sure that we can share in it equitably.

I am proud to offer my support for the budget. I think that Canada is a richer country, because we are able to share with each other. As newcomers make their way in this country, we have a sense that they will contribute to the economy, but we have to give them a chance.

The Minister of Finance has done a brilliant job of consulting. He is continuing to listen and he will continue to offer the kind of leadership that Canadians are looking for.

I thank members, and I anticipate their support for this budget.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about this budget as being people centred. Well, the budget forgets a lot of people. I will start with the middle-class tax break.

This line in the budget benefits one-third of Canadians. Two-third of Canadians, 17.9 million Canadians, do not get a break. Those people who do not get a break are those people the member talked about who are not in the middle class but want to join the middle class. Anybody who earns $23 an hour or less who works full time gets nothing. The people who benefit the most earn between $50 and $100 an hour, or those who earn between $100,000 and $200,000 a year. How is this helping those who are not in the middle class join the middle class?

I want the member to explain why two-thirds of Canadians who are working are not getting the benefit of the middle-class tax break, because that needs to be explained to Canadians. They want answers.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Courtenay—Alberni has raised an important issue but he is missing an important part of the budget and that is the Canada child benefit. I spent most of my time speaking on this.

Our government has had a focused and intentional reduction of marginal tax rates for the middle class. We have increased the tax rates on the wealthiest Canadians, and I am proud that we have done that. I look at taxes as my opportunity to share what I have and as a wealthier Canadian, I think that our rates should be higher. The income tax on the middle class was simply too high and the income tax on Canadians earning the lowest income was probably about right. Many of them pay very little income tax because they are able to deduct a number of things. Our government had a targeted income tax cut that will ensure that we have financial stability in our economy and that we can pay for things like the Canada child benefit that makes a difference in people's lives day to day so they can buy groceries.

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

Mr. Speaker, if it is the contention of the member for Don Valley West that the child benefit offsets the lack of a tax cut for those making $45,000 or less a year so therefore we should not mind that it is not those people who receive the benefit of a tax break, then why will he not support indexing that benefit right away? As nominal salaries go up, that income tax cut for those making over $45,000 is going to increase in value. As inflation goes up over the period that the benefit is not indexed, which does not kick in until 2020, the value of the child benefit is going to go down thereby creating further disparity, not less.

Why will the member not support indexing that benefit today and not four years from now?

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this shows again that New Democrats are Liberals in a hurry and I understand that. However, I quite agree with the prudent and careful nature of the finance minister in putting in indexing in 2020, which is just a few years away, to look at the impact of this.

This is a government that is evidence-based. We are going to look at the impact of that direct tax-free Canada child benefit that has never been done even by a New Democratic Party government in any province in any kind of aggressive way. We have put real money into the pockets of real people to make a real difference today. By 2020, we will have had time to evaluate that and understand both the macro and micro-economic contingencies that are going on. We will be prudent. We are careful and mindful of the public purse. As we do that, members can rest assured that our first interest is the welfare of Canadians, particularly the welfare of children in this country. We will be lifting them out of poverty and by 2020, we will have indexing.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-29, the budget implementation act of 2016, no. 2.

I would like to begin by thanking my colleague, the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent, for leading Canada's official opposition on the finance portfolio. I would also like to take the time to thank my colleagues who have spoken about this important topic for their informative speeches on this important bill, which we, on this side of the House, think would negatively affect Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

This bill, which I will expand on further during my speech, would continue the unsustainable and fiscally irresponsible spending of the current Liberal government. This bill, as we know, would ruin Canada's chances of returning to a balanced budget in the foreseeable future, despite the Liberals promising that during the election. We know this because much of this new spending is structural, which means locked in and permanent.

As everyday Canadians know, one cannot live outside one's means, and that is exactly what the current government is doing. It is living on its credit card for the foreseeable future. At some point, the bill needs to be paid. How is the government going to pay it? Which programs is it going to cut? What taxes is it going to raise?

I would like to echo a statement by my hon. colleague, the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent, who said, “I am pleased and honoured, but also humbled, to speak on behalf of all my official opposition colleagues and on behalf of all Canadians who were literally duped by the Liberal Party a year ago”.

The Liberals promised to help middle-income Canadians, and as we have seen, their plan, unfortunately, has not worked. I have had the pleasure of meeting and speaking with people all across my riding, and I continue to look forward to meeting and speaking with many more. To this day, the majority of people I have spoken with have said that their highest priority is the economy, specifically jobs. Unfortunately, my time is limited, but I would like to continue to go on about the issues I have with this budget and the direction the government is taking.

Take a look at where we were about a year ago. Under the previous Conservative government, we embarked on a plan of targeted spending and lowering taxes in all areas that ensured long-term growth and prosperity for individual Canadians. As a result, what Canadians had was the lowest tax burden in over 50 years. It also led to a $2.9 billion surplus, a surplus the Liberals have spent, and we now have a deficit of about $30 billion. We also recently found out that the Liberals are borrowing an extra $32 billion over the next five years, with no reason to believe we will get better results. Add the increase to the CPP, then the carbon tax, and we can see why Canadians are concerned.

However, this is not just about a simple tax increase and deficit spending. This is about the fundamental Liberal belief in a high-tax, high-spending agenda and in a government deciding how to spend Canadians' money, rather than Canadians themselves. I cannot stress enough the different view I have compared to my colleagues across the floor. Unlike my colleagues on the other side, I believe that the best way to encourage job creation and growth is to lower taxes and give Canadians the opportunity to spend their money as they see fit, because the more options we give Canadians, the more choices they will make based on their individual situations, and that is crucial.

One year later, where are we? The Bank of Canadian, the parliamentary budget officer, the International Monetary Fund, and the OECD have confirmed that the Liberal government's economic forecast must be downgraded. It is clear that the high-tax, high-spending agenda is not working. We have also learned that in the past year, the Liberal government has yet to create one single full-time job. Instead of working to create favourable conditions to create jobs, the Liberals decided to raise taxes on Canadians and businesses knowing that this will have a detrimental effect on the economy. There were 350,000 manufacturing jobs lost over the last decade in Ontario alone because of failing Liberal promises and policies. Ontario used to be the economic engine of Canada. Now it is a shell of its former self, the most indebted sub-sovereign nation in the world, with double the debt of California and one-third the population. That is not the path we want to go down here in Canada, but it is happening.

As we know, many families across the country are getting by. These people are living paycheque to paycheque. They need help now. They need jobs now. They need support, not new taxes. The government should be giving Canadians the choice of how to spend their own money.

The money that will be taken from Canadians could be used to help people pay their rent, help pay for their groceries, school field trips, down payments on houses, and family vacations. How Canadians choose to spend their own money is not the concern of government, and government needs to get out of the pockets of Canadians.

Members opposite may argue that they are increasing spending to help families, children, and middle-income Canadians. The Liberal plan would actually result in higher costs right across the board, wiping out, and then some, its so-called tax cuts thanks to a carbon tax and an increase in CPP contributions. Canadians are struggling to see how they are going to prosper. Look at what the Canadian Federation of Independent Business said. It is very worried about this new tax hike. A massive number of businesses say they are going to freeze any potential pay raises. They are going to freeze any potential hiring. What would that do? How would people have the chance to get jobs, put down payments on homes, and live the Canadian dream? It cannot be done.

What about our youth? We have heard members opposite say all day that they want to promote youth, but if there are no jobs for them, how will they have a future? If they cannot start businesses because Canada is not a place where people would even think about doing business because it is not competitive, why would they want to stay here, make a future for themselves, have a home base, and maybe start families?

I am sure all sides of the House will agree on supporting children. The Conservatives had the universal child care benefit, which I was very supportive of, but Bill C-29 confirms that the government would index this child benefit to inflation, beginning in January 2020, something it forgot to do. The parliamentary budget officer has now estimated that indexing and enriching the CPP will cost $42.5 billion over the next five years, an expense the government has not budgeted for.

Where does the government plan to find this extra $42 billion? Is it going to raise taxes? What programs will it cut? Canadian families cannot afford another tax hike. Businesses cannot afford another tax hike. We keep squeezing them and squeezing them more.

This bill would repeal the employment insurance reforms the previous Conservative government introduced in 2013, measures that were designed to help unemployed Canadians get back to work. The changes were designed to make EI more efficient, to focus on job creation, to eliminate disincentives for people to work, and to support unemployed Canadians by helping match workers with jobs. We believe that employment insurance is a temporary support that helps people overcome difficult situations, not a tool to be used permanently. The best cure for unemployment remains job creation.

As I mentioned previously, this bill is just a small piece of the Liberal agenda and shows how fiscally irresponsible the government is. To get a broader understanding of the Liberal economic plan, we can also look at the changes to CPP and now the carbon tax. The CPP tax hike will end up costing some households up to $2,200 more per year. Of course, that is on the high end, but it is still a difference. It will take money from the paycheques of hard-working Canadians, put thousands of jobs at risk, and do absolutely nothing to help seniors who need the help right now.

The new carbon tax promised by the Liberal government is going to be a massive new tax on consumers, the equivalent of 11.5¢ per litre of gasoline. Imposing a new punishing tax while holding back approval on job-creating pipeline projects shows how misplaced the government's priorities are.

The Liberal plan is very concerning. Canadians know that governments cannot spend their way to prosperity. If that were the case, Ontario would be the economic engine of Canada. It is clearly not, and there is a reason for that. It is because Liberal tax-and-spend policies do not work. When we take more money out of people's pockets, they have less to spend on the priorities that benefit their own.

The previous government had a record of creating jobs. During the worst economic downturn since the great recession, Canada had the best job creation and economic growth among the G7. Conservatives reduced taxes to their lowest point in 50 years, typically saving a family of four about $7,000 per year. We had targeted temporary spending on stimulus.

When the economy crashed, we put money into infrastructure, including over $200 million in direct infrastructure spending in Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock since 2008. That has created libraries, arenas, and refurbished roads and bridges. We are very proud of that record.

However, as the deficit continues to grow, we see no signs of a slowing of Liberal spending, and yet as we said before, not one single job has been created.

I look forward to questions from my hon. colleagues.

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

Madam Speaker, to my friend and colleague from Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, he may have finally convinced the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, but for me taxes are not about spending people's money, but about sharing common costs.

It is not about being taxpayers, but about being citizenry. Elections are about deciding our priorities in broad strokes and what those common costs are. We exist as a legislative body to decide on those finer details, thus this budget.

Does my friend and colleague believe, as he has hinted, that tax cuts are the only possible way to grow the economy? If so, if we eliminated taxes altogether, would we then as a country become infinitely prosperous? It is simple calculus, according to his pitch. In a limit formula according to Conservatives, as taxes approach zero, prosperity is infinite. Does he really believe in trickle-down economics?

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the work of my friend across the way on the procedure and House affairs committee. I do appreciate the back and forth we are having.

I could also ask if raising taxes to 100% would cause prosperity, because we can see what is going on.

I think what we need to have are reasonable taxes and to keep taxes lower. Stop gouging our job creators and wealth creators in our communities. As I have said many times, when we put the people who put the help wanted signs in windows out of business and they go away, they are not coming back. What is left? Blight. How do we have a successful economy, putting people to work, creating wealth, paying taxes if the businesses are not there?

We continue this debate and we have talked about what the Canadian Federation of Independent Business continues to say, which is that these tax increases are worrisome to Canadian small businesses, from coast to coast to coast.

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

Madam Speaker, allow me to give a bit of an answer to the statement. When the Government of Canada gives hundreds of millions of dollars in tax relief to Canada's middle class, that means there will be that much more disposable income. The healthier the middle class is in Canada, the healthier our economy will be. In other words, the budget is putting money in the pockets of Canada's middle class and those aspiring to become a part of it.

With that increase in disposable income, they will be out buying things and consuming products. In other words, those small businesses that are looking for help and putting up the help wanted signs that the member is referring to will be receiving more customers.

If we ask the small businesses in my community what they want first and foremost, it is more customers. This budget is delivering more customers to our small businesses.

Would the member not agree that small businesses in Canada want more customers?

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

Under their tax plan, Madam Speaker, I am not sure there will be many businesses left.

In my riding, and I think also in the riding of the member for Winnipeg North, the average income is not extremely high. Anyone making less than $45,000 gets absolutely zero from their tax plan.

In Haliburton county, two organizations have been set up to provide assistance to those who cannot pay their heating bills because hydro is way too expensive. The government keeps reaching into the pockets of Canadians and taking more and more money away. We have heat banks trying to give these people the ability to stay warm during the winter, and their income tax cuts are giving those under $44,000 absolutely zero. The ones who benefit the most make anywhere from about $140,000 to $200,000. That is not helping the middle class.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand in the House today, after listening to the debate, to underscore a few facts about where this country is heading.

Just a year ago, the Liberals promised they could spend their way to prosperity. If hard-working Canadians trusted them to borrow just a modest sum, they said they could create more jobs and put more money into Canadians' pockets. Canadians are still waiting. By most measures, they are worse off than they were a year ago. The economy is stagnant, despite a big spending budget. The Bank of Canada, the IMF, and the OECD have all downgraded their forecasts for Canada this year and next.

What about the promised jobs? At 7%, the unemployment rate is exactly where it was when the Liberals entered office. Good jobs are in short supply. The vast majority of new jobs created under the Liberals have been part time, which helps explain why weekly earnings for the average worker have not budged. Meanwhile, the cost of living goes up, it is harder for Canadians to afford a new home or a home at all, and new federal rules announced this month mean fewer will be able to get a mortgage.

What do we hear? We hear excuses. The Liberals are full of excuses. The global economy is weaker than they thought. No one would have predicted the Alberta wild fires. Their much-touted infrastructure projects are just around the corner; we will see. It could be said that they are trying to win the triple crown. That is, managing to generate the lowest economic growth, the biggest deficits, and the highest taxes.

I come from a part of the country that is largely heavy manufacturing. It is blue-collar heritage in my community through building farm implements over the years. Having a small business of my own in the community for 25 years, I have watched over the years the transition of jobs in the manufacturing sector leave over the last 30 years or so. Why do these jobs leave? In many cases there are numerous factors, but earlier in the debate today I listened to people saying that taxes are somehow a common cost in society. If we buy the argument that somehow there is a level of common cost, that by the way, we the government will determine what that is, we will not only bleed the manufacturing jobs we have, we will bleed pretty much all the good-paying jobs in the country to other places, such as south of the border. The U.S. is going through a huge transition with a new administration coming. It will be reducing its corporate taxes to the lowest rate possible. It will be providing incentives, as it does today, to attract companies to go over the border. In my part of Canada, which is Ontario, we already see a certain degree of exodus of businesses that rely heavily on energy costs.

Let me give an example. A manufacturer in my community employs approximately 400 people. I recently met with them for the purpose of discussing future expansion in Canada or the U.S., where they have two of their plants in Michigan and one in Ohio. Their decision for the expansion and the possible relocation of the Canadian operation is based on the cost of their business. It is pretty darn simple. If electricity is costing twice what it costs in Michigan or Ohio, or any other jurisdiction for that matter, they are going to ask what is the long term for the cost of electricity. Do we foresee it going down and being competitive?

However, on the taxation level, the common cost that some people have talked about in the House today, such that we have a government that believes the theory that if we all pay our share then everything will be better, if that share is set at a much higher rate than other jurisdictions, then we lose our jobs. We lose those 400 jobs. Frankly, when I looked at the books, which were opened up to me, it is absolutely scary to think that the costs have risen as high as they have for that business.

If a carbon tax comes in at the level the current government has said it will, they have factored it out, per employee, $9,000 a year. The reason is that this is a heavy manufacturing forging plant, which forges huge metal pieces for the oil and gas industry, as well as dam gates and other products like that.

When I talk to business people like this, I ask myself what will happen. Do we have to have special rules and exceptions for them? Do we have to provide some kind of special exemptions for these types of manufacturers in that category?

Once we start going down that road, as some governments have tried, it ends in destruction, because we would be picking winners and losers. We would basically be getting on what some people have called the corporate welfare cycle, saying we know we are charging a lot but we will make it up over here and give exceptions over there. It does not work. It is a false economy.

As I talk about the budget and see what the government of the day is proposing, it brings up enormous concern, not only for the type of heavy, large manufacturers that populate different communities in this country, such as mine, but also for the medium-sized business and the small business person.

If we talk to small business people and ask what major thing is holding them back from growing their business—and many people find themselves in small business at certain points in time—the answer I get, generally speaking, is red tape, which is number one, and taxation levels. Many of the taxation levels are hidden taxes, such as the increase to CPP that the current government is going forward with.

We do not really realize how fine the line is until we are there in the shoes of the business people, the family, the mom and pop shops. We do not realize how fine a line it is for them to operate in terms of their margins. I know that a lot of people from outside the business world, when they look at these businesses, think that they are making all kinds of money. However, the truth is that it is a very fine line on which many of these companies work.

I want to bring up the alternative to this kind of thinking of a level of taxation that is the ideal common cost that everyone needs to pay and point out what we did when we were in government, and I will close on this. During the worst economic downturn since the great recession, Canada had the best job creation and economic growth record among G7 countries. We reduced taxes to their lowest point in 50 years, with a typical family saving almost $7,000 a year, and we balanced budgets.

After running a targeted stimulus program that created maximum benefits and approximately 200,000 jobs, we kept our promise to balance the budget, and we left the Liberals with a surplus. That is the truth of what our record is, and I am thankful today to be standing here—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

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

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

Madam Speaker, the only thing rich about the Conservatives' legacy is the their description of it.

The member for Brantford—Brant started his speech by rejecting the premise that taxes are how we share our common costs and that government is how we manage those common costs. I wonder if the member for Brantford—Brant could explain to us what purpose he sees government having if not to manage common costs and common services.

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

Madam Speaker, that is not a difficult question to answer. Members of Parliament were brought here for the single purpose of making this country better, for the single purpose of making individual lives better in this country.

When we get into thinking that if somehow through a magical number of common costs or taxation we could somehow redistribute that, life would be better for all Canadians, then we are being misled. Life gets better for individuals when we get out of their lives, when government steps out of the way and lets them make their own decisions as much as possible, and lets them use their God-given talents to follow their dreams in their own way in this society under a free economic system. If the government tells them they have to conform to the standard that everybody shares at an equal level, then it is heading in the wrong direction.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member mentioned small business quite a few times in his speech in the House today and my question to the hon. member has to do with small business.

Small businesses are the backbone of my community of Essex, and they make up the majority of businesses that exist there. They are the employers. They are doing incredible work in our communities, and yet in the budget we do not see the promise that really was made by all parties during the campaign last year to reduce small business taxes. This would certainly help small businesses in my community of Essex and across Canada, and yet again we do not see it in this economic update. We do not see that break coming for small businesses in our communities.

Would the member agree that we need to support small businesses and provide that tax relief immediately?

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

The quick answer is yes, and thank you for that question. The reality is that promises were made in the last election by the Liberals, and you just brought up one of them. Everybody knows, and it is spoken—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The member will address the chair.

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

Madam Speaker, everyone knows that the great percentage of new jobs and well-paying jobs comes from small business expansion and exists at a rate of about 80% of all businesses. To the extent that the government provides them with the tax relief that was planned and promised by the government in the last election—a broken promise—and to the extent that a small business person can plan.... When we were in government, we were going to go forward with it. The Liberals took that policy over and said it would do that and then reneged on it. That takes an opportunity out of the plan by every small business to grow, and possibly in some cases—because as I mentioned in my speech, there is a fine line in small business in terms of success and margin—that business would have to take away any expansion opportunities and with the added costs that the government is throwing on top of that, it gets onerous on small business people. The government is killing many well-paying jobs that could have been created.

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

Madam Speaker, on behalf of my great riding of Saint John—Rothesay, it is a pleasure to stand and speak to Bill C-29 and what it means to my riding and province and all of Canada.

Before I do, just very briefly, today is World Diabetes Day and I do want to pay tribute to my father, Malcolm Percy Long, who was one of the longest-living insulin-dependent diabetics in New Brunswick. He was diagnosed at 19 years of age and lived to be 78 years old. That was an amazing feat back in that day, to live that long being insulin dependent. Certainly my thoughts are with him today and this evening.

I want to talk about Bill C-29 and what it means to the riding of Saint John—Rothesay. The best way I can do that is to talk about my riding and what it is about. Saint John—Rothesay is a riding of great wealth, great business success. It is an industrial riding. It is a unionized riding with a very strong union base. But it is also a riding with many people in great need. I do not like to get up, as I often do from this chair, and talk about the fact that my riding of Saint John—Rothesay leads the country in child poverty, that it is at the top of the country in the number of babies born addicted per capita, that it has low literacy rates and the lowest incomes for single females. The list goes on and on of some of the challenges we face in Saint John—Rothesay.

That was really one of the reasons I wanted to leave my fun, safe world of Sea Dogs major junior hockey and get into politics. When I started my run for office and went door to door in my riding, it became very apparent that over the past 10 years, although they had a lot of respect for different philosophies and governments trying different things, many people in my riding felt they had been forgotten. At door after door in priority neighbourhoods in Crescent Valley, in the old north end on Victoria Street, in the lower west side off of Duke Street and Rodney Street, people told me they were in dire need of some support from government.

One of the things I am most proud of, and which several members on my side have spoken about over the past few hours, is how our government's budget has given hope to Canadians. It has given a handout to Canadians and working families. It started with a tax break for the middle class. What I am most proud of is its transformational program, the Canada child benefit.

Single parents came to me. Families living in need came to me. They said they did not understand how the UCCB that the Conservative government supported—along with the NDP, much to my shock and surprise—gave the same amount in family benefits to those who made $200,000 and those who earned $15,000 or $20,000. People could not understand how that could happen. Instead of looking at need, the UCCB actually supported having kids, so the more kids people had the more they benefited. Their actual net income did not matter.

The Canada child benefit was designed to help those who needed it the most. Yes, we can argue that it replaced this or it replaced that, but try going to priority neighbourhoods and knocking on the doors of those families. In fact, last week it was great to be back in Saint John—Rothesay for a constituency week.

I took a young single mother out to dinner. She had two young children. I asked her what the difference was between the Canada child benefit and the UCCB. It was over $240 a month, tax-free, in her pocket. She said that the $240, even though it may not sound like a lot, availed her of the chance to buy a small used car. Because of that she can get to work. Because of that she can take her kids to hockey, and that is transformational. The program will change lives. We know the statistics. It is better for nine out of 10 Canadian families. It will pull 300,000 children out of poverty, and I am particularly proud that our government is the government that put this transformational program through.

Other things that are very beneficial in the budget, not just to my riding but to all Canadians, is the focus on increased infrastructure spending. David Dodge has said that over the past 10 years Canada has been in an infrastructure deficit. Not enough was being spent on that. Sure, the former government had some infrastructure expenditures, but there was no targeted program to aggressively go after spending on infrastructure for the assets that needed it most. Our bridges are crumbling. Our roads are crumbling. Our government is targeting green infrastructure, social infrastructure, and cultural infrastructure. In my riding I was very pleased to announce $6 million for 12 new buses for Saint John Transit. That is a direct result of the infrastructure money that our government has put forth. It is very positive for the community and will create jobs and, most importantly, update our aging infrastructure.

I have already talked about the tax cuts for the middle class. It is a start. It is not everything, but it is a start. It will put more money back in the pockets of families. Those middle-class families are the ones that spend and will help get our economy going.

I believe that what we have done as a government with our budget and our focus will help reinvigorate our economy. I do not think there is any question that we did have two recessions over the past 10 years, and yes, with respect, I know that the Conservatives talk about their balanced budget, but we all know how that balanced budget occurred. It was by throwing in a surplus from the EI fund, a rainy day fund, and GM stocks, and so on to create budget surplus. That is deception, but Canadians saw through it and I believe they made the right choice to vote for a progressive government that will invest in Canadians, invest in infrastructure, and invest in families. We will be proven correct over the next 10 years, which will show that we were the government that stimulated the economy, gave hope to Canadians, and turned our government around.

In my riding we consulted with our businesses, with community leaders, stakeholders, and all forms of my constituents as recently as last month. They are very hopeful that the increase in infrastructure spending will be stimulative. They are starting to see the benefits of that in Saint John. The Port of Saint John, between three levels of government, has invested over $200 million to reinvigorate itself. That will create jobs, opportunity, and I believe we are on the right track.

To close, I am particularly proud of the transformational Canada child benefit, which will change the lives of thousands of families across this country. It is something I believe this Parliament is going to be very proud of in the years to come.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Saint John—Rothesay for his very well-written and well-delivered speech. I also want to commend him for his passion in looking after child poverty in his constituency. It is very admirable.

There is one point I would like to correct, and then I will ask a question. He indicated that there was no fairness in the universal child care benefit of the previous Conservative government. I suggest that the fairness is actually very similar to what the Liberals have rolled out in their Canada child benefit, because as individuals received the universal child care benefit, they were taxed at the same rate as their income tax. That was the fairness of it. Higher-earning people gave a portion of that money back, and people with low incomes kept all of the benefit. That was the fairness in the system.

A person could qualify for $533 a month per child tax free under the Canada child benefit. Is that perhaps too generous?

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

Madam Speaker, I do not think it is. I am passionate about it. One only needs to go to priority neighbourhoods. The priority neighbourhood I went to, in particular, was Crescent Valley, where upwards of 50% to 60% of children and families are living in poverty. They do not have enough money to heat their houses and eat and are making decisions on a daily basis. I think we got it just right.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, during the election, the Liberals made a number of promises to Canadians. One promise was that their tax increase on the wealthiest Canadians would pay for the tax cut for middle-class Canadians. It turned out that this is not the case. It is off by about $1 billion. They promised a tax cut for the middle class, and when they brought in that budgetary measure, it turned out that almost 50% of Canadians actually experienced no benefit from that tax cut whatsoever.

The Prime Minister is now backtracking on his claim to bring in electoral reform.

There are a number of legitimate concerns Canadians have.

One thing that was very clear was that the Liberals promised Canadians that if they were elected, they would build public infrastructure and invest tens of billions of dollars to build necessary public infrastructure. I think that was a positive promise.

What they did not tell Canadians was that once in office, the Liberals would consider selling off public assets, like airports, or privatizing roads. I would ask my hon. colleague if he told the people in his riding during his campaign that if he was elected, he would be part of a government that would sell off publicly owned assets that make money for taxpayers.

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

Madam Speaker, what I told people in Saint John—Rothesay is that we were prepared, as a government, to have strategic programs of infrastructure investment to re-stimulate the economy. People in my riding, a unionized industrial riding, were shocked and puzzled by the NDP approach in their campaign. They ran on balanced budgets and austerity, yet now that we are in the House of Commons, they are saying that we are not spending enough. It is such a mixed message. My constituents and residents across Canada were confused. The New Democrats went so far right that I do not think anyone really knew what they stood for anymore.

To answer the member's question, I believe that my riding, in particular, was very proud of the infrastructure spending. They are pleased and are seeing tangible, real benefits from that spending.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-29, which seeks to implement the series of budgetary measures and tax changes announced in budget 2016, tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016.

First, I would like to thank the Canadians who are watching at home right now, particularly those from my beautiful riding of Beauport—Limoilou.

It is rather ironic that I am rising in the House today to speak to Bill C-29. Two weeks before the House adjourned for the week of Remembrance Day and we returned to our respective ridings, I tried to see if I could participate in this debate, but I was not able to get a time slot. I was quite disappointed, but this week, I am able to debate this bill during a very special week for Canadian businesses and the entire world, Global Entrepreneurship Week.

Under the leadership of my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent, our finance critic, and through the arguments that the Conservative Party has been presenting over the past two weeks concerning Bill C-29, we have been able to see that many aspects of this bill are harmful to our small and medium-sized businesses.

Last week in my riding, I visited over 100 companies. I usually try going door to door to see my constituents at least two evenings per week. This time I visited businesses. Why? Because I am organizing a business reception for Thursday evening, not only to mark Global Entrepreneurship Week, but also to speak with small business owners in my riding, to find out exactly what they think of the Liberal government's budget, and to hear what they are most concerned about right now.

I would like to remind the House that these are our businesses. Canada has over 1.16 million small and medium-sized businesses that employ nearly 10.5 million people. It is therefore safe to say that small businesses are definitely important job creators and wealth creators for our Canadian nation.

Here is something interesting. I googled “Global Entrepreneurship Week” today, and one of the first hits was a statement from Canada's Prime Minister. His statement said:

The Government of Canada is committed to helping Canadian entrepreneurs grow their businesses and thrive—here at home and abroad.

I find it ironic that the Prime Minister made that statement today to mark Global Entrepreneurship Week. It is entirely appropriate and de rigueur, but I am not so sure his actions are consistent with today's statement.

For example, the government introduced measures that hurt small and medium-sized businesses, including those in my riding of Beauport—Limoilou. Those measures will be implemented by Bill C-29. He brought in the Liberal carbon tax and hiked Canada pension plan costs, though that does not affect Quebec as much as it does the other nine provinces. He broke his promise to cut the small and medium-sized business tax rate. The way I see it, that is probably the worst thing the Prime Minister has done to small businesses. He made that promise during the election campaign, as did the Conservatives and New Democrats. His decision to break that promise boggles the mind. He got rid of several tax credits, which I will talk about later. To top it off, two weeks ago, the minister announced plans to abolish several more yet-to-be-determined tax credits. We do not know yet which ones, but I hope we will find out soon.

Let us talk about Bill C-29 and why it is disappointing. It is disappointing because it is the next phase of the Liberal government's plan, which is clearly not working.

Let us not forget what the original idea was behind this plan that was developed a year ago following the federal election. The idea was to create jobs by investing heavily in infrastructure. When we look at the facts, including those presented by the parliamentary budget officer, we see that only $3.8 billion of the $25-billion deficit will be invested in infrastructure and not a single job has been created so far. The plan is not working. That is the only real conclusion we can come to.

Bill C-29 is disappointing because of the uncertainty. The minister is unable to say when there will be a return to balanced budgets. The economic update talks about a $25-billion deficit and the only reason it is not $30 billion is because the government used the $6-billion contingency fund it had created barely six months before to bring the total down.

Rudy Le Cours from La Presse calls the disappearance of this $6-billion contingency fund a shell game. Even Gérald Fillion from Radio-Canada, whom I follow religiously, says the government fiddled with the numbers to make the deficit appear smaller. Radio-Canada seems to support what the Conservative Party is saying in this debate, which is rather extraordinary. What is more, not a single job has been created in Canada in a year. On the contrary, we are losing jobs and the unemployment rate keeps going up.

The Canada child benefit is the brainchild of a bunch of amateurs, while our program was viable and gave Canadian families money they could use. The Liberals not only abolished existing programs, but their new program is not revenue neutral. It will cost more than $4.3 billion over the course of its second year and $3.4 billion this year. Since they forgot to index it, they are going to have to find an extra $42.5 billion by 2020.

Bill C-29 is a reflection of our national accounts. It is a reflection of a government's exactness and strength. Through Bill C-29, this Liberal government is showing us several things. First, it is showing us that it is unable to calculate a balance sheet properly, as evidenced by the fact that the government forgot to index the Canada child benefit. Second, as the bill tells us, the government is not being careful with taxpayers' money because it promised a deficit of $10 billion per year but is now planning to run a deficit of $30 billion per year, and it does not have a specific date for returning to a balanced budget. Third, the government did not invest taxpayers' money properly and did not create jobs to help grow the economy. Finally, and this is my favourite point, this bill shows that this government is simply arrogant because it did not want to correct its mistakes and change its plan, even though it is not working at all.

Bill C-29 represents one broken promise after another. Breaking promises is becoming standard practice for this government. That is shameful because it is causing organizations and individuals in Canada to become ever more cynical.

This government broke its promise to run a modest deficit by borrowing three times more than necessary. It did not even need to borrow the $10 billion because we are not in a recession. It broke its promise to lower the tax rate for small and medium-sized businesses and its promise to offer a revenue-neutral fiscal plan. Take, for example, the infamous tax cut for low-income Canadians that my Liberal colleagues have been bragging about since early this afternoon. This tax cut will not help low-income Canadians because it does not apply to those who earn less than $45,000 a year. Instead, it will help Canadians with an annual income between $140,000 and $170,000. The NDP and the Conservative Party both raised that point.

Once again, what I dislike about this government is its arrogance. It is selling Canadians a dream, making wild claims about the wealthiest 1% having a monopoly, and inventing tax cuts in flamboyant speeches. I am therefore very disappointed with Bill C-29.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou for his speech. I would like to ask him a fairly simple question. He talked about the Canada child benefit in a negative way. He said that it is terrible because it is not going to help every family.

If I recall correctly, the Conservative program handed out $160 a month to billionaires. Did that make sense?

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

Madam Speaker, I will answer the question asked by my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle. I am beginning to know the names of my colleagues' ridings, which is a good sign.

Since the election, I have knocked on 30,000 doors in my riding. The comment I hear most about the government's child benefit is that the $2,000 or $3,000 paid out to people with two or three children lets them buy a few bottles of wine or bigger steaks.

They laugh when they say that because they know that they or their children will be stuck with the bill in five or ten years. Mothers have told me that they put this money in a bank account that only their children can access because they will have to pay for the deficit caused by this benefit.

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

Madam Speaker, I was surprised to learn that privatization was an integral part of the Liberal's infrastructure strategy. Can my dear colleague tell us whether he was surprised by that?

Does he understand the differences between a strategy financed solely by public funds and one that receives significant funding from the private sector?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, which reflects the NDP approach, and that is very good.

I do not know if it will be more private than public because I have not really looked into the matter. However, it is symptomatic of another problem that is clear to everyone on this side of the aisle: the Liberals have spent so much that, to roll out their infrastructure plan, which is supposed to be their priority, they have to look for money in places other than the public treasury. To me, that is what we are seeing here.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I believe integrity is important to Canadians. When we make a projection or promises, we try to follow through on them.

Could the member comment on the record of the present Liberal government in its first year, in terms of its integrity, bad management, and looking at its balanced budget?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I do not like having to say this in the House, but unfortunately the government has no integrity whatsoever. It breaks all of its promises.

Take electoral reform. The Prime Minister of Canada recently said that electoral reform might not be a priority because Canadians wanted reform while the Right Hon. Stephen Harper was in office. Now that we are in wonderland and the Liberal government is in charge, the Prime Minister has decided on his own that reform might not be such a great idea after all.

In answer to my colleague's question, I would say that the government has no integrity.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, our government was elected because Canadians wanted a change from a government stuck in the ways of the past. Canadians wanted a government that was bold enough to look to the future and embrace a new vision for Canada.

The need for a new vision, a forward-thinking plan for the future that embraces innovation and places Canada on the international stage in the realm of science and technology, is a concept that has been embraced in my riding of Kitchener Centre. As a part of the Kitchener—Waterloo region, our potential for growth and prosperity was stymied by a lack of attention that the previous government paid to science, research, and innovation. Thankfully, our government has put us back on the right path, one that will support industry and growth while fostering knowledge and innovation.

I know that there will be some on the other side of the House who will argue that they did not ignore science or research. Well, my background is in science, and this background in an evidence-based field means that I like to have the hard facts in front of me. Let us talk about some facts.

In 2012, the Canadian government invested less in research and development, $28.8 billion U.S., than the government did in 2004 when it invested $22.7 billion. That approach did not make a lot of sense. In order for Canada to maintain its position as a world leader in research and development, growth and investment are essential. Doing our part by investing in research and development is an obvious path to ensure growth and prosperity.

There is a metric that is used to quantify how a country is doing with its investments in R and D called GERD, or gross domestic expenditure on research and development. Simply put, GERD is the amount of money a country spends on research and development. Unfortunately, if we look at how Canada compares to other countries, we are not doing so well on this front. In fact, in 2012, Canada fell from its spot in the top 10 to 12th in terms of real spending for research and development, which is not a great performance to be sure.

However, as in many other cases, the raw spending only tells half the story. In order to compare Canada's spending on R and D to that of other countries, it is far more useful to use GERD as a percentage of GDP. This is a commonly used measure internationally as an indicator of the country's degree of R and D intensity. In my opinion, it conveys how important R and D can be to a country and to an economy. Unfortunately, we do not perform well on this front either.

According to the OECD, the OECD average ratio of GERD to GDP in 2013 was 2.36, with Israel, Japan, South Korea, Sweden, and Finland leading the world. Calling Canada laggard is being generous. Looking at the ranked list of countries, we do not even make the top 20.

In 2013, Canada's ratio of R and D spending as a percentage of GDP was 1.69, down from 1.79 in 2012. Among G7 countries, Canada ranked fifth in 2013 and its ratio of GERD to GDP was lower than the United States, which was 2.73. It is difficult to imagine how Canada could be competitive on the world stage if we were to continue falling behind in R and D spending.

A Globe and Mail piece in 2013 noted that “...in one vital area where governments really can make a difference—innovation—Ottawa’s commitment has been inconsistent and its investments wanting”. I think that quote really sums up the previous government's lack of interest in prioritizing science, research, and innovation.

We know that when government chooses to make a difference by investing in innovation, we can create good middle-class jobs, develop the technology of the future, and create a more competitive Canada. I am sorry to say that the previous government failed to take advantage of Canada's potential in this area.

However, I am pleased to say that we are committed to turning this around. This is why I am so proud to see that our government is developing an innovation agenda that we firmly believe will position Canada as a world leader in turning ideas into solutions, science into technologies, skills into jobs, and start-up companies into global successes. Our budget recognizes the importance of research, development, and innovation.

I would like to take a few moments to talk about some of the highlights of our budget that are demonstrative of just how committed to this advancement of science, innovation, and technology we really are.

First, our government is investing $2 billion over three years in strategic infrastructure at post-secondary institutions. I cannot say just how vital this is.

If we want to be able to perform world-leading research we need to have world-leading facilities. With this investment, not only would our students be able to work in some of the best facilities, but we would also have the opportunity to make our facilities some of the most environmentally friendly ones in the world. Imagine the best minds conducting cutting-edge research at some of the most up-to-date modern sites available.

My region is home to many excellent post-secondary institutions. While we often talk about the value and importance of post-secondary education, there is much less focus on the details behind post-secondary education. Tuition rates have risen sharply over the last decade, with little relief for students. That is why measures like increasing the amounts available under the Canada student grants program are so vital to ensuring the continued success of our students. We need to do our best to make sure that education remains accessible to as many students as possible and that we continue to back our desire for increased access to post-secondary education with concrete actions to make that possible.

Canada has some world-leading research facilities. It is essential that we fund them properly so they are able to do their work properly. Our government is investing $30 million in the Canadian Institutes of Health Research; $30 million in the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council; $16 million in the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council; and $19 million in the research support fund to support the indirect costs borne by post-secondary institutions in undertaking federally sponsored research.

In addition, our government is providing an additional $46 million to the granting councils. These councils, namely, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, support and promote high-quality research in a vast array of areas. We must do our part to support them.

As someone with a background in science, I was stunned when the previous government cut funding to the Experimental Lakes Region in northern Ontario. What really surprised me, however, was how public the opposition to that was. Who would have thought that cutting funding for such a program would galvanize the public the way it did? Not only has the government restored funding to the Experimental Lakes Area, but we have also increased our funding for ocean and freshwater science, including monitoring and research activities.

Science is important to our government, and it is not just Canadians that will benefit from our renewed focus on data and evidence. People across the world will benefit from the research we conduct here at home.

Speaking of evidence-based policy, our government made it a priority to restore the mandatory long form census. The data collected by the census is essential for planning and spending purposes. Not only did we restore it, but Canadians responded extremely enthusiastically to its return. We made international headlines when in our eagerness to complete the census, we crashed the website. Now that is something we can be proud of.

As an MP from the Kitchener—Waterloo region, I was thrilled to see that the Perimeter Institute received $50 million. For those who do not know, the Perimeter Institute is a world-leading facility in the field of theoretical physics. The finance minister got it right when he said that the Kitchener—Waterloo region is home to some of the most brilliant, innovative minds and companies in the world.

I am excited to see the developments that come from this funding. We are working hard to lay the foundation so that our researchers, thinkers, and dreamers will be able to see their projects carried through to fruition. Our future is so bright, and we have such potential that is waiting to be tapped, harnessed, and encouraged. I am confident that while we have had some fantastic achievements in the past, they are nothing compared to what we will see in the future.

I would like to commend the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance for their commitment to championing a research and innovation agenda, one that I am sure will serve Canadians well, now and into the future.

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

Madam Speaker, there are parts of the member's speech that I totally agree with. Waterloo region is home to some of the best post-secondary education and research facilities in the world. I could not disagree with him on that at all.

I am wondering if he is up front with his constituents that the government is adding $15 billion per year in deficit spending, a load that we will be responsible for. Just the interest costs alone are going up by $15 billion a year between today and 2020.

Which generation does my colleague think will be able to pay off this huge Liberal debt?

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my good friend, neighbour, and someone who always looks out for me and always gives me advice. Therefore, I would like to give him a little advice today.

Economically we know right now in the world we have zero lower bound interest rate. When we look at the 10-year government bond rate, whether it is in the United States at 2%, or in Germany at 0.5%, or in Japan at 0.2%, we know the inflation targets right now are less than 1%. This is absolutely the best time in our history, in the history of the world probably, where investment in infrastructure is so important, whether it is public infrastructure, public transit infrastructure, social infrastructure, or environmental infrastructure.

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

Madam Speaker, the member just eloquently explained why we must invest in infrastructure. That is something we agree on.

What we do not support is the plan to privatize our public infrastructure. That is exactly what the government is proposing to do with the infrastructure bank. Today, no less than eight ministers and the Prime Minister were asked to attend a meeting of multibillionaires in Toronto. The purpose of the meeting was to explain how they were going to charge us twice, once by taxing us and the second time by charging tolls to finance our public infrastructure.

It is all well and good to speak of who campaigned to the left or to the right. However, can my colleague now admit that after all the big progressive promises to invest in public infrastructure, they will dare to go even further than the Conservatives by selling off our public infrastructure and making taxpayers pay twice rather than once?

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, this is the best time in our history to invest in infrastructure, and we have a very bold and ambitious agenda. When there is a bold and ambitious agenda, we have to keep an open and broad mind about everything. I am quite confident the government will be responsible and ambitious in its approach. I hope my hon. friend will work with us to ensure we create the right infrastructure for all Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, there are some parts in my colleague's speech with which I could also agree. As the first female engineer in the House of Commons, I was happy to collaborate with the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development to come up with a better plan for science for Canada. However, in the rest of the budget, did you miss the part that says you promised a $10 billion budget—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I would remind the hon. member to address her questions and comments to the Chair.

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

You are absolutely right, Madam Speaker. Having promised a $10 billion deficit, the government is now pushing its way past $30 billion and out of the 87 infrastructure projects that were approved, most of which were in the pipeline with our government. Only a handful are actually in the ground. The Liberals missed the construction season. There is no plan. What would the member say about that?

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, we were elected on real change and real change means thinking outside the box and being innovative. I congratulate the hon. member on being the first female engineer in the House. I am the first pharmacist in the House. Scientifically through innovation, through infrastructure, I know that what we are doing right now is going to be historic and it is going to work for all Canadians.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have always believed that the single most important investment a nation can ever make is in learning. If we want to compete and thrive in the future, we need the smartest workforce on the planet.

Could the member take a few minutes to expand on some of these? In the budget, for example, we increased the grants for college and university students, and for kids going into the trades. We have doubled the summer employment program for jobs. He comes from a community which is strongly steeped in college and university traditions. Could he take a second—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

We are running out of time at this point, so if we want him to answer, we will give him that chance right now.

The hon. member for Kitchener Centre, a very brief response, please.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, my hon. friend is absolutely right. The next generation of Canadians will need the right tools. As he mentioned, the Canada summer jobs grant was doubled. We have invested $2 billion over the next three years in post-secondary institutions. We have also tried to ensure we have invested in infrastructure, public transit, and in other areas which will help the next generation of Canadians.

Bill C-29--Time Allocation Motion

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

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-29, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the bill;

and

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1 there will now be a 30-minute question period. I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their place so the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in this question period.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying how disappointed I am that the government House leader has moved this motion. I think that to this point in time we have had a very good working relationship. There have been certain bills that our members have not wanted to speak to at length, and so the government has been able to see legislation move through at a pace it would have been happy with.

Definitely, in the case of this bill, we have a lot of members who are extremely concerned with the budget implementation bill. Our members on this side of the House wanted to speak to this important bill and get their voices on the record.

I recognize that maybe the government thinks that some of what is being said may be what it considers repetitive, but these are important points that need to be made. By moving this motion and stopping the time that we are allowed to speak, it does a number of things. It really disenfranchises the members of Parliament who have been elected, who are duly elected, and who want to speak. I think it also does not benefit our working relationship.

I have concerns about that.

However, I am also very concerned about something else. I am not assuming the Minister of Finance will be answering the questions that we have. This is his bill and he is not even here in respect of this place, so what is really the plan? Why is the government rushing this through? Why does it not see the importance of this budget implementation bill, in terms of the harm that it would do to Canadians, the massive deficit that would be passed on to generations and generations of Canadians? The government is not dealing with the problems of the bill and, instead, it is rushing it through.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the hon. member's question. I agree that we have been working well together. I believe that we can continue working together.

The reality is that, including today, there will have been six days of debate on this legislation. This is the budget implementation act. This bill will be moved on to committee, where it will be further debated and further studied. The committee will have an opportunity to invite Canadians to come as witnesses to answer some questions, and to share with the committee what they like about this bill and what their concerns are. The committee also has the opportunity of doing a clause-by-clause, word-by-word analysis. This furthers the debate on this legislation. It is important that we allow the committee to do the good work that it does.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I too rise more in sorrow than in anger. I agree with my colleague, the House leader for the Conservatives, that the working relationship in this Parliament has been affected as a consequence of this bill.

I can remember when the Conservatives, under the Harper government, moved time allocation on over 100 occasions, perhaps setting a parliamentary record, and that the Liberals joined with us many a time to advise the House how upset they were with time allocation. How things have changed.

The Minister of Finance told us just how important this budget was to Canadians. He talked about the importance of dealing with tax evasion measures, pollution measures, and so many other things. We have drawn attention to the incredible change in Canadians' lives that the infrastructure provisions are going to bring, and the government tells us how important this budget is.

My question is, if it is that important, why is the government limiting the right of parliamentarians to scrutinize such an important budget?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to take a moment to commend the working relationship that I have had with the hon. member, and I look forward to continuing that conversation. The member very well knows that I do believe in reaching consensus and that we can all work better in this place. We can work better for Canadians, for middle-class Canadians, who are the very people who elected us to do the good work that we do.

I recognize that members of Parliament are here to represent their constituents and I also recognize that Canadians expect this government to advance the legislation that they have mandated us to advance. It is important that we have the opportunity to have a fruitful and meaningful debate, but also to allow the committee to do the good work that it does. This budget implementation act actually would implement only measures that were introduced in budget 2016 on March 22.

I assure members of this House that the work will continue, and I look forward to working with all members of this House.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, once again we see the government members grabbing their toys. Like kids in a sandbox, they are grabbing their toys and going home if they do not like the way things are going.

Our hon. colleague from Portage—Lisgar, our hon. House leader, said that we have not had the opportunity to hear our voices. It is not our voices that the government needs to hear. There are 338 members of Parliament who have been elected to be the voices of their constituents, of Canadians. There are six days of debate, if that is actually what the number is, and if our hon. colleague says it I guess we have trust that. Similar to that, I guess we have to trust that they only spent $10 billion; or I guess that is wrong as it is actually quite a bit higher than that.

The current government has pledged to spend billions of dollars, putting us further into debt. It is not for us here; it is going to be on the future generations who are going to have to pay that back.

This budget, this financial update, and this bill impact my riding. We do not have a softwood lumber agreement in place. This bill and the Liberals' update do nothing to create jobs in my riding. I have not had an opportunity, except for today right now, to be able to share what the government is doing and is not doing and how that impacts my riding. Six days does nothing to further the voices of the constituencies of the 338 members of Parliament.

I ask this of my hon. colleague. Why is the government trying to rush this through? Why not give a voice to Canadians and to the members of Parliament, as we have been elected to be the voices of our constituents?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I agree that members of Parliament are elected to represent their constituents. I agree that we do important work for Canadians each and every single day. We are saying, let us continue that work. Let us continue to work hard for Canadians, whether they are in our constituencies or across this great nation.

Including today, we will have had six days of debate on Bill C-29 at second reading. The bill will move on to committee where it will be further studied and further debated. Canadians will have the opportunity to come as witnesses. It will return to this chamber where we will get to continue the debate, the dialogue, and the discussion so that we can represent our constituents and Canadians across this nation.

Our plan for middle-class Canadians and Canadian families in the hon. member's constituency, in my constituency, and across this nation and our plan for infrastructure are about delivering for Canada. They are about delivering for their families. They are about delivering the plan that Canadians elected this government on. We need to work together so that we can ensure that we create the opportunities that Canadians need us to create.

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

Madam Speaker, I could not help but notice the coincidence that the motion for closure on the budget bill that would establish this new privatization bank was tabled on the very same day that the Prime Minister got together with investors of trillions of dollars of world capital, and that we are going to be voting on that motion the day after. When we talk about the purpose of debate in Parliament, sometimes that is to take the time to learn more about what the government plan is. Now, instead of having the benefit of information on what they discussed in that room as the details leak out, we will already have voted on second reading. I just could not help but notice that coincidence.

We can get a lot of fluff about moving on to committee and the next stage in debate and everything else. This is a seminal piece of legislation from the government. It would change the way that infrastructure projects are delivered in the country, and for the worse. This closure is really about trying to hide from Canadians the details of the Liberals' new privatization plan for Canadian infrastructure. Let us not pretend. I would like to hear what the government House leader has to say about that.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is the budget implementation act, No. 2. It would implement budget 2016 that was passed in the House, that was introduced in the House on March 22 of this year. It is important to note that this budget implementation act would only implement measures that were introduced in the budget in March 2016. It would implement the plan that Canadians elected us on, the plan that would help grow opportunities for Canadians, the plan that would invest in Canadian communities and families, and create the growth that we need for this great nation. We need to do this work and it is important that the committee has the opportunity to study this bill.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, in the last week I have had the opportunity to speak to students from Brock University, the University of Manitoba, and Western, McMaster, and Wilfrid Laurier. Young Canadians are our future, but as we know, many are struggling with student loans and increasing debt.

Minister, can you tell us how this bill would help young Canadians succeed—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I would remind the member to address her questions to the Chair.

I would also remind other members to wait their turn to speak when someone else has the floor.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

I apologize, Madam Speaker.

Could the minister tell the House how this bill would help young Canadians succeed and make education more affordable?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is an important question.

I, too, had the privilege of being in my constituency last week, just as all members of the House did. I got to interact with everyday Canadians, the very people whom we work hard for. I can remember being a student and the debt that came with it. The important measures this government has introduced would help those very students.

Now, more than ever, it is important that post-secondary education remains affordable and accessible. Young Canadians must have access to meaningful work at the beginning of their careers and must not be burdened by increasing student debt. Budget 2016 would make post-secondary education more affordable for students from low and middle-income families and would make it easier to repay student debt.

I heard this time and time again at doorsteps. It is something that Canadians and Canadian families want, something that students are asking for, and something we are committed to delivering on.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Before we continue, I want to remind members to stay in their seats until members have stopped speaking. Then, when I ask for questions and comments, members can stand.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.

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

Madam Speaker, I am sure the minister is very happy to be speaking about something other than the pay to play fundraisers that she has become so familiar with. It seems that the Minister of Finance has completely abdicated his responsibility by pinning the defence of this bill and this motion on the member, so I feel sympathy for her in this case.

However, this half hour is for the government to tell parliamentarians why it is necessary to go ahead at this time. Liberals conducted a technical briefing and gave parliamentarians eight hours' notice. They have already directed, through their majority, to put forward a motion at committee to start the pre-study of it. They know exactly what they are doing. They are saying they want consensus. The minister said earlier that she wants consensus, and yet she is applying the government's majority rather than listening to the legitimate concerns of parliamentarians. That is disrespectful of the chamber.

I would like the minister to stand and articulate why this bill must push aside all of the parliamentarians who have not yet had a chance to speak at second reading. I want to hear exactly why a time limit is needed. They are simply using their majority because they can.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was looking forward to receiving a question from the member, because I feel that he is projecting something that the previous government did, but which is not true.

It is actually with great regret that I had to bring forward this motion today. I was hoping that we could work together better and would know how much debate was needed. Part of working together is having those conversations. I really believed we could have those conversations to know how much debate the members opposite wanted. We would be more than willing to work with the opposition, but when are not getting an answer, it is really hard to work with them in this case. I know there will be many more opportunities.

I would like to remind the hon. member that our budget implementation bill is half the size of a bill the previous government once introduced. We have given more time to debate this legislation at second reading, six days of debate. The previous government thought that three or four days was always more than enough. It is interesting to see how perspectives change.

We will continue to ensure that we have meaningful debate and that committees have the ability to do the good work they do, as well.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, to hear the Liberal House leader say this budget implementation bill is a reflection of the Liberals' campaign commitment to Canadians is hard to square with the government's failure to live up to its commitment to reduce the small business tax to 9%.

Its failure to do that in the March budget was a broken promise to Canadians. The parliamentary budget officer estimates that this cancellation, this broken promise, will cost small and medium-sized enterprises more than $2.1 billion. Small business was looking forward to those promised tax reductions as a way to stimulate the local economy and create jobs. We know that 80% of new jobs are created by small business.

In what way does the small business tax cut broken promise square with the Liberals' election commitments to Canadians? As well, why is the government unwilling to allow further debate on this broken promise?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is a great opportunity for me to rise in the House during Global Entrepreneurship Week when small businesses and entrepreneurs are being celebrated. They should not only be celebrated for a day or a week, but every day. I agree that small businesses are the backbone of this economy. They are our job-creators. They are the people that grow communities.

We have been working very closely with them. We are taking a whole-of-government approach, with over 20 departments recognizing how they are relating directly to and working with small businesses. We know we can always do more. We are listening to them and engaging with them.

We are taking the priorities and changes they want to see, so we can advance and implement them. It is important to note that small business owners do believe they can grow their businesses. They want measures so they can grow and create the opportunities and jobs they want to create. Small business owners do not want to remain small. Some may, and they are welcome to. However, there are many who want opportunities to grow their businesses, to create the jobs that Canadians want them to create, to grow their communities and the opportunities in them.

We look forward to continuing to work with all members of the House and small business owners, especially.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, I, too, had a great return to my riding last week. While there, I visited a number of high schools and met with four different classes. They were all kids who are about to graduate. They are very concerned.

They are concerned about where the Liberal government is going with their taxes, asking how they were going to pay for this. Some of the kids were telling me that they were looking at the budget as part of a class project. They wanted to know how a government comes out with a budget that does not even factor in indexing. The kids were very concerned about that.

I would like to ask the government House leader a question. How can you bring in a budget without putting in indexing, and how much is that indexing going to cost us over the next five years?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I am assuming the member is asking that through the Chair, not directly to the member.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always great to hear about colleagues visiting their constituents and visiting kids.

I would like to commend that teacher for bringing the budget into her classroom so that our youth had the opportunity to discuss it, and for more youth to have the opportunity to engage with the Government of Canada to see the work we are doing. They are not only the leaders of tomorrow, but the leaders of today. Therefore, I applaud that teacher and the hon. member for taking the time to speak with those very students. Those are the kind of people we are investing in.

The hon. member said this government has lowered taxes on middle-class Canadians. This government increased taxes on the 1% of wealthiest Canadians. That is something we have not seen done before. That is investing in Canadian families. That is investing in middle-class families. That is living up to the commitment we have made.

As the member said so eloquently, the youth are watching to see what this government is doing. They expect us to deliver on our commitments. That is why the implementation of the budget is so necessary and why the committee should have the opportunity to study this legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to return to the issue of privatization, because a central piece of the Liberal promise and budget was to invest in infrastructure. What we learned from the economic update is that the way the government will do this is by selling that infrastructure and having that new infrastructure owned by private investment firms, many of which are not from Canada. Therefore, the idea that we should be closing down debate just as we are learning the details of this central pillar of the Liberal financial platform is ridiculous. Perhaps it is the fact that the only person from the government side that I have heard standing up and defending this cockamamie scheme during the debate is the member for Spadina—Fort York. He likes to talk about how this is really about affordable housing, and that we should look at the platform. He mentioned the Canada infrastructure bank. The platform mentions it as a bank that will lend money to municipalities and provinces that want to build infrastructure; it does not talk about using it to leverage private funds and then having our highways, airports, and bridges owned by multinational foreign investors. That is simply not in the platform. Maybe the member for Spadina—Fort York is running out of breath and the government cannot find anyone else to defend this scheme.

Is that why we have to close down debate, because the government cannot find anyone else on its benches willing to defend this ridiculous scheme?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will remind members that this is the budget implementation act. It does not refer to the infrastructure bank. The budget implementation act brings in the amendments that we committed to to Canadians, which were introduced in budget 2016 in March of this year: amendments to the Employment Insurance Act; to the Old Age Security Act; to the Canada Education Savings Act; to the Canada Disability Savings Act; and to the financial consumer protection framework.

To go back to an earlier question, our tax measures closed loopholes to protect consumers, to support our small business owners, and to do the work that Canadians want us to do. This act implements the measures that were introduced in budget 2016 in March of this year. Every measure in this implementation act was in the budget of 2016. It only advances and implements that act.

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

Except this part.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, we are saying let us get it to committee so that it can study it.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I would remind the member for Elmwood—Transcona that he was afforded the opportunity of respect while he was standing. I would expect that he will do the same when someone else is speaking.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, Canadian veterans have bravely served our country. They have stepped up to serve us in the most difficult of situations. We owe them our respect, gratitude, and support.

Can the hon. government House leader tell the House how this bill will support our veterans?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for that great question, especially as last week was Veterans' Week. As I am sure many members did, I had the opportunity to be with our veterans on Remembrance Day. The night before Remembrance Day, I went around my community to visit cenotaphs and to thank our cadets as well. Last week, I also had the opportunity to bring together land, sea and air cadets in one room to have a fruitful discussion with the Minister of National Defence.

We recognize the important work that our veterans have done. We recognize that the rights and freedoms that we enjoy today are because of our men and women in uniform, not only those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice but also those who came home and those who continue to fight for our rights and freedoms. The government will give back to the veterans who have given so much in service to all Canadians. Canada will restore critical access to services for veterans, and ensure the long-term financial security of disabled veterans. Canada's veterans will receive more local in-person government services, as well as better access to case managers.

I was in the Waterloo region and I had multiple people commend this government for opening up the offices—and most recently in Nova Scotia as well. I have to say that it has been very well received, not only because it is the right thing to do but because it is what we should have done a long time ago.

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

Madam Speaker, I heard the government House leader talk about the importance of moving this legislation to committee so it could hear from witnesses, study the bill further, and send it back to the House with recommendations. Is the government House leader aware that closure has already been introduced in committee on this particular legislation? If committee only has a limited amount of time to study the bill, then how can moving closure at this time in the House be justified?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, the committee has recognized the important work that has to be done. Under this government, committees are working. They are doing good work. They are a part of the process, and there is a reason why the process exists. The work of the committee is the work of the committee. I do not comment on the work of committees. That was part of the commitment we made to Canadians. Our parliamentary secretaries do not even have a vote in committees, so that they can do the open and transparent work that they do.

I understand that the committee wants to study this legislation. I understand the committee recognizes the importance of this legislation, especially when it comes to the Canadians we represent in the House.

We have important work to do. I know that if we really want to, and if we work a bit harder, we can work together for Canadians. That is a commitment this government has made, and it is a commitment we will continue to live up to.

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

Madam Speaker, I have two points I want to make to the government.

First of all, we are in the middle of a session of Parliament, and we just returned after a week in our constituencies. What I am trying to say is that when we gather for a parliamentary session, we have a duty, which is to speak directly to the legislation before the House.

In addition, we have nothing against ministers or the Prime Minister meeting with people outside of the House, but there is a time for that, and that time is when Parliament is not sitting. Ministers need to be present in the House in order to respond directly to our questions and so that all members who want to speak to a given bill have the opportunity to do so. The motion being put forward by the government right now does the exact opposite.

On the other point, the member for Yellowhead raised the issue of youth. It is important to tell our youth the truth. May I remind the minister that she has been elected under the oath of her platform? It said a modest deficit and getting back to zero deficit in three years. The reality is everything but that. The deficit is expected to be three times higher, and we do not know when we will get back to a zero deficit. How can she deal with that?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am sure the hon. member was not implying that I am not telling the truth. The member has been in the chamber far longer than I, and he knows that we do not make such implications.

We have already had six days of debate, and we want the committee to be able to study the bill, hear from witnesses, and work hard so that we can continue our discussions.

I find it unfortunate that we could not reach a consensus. We wanted to work together to find out how many days of debate the Conservatives wanted, but they did not provide us with that information.

When it comes to youth, we are committed to working with youth and we will continue to engage with youth. We have done that at unprecedented levels.

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

Madam Speaker, it is truly a shame that the Liberals are imposing time allocation on a bill that has more than 146 clauses and amends 13 statutes. Its 234 pages make changes to a number of aspects related to the budget.

The Liberals claim to be transparent. They claim to be agents of change, the kind of change ensuring that all Canadians will be consulted, that there will be time to talk things out, and that there will be fewer inequalities.

There are several measures in this bill that will not help reduce inequality. For example, there is no tax credit for hiring young people in this budget. There are a number of inconsistencies when it comes to employment insurance. The board that is meant to ensure that workers are heard—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I must interrupt the hon. member if she wishes to obtain a response. The minister, for a brief response to the hon. member.

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

Madam Speaker, it is precisely for the reasons the hon. member has given that we want to refer the bill to committee for review.

Again, we do not take these decisions lightly. We are committed to ensuring that all members have enough time within reason.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

In my opinion, the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.