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

[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.