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

[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.