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

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Mr. Speaker, despite the obvious hilarity at the beginning of the member's speech on the direction that he planned to take the economy, I would like to ask him if his constituents support the proposed changes to the CPP, particularly small businesses, and also the looming carbon tax. He has obviously consulted with them at length. People in Alberta really feel there is not a positive thing in the budget, yet I did not hear him say anything negative about it.

I am curious if there is anything on those two fronts about which he feels comfortable talking to his constituents.

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Edmonton Riverbend has the best interests of his constituents at heart. He works hard for his constituents, as he should, and as we all do.

To be frank, people I speak to in my riding are impressed with what we are doing to grow the economy. They are hopeful that we are investing in the future. They also see the importance of ensuring the CPP remains robust and well-funded well into the long term. They appreciate those parts of the budget and the part of our policy that is being implemented.

In regard to hearing negative things from me in my budget speech, it should not surprise the member that I support the budget. I will highlight its positive components and how those positive components will play out in my riding.

As the member may know, the price on pollution that our government is going to put on is only a framework that will be in place if the provincial government does not have an adequate system in place. I am from Ontario, and the system that will be in place there will exceed the federal standards. The federal price on pollution will not apply in Ontario because its system will be robust enough to meet all of the federal standards. People in my riding think that people who pollute should pay for their pollution.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question about one of the policies that was maybe a surprise for some Canadians because it was not talked about a lot in the last election. It is the notion of either full or semi-privatization of some public assets. We are talking about airports, port authorities, or ports themselves. The concern that would be raised is a valid one. We have had some experience in Canada with this.

My friend would well know that the Mike Harris government in Ontario helped to construct a major toll highway across the north of the city, which ended up costing Ontario taxpayers like my friend millions of dollars. I forget the final price tag. Yet the asset was not a public asset. The tolls can be quite high and they go toward a private entity.

Foreign venture capitalists or other investors will require a return on their investments. They will not do this out of any charitable notion. They are not into public infrastructure for the public's sake. It is the nature of their business. Has the government done any economic analysis on what benefits may or may not accrue through private partnerships and the selling of airports, or ports or any of the other assets that it is considering? What limitations would be placed on any of those investors in terms of recouping some of their investment through an increase in tolls to Canadians, which would impact the middle class, about which the current government enthusiastically talks?

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

Mr. Speaker, my friend opposite works hard for the people of his riding and he serves them well.

With respect to the point on infrastructure, anything we can do to get adequate infrastructure built will help in the short term, the mid term, and in the long term. We are investing considerable amounts of money in infrastructure. If we can leverage that money by involving the private sector, then it is incumbent upon any responsible government to consider that.

There will be economic modelling about what will work, what will be better, what will improve and expedite the investments in infrastructure that are so sorely needed. Anything that a responsible government could do to get investment moneys flowing, to get infrastructure projects under way, is important and it must be done in any reasonable manner possible. This government intends to do that.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-29, the government's fall budget update.

Nearly two weeks ago, the Minister of Finance rose in the House to deliver a fall economic update to reassure Canadians that no matter what issue they faced, it was a Liberal top priority and it would be taken very seriously.

Unfortunately, it is very cold comfort to the tens of thousands of Canadians who have lost their jobs, have seen their wages fall, and their savings depleted. It is funny that the Liberals, who will say just about anything to win an election and have taken promise breaking to new levels in the past year, are once again asking the House and Canadians to simply trust them, that they know what they are doing.

As an adult, I have learned that people will say anything to get what they want, and this seems like more empty rhetoric. The government is asking us to give it more billions, that it will work out and not worry. It is starting to rank right up there with, “Don't worry, the cheque is in the mail”, and “Dad, get us that new dog. We will walk it and we will pick up after it”. “Fool me once, shame on me; fool me twice, shame on you”. Fool me thrice, now things are just getting silly.

Our world is filled with uncertainty. We live in a time where we simply cannot predict where we will be in five years. However, when faced with high uncertainty, the solution is not to throw cash at various ideas on the off-chance that maybe, just maybe, it might create a job.

Let us look at where we are right now. Since coming to power, the Liberals have turned a comfortable surplus into a bottomless deficit. They have raised taxes, promised to raise more taxes, and misdirected question about raising other taxes. Projects get announced, then delayed, postponed, ignored, swept under the rug. The money gets promised, trumpets are sounded, press releases are sent in a flurry of self-praise, but the shovel does not hit the ground. So far only one project has actually been started. It is like a press release to project ratio of about 100:1 right now. All the while there has not been a single, net, full-time job created in the past year.

When the Minister of Finance delivered his economic update, I was looking for three basic things: how many jobs would be created; what was the plan to return the budget to surplus and pay down the debt; and what was the Liberal plan to increase economic growth? The Minister of Finance did not provide answers. Rather, he simple told Canadians to relax, trust him, he knew what he was doing.

Perhaps members will forgive me for being a tiny bit uneasy about our country's future, given what the government has and has not done in the time it has held its majority, such as ignoring economic data and experts, manipulating data to fit its failed narrative and refusing to back down when it is shown that its strategy is not working.

We live in the best country in the world, and Canadians put their trust in a government that told them to look forward to sunny ways. We are still waiting for the sun to appear, and the horizon does not look much brighter.

Let us look at what the government presented.

First, the Minister of Finance acknowledged how much his government had spent so far, and then laid out how much more he needed to spend, because the first bout of billions had no return. Therefore, let us spend billions more.

He talked about high-minded ideals such as establishing an infrastructure bank, spending money on public transit, and made honourable mention to getting Canadian products to market. These are nice ideas, but they are not new. The government has had the same talking points since day one, and Canadians have not seen a return for the billions of taxpayers dollars spent.

What we actually get are economic growth forecasts downgraded and downgraded some more. We have seen a drop in full-time employment. We have received yet another promise, and been told, yet again, to wait, trust them, they know what they are doing.

The government says that conditions are out of its control, but is it not a little puzzling that a more competitive Canadian dollar, higher oil prices, and a massive jump in government spending has produced such anemic growth? The first plan is not working, and we can probably guess that more of the same will not have a different outcome.

Next, the government talks about “delivering a more open and transparent government” by, among other things, improving “clarity on government spending”. We approve this in theory, but the plan to increase clarity on government spending so far involves limiting debate on government estimates and making it harder for parliamentarians to adequately scrutinize spending by limiting the amount of time for parliamentary review.

In order to cement this clarity, the government wants to change the long-held rules of our Parliament to accommodate its work load, but we are told it is only for a couple of years then it will be changed back. The most basic purpose of our Westminster parliamentary system is the oversight of spending, and the government wants to change the laws to limit this oversight, then asks us to trust it, that it will be okay.

After a while repeated assurances, promises, and demands for trust wear thin when report after report shows its plan is not working. More and more Canadians are losing that trust. After reading this document, it is for good reason.

The finance minister gave lip service to global economic conditions. He mentioned them, then ignored them and indicated that the government was committed to carrying out policies that flew in the face of these conditions, policies such as its much loved carbon tax, despite the lack of multilateral co-operation with our largest trading partner and major competitor, and the push back of provinces under which it was imposing this scheme.

We as Canadians often fall over ourselves to assert our independence from our American cousins and friends, but the government is planning to go the extra mile.

The best strategy to differentiate two geographically and economically similar countries in order to attract new talent in global investment is not the Liberal strategy of higher taxes, more regulations, and a more overbearing government. That is not the formula for success.

The Liberals are not backing down. They are ignoring global conditions, common sense, and the basic economic principles of competition. No, they are not backing down. It is truly disappointing because no one benefits from this posturing, not the vulnerable, not the seniors, and certainly not the middle class, the Liberals' favourite talking point.

The Liberals love talking about the middle class. They love saying that the middle class is a top priority for their government, speaking like they actually understand the plight of the average Canadian. They patronizingly tell Canadians how to live their lives and control what they save, how much they save, and where they save, all the while pretending they are blazing new trails for the middle class, when neither the Prime Minister nor the Minister of Finance has ever actually been a member of the middle class.

It is extremely easy for the government to raise taxes by just a small amount, or increase the debt by a small amount, or make things harder for Canadians by just a small amount, because it has never seen the impact these small amounts have on a Canadian family.

When parents hand children a path forward on a silver platter, they are not like the vast majority of taxpayers. Every time the government institutes new taxes or takes on more debt, it further indicates that it does not understand the impact of these policies.

When the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister defend their tax policies by saying that Canadians and small businesses can afford another $1,100 a year in CPP payroll taxes, or another 10¢, 15¢, or 20¢ per litre in new gas taxes to pay for their carbon tax, they are truly disconnected from the rest of the country.

Yesterday, The Globe and Mail published a study suggesting that nearly one-quarter of Canadians were worried about how to pay for groceries. Food banks today reported record increase in usage. Canadians are struggling. Food bank usage across the country is increasing, especially in Alberta, but the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister are not listening.

However, we have been listening. Canadians tell us that they do not want to pay higher taxes, not while they are dealing with such uncertainty; not when they do not know if their job will be there for them in the next five years, two years, or even one year; not when their federal government abandons all reason and common sense to satisfy the desires of its backroom high-minded donor class; and especially not when we receive talking points, promises, and demands for trust, without seeing any meaningful results.

I want to reiterate what I had hoped to see from the economic update. I had hoped the finance minister would acknowledge that times were tough and Canadians could not afford to pay higher taxes. I had hoped he would acknowledge that the time to institute punishing, unilateral carbon taxes was not when we had not created a single full-time job in a year. I had hoped he would acknowledge that deficits in the tens of billions actually had to be paid back. Above all, I had hoped the finance minister would reassure the House and Canadians that his plan was an actual plan.

Plans have targets, objectives, goals, and real tangible methods of achieving those targets. This update is more like a casualty report, another few billion packed on to the deficit, another few billion in new debt each year, no realistic plan to create jobs, no tangible results from the pain already endured.

I am worried about our future, and rightly so. There is enormous uncertainty in the world and we need an actual plan. What do we tell our children in 30 years when they are out of work in a stumbling economy, burdened by billions in debt, deficits, and interest payments, unable to see the path forward? Canadians deserve better.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last week in Guelph we had a pre-budget town hall where the CPP was discussed. We talked about supporting retired people as needed, which is a greater need every year, and the concerns around affordable housing.

While l was knocking on doors on Saturday, I heard many of the same concerns in the Brant neighbourhood in Guelph. A funeral director visited my office and said that we needed to look at survivor's benefits on the CPP, something at which we are looking.

Earlier this year, Canada's finance ministers reached a historic agreement when they came together as a federation and decided that they had to move forward on CPP.

I wonder if the member for Edmonton West has heard any similar concerns around retirement and the need to help our retired people in the years ahead.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, yes, I have spoken to a lot with seniors. In fact, in one of my past lives, I was head of a hospital foundation that looked after six hospitals for the elderly. We need to look after seniors, but the CPP is not headed where the need is. Seniors living in poverty are mostly single women, and adding more CPP would not help them one bit. Increasing the GIS and other benefits, sure, but directing money to CPP is not benefiting those who have not been in the workforce, whether because of disability or staying home to raise children. It would not help them one bit. It is adding money where it is not needed. This plan would not help the poor or seniors living in poverty one bit. It would add taxes and not help anyone.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one thing that emerged during the budgetary process is the collective agreement that was struck between Unifor and three major automotive companies, General Motors, Ford, and Fiat Chrysler. I congratulate the union. What is important to recognize is that negotiating and securing that agreement was not so much to benefit themselves, but the primary negotiating element in the final agreement was, to the credit of the companies and the union, investment of nearly $1 billion in our country.

I would ask the member what his party's position is on advancing those funds to create good jobs for Canadians and what role the government should have in that element.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be honest and say that I am not aware of the exact contract that Unifor worked out. I will say, though, that the government is doing its best to counteract any good work being done by Unifor and the big three in creating new jobs, by imposing a punishing carbon tax that would make our jobs uncompetitive with Michigan, Mexico, and countries that we deal with. It is the same for the CPP increases. Adding payroll taxes would not help employment one bit.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

What worries me, Mr. Speaker, about the member's remarks is that there were a lot of exaggerations and misinformation. For the member to get up in the House and say the increase to the CPP is going to be $1,100 per year to invest in the pension for the future is absolutely wrong. The finance officials were before committee yesterday and said there would be very few cases where it would hit $1,000. It may be in the range of $700.

The member talked about the use of food banks. Does he look at who is using those food banks in Edmonton? Is it not seniors? Yes, they have needs now, but this government is looking to the future and trying to find ways to ensure that future seniors do not have to attend food banks. I just do not like that misrepresentation by a member in the House.

I would ask the member where the data is that shows $1,100. It does not exist. Does he not think governments have a responsibility to invest in the future?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that, yes, I have spoken to people at the food bank. They actually joined us at the Alberta jobs task force round table. Their number one concern is the carbon tax, because they do not have a way to pass it on to customers. An extra 5,000 people use food banks every month in the city of Edmonton. They are people driven out of work in the energy industry, which the government has done nothing to assist. There are 100,000 Albertans out of work, and all the member can do is stand and scream rhetoric. Shame on him and on the government.

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today on behalf of my constituents of Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge to speak to a bill that takes us one step closer to a more fair, progressive, and inclusive society.

I want to take a moment to speak to the importance of Bill C-29, not only for its direct, positive impact on thousands of families in my community, but for how it reflects our nation's desire to see our collective interests as part of a brighter future for us all.

I would like to begin by briefly telling a story about a constituent in my riding. On the first day the Canada child benefit cheques were sent out, this constituent called my office to thank our government for this new fairer way of helping families get ahead and lifting hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty.

However, it is important to note that this constituent did not qualify for the CCB because his income was too high. This constituent explained that he had lived his childhood in poverty and, while he no longer needed the help, was so incredibly proud that this government was ensuring that hundreds of thousands of children would not have to live as he did.

This constituent is not alone. These constituents represent a belief that when we lend a hand to our neighbour, we are all lifted together. They represent a way of thinking that our collective good is in the best interests of all Canadians, now and for generations to come. The economics are clear. When our families are given a boost, it is not just a handout. These are transfers that are not only going to improve the life and standard of living for nine out of 10 families across Canada, but these are real dollars that are being re-introduced to the economy to help stimulate growth.

A successful, progressive fiscal agenda is one that, through addressing short-term challenges, produces long-term results. For families in Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, this budget means that Stephen's parents can afford to register him for this season of Knights football, or Allison can go to camp at Timberline Ranch, and that makes the economy a little better.

When middle-class families have money in their pockets, they have more money to spend on their families and more money with which to stimulate the economy. Families benefit; the economy benefits.

Under the previous Conservative government, what was lacking—amongst many things—was an understanding that cheques to the wealthiest of Canadians do not produce economic growth, nor do they produce a more prosperous and fair nation. We know the realities.

The CCB is tax free, targeted, and simplified. Over the last few months, I have spoken to families in my riding, and I have heard how this new measure has helped put healthier food on their tables, buy their kids school supplies, or replace worn-out running shoes. These are real families in my riding. This is what they are experiencing.

Let us just call it what it is: real change for those families in my riding. It is also important to note that this vision for investing in our future is one that our government is proudly carrying out across ministries, and one that I know will benefit the constituents in my riding of Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge in many different ways.

Investments do not just happen overnight. The word “investment” means there is time involved. It takes time. We invest in our children. We invest in our families. We invest in our home. That is a long-term strategy. Bill C-29 follows suit with a vision for Canada that is being driven by Canadians themselves.

When I speak with folks in my community and I hear their hopes and concerns, their perspectives are not falling on empty ears. Canadians have and continue to be at the heart of our policy decisions.

It is not just about the direct needs of families, either. It is about what our communities value. For folks in coastal and watershed communities like my own, our government has listened and responded with a $1.5 billion investment in funding for an oceans protection plan. This was sorely needed. This has never been done in the past. The previous government did not invest that kind of money. We need this. For young people in my community who are struggling to finance their post-secondary education, we have heard them, and we have answered with an increase in Canada student grants.

It is about the future. Let us talk about that. I have met many young people in my community, and they are incredibly driven and optimistic. I recently started my constituency youth council. We have had a couple of meetings, and from age 14 to 24, these young leaders of today are bringing the tough issues to the table. They want to tackle issues such as transportation, youth mental health, climate change, education, and immigration. It just shows that these young people in our communities have brilliant, critical minds that we need to invest in. Studies say that this generation of young people are our most intellectually advanced, and yet, when we talk to Canadian youth, they and their families are still facing barriers to tap into their potential.

We are investing in our youth. We are doubling Canada student loans. We are supporting low-income students and helping them to pay off their student debts by waiting for them to actually have a salary of $25,000 a year or more. Until then, they will not have to pay that back. They will not have to worry about interest payments. That is what is going to help them.

We are also increasing funding for Canada summer jobs. This summer, I went on a mission and spoke with 80 of 100 students who got Canada summer jobs. I went to every single business, church, and organization and met those young people of today. I was proud to see the potential they bring to our country. It just tells me that we need to invest more into the future of our country, into our youth.

We are responding to real problems now with eyes on the future. These are not just policies that are checking off a wish list or un-targeted boutique tax credits that help families, regardless of whether they need it or not. Our policies are rooted in the needs and the values of Canadians and are a response to hundreds of thousands of ongoing conversations with members of my community and our communities. I have done town halls. We have done multiple round tables. The people I am meeting are open and frank with me.

Part of our responsibility as a government is matching the needs and desires of Canadians with programs and services. We are doing just that. In our government, Canadians, not personal agendas, are at the heart of everything we do.

Bill C-29 is important. To be frank, fulfilling our commitment to a fairer economic system is one I am incredibly passionate about. While members opposite may scoff at the many times our government talks about fairness and investing in our economy, I think it is incredibly important to continue to talk about them. Therefore, today, I will continue to share the importance of fairness, investment, and a brighter future for all Canadians. I will continue to share my enthusiasm for the policies outlined in Bill C-29 and the effect they would have in my riding of Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge.

Families in my riding have been struggling to get ahead far too long, and the measures in Bill C-29, and the measures that continue to be introduced by our government, are working toward a society Canadians can believe in.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am still a little confused. The member was a small business owner before this, and everything in the budget is against small business owners. I hope he did not forget where his roots are from because going back and trying to explain to the folks in Pitt Meadows about the CPP or the carbon tax has to be a tough road ahead for him.

Perhaps the member could enlighten this side of the House as to when he thinks the budget will be balanced. He talked a lot about youth, their future, and how optimistic they are. However, we do not have any indication of a date that the budget will be balanced, and this generation and generations after this will have to pay for it, so we would love to hear his comments on that.

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague on the other side of the House for bringing up that I am a small businessman. In fact, I do believe in the budget because if we want our small businesses to succeed we need people to actually have money to go out and spend. The effort we are making with the CCB for instance is one of those examples. If people are going out to the businesses and the restaurants because they have a little more money in their pockets, that is one of the ways we help our small businesses. It is not the other way, that of choking everyone so there is no money in their pockets. That does not help small businesses.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

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

Since we work together on a committee that studies poverty, my question will not surprise him. I want to ask him about the indexing of the Canada child benefit, or rather the fact that it will not be indexed until 2020. That decreases the value of the benefit for families until 2020. For low-income families, it could mean the loss of $500. The Liberal government is giving low-income families $6.50 more a month in child benefit money than the Conservatives did.

How do the Liberals expect to lift low-income families out of poverty with $6.50 a month? In my opinion, this real change is not helping low-income families at all.

When my colleague talks about the families in his riding, which families is he talking about?