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.

Old Age Security Act

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Seniors]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to participate in the second reading debate on Bill C-319. I would like to thank the member for Shefford for sponsoring this bill.

Private members' bills play an important role in focusing parliamentary attention on issues of concern to Canadians. Last spring, for instance, we had bills on mandatory immunization, employment insurance for adoptive parents, school food programs and, just recently, a bill to amend the Criminal Code for vulnerable adults.

Seniors are the backbone of Canadian society. They are our parents, our grandmothers and our grandfathers. They are our mentors and loved ones. They are our former teachers, our bosses and our leaders. Seniors built our amazing country and they deserve to live out their retirement without worrying about their financial security. I want to speak today to all the measures our government has delivered that support Canadian seniors.

Increasing old age security by 10% for seniors over the age of 75 was the right thing to do, because it was delivering targeted support to those who need it the most. We know that the older seniors get, the more likely they are to experience higher costs due to the onset of illness or disability and increased health-related expenses. The facts and data support the government's decision, because here, on this side of the House, we, unlike some of the other parties in this place, make decisions based upon data and facts.

Let us turn to the numbers to get an idea of how our government's plan has been effective in ensuring that taxpayer dollars are hard at work supporting those who need it most. In 2020, 39% of seniors aged 75 and over received the guaranteed income supplement, compared to 29% of those aged 65 to 74. There are also more women in the over-75 age group than men, and there are more Canadians with a disability in that age group as well. According to the Canadian Survey on Disability, in 2017, 47% of seniors over the age of 75 had a disability, compared to 32% under the age of 75. This evidence tells us that seniors over the age of 75 are more likely to be in vulnerable circumstances. This means that they are more likely to need additional support, so that is exactly what the government delivered.

Conscious of the facts, our government made the responsible decision to make a historic increase to the old age security pension for seniors aged 75 and older. Let us be clear: This was a huge win for seniors. This change represented the first increase to OAS in 50 years. This policy has helped approximately 3.3 million seniors. They received more than $800 extra over the first year of the increase, and the benefit, of course, is indexed to rise with the cost of living, so it will continue to go up.

However, we did not stop there. Since 2015, we have implemented a range of targeted actions that have not only contributed to the lowest poverty rates among seniors in Canadian history, but also positioned Canada as a country with one of the lowest poverty rates in the world for seniors. In fact, one of the very first things the government did after we were elected was reverse the reckless Conservative plan to increase the age of retirement. We immediately lowered the age of eligibility for OAS and GIS, from 67 back to 65, allowing Canadians to retire sooner. This put hundreds of thousands of dollars back in the pockets of Canadian seniors. Bill C-29 was the budget implementation act in 2016. When we look at the voting record, the Conservatives voted against it and the Bloc voted against it. That is where the vote was for the return from 67 to 65 in 2016.

We also raised the guaranteed income supplement by almost $1,000 a year, which helped nearly one million vulnerable single seniors. We know that many seniors want to continue to work past retirement. That is why we extended eligibility for the GIS earnings exemption to include self-employment income and increased the exemption by over 40%, to enable seniors who wished to continue working to do so. On top of all this, we are ensuring that those benefits keep up with the cost of living. In fact, over the past year, OAS and GIS have actually increased by 7.1%, while CPP and QPP have increased by 6.5%. We are proud of our record, which shows that, year after year, we have strengthened seniors' financial security, while lifting hundreds of thousands of seniors out of poverty.

Of course, there is much more work to do. That is why we are bringing the largest expansion of health care in 60 years by providing uninsured seniors access to high-quality dental care. I sincerely hope that the member across the way who is moving the bill will vote for our budget so that she can support seniors with dental care.

We are always better when we work together. I encourage members across the way, including the Bloc, to work with us to support seniors in Quebec and across Canada. However, time and time again, Bloc members are choosing politics over supporting seniors. We can just look at the voting record, and I'll give a few more examples. I just mentioned dental care for seniors, but they have also already voted against the early stage of the budget, and I assume they are going to vote against the budget when it is ready to be voted on. There was also lowering the age of retirement, with Bill C-29, the Budget Implementation Act, in 2016; strengthening the GIS; and our OAS increase that supports the most vulnerable seniors. These are things that they voted against.

However, people should not worry. While opposition parties are playing political games, we are going to stay focused on delivering real results for seniors from coast to coast to coast.

Canada's population is aging. Seniors are the fastest-growing demographic, and we need to be thoughtful in our approach to supporting them. We will continue to be proud of the record that we have in supporting seniors.

Second Reading

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating the sixth omnibus budget bill since the last election. It is 850 pages long and includes 70 pages of additions to the Income Tax Act, yet there is not one word about tax havens. Three years, six bills and 4,500 pages of budget bills, and still not a word about tax havens.

The Liberal government's record on taxation is a monumental failure. It is worse than failure, actually, because to fail implies that one has tried. This government is not even trying. It chose to leave the door wide open to tax havens and the people who cash in because of them. It is doing so knowingly and deliberately. Despite all the nice things it says about the middle class, it has picked sides and it is siding with Bay Street bankers. I cannot overemphasize that tax havens are probably the worst financial and economic scandal of our time. When it comes to attacking this cancer, Canada's performance is among the world's worst.

Canada represents just 2% of the world's GDP. Canada's three largest banks, the Royal Bank of Canada, Scotia Bank, and the CIBC, represent 80% of the banking assets in Barbados, Grenada, and the Bahamas. Canada has just 2% of the world's GDP, but 80% of its banking assets are in these three tax havens in the Caribbean.

That is not all. In the eight other tax havens that make up the Eastern Caribbean Currency Union, Canadian banks own 60% of banking assets. Canada is not an economic superpower, but it is a superpower in tax havens.

As social democrats, we cannot accept that. There is no social justice without tax justice. There is no justice at all when the financial sector hides its money in the Caribbean and ordinary people are left paying the bill. Ottawa is allowing that to happen and at the same time is cutting transfers. Left with a shortfall, Quebec is making cuts here and there, while Quebeckers made it clear in poll after poll during the recent electoral campaign in Quebec that their priorities were health and education.

In the meantime, bankers continue to grow their billions of tax-free dollars in the sunny Caribbean. This is not illegal because the government has introduced no provisions in six budget implementation bills to prevent it. For this reason alone, everyone in the House should vote against this bill. That is what the Bloc Québécois is going to do.

However, this bill also contains some good measures. It will establish pay equity at the federal level, both for the government and businesses operating under its jurisdiction. It is about time that Ottawa moved into the 21st century, especially since John Turner's government announced this measure in 1984, or 34 years ago.

I will now speak to the issue of consumer protection in banking, which is addressed in Bill C-86. We have to acknowledge that the regime proposed by Bill C-86 is a big improvement over the mess proposed two years ago in Bill C-29. I have to say that I am proud of the work that we did to make the government reconsider and go back to the drawing board.

The Liberal government trampled over Quebec consumers to accommodate Bay Street. I remind members that Quebec is the most advanced society in North America when it comes to consumer protections. The Quebec government sets the strictest guidelines to ensure that consumers are not swindled. This was one legacy left to us by Lise Payette, who passed away last month.

Bill C-29 sought to eliminate all of the safeguards that protect ordinary people but upset rich Bay Street bankers, including measures that ban misleading advertising and hidden fees, those that prevent unilateral changes to contracts, and those that prohibit banks from increasing the maximum liability for unauthorized credit card charges to more than $50.

The Quebec act provides for a simple, free and legally binding recourse mechanism, which is the Office de la protection du consommateur. This organization defends ordinary people rather than profiteers and has the ability to initiate class action suits so that David does not have to go up against Goliath alone. Ottawa wanted to eliminate all this, usurp all the power and use it to give the banks a nice big gift of vague requirements and non-existing recourse—essentially a paradise for bankers.

I will say that Bill C-86 is not as blatant an attack as Bill C-29 was. The obligations that the government is imposing on banks are real obligations. They are not written in the conditional tense as mere suggestions, as we saw two years ago.

The government is much less explicit about its desire to stifle Quebec and set aside its provincial Consumer Protection Act. It has eliminated the infamous clause about federal paramountcy. It seems the two regimes will be able to coexist. I say “it seems” because whether that will really happen is unclear. That is why this needs to be studied in greater detail.

With regard to consumer protection, the federal act has one massive shortcoming: recourse. In Quebec, the process is simple. If someone feels their bank has misled them, they can complain to the Office de la protection du consommateur, a consumer protection bureau that will investigate and, if necessary, take the case to court. There is no cost to the complainant, and the government helps the consumer assert their rights. That is not what Bill C-86 does. The consumer will have to contact the banking ombudsman, a kind of mediator who makes recommendations but has no actual power and, moreover, is paid by the banks. Would consumers trust a judge they knew was in the bank's employ? Of course not. What we needed was a government institution, not an employee of the bankers' association.

If the bank does not listen to the recommendations of its ombudsman, what other recourse do clients have? They can take the case to federal court alone and at their own expense. Does the government really think that a client who is charged $50 in hidden fees is going to take the case to federal court alone and deal with his or her bank's army of lawyers? Consumer protection is new in federal law. It would be in the banks' interest to limit the scope of their obligations as much as possible. We can be sure that they will do everything in their power to ensure that the case law does not come down too hard on them. They will fight. Taking a case to the Supreme Court can cost up to $1 million. No one is going to subject themselves to that to recover $50 in fees. The remedies contained in Bill C-86 are ill suited for an area like consumer protection, where it is often a matter of many small amounts of money.

Also, although the bill imposes obligations on banks, it does not provide any real recourse for clients, which means that the obligations may be more theoretical than real. Here is what I expect will happen. Since clients who have been shortchanged will not have any real recourse at the federal level, they will continue to turn to the Office de la protection du consommateur du Québec. That organization will take on the case and the banks, as they have always done, will defend themselves by claiming that they are above Quebec laws. In 2014, the Supreme Court ruled in a case such as this. It found that the Quebec laws applied to banks and that they could not claim to fall exclusively under federal jurisdiction. However, the Marcotte ruling is a subtle one. One must read between the lines. Basically, what the court said was that banks are subject to Quebec law because the federal Bank Act does not include a comprehensive and exclusive consumer protection regime.

Would the court have reached the same decision if Bill C-86 had been passed? Would it have found that what we are debating here today is a comprehensive and exclusive regime? Incidentally, “exclusive” means that it excludes the application of Quebec's laws. I do not know. No one knows. That is why this legislation needs a detailed study, and not a quick glance as part of an omnibus bill. There is a real risk that Bill C-86 will eliminate the simple, free and binding recourse mechanisms we have in Quebec, and replace them with virtually pointless mechanisms. This will give the Toronto-based banks what they have always wanted: the privilege of being above the law.

To support Bill C-86 without understanding its impacts is tantamount to gambling with consumer rights in Quebec. It would be irresponsible. That is why I would like to move the following amendment to the amendment: That the amendment of the hon. member for Carleton be amended by deleting all the words after the words “other measures” and substituting the following: but that it be split and that clause 10 introducing the financial consumer protection framework be now referred to the Standing Committee on Finance before second reading.

Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there are many reasons to oppose Bill C-63.

Take, for example, last summer's botched tax reform and the supposed tax cuts for the middle class from which hardly anyone benefits fully because a person has to earn $110,000 a year to be entitled to the maximum amount. Then, there are tax havens. I would like to remind members that Canada signed the OECD's convention on tax evasion five months ago but still has not ratified it because the Income Tax Act is full of holes, and Bill C-63 does absolutely nothing to fix them.

I will talk about just one aspect of the bill, which is truly scandalous and has largely been overlooked so far.

I am talking about the cannabis taxation framework. Cannabis will be legal in eight months. At that time, the federal government will no longer really be involved. Quebec will be responsible for health and detox services. Quebec will be responsible for education and prevention. Quebec will be responsible for the administration of justice. Quebec and the municipalities will be responsible for public safety and security. In short, Quebec will be stuck with all of the responsibilities and the costs, and it will cost a lot. All that Ottawa is going to do is issue the production licences. That does not cost a penny. This is how the bill is drafted, and Ottawa will be issuing permits and raking in the tax money. The provinces will take on all of the costs and the federal government will not take on any.

Part 4 of Bill C-63 has to do with cannabis taxation. It states that cannabis will be taxed “under a single Act of Parliament”.

Yes, I said “a single Act of Parliament”. That is what it says in black and white in the new paragraph 8.8(1)(a), as set out in clause 170 of the bill. Ottawa wants to collect all of the tax. It wants to take up all of the available tax room. That is what Bill C-63 boils down to. It cannot be stressed enough that it is the provinces and cities that will be paying all of the costs. Once the federal government gets its hands on all the money, what will happen? If we want to know the answer, all we have to do is keep reading this nefarious bill, which makes it pretty clear.

The Minister of Finance will turn to the provinces and tell them he has gobbled up all the revenue and siphoned off all the money. He will tell them to come and see him so they can talk it over, and maybe he will be able to give them back a small amount. We heard the Minister of Finance say that he might go fifty-fifty. That means 50% for Ottawa, which will have paid for nothing, and 50% for the provinces, which will have paid for everything. Even then, the parliamentary secretary says this fifty-fifty arrangement is not set in stone and will have to be looked at. None of this is very reassuring.

We could end up with a ratio like 95% for Ottawa and peanuts for the provinces. We do not know. That is the problem with Bill C-63. It allows that kind of theft. The Minister of Finance will be free to do whatever he wants, because he will be the one setting the ratio. If this bill is passed in its current form, Quebec will just have to obey if it does not want to be hung out to dry and left with nothing, zip, zero, to pay for regulating cannabis consumption, educating and treating the public, and ensuring public safety.

A few years ago, former Quebec finance minister Nicolas Marceau coined the phrase “predatory federalism” to describe Ottawa's blackmailing behaviour over transfer payments. My good friend Nicolas Marceau, an excellent economist, was putting it mildly. We are seeing that predation happen in real time today, here in this House, in a debate being rammed through under a gag order. Under Bill C-63, Ottawa gets all the money. The Minister of Finance could decide to give some to the provinces, at his discretion and under his conditions.

Paragraph 8.8(1)(a) mentions those conditions. It says that the provinces must abide by the conditions if they want to get the transfer, but it does not say what the conditions are. That will be up to the federal government to decide later on, by itself, without having to come back to the House.

In Quebec, Minister Charlebois has started drafting a plan to regulate cannabis consumption. The Minister of Finance may decide that he does not like Quebec's plan. He might force Quebec to change its plan if it wants a share of the money the federal government gets its hands on thanks to Bill C-63. He might stop the payments if Quebec does something he does not like. This is serious.

Bill C-63 can say all it wants about coordinated cannabis taxation agreements, but the real story is something else altogether. Something agreed to at gunpoint is not an agreement; it is a shakedown. Bill C-63 is a weapon for extortion. Quebec has its hands full figuring out how to regulate this in terms of security, public service, and prevention, all of which Ottawa dumped on its plate, so the last thing Quebec needs is another pointless federal-provincial battle instigated entirely by a federal government that refuses to respect Quebec. The predatory federal government is taking all of the money and using it to make my people and their government do its bidding. I have had enough of the federal government shoving things like this down our throats with its mammoth bills.

A year ago, Bill C-29 tried to make Quebec consumers powerless against banks. The Bloc Québécois was unable to intervene until late in the process, but we moved heaven and earth. The National Assembly, consumer groups, the Government of Quebec, and everyone else protested loudly, and the government backed down.

There was another omnibus bill, another nasty surprise, six months ago. That time, the government was giving a gift to the private investors putting their money in the infrastructure bank. It gave them the right to ignore Quebec's laws, agricultural zoning, and municipal bylaws. Once again, no one said anything in committee, because the Bloc Québécois was not there to stand up for Quebec. Once again, the National Assembly protested, and so did the Union des producteurs agricoles. However, we lost the battle that time. It is frustrating that there are 40 MPs from Quebec who would rather clash with Quebec than defend it. We are facing the same situation today, another omnibus bill that is hiding a scam.

In the committee study, no one pointed out that Ottawa wanted to take all the money from cannabis and use that as blackmail to impose its conditions. No one raised any issues about that during the study of the bill, because the Bloc Québécois was not at committee.

Although it is late, it is not too late. We will very firmly oppose Bill C-63, and we will not be the only ones. As in the case of other omnibus bills, we will have Quebec behind us.

This time we will see whether the Liberal members from Quebec have found their backbones since last year. It remains to be seen. Time is running out.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is going to vote against the budget implementation bill, mainly because of the way it was introduced. Bill C-63 is a 318-page omnibus bill. It amends 19 acts and creates a new one. Some of the measures are budgetary, but others have absolutely nothing to do with the budget. What is more, they are all mixed in with such a hodgepodge of technical measures that we cannot debate the bill properly. Here is what the Prime Minister had to say about omnibus bills during the election campaign, and I quote:

Stephen Harper has also used omnibus bills to prevent Parliament from properly reviewing and debating his proposals. We will...bring an end to this undemocratic practice.

What a great promise. Yes, this is an undemocratic practice, and I am not the one who said it. Members can read it for themselves on page 30 of the Liberal Party's election platform. However, we are starting to get used to the government's shell games.

Every time the Liberals introduce a new bill, it is the things they do not say that we need to be careful of. For example, six months ago, they hid a measure in their last mammoth bill, Bill C-44, that would do no less than give investors in the Canada infrastructure bank the power to disregard Quebec's laws. There was no agricultural zoning, no environmental protections, and no municipal zoning. Under the bill, Toronto bankers were considered agents of the federal crown and could do whatever they wanted in Quebec.

Six months before that, the Liberals sought to give Toronto bankers another gift with Bill C-29, another mammoth bill. On that occasion, the government was seeking to allow bankers to circumvent Quebec's consumer protection legislation. To heck with consumers and the little people who are getting ripped off, we know that the government reports to Bay Street.

Today, we are being presented another omnibus budget implementation bill. Once again, the government has a nasty surprise for us. On page 277 of the document and on the following pages, we see that the government is amending the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act. With this apparently innocuous, or at least highly technical, amendment, it is establishing the legislative architecture for imposing a federal tax on cannabis.

We all know that cannabis will be legal in eight months. From that point on, the federal government will no longer have a role to play. All it will have to do is pocket the tax it is setting up in this bill. Healthcare services, prevention, drug treatment and public safety will all be under Quebec’s jurisdiction. It will be very expensive.

In other words, the government is creating a problem, telling the provinces to deal with it and making money all at the same time. Quebec and the other provinces are saying that they need more time. We understand that the Prime Minister is really intent on rolling his joint in front of the cameras on Canada Day 2018, but the government’s attitude toward Quebec is nothing less than scandalous. It is shovelling problems into Quebec’s and the other provinces’ yards, and has the gall to make money as a result.

The government cannot hide behind the fact that Quebec can impose further taxes if it so desires. It does not work that way. There is a maximum price beyond which black market cannabis will be less expensive for consumers. The Parliamentary Budget Officer said so. He issued a warning. If the government tries to make marijuana a cash cow, it might very well foster organized crime. In Bill C-63, the government is opening the door to this possibility.

The Bloc Québécois recently introduced a bill to prevent outlaw motorcycle clubs from acting like rock stars, waving their banners, intimidating citizens and making a show of force. However, the Liberals and the other parties did not even want to read the bill, and rejected it out of hand. I am therefore not surprised that the government is not concerned about organized crime. However, with Bill C-63, it will be giving organized crime yet another break.

The provinces will have to lower taxes and forgo revenues so that the Hell’s Angels’ cannabis is not a better deal than cannabis sold legally. For that reason alone, I encourage all hon. members to oppose the bill. It is scandalous.

However, there is more. The main reason why we are disappointed with Bill C-63 is because of what it does not contain. There is nothing at all in the bill to solve the problem of tax havens.

Madam Speaker, you may not have noticed, but we are celebrating an anniversary today: it has been exactly four months since the government signed the OECD’s multilateral convention to prevent tax evasion and tax havens.

Canada signed the BEPS Project agreement on July 7, but it has not yet ratified it, because Canadian law, essentially the Income Tax Act, does not meet the agreement’s requirements. Today, four months later, how many measures from the international agreement are included in Bill C-63? Not a single one.

We are extremely disappointed, but not particularly surprised. I have been a member of the House for two years now. Almost every day, I see the exceptionally powerful lobbying of the five major Canadian banks on Bay Street in Toronto. The Minister of Finance, himself a major shareholder of Morneau Shepell, uses tax havens, is involved in financial schemes and advises people to use tax havens to divert money from Canada.

For example, his company advised the Bahamas on how to better attract Canadian insurance companies. It is written on the website of the Minister of Finance’s company. It is also written that he advised Barbados, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands in methods of fostering access for his client companies.

In terms of economic policy, there is not much difference with the previous government. The Prime Minister is a great communicator, but the fact remains that this is an old government that is more interested in finances than in Canadians. The financial lobby runs Ottawa when it comes to economic matters. This is nothing new. Paul Martin had a shipping company registered in Barbados so he would not have to pay income tax.

If you look at the Income Tax Act, the Bank Act or the Canada infrastructure bank, you can see that Canada’s economic development is wholly based on the interests of the financial lobby in Toronto. After Barbados in the 1990s, Stephen Harper’s Conservative government legalized 22 more tax havens in 2009 by signing tax information exchange agreements.

Last spring, the Liberals added the Cook Islands to the list. That is the history of Canada. The financial community has the government’s ear, and, really, who is governing who? The Minister of National Revenue keeps repeating that we are investing historic amounts, “zillions and zillions”, in the fight against tax evasion and that the net is tightening. I am all for prosecuting fraud, but the problem lies elsewhere. Essentially, the use of tax havens is perfectly legal in Canada. That is the real problem. As legislators, that is the problem that concerns us here in the House.

When the minister says that the net is tightening on those who abuse the system, she is mistaken. It is still wide open. For example, Canada accounts for 2% of global GDP, and yet, last summer, the IMF reported that three Canadian banks, the Royal Bank, Scotiabank and the CIBC, represent 80% of all banking assets in Barbados, Grenada and the Bahamas. In the eight other tax havens that make up the Eastern Caribbean Currency Union, Canadian banks own 60% of banking assets. That is considerable.

Canada is not an economic superpower, but it is a superpower in tax havens. Nothing in Bill C-63 addresses this problem. Every Canadian has to pay the income tax that these freeloaders are not. The middle class that the government is so fond of talking about will be footing the bill. The regulatory framework was written specifically to allow banks and multinationals to avoid paying income tax in Canada.

I say “regulatory framework” because the problem is in the regulations. No tax treaty condones the use of tax havens. Even the treaty with Barbados does not cover the empty shells that enjoy tax breaks in that country. As for the other tax havens, Canada has not signed tax treaties with them. When you look at the Income Tax Act, it does not condone tax havens, either. When Parliament passed the act and adopted the treaties, it never condoned tax havens. Members of Parliament did their job and prohibited them. It is the government that failed in its task. In obscure regulations, it contravened Parliament’s decisions. It decreed by regulation that the act and the treaties adopted by Parliament do not apply, and that bank profits can be exempted by having them go through the West Indies.

For this reason, and because of what this mammoth contains and does not contain, we will be opposing it.

Motions in amendment

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend you for reading that long list of amendments.

The situation is critical. Bill C-44 is a mammoth bill, an omnibus bill. It is 308 pages long, amends 47 existing federal laws, and creates five new ones. It covers a whole host of areas. The governing party promised to bring an end to the use of mammoth or omnibus bills, but here we are again. It does not make any sense. Improving legislation takes a lot of debate and a lot of work so that any changes do not infringe on other jurisdictions. This is not the way that things should be done, and I find it very unfortunate.

Clause 18 of Bill C-44 creates the Canada infrastructure bank, which is also being called the infrastructure privatization bank, because that is what it does. We are against the creation of this bank.

As proposed, the infrastructure bank or infrastructure privatization bank is completely at odds with the Liberals' election promise. They said that they were going to create an infrastructure bank that would give municipalities a line of credit so that they could build public infrastructure for less. The Liberals changed their minds. They said that this line of credit or assistance would be for private companies and the financial sector, starting with Bay Street.

There is an incestuous relationship between the government and the Bay Street financial lobby. I think that is deplorable. We have seen it in a whole raft of bills and decisions.

Last fall, in Bill C-29, the Liberals tried to make Bay Street exempt from the Quebec Consumer Protection Act. That measure was hidden away in a mammoth bill. We managed to get the government to back down on that, but it did so only at the last minute.

What is happening now with Bill C-44 is even worse. I would need a lot of time to cover everything in this bill that should be changed. The situation being critical, I will concentrate on the main problem, a game-changing move that gives private investors on Bay Street and even from abroad an incredible, impossible advantage: the power to circumvent provincial laws, Quebec laws, and municipal regulations.

As it stands, with Bill C-44, we are no longer masters in our own house. This is unbelievable. This cannot be happening. Why? Because, in Bill C-44, the government is giving agent of the crown status to the infrastructure privatization bank along with all of the projects it handles, even the ones that are entirely private. That is no small thing. It means that private investment will enjoy all the privileges and immunities of government and be able to circumvent Quebec's laws and municipal regulations. This makes no sense. This part of the bill must be removed, and that is the subject of my speech this morning.

More specifically, in subsection 5(4) of the future Canada infrastructure bank act, this is stated in legal terms that seem fine at first glance:

The Bank is not an agent of Her Majesty in right of Canada, except when

(a) giving advice about investments in infrastructure projects to ministers of Her Majesty in right of Canada, to departments, boards, commissions and agencies of the Government of Canada and to Crown corporations as defined in subsection 83(1) of the Financial Administration Act;

(b) collecting and disseminating data in accordance with paragraph 7(1)?(g); (c) acting on behalf of the government of Canada in the provision of services or programs, and the delivery of financial assistance, specified in paragraph 18(h); and

This is already confusing, but it gets worse in paragraph (d), which states:

(d) carrying out any activity conducive to the carrying out of its purpose that the Governor in Council may, by order, specify.

That is really quite something. This means that, by order in council, the government can give the infrastructure privatization bank the status of agent of the crown, thereby allowing it to operate outside of provincial laws and municipal bylaws. That must be removed from the bill, because it makes no sense whatsoever.

Worse still, according to paragraph 18(c), the privileges granted to the bank can be extended to completely private projects that go through it. That paragraph gives the bank the power to:

...acquire and deal with as its own any investment made by another person.

The privileges of the crown, which allow the government to be above everyone else, would be given to the infrastructure privatization bank, which could then use those privileges to give priority to any project it wants. As a result, foreign investors such as BlackRock, Asian investment firms, or Toronto banks could decide to build a bridge, a water system, or an oil pipeline, and those projects would not be subject to our laws. That is what the bill does. It is a major power grab. For the first time, elected members of Parliament are going to delegate to the government the power to grant crown agent status to the projects that it wants. We would be giving projects a power that we have here. That is unacceptable and must not happen.

Yesterday, constitutional expert Patrick Taillon gave a wonderful presentation in this regard before the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance. We consulted five legal experts, four of whom are constitutional experts, and they all agree. They say that the wording of that part of Bill C-44 raises serious concerns. One constitutional expert even said that the wording was making investors uncomfortable because they think that the legislation might be deemed unconstitutional and challenged in court. Investors would therefore be reluctant to invest in the bank with the wording as it now stands. Of course, if that were to happen, it would be fine with us, since we are against this infrastructure privatization bank. In short, this bill is poorly written and must be clarified.

In the past, the courts have deemed that Quebec laws were not applicable to federal projects, or at least that they applied as long as they had no effect. For example, in the case of energy east, Quebec laws have no bearing on the route, but they can affect the colour of the pipeline. That makes no sense.

When it comes to installing cell towers, we see that there is no compliance with municipal regulations. As for Canada Post and its mailboxes, we saw Denis Coderre, the mayor of Montreal and a former Liberal MP, take a jackhammer to the base on which the mailboxes were to be installed. However, officially, we have no power over that.

Federal infrastructure currently represents only 2% of Canada's infrastructure. However, this infrastructure bank could change things because private funding has a leverage effect. As for crown agent status, it makes no sense. We remember the expropriation of 40,000 hectares for Mirabel and Forillon National Park, among others. This must change.

A number of Quebec laws will go out the window because of Bill C-44. One of those laws is the Environment Quality Act. This means that the BAPE will no longer be able to hold public consultations. Another is the Act respecting the Preservation of Agricultural Land and Agricultural Activities. Quebec is large in terms of land mass but has relatively little arable land. Land use plans, urbanization plans, zoning regulations, and basically all of the infrastructure financed by the infrastructure bank would be exempt from these laws. We will no longer be masters in our own house.

At the Senate committee, the Minister of Finance said there was no link between the government and the infrastructure bank. He clarified that by saying that the bank would operate at arm's length from the government. That is what he said, but according to the constitutional experts we consulted, that is not what is written here. That is why the minister must clarify his intention and state it clearly in the act so that this bill does not end up before the Supreme Court for years, casting the whole thing into legal limbo.

The same goes for PMO spokesperson Olivier Duchesneau, who wrote this to Michel Girard of the Journal de Montréal:

Projects in which the bank invests will be subject to provincial and municipal laws and regulations. Projects financed by the bank will certainly not be exempt from zoning regulations or provincial environmental reviews such as the BAPE.

If that is indeed the government's intention, it must amend the bill now because that is not how it reads. We are going to run into problems. This is a major power grab.

Intergovernmental Relations

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is no respect for Quebec's jurisdiction, as evidenced by Bill C-29. There is no respect for our needs, as evidenced by the health transfers. There is no respect for our land, as evidenced by energy east. There is even no respect for our laws, as evidenced by the infrastructure bank. There is never any respect for what we want.

When will this Prime Minister apologize to Quebeckers for his total lack of respect towards Quebec?

The Budget

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is certainly not what is happening.

With its mammoth bills, the government is breaking more election promises. Last fall, it was Bill C-29. The government pulled a fast one on us by allowing the banks to get around Quebec's Consumer Protection Act. The change was so well hidden that no one saw it except for the Bloc Québécois. It was a close call. With spring came another mammoth bill, Bill C-44, which is 50% longer than Bill C-29.

What bill of goods is the government trying to sell us this time?

Message from the Senate

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tax Convention and Arrangement Implementation Act, 2016

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by saying that the Bloc Québécois will be supporting Bill S-4, to implement various tax agreements with the countries listed therein.

I am mentioning this right away because I am going to be rather hard on the government with respect to its previous position and its approach to tax treaties, and also because I may not have enough time to finish my speech given that members only get five minutes.

It is becoming increasingly common for taxpayers, both individuals and businesses, to have revenue in more than one country given the rapid rate of globalization we are experiencing. This requires co-ordination and is an additional challenge for countries around the world. In fact, they have to adapt and have good legislation to deal with the problems that this situation creates. Hence, it is important that we enter into good tax treaties, like those we are debating today.

The government often says that the purpose of tax agreements is to avoid double taxation and prevent tax avoidance. That is what they are supposed to do. However, tax agreements also make certain things possible. Any measure to avoid double taxation may be accompanied by a certain degree of non-taxation. That can cause problems. People who know how to game the system can find loopholes in the agreement to avoid double taxation and take advantage of them to end up paying no tax. We have to fight that, and that is why we cannot support any old tax agreement. Not every tax agreement is a good tax agreement.

Here is a good example. Here, as in most places around the world, taxation is based on residency. I live in my riding of Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, which is in Boucherville, which is in Quebec, which is in Canada, at least for now. I pay income tax to Quebec and I pay income tax to Canada even though I do not really like doing so.

However, all citizens must pay taxes in the country in which they reside. Normally it is easy to determine where someone lives: we look at where his credit card comes from, where his spouse lives, where his children live, and where his house is. That gives us a good idea of where he lives, and normally, it is hard to fake that.

The problem lies with businesses. We cannot always be sure where a company has set up shop. Sometimes a company claims to be located in one place, while its board of directors is somewhere else. Sometimes it is located in one place but all the shareholders are somewhere else. In those fuzzy situations, we have to ask what is really going on. We have to ask if they are not trying somehow to distract from the reality in order to take advantage of the system and avoid paying the taxes they owe.

It is in these situations that tax treaties and our fiscal regulations become important, which is why it is so important for governments to remain vigilant to this. The same is true in both Canada and Quebec. We are hitched to Canada's train, fiscally speaking, and so we are often subjected to Canada's decisions, even if we do not like them. In fact, we were almost subjected to the Canadian government's policy decision in Bill C-29.

We therefore have to look at who is making the real decisions and where things are really happening for the company. That is where the company needs to be taxed. It is not enough to register a company in Barbados. That should not be how it works. The company actually needs to be doing business in Barbados. The company needs to be located there.

The United States does not have the same rules as Canada. In the United States, a company is taxed in the place where it is registered. We therefore have a problem. In Canada, we are supposed to tax a company in the place where the board of directors is located and where the decisions are made, while in the U.S., it is where the company is registered.

If a company is registered in Canada but makes its decisions in the United States, the Americans see the company as Canadian,. while Canadians see it as American. The company is therefore in tax limbo. It does not make any sense. We need to do something to prevent situations like that. Some jokers came up with the idea of doing that in the past.

Fortunately, those types of situations were dealt with most of the time. However, this is not over because there are new ways to evade taxes, as we saw in the case of the tax treaty with Barbados.

My colleague to my right, Mr. Ste-Marie, the member for Joliette, tried to do something about that, but unfortunately the members across the way decided it was perfectly all right for companies to use the tax treaty with Barbados for tax evasion.

We hope that Bill S-4, which implements various tax conventions, will put an end to these situations.

Merry Christmas, everyone, especially the banks.

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

Madam Speaker, first, I would like to thank all my colleagues for allowing my colleague from Regina—Qu'Appelle to table a petition. It was a very nice gesture with Christmas just around the corner. I would like to say that we are really in the spirit of Christmas. It really shone through in the last speech that we heard. However, this evening, I am a bit torn between the happiness I feel about going back to my riding for Christmas and the sadness I feel at having to react to the speech that my colleague before me gave with regard to the passing of Bill C-29 today.

He said himself that Bill C-29 is something that Canadians will remember. Unfortunately, yes, young Canadians will remember this bill when they have to pay off the $100-billion deficit that Bill C-29 will leave them. They will remember a $100-billion deficit for a long time to come.

That is why I cannot share my colleague's enthusiasm for the Christmas spirit that he did such a fine job of expressing.

Let us come back to the very important bill before us, Bill S-4, an act to implement a convention and an arrangement for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income and to amend an act in respect of a similar agreement.

I want to highlight the work that our critic, the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent has done on this file. To most Canadians, tax agreements are pretty abstract. Here in Ottawa, we talk about issues that may or may not be interesting, but tax agreements and free trade agreements between different countries create jobs for Canadians. They create jobs for young Canadians. That is important because the market is now global. We have to acknowledge the tremendous work that all members of the House have done in recent years to sign more and more free trade agreements under the leadership of our former prime minister, Stephen Harper.

We have free trade agreements with Europe, Peru, Colombia, Jordan, Panama, Honduras, and South Korea. Under the previous government, we signed other major free trade agreements with Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, the United Kingdom, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, and Sweden. Santa Claus will be visiting all of those countries in just a few days. I am sure that he will be bringing the children in those countries gifts that may have been made here in Canada. Why? Because free trade agreements enable Canadian companies, perhaps with the help of Santa Claus, to export their products to other countries. That is the good thing about free trade agreements.

Regarding our relationship with Israel, when it comes to trade, I would remind the House that in 1996, trade between Canada and Israel was worth only $507 million. In 2012, it totalled $1.4 billion. Bill S-4 will mean that companies will not have to pay taxes in both countries if they are doing business in both countries. If we do not want to stand in the way of those companies, stand in the way of increased investments and trade with Israel, it is important to create an environment that facilitates trade and, above all, does not penalize them.

I wanted to read a passage from the press release issued at the time by the former prime minister, Mr. Harper, on the advantages of signing and improving free trade agreements, particularly with Israel. Unfortunately, all of Mr. Harper's press releases have been removed from the Global Affairs Canada website by the current government. I cannot read it, but I certainly share Mr. Harper's intention at the time, which was to sign agreements and make sure that Canadians benefit as much as possible.

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

Madam Speaker, I believe that this will be one of the last speeches, if not the last, of this session that is coming to a close.

We have taken a historic step with Bill C-29. I know that one day, when current members are all retired and, like many Canadians, will be able to enjoy the enhanced pension plan, we will remember this historic day when we took a step forward for Canadian society by advancing the rights of seniors, young people, and the middle class. It is a great day for Canada.

I would like to talk about Bill S-4, which concerns another very important issue.

I welcome the opportunity today to speak to Bill S-4, the tax convention and arrangement implementation act, 2016. I know a number of members of the House have spoken already to this important bill. This is in the best interests of Canada. It is about ensuring we grow our economy and tax fairness.

People understand the objective, and I think all members in the House will support the bill. It is the right thing to do for Canada. It is also the smart thing to do for Canadians. Canadians gave us a mandate to grow the economy and ensure we engage with our trading partners, whether it is the state of Israel, Taiwan, or Hong Kong, and work with them to grow our economy. This is what I will talk about today.

I seek the support of all members. They know we need to send our notice before the end of the year in order for these agreements to come into force in 2018. This is very important for Canada and our trade relationships with Taiwan, the state of Israel, and Hong Kong.

As Canada's economy is increasingly intertwined with that of the global economy, the importance of eliminating tax impediments to international trade and investment has grown in importance. I think every member in the House understands that. Whether one sits as a Conservative, NDP, Liberal, or Bloc Québécois, one must understand that it is in our best interest to invest and ensure we have more trade and trade that is fair.

One way to remove these impediments is through tax treaties or double taxation agreements. These treaties are used internationally to eliminate tax barriers to trade and investment.

Canada's network of 92 income tax treaties currently enforces one of the most extensive in the world, and that is something we should be proud of as Canadians. We are a fair trading nation. However, as with any measure of efficiency, there is an ongoing need to update and modernize this network with foreign jurisdictions.

By modernizing our tax treaties and expanding our network, we will help facilitate international trade and make it easier for our treaty partners to invest in Canada. That is the mandate we have been given. The people who sent us to the House expect us to grow the economy, create jobs for Canadians all across our nation, in every riding in our country. They want us to work for them. I hope my colleagues from the NDP, the Bloc, and the Conservatives will support this, because I am sure they too believe in creating jobs for Canadians.

This will help our economy and businesses, and strengthen the middle class. I still believe that everyone in the House should be working with us to help the middle class. There is nothing more important in our country that we can do than to support the middle class, families, youth, and seniors.

On the international scene, the Canadian economy always faces headwinds. However, Canada can count on some solid economic fundamentals in order to seize the opportunities presented by the global economy.

As there are only a few seconds left before we adjourn, I just want to wish every member a merry Christmas. I thank members for working with us to make sure that we do what matters to Canadians.

Let us always remember when we rise in the House and raise our voice to bring something forward that we do it on behalf of the good people who have sent us here to make a difference in their lives, not just for the current state of affairs, but for the future. Canadians expect the best.

To will quote our Prime Minister “better is always possible”, so let us work together in 2017 to make sure we strive to always be at our best, not for ourselves, but for the people we serve who have sent us to Ottawa. These people expect the best out of us, and that is what we will deliver.

Quebec's Interests

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, so far this session, the federal government has made it clear that a step forward for Canada means a step backward for Quebec.

Exhibit A: Muskrat Falls. The government gave Newfoundland and Labrador a loan guarantee so that it can engage in unfair competition in the sale of hydroelectricity to the Americans.

Exhibit B: peanuts for Quebec cheese producers as so-called compensation for what they will lose when 17,700 tonnes of European cheese hits the Canadian market.

Exhibit C: Bill C-29 and the Liberal vote to undermine Quebec's consumer protection law.

Exhibit D: the government's refusal to support Bombardier.

In Ottawa, Quebec takes a back seat, but luckily, we are here. The Bloc will continue to speak out against government measures that are bad for Quebec. This government deserves coal in its stocking this Christmas.

All the same, my colleagues and I wish all Quebeckers and our parliamentary colleagues a merry Christmas and a happy new year.

I suggest they brace themselves, because when we come back, we are not going to go easy on them.

Political Party Financing

[Simon Marcil, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance urged me to read the provisions of Bill C-29. He said:

He might want to know what he is talking about before asking a question. I can tell him very clearly that, in Marcotte, the Supreme Court asked us to clarify consumer protection provisions.

I read the Marcotte ruling. The court does not call on the federal government to do anything; rather, it requires the banks to respect Quebec and Quebec laws. In fact—

Consumer Protection

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, consumer protection was a key component of our plan to support the middle class and promote economic growth.

That being said, we have listened to Quebeckers' concerns about their level of protection. That is why I asked the leader of the government in the Senate to remove division 5 of Bill C-29 so that we can reintroduce it following consultations on how to maintain a comprehensive and effective federal financial consumer protection framework.

[Michel Boudrias, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today, I am very proud to be a Quebecker. That is a feeling I know quite well, because we Quebeckers always stand our ground when what matters most to us comes under attack. Once again, Quebec stood up to the ambitions of the powerful Toronto banks. On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, the member for Joliette sounded the alarm with regard to Bill C-29, and we are extremely proud of that.

However, somebody somewhere had to get the message. Quebec's National Assembly got it. Consumer protection groups, the Chambre des notaires du Québec, legal experts, the media, and all of the opposition parties in Quebec and Ottawa got the message and passed it on.

The message that Quebeckers and the Quebec nation sent has been taken into account. People took notice. They presented an indomitable united front, something that does not occur often in the House. Solidarity is the foundation of our society, and it is no coincidence that, over the generations—

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-29 limits consumer rights in Quebec and restricts Quebec's societal choices.

No need to rehash the debate when Quebec is unanimous: the National Assembly is against this bill, consumer protection groups are against it, the Chambre des notaires du Québec is against it, the Barreau du Québec is against it, and law professors are against it.

That says it all. Only the banks and the Liberals are in favour of the bill.

Why are the 40 Liberal members from Quebec serving the interests of the banks and not the interests of Quebeckers?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by applauding my colleague's work on the Standing Committee on Finance.

He is well aware that the measures in Bill C-29 are a step forward and will help consumers across the country. He is well aware of that. In its Marcotte decision, the Supreme Court asked us to clarify that, and we took this opportunity to update the rules and create more rules to protect Canadian consumers.

My colleague is well aware that his constituents, like mine, will be protected under this new regime, and we will continue to work with the Senate on this issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, before the Minister of Finance decided to give the banks a sweet Christmas present, everything was fine. The Supreme Court ruled that Quebec's Consumer Protection Act applied to bank customers.

The Liberals' Bill C-29 created a problem where there was not one before. By creating a conflict with Quebec law, the minister is trying to usurp power that he does not have. He cannot fix things and placate people by handing over a blank cheque and buying time. A law either passes or it does not.

Why is the minister playing constitutional politics at the expense of Quebec consumers?

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if a member of the Quebec National Assembly were present in the House today, he would agree with us on C-29, because it encroaches on provincial jurisdictions.

The government is meddling again in areas of provincial jurisdiction. The bill will change consumers' rights and protections.

Will the Prime Minister stop interfering in areas of provincial jurisdiction, withdraw the contentious elements of Bill C-29, and respect consumers?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government has finally admitted that it is embarrassing to let the banks get around Quebec law to rip off consumers. Finally! By splitting Bill C-29, the government is admitting that the part that amends the Bank Act is problematic.

Why will they not simply withdraw it?

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

Mr. Speaker, I do recall that 65% of Canadians have not seen any changes to their taxes under the Liberal government. Those that benefit the most from the government's measures are people who earn between $140,000 and $200,000 a year, so I do not want to be lectured about the middle class.

I have a good memory. In 2014, the Supreme Court said that the Consumer Protection Act was under provincial jurisdiction, not federal. Unfortunately, we are headed for disaster with Bill C-29 because it has a direct impact on consumer rights. That does not make any sense. The only thing the government is going to accomplish with this bill is to give thousands of dollars to lawyers, knowing that it will lose the case.

Why is the government prepared to lose millions and even hundreds of millions of dollars on a lost cause?

Intergovernmental Relations

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is gathering his provincial counterparts today to talk about the environment, even though he just imposed a pipeline on British Columbia and he is thinking about doing the same to Quebec.

He should also be talking about health care, since Quebec does not accept either his cuts or his conditions. He should also be talking about softwood lumber, since Quebec refuses to be included in another provincialist agreement that only benefits western Canada.

He should be talking about Bombardier, which is still being treated with contempt by this government, when the Ontario automotive industry is going to collect hundreds of millions of dollars more. He should be talking about Bill C-29, which makes it possible for Toronto banks to circumvent Quebec's consumer protection laws and cheat consumers.

Simply put, today's theme is federalism at Quebec's expense, federalism that benefits Canada while preventing Quebeckers from making social choices that reflect who they are. That will be the theme of these meetings for Quebec, until those meetings are called “international relations”.

Consumer Protection

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, the Liberals knowingly voted against our amendments to Bill C-29, which would have solved this problem. They had the letter. The Liberals chose to protect the banks by attacking all of Quebec.

How many $1,500 tickets did it take for the Liberals to sell Quebec's consumer protection to the banks?

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister is forgetting something. In 2014, the Supreme Court was clear: the Consumer Protection Act falls under provincial jurisdiction. However, the Liberal government is moving forward anyway.

At the National Assembly of Quebec, the Premier of Quebec said he was seriously considering challenging Bill C-29. The Liberal government is moving forward anyway. We are heading toward a constitutional battle. Lawyers will fare quite well, but the government is moving forward anyway.

Will the minister do what needs to be done and get rid of the flawed clauses in Bill C-29?

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-29 is a bad bill that implements bad measures from a bad Liberal budget. That is a fact.

However, it gets even worse. This bill contains a constitutional virus, since it attacks the Quebec Consumer Protection Act, which falls under provincial jurisdiction. The Supreme Court said so in 2014, and yet the government is bulldozing ahead anyway. We are heading for a big constitutional fight. Canada needs this like it needs a hole in the head.

Why is the Liberal government interfering yet again in provincial jurisdictions?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

It is not his democracy, it is our democracy, Mr. Speaker.

Bill C-29 does two things: it attacks Quebec's jurisdiction and eliminates consumer protections for Canada's bank customers. Stephen Harper tried to do the same thing when he was in office, but the courts stopped him.

Why is the Prime Minister trying to protect banks rather than the most vulnerable? Will he remove these odious provisions that attack Quebec consumers?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it sounds like he is running for House leader.

With Bill C-29, the Prime Minister is trying to take away the protections that the Quebec law offers families who are already among the most indebted in the G20. The Prime Minister is attacking the Quebec Consumer Protection Act.

Why? Is he trying to help the banks?

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when the 40 Liberal MPs from Quebec voted in favour of Bill C-29, they took off their masks.

Quebec consumers could not rely on them for protection. The National Assembly of Quebec could not rely on them to defend the Consumer Protection Act. Quebec could not rely on them when the minister of high finance decided to attack the way we protect our people.

Canadian banks are very pleased with the 40 Liberal lackeys from Quebec for being so co-operative and compliant, but nobody else is. Such dishonourable behaviour is unacceptable from members who have the privilege of representing Quebec ridings in Ottawa.

Those 40 Liberal members took off their masks. Ottawa is the only place that matters. If I were them, I would put a bag over my head. They could have stood up for Quebec, but they chose not to. We know what we have to do now.

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, we have made things better for consumers across the country. It is important to protect Canadian consumers, and that is exactly what we aim to do with Bill C-29.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-29 is a major step backward when it comes to protecting consumers in Quebec.

Yesterday, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance played the “little guy from Shawinigan” card. That is exactly what we are telling him. The people of Shawinigan are just like other Quebeckers. They want their elected representatives to defend them, not banks. I am also talking to all of his Quebec colleagues. The National Assembly unanimously asked them to stand up for their fellow citizens.

Will they do that for once, or are they just here to take advantage of the ministerial limousine service?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-29 will place consumer protection at the mercy of Toronto banks. This is a direct attack on consumers and on Quebec’s ability to make social choices.

The National Assembly has unanimously condemned Bill C-29, as have consumer protection groups, notaries, an army of constitutional experts, and law professors. In Quebec, consumers are the ones we want to fight for, not the big banks.

Will the 40 Liberal government members from Quebec stand up and—

[Simon Marcil, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I guess Toronto banks are keen to see Bill C-29 passed considering the minister of high finance is imposing closure. He is anxious to legalize hidden fees in Quebec, authorize misleading advertising, allow banks to change our contracts without our consent, and eliminate our recourse or any sanctions.

How far is this government of banks prepared to go to quash consumer rights in Quebec to the benefit of high finance in Toronto?

The day that Quebeckers no longer have rights, will they have to cut a cheque to the government, like the Chinese billionaires did?

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

Mr. Speaker, we will speak on behalf of consumers.

For my hon. colleague's sake, I would like to review the consumer protection principles underlying Bill C-29. I am sure he will agree with me.

The first principle states that basic banking services should be accessible to all; disclosure of information should enable an institution's customers and members of the public to make informed financial decisions; an institution's customers and members of the public should be treated fairly; and complaints processes should be impartial, transparent, and dynamic. That is what it means to protect Canadians.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in Quebec, consumers whose credit card is stolen are liable for, at most, $50. That is the law.

At the federal level, the credit card issuer can stipulate liability in the contract. If Bill C-29 passes, banks will have free rein to demand that clients pay back every penny spent by a credit card thief.

Does the minister of high finance see the difference between being protected by the law and being at the mercy of the banks?

Bill C-29—Time Allocation Motion

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I said, counting today and tomorrow, we will have had nine days of debate on Bill C-29. We know that 60 members have had the opportunity to participate in our debate. That is very important.

We also know that corresponds to 20% of the time available for government business for this session. It is very important to have time. We have had time, and that is how we can get things done for Canadians. That is our goal.

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to be clear that this is not about tactics; this is about doing work for Canadians that we know needs to be done. This is about moving forward on consumer protection so that Canadians will be protected. This is about moving forward on tax fairness so that we will have a system that will work for all Canadians.

I want to repeat that including today and tomorrow, we will have had nine days of debate on Bill C-29. That has allowed more than 60 members of Parliament so far to participate in debate. Again, with nine days of debate, including today and tomorrow, that means we will have provided 20% of the available time for government business on this bill, and this bill alone. It is important that we move forward and make a measurable difference for Canadians. That is what we intend on doing.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise and find myself in substantial agreement with the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent. It is really quite disturbing that after merely one hour of debate at report stage, a bill as important as Bill C-29, the budget implementation bill after all, will suddenly be subject to this guillotine motion.

I think it is the 10th time, if I am not mistaken. Who can keep count if the government has done that. I know it is only a 10th as much as the Conservatives did, but nevertheless, any Canadian watching who thinks this is real change will have to conclude that it is not. It is a very sad day.

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

Madam Speaker, once again, we are very disappointed to have to rise, on this side of the House, in response to the government’s systematic obstruction of parliamentarians’ right to speak.

In both form and substance, the government is simply wrong. First, wanting to deny the right to speak, even though at this stage of the bill we have had just one hour of debate, is completely disrespectful and irresponsible on the government’s part toward the official opposition.

As for substance, it is worse. In fact, Bill C-29 concerns implementation of the government’s budget measures, a budget that, as we know, will lead to the unfortunate inflationary spiral of this government’s colossal deficits. We are headed toward a $30-billion deficit, three times higher than what the Liberal Party had promised in its election platform.

I could go on at length about this, but I am going to give the minister a chance to clearly explain himself. I am reaching out to him for the 13th time. Can he tell us when and how he intends to return to balanced budgets for all Canadians?

Bill C-29—Notice of Time Allocation Motion

[Marie-Claude Bibeau, Liberal, Minister of International Development and La Francophonie]

Mr. Speaker, I regret to inform the House that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-29, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016, and other measures.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Consumer Protection

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

Mr. Speaker, I am a parliamentary secretary, not a personal secretary.

We are proud of Bill C-29. I would remind my colleague that what we did is very simple, as he is well aware. The Supreme Court's ruling in Marcotte asked us to clarify measures that protect citizens and consumers across Canada. That is exactly what we are doing. We have modernized and simplified the rules that help Canadian consumers. That is all.

For example, the rules in Bill C-29 will allow the use of a broader range of personal identification documents to open a bank account or cash Government of Canada cheques. That is what Bill C-29 will do. This bill will help—

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with Bill C-29, the federal government is protecting banks against Quebec consumers and the Consumer Protection Act. That means that Quebeckers will no longer have any recourse when the banks impose hidden fees on them or rip them off. What a great precedent.

Next, cell phone companies will be asking the federal government to protect them from the Consumer Protection Act. Then Internet providers, cable companies, and airlines will be doing the same.

I am asking the minister of high finance and his private secretary where the gouging of Quebeckers will stop.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, today we are continuing with opposition day. Tomorrow the House will consider the report stage of Bill C-29, the second budget bill, and it will continue studying that bill Monday and Tuesday of next week.

For the remainder of the week, we plan to call the following bills: Bill S-4, the tax conventions legislation, and Bill S-3, the Indian tax amendment, provided we get these two bills from the Senate; Bill C-25, the business frameworks bill; and Bill C-30 concerning CETA. All these bills are at second reading.

It is my hope that parties will be able to negotiate on how to proceed in advancing these very important initiatives. Something I have committed to is working well with other parties, and I will continue to do that.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we certainly do hope there will be a withdrawal of that comment.

Before I ask the usual question, I would like to ask the House leader if she would consider being more generous with allocating time for debate of Bill C-29, the budget implementation bill, than she was with Bill C-26, which she well knows was allocated the minimum amount of time possible. Worth noting is that the House leader's predecessor committed five sitting days to the same stages of the budget implementation bill on this watch. Since she was appointed—

Consumer Protection

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what does Bill C-29 do?

Hidden bank fees are currently outlawed in Quebec. That will disappear. A consumer who has a contract can cancel it if he or she is being shafted. That will disappear. A bank cannot charge new fees without the client's consent. That will disappear. There are fines for misleading advertising. That will disappear. We have a neutral tribunal that examines all complaints. That too will disappear.

The minister of high finance is supposed to protect the people from banks. Why is he instead protecting the banks from the people?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the holidays can be an expensive time between gifts, travelling, parties, and trips for those fortunate enough to do that. It adds up quickly and so does the level of stress for the majority of Quebeckers who live paycheque to paycheque and have an average household debt of $80,000. However, with Bill C-29, the government is giving a gift to the banks instead of the public.

As the holidays approach, as everyone is preparing to stretch their budgets, the federal government is opening the door to all sorts of hidden fees without giving us the chance to defend ourselves. That is Bill C-29 in a nutshell.

By allowing the banks to get around Quebec's Consumer Protection Act, the Liberals are proving they are still beholden to the banks, despite their claims of working for the middle class. Merry Christmas, Bay Street.

Finance

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I have two reports from committee to present today.

First, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Finance, in relation to Bill C-29, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House, with amendments.

Mr. Speaker, second, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Finance, in relation to Supplementary Estimates (B) 2016-17.

Consumer Protection

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, between defending people and defending banks, the Liberals' choice is clear. Between protecting workers, low-income earners, and average consumers, or protecting the huge dividends of Canada's financial elite, the Liberals did not hesitate. They sided with those who could line the party's coffers.

Bill C-29 allows banks to get around the Consumer Protection Act. What a nice Christmas present for the fat cats on Bay Street. There goes any chance of a class action suit ever being filed by small investors who are being ripped off with feeble interest rates on their savings and exorbitant interest rates on their loans. This is setting us back 50 years.

This government did not learn a thing from the financial crisis. Congratulations. Off come the masks. Nothing has changed. This government is the government of banks and oil companies, not of real people.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this government seems to have become the banks' lapdog.

Bill C-29 makes it possible for banks to circumvent Quebec's consumer protection laws and the business practices they govern. This will set Quebec consumers back 45 years. The banks will be able to charge whatever they want with the blessing of this government, the same one that voted in favour of allowing banks to use tax havens.

My question is for the 40 Liberal members from Quebec: who are they working for, the people or big banks?

Bill C-26—Time Allocation Motion

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for pointing out how important it is that we hear not only from the members of this House, but also from the witnesses who are to appear before the parliamentary committee to share their views on this important bill.

Not only does the bill make significant changes in terms of reducing income insecurity for our seniors, but it also increases opportunities for workers to integrate the labour market, particularly those most vulnerable, because it gives them better, easier access to a sound public pension plan, now and for many years to come.

May I also suggest that we have had, in this House, six days of full discussion at second reading of this bill and six additional days for Bill C-29. That means that we have allocated 27% of the total available time for government business, between September and December, for only these two bills at second reading.

Bill C-29--Time Allocation Motion

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I agree that members of Parliament are elected to represent their constituents. I agree that we do important work for Canadians each and every single day. We are saying, let us continue that work. Let us continue to work hard for Canadians, whether they are in our constituencies or across this great nation.

Including today, we will have had six days of debate on Bill C-29 at second reading. The bill will move on to committee where it will be further studied and further debated. Canadians will have the opportunity to come as witnesses. It will return to this chamber where we will get to continue the debate, the dialogue, and the discussion so that we can represent our constituents and Canadians across this nation.

Our plan for middle-class Canadians and Canadian families in the hon. member's constituency, in my constituency, and across this nation and our plan for infrastructure are about delivering for Canada. They are about delivering for their families. They are about delivering the plan that Canadians elected this government on. We need to work together so that we can ensure that we create the opportunities that Canadians need us to create.

Consumer Protection

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have lost track of how many times I have risen in the House since I was first elected to debate this issue of great importance to our business men and women. I am talking about credit card merchant fees. I am delighted that the government seems to have appointed me the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance for the evening. His riding is next to mine. We can well imagine how proud the Mauricie region would be of its representatives if an answer that actually solves the problem for once were given in response to a simple, clear, and easy-to-understand question. No pressure, but I am expecting my colleague's best effort.

I will repeat the question that was asked in June. I was somewhat disappointed in the answer even though the question was very clear.

When will the government finally take action and cap credit card fees for our SMEs?

I will put the significance of this situation in context. In the last Parliament, the NDP moved a motion on exactly the same subject. Our motion had two very clear objectives. The first was to limit transaction fees and the second was to allow merchants to disclose to the consumer the transaction costs relating to the different credit cards in order to allow the consumer to make informed choices.

At the time, the Liberals indicated that they were entirely in favour of the motion. Allow me to quote the former member for York West who is now the hon. member for Humber River—Black Creek, who said:

A voluntary code, authored by the Conservatives, was an inadequate attempt to ease concerns sparked by the entry of Visa and MasterCard into the debit and credit market. The Liberal caucus rightly feared that without enforcement tools, any code of conduct for debit and credit card companies would miss the mark.

I will mention just three little rules that are found in almost every contract between these two major credit card companies and every retailer, which clearly show how our retailers are shortchanged. There is the obligation to honour all kinds of credit cards. If you accept Visa, you must accept all Visa cards, regardless of the charges associated with each of these cards. Retailers are not allowed to charge additional fees for loyalty cards or to influence the consumer or inform them of the fees that the retailer has to swallow.

In the most recent bill, Bill C-29, which we are currently debating, once again there is nothing about capping credit card fees.

The Liberals have been in power for more than a year and even though they criticized the voluntary code and the measures implemented by the Conservatives, we are still at square one.

Therefore, I will ask the question again with the hope that I will get a better answer: when will the government finally take action to cap credit card fees for our small business owners?

Second Reading

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-29, which seeks to implement the series of budgetary measures and tax changes announced in budget 2016, tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016.

First, I would like to thank the Canadians who are watching at home right now, particularly those from my beautiful riding of Beauport—Limoilou.

It is rather ironic that I am rising in the House today to speak to Bill C-29. Two weeks before the House adjourned for the week of Remembrance Day and we returned to our respective ridings, I tried to see if I could participate in this debate, but I was not able to get a time slot. I was quite disappointed, but this week, I am able to debate this bill during a very special week for Canadian businesses and the entire world, Global Entrepreneurship Week.

Under the leadership of my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent, our finance critic, and through the arguments that the Conservative Party has been presenting over the past two weeks concerning Bill C-29, we have been able to see that many aspects of this bill are harmful to our small and medium-sized businesses.

Last week in my riding, I visited over 100 companies. I usually try going door to door to see my constituents at least two evenings per week. This time I visited businesses. Why? Because I am organizing a business reception for Thursday evening, not only to mark Global Entrepreneurship Week, but also to speak with small business owners in my riding, to find out exactly what they think of the Liberal government's budget, and to hear what they are most concerned about right now.

I would like to remind the House that these are our businesses. Canada has over 1.16 million small and medium-sized businesses that employ nearly 10.5 million people. It is therefore safe to say that small businesses are definitely important job creators and wealth creators for our Canadian nation.

Here is something interesting. I googled “Global Entrepreneurship Week” today, and one of the first hits was a statement from Canada's Prime Minister. His statement said:

The Government of Canada is committed to helping Canadian entrepreneurs grow their businesses and thrive—here at home and abroad.

I find it ironic that the Prime Minister made that statement today to mark Global Entrepreneurship Week. It is entirely appropriate and de rigueur, but I am not so sure his actions are consistent with today's statement.

For example, the government introduced measures that hurt small and medium-sized businesses, including those in my riding of Beauport—Limoilou. Those measures will be implemented by Bill C-29. He brought in the Liberal carbon tax and hiked Canada pension plan costs, though that does not affect Quebec as much as it does the other nine provinces. He broke his promise to cut the small and medium-sized business tax rate. The way I see it, that is probably the worst thing the Prime Minister has done to small businesses. He made that promise during the election campaign, as did the Conservatives and New Democrats. His decision to break that promise boggles the mind. He got rid of several tax credits, which I will talk about later. To top it off, two weeks ago, the minister announced plans to abolish several more yet-to-be-determined tax credits. We do not know yet which ones, but I hope we will find out soon.

Let us talk about Bill C-29 and why it is disappointing. It is disappointing because it is the next phase of the Liberal government's plan, which is clearly not working.

Let us not forget what the original idea was behind this plan that was developed a year ago following the federal election. The idea was to create jobs by investing heavily in infrastructure. When we look at the facts, including those presented by the parliamentary budget officer, we see that only $3.8 billion of the $25-billion deficit will be invested in infrastructure and not a single job has been created so far. The plan is not working. That is the only real conclusion we can come to.

Bill C-29 is disappointing because of the uncertainty. The minister is unable to say when there will be a return to balanced budgets. The economic update talks about a $25-billion deficit and the only reason it is not $30 billion is because the government used the $6-billion contingency fund it had created barely six months before to bring the total down.

Rudy Le Cours from La Presse calls the disappearance of this $6-billion contingency fund a shell game. Even Gérald Fillion from Radio-Canada, whom I follow religiously, says the government fiddled with the numbers to make the deficit appear smaller. Radio-Canada seems to support what the Conservative Party is saying in this debate, which is rather extraordinary. What is more, not a single job has been created in Canada in a year. On the contrary, we are losing jobs and the unemployment rate keeps going up.

The Canada child benefit is the brainchild of a bunch of amateurs, while our program was viable and gave Canadian families money they could use. The Liberals not only abolished existing programs, but their new program is not revenue neutral. It will cost more than $4.3 billion over the course of its second year and $3.4 billion this year. Since they forgot to index it, they are going to have to find an extra $42.5 billion by 2020.

Bill C-29 is a reflection of our national accounts. It is a reflection of a government's exactness and strength. Through Bill C-29, this Liberal government is showing us several things. First, it is showing us that it is unable to calculate a balance sheet properly, as evidenced by the fact that the government forgot to index the Canada child benefit. Second, as the bill tells us, the government is not being careful with taxpayers' money because it promised a deficit of $10 billion per year but is now planning to run a deficit of $30 billion per year, and it does not have a specific date for returning to a balanced budget. Third, the government did not invest taxpayers' money properly and did not create jobs to help grow the economy. Finally, and this is my favourite point, this bill shows that this government is simply arrogant because it did not want to correct its mistakes and change its plan, even though it is not working at all.

Bill C-29 represents one broken promise after another. Breaking promises is becoming standard practice for this government. That is shameful because it is causing organizations and individuals in Canada to become ever more cynical.

This government broke its promise to run a modest deficit by borrowing three times more than necessary. It did not even need to borrow the $10 billion because we are not in a recession. It broke its promise to lower the tax rate for small and medium-sized businesses and its promise to offer a revenue-neutral fiscal plan. Take, for example, the infamous tax cut for low-income Canadians that my Liberal colleagues have been bragging about since early this afternoon. This tax cut will not help low-income Canadians because it does not apply to those who earn less than $45,000 a year. Instead, it will help Canadians with an annual income between $140,000 and $170,000. The NDP and the Conservative Party both raised that point.

Once again, what I dislike about this government is its arrogance. It is selling Canadians a dream, making wild claims about the wealthiest 1% having a monopoly, and inventing tax cuts in flamboyant speeches. I am therefore very disappointed with Bill C-29.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Madam Speaker, on behalf of my great riding of Saint John—Rothesay, it is a pleasure to stand and speak to Bill C-29 and what it means to my riding and province and all of Canada.

Before I do, just very briefly, today is World Diabetes Day and I do want to pay tribute to my father, Malcolm Percy Long, who was one of the longest-living insulin-dependent diabetics in New Brunswick. He was diagnosed at 19 years of age and lived to be 78 years old. That was an amazing feat back in that day, to live that long being insulin dependent. Certainly my thoughts are with him today and this evening.

I want to talk about Bill C-29 and what it means to the riding of Saint John—Rothesay. The best way I can do that is to talk about my riding and what it is about. Saint John—Rothesay is a riding of great wealth, great business success. It is an industrial riding. It is a unionized riding with a very strong union base. But it is also a riding with many people in great need. I do not like to get up, as I often do from this chair, and talk about the fact that my riding of Saint John—Rothesay leads the country in child poverty, that it is at the top of the country in the number of babies born addicted per capita, that it has low literacy rates and the lowest incomes for single females. The list goes on and on of some of the challenges we face in Saint John—Rothesay.

That was really one of the reasons I wanted to leave my fun, safe world of Sea Dogs major junior hockey and get into politics. When I started my run for office and went door to door in my riding, it became very apparent that over the past 10 years, although they had a lot of respect for different philosophies and governments trying different things, many people in my riding felt they had been forgotten. At door after door in priority neighbourhoods in Crescent Valley, in the old north end on Victoria Street, in the lower west side off of Duke Street and Rodney Street, people told me they were in dire need of some support from government.

One of the things I am most proud of, and which several members on my side have spoken about over the past few hours, is how our government's budget has given hope to Canadians. It has given a handout to Canadians and working families. It started with a tax break for the middle class. What I am most proud of is its transformational program, the Canada child benefit.

Single parents came to me. Families living in need came to me. They said they did not understand how the UCCB that the Conservative government supported—along with the NDP, much to my shock and surprise—gave the same amount in family benefits to those who made $200,000 and those who earned $15,000 or $20,000. People could not understand how that could happen. Instead of looking at need, the UCCB actually supported having kids, so the more kids people had the more they benefited. Their actual net income did not matter.

The Canada child benefit was designed to help those who needed it the most. Yes, we can argue that it replaced this or it replaced that, but try going to priority neighbourhoods and knocking on the doors of those families. In fact, last week it was great to be back in Saint John—Rothesay for a constituency week.

I took a young single mother out to dinner. She had two young children. I asked her what the difference was between the Canada child benefit and the UCCB. It was over $240 a month, tax-free, in her pocket. She said that the $240, even though it may not sound like a lot, availed her of the chance to buy a small used car. Because of that she can get to work. Because of that she can take her kids to hockey, and that is transformational. The program will change lives. We know the statistics. It is better for nine out of 10 Canadian families. It will pull 300,000 children out of poverty, and I am particularly proud that our government is the government that put this transformational program through.

Other things that are very beneficial in the budget, not just to my riding but to all Canadians, is the focus on increased infrastructure spending. David Dodge has said that over the past 10 years Canada has been in an infrastructure deficit. Not enough was being spent on that. Sure, the former government had some infrastructure expenditures, but there was no targeted program to aggressively go after spending on infrastructure for the assets that needed it most. Our bridges are crumbling. Our roads are crumbling. Our government is targeting green infrastructure, social infrastructure, and cultural infrastructure. In my riding I was very pleased to announce $6 million for 12 new buses for Saint John Transit. That is a direct result of the infrastructure money that our government has put forth. It is very positive for the community and will create jobs and, most importantly, update our aging infrastructure.

I have already talked about the tax cuts for the middle class. It is a start. It is not everything, but it is a start. It will put more money back in the pockets of families. Those middle-class families are the ones that spend and will help get our economy going.

I believe that what we have done as a government with our budget and our focus will help reinvigorate our economy. I do not think there is any question that we did have two recessions over the past 10 years, and yes, with respect, I know that the Conservatives talk about their balanced budget, but we all know how that balanced budget occurred. It was by throwing in a surplus from the EI fund, a rainy day fund, and GM stocks, and so on to create budget surplus. That is deception, but Canadians saw through it and I believe they made the right choice to vote for a progressive government that will invest in Canadians, invest in infrastructure, and invest in families. We will be proven correct over the next 10 years, which will show that we were the government that stimulated the economy, gave hope to Canadians, and turned our government around.

In my riding we consulted with our businesses, with community leaders, stakeholders, and all forms of my constituents as recently as last month. They are very hopeful that the increase in infrastructure spending will be stimulative. They are starting to see the benefits of that in Saint John. The Port of Saint John, between three levels of government, has invested over $200 million to reinvigorate itself. That will create jobs, opportunity, and I believe we are on the right track.

To close, I am particularly proud of the transformational Canada child benefit, which will change the lives of thousands of families across this country. It is something I believe this Parliament is going to be very proud of in the years to come.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-29, the budget implementation act of 2016, no. 2.

I would like to begin by thanking my colleague, the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent, for leading Canada's official opposition on the finance portfolio. I would also like to take the time to thank my colleagues who have spoken about this important topic for their informative speeches on this important bill, which we, on this side of the House, think would negatively affect Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

This bill, which I will expand on further during my speech, would continue the unsustainable and fiscally irresponsible spending of the current Liberal government. This bill, as we know, would ruin Canada's chances of returning to a balanced budget in the foreseeable future, despite the Liberals promising that during the election. We know this because much of this new spending is structural, which means locked in and permanent.

As everyday Canadians know, one cannot live outside one's means, and that is exactly what the current government is doing. It is living on its credit card for the foreseeable future. At some point, the bill needs to be paid. How is the government going to pay it? Which programs is it going to cut? What taxes is it going to raise?

I would like to echo a statement by my hon. colleague, the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent, who said, “I am pleased and honoured, but also humbled, to speak on behalf of all my official opposition colleagues and on behalf of all Canadians who were literally duped by the Liberal Party a year ago”.

The Liberals promised to help middle-income Canadians, and as we have seen, their plan, unfortunately, has not worked. I have had the pleasure of meeting and speaking with people all across my riding, and I continue to look forward to meeting and speaking with many more. To this day, the majority of people I have spoken with have said that their highest priority is the economy, specifically jobs. Unfortunately, my time is limited, but I would like to continue to go on about the issues I have with this budget and the direction the government is taking.

Take a look at where we were about a year ago. Under the previous Conservative government, we embarked on a plan of targeted spending and lowering taxes in all areas that ensured long-term growth and prosperity for individual Canadians. As a result, what Canadians had was the lowest tax burden in over 50 years. It also led to a $2.9 billion surplus, a surplus the Liberals have spent, and we now have a deficit of about $30 billion. We also recently found out that the Liberals are borrowing an extra $32 billion over the next five years, with no reason to believe we will get better results. Add the increase to the CPP, then the carbon tax, and we can see why Canadians are concerned.

However, this is not just about a simple tax increase and deficit spending. This is about the fundamental Liberal belief in a high-tax, high-spending agenda and in a government deciding how to spend Canadians' money, rather than Canadians themselves. I cannot stress enough the different view I have compared to my colleagues across the floor. Unlike my colleagues on the other side, I believe that the best way to encourage job creation and growth is to lower taxes and give Canadians the opportunity to spend their money as they see fit, because the more options we give Canadians, the more choices they will make based on their individual situations, and that is crucial.

One year later, where are we? The Bank of Canadian, the parliamentary budget officer, the International Monetary Fund, and the OECD have confirmed that the Liberal government's economic forecast must be downgraded. It is clear that the high-tax, high-spending agenda is not working. We have also learned that in the past year, the Liberal government has yet to create one single full-time job. Instead of working to create favourable conditions to create jobs, the Liberals decided to raise taxes on Canadians and businesses knowing that this will have a detrimental effect on the economy. There were 350,000 manufacturing jobs lost over the last decade in Ontario alone because of failing Liberal promises and policies. Ontario used to be the economic engine of Canada. Now it is a shell of its former self, the most indebted sub-sovereign nation in the world, with double the debt of California and one-third the population. That is not the path we want to go down here in Canada, but it is happening.

As we know, many families across the country are getting by. These people are living paycheque to paycheque. They need help now. They need jobs now. They need support, not new taxes. The government should be giving Canadians the choice of how to spend their own money.

The money that will be taken from Canadians could be used to help people pay their rent, help pay for their groceries, school field trips, down payments on houses, and family vacations. How Canadians choose to spend their own money is not the concern of government, and government needs to get out of the pockets of Canadians.

Members opposite may argue that they are increasing spending to help families, children, and middle-income Canadians. The Liberal plan would actually result in higher costs right across the board, wiping out, and then some, its so-called tax cuts thanks to a carbon tax and an increase in CPP contributions. Canadians are struggling to see how they are going to prosper. Look at what the Canadian Federation of Independent Business said. It is very worried about this new tax hike. A massive number of businesses say they are going to freeze any potential pay raises. They are going to freeze any potential hiring. What would that do? How would people have the chance to get jobs, put down payments on homes, and live the Canadian dream? It cannot be done.

What about our youth? We have heard members opposite say all day that they want to promote youth, but if there are no jobs for them, how will they have a future? If they cannot start businesses because Canada is not a place where people would even think about doing business because it is not competitive, why would they want to stay here, make a future for themselves, have a home base, and maybe start families?

I am sure all sides of the House will agree on supporting children. The Conservatives had the universal child care benefit, which I was very supportive of, but Bill C-29 confirms that the government would index this child benefit to inflation, beginning in January 2020, something it forgot to do. The parliamentary budget officer has now estimated that indexing and enriching the CPP will cost $42.5 billion over the next five years, an expense the government has not budgeted for.

Where does the government plan to find this extra $42 billion? Is it going to raise taxes? What programs will it cut? Canadian families cannot afford another tax hike. Businesses cannot afford another tax hike. We keep squeezing them and squeezing them more.

This bill would repeal the employment insurance reforms the previous Conservative government introduced in 2013, measures that were designed to help unemployed Canadians get back to work. The changes were designed to make EI more efficient, to focus on job creation, to eliminate disincentives for people to work, and to support unemployed Canadians by helping match workers with jobs. We believe that employment insurance is a temporary support that helps people overcome difficult situations, not a tool to be used permanently. The best cure for unemployment remains job creation.

As I mentioned previously, this bill is just a small piece of the Liberal agenda and shows how fiscally irresponsible the government is. To get a broader understanding of the Liberal economic plan, we can also look at the changes to CPP and now the carbon tax. The CPP tax hike will end up costing some households up to $2,200 more per year. Of course, that is on the high end, but it is still a difference. It will take money from the paycheques of hard-working Canadians, put thousands of jobs at risk, and do absolutely nothing to help seniors who need the help right now.

The new carbon tax promised by the Liberal government is going to be a massive new tax on consumers, the equivalent of 11.5¢ per litre of gasoline. Imposing a new punishing tax while holding back approval on job-creating pipeline projects shows how misplaced the government's priorities are.

The Liberal plan is very concerning. Canadians know that governments cannot spend their way to prosperity. If that were the case, Ontario would be the economic engine of Canada. It is clearly not, and there is a reason for that. It is because Liberal tax-and-spend policies do not work. When we take more money out of people's pockets, they have less to spend on the priorities that benefit their own.

The previous government had a record of creating jobs. During the worst economic downturn since the great recession, Canada had the best job creation and economic growth among the G7. Conservatives reduced taxes to their lowest point in 50 years, typically saving a family of four about $7,000 per year. We had targeted temporary spending on stimulus.

When the economy crashed, we put money into infrastructure, including over $200 million in direct infrastructure spending in Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock since 2008. That has created libraries, arenas, and refurbished roads and bridges. We are very proud of that record.

However, as the deficit continues to grow, we see no signs of a slowing of Liberal spending, and yet as we said before, not one single job has been created.

I look forward to questions from my hon. colleagues.

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

Bill C-29—Notice of time allocation motion

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

Mr. Speaker, I regret to inform the House that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-29, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue to debate the Conservative Party motion.

Tomorrow, we will resume debate on Bill C-26, on the Canada pension plan.

Next week, as the hon. member said, we will be working hard in our constituencies and attending Remembrance Day ceremonies on Friday to collectively stand in honour of all who have fallen in the service of Canada.

When we return on Monday, November 14, the House will then have the fifth day of second reading debate on Bill C-26, the CPP enhancement bill. On Tuesday, the House will also have the fifth day of second reading debate on Bill C-29, the second budget implementation bill.

On Wednesday, the House will consider Bill C-16, the gender identity bill, at report stage, and hopefully at third reading. On Thursday, the House will debate Bill C-25, the business framework bill, at second reading.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

This afternoon we will continue to debate the supply day motion. Tomorrow we will commence debate on Bill C-29, the second budget implementation act, and we will continue studying that bill next week.

On Tuesday afternoon, the Minister of Finance will present the fall economic statement. Following the speech, we will have debate for the remainder of the afternoon.

On Wednesday, immediately after question period, the House will welcome the Rio 2016 Olympic and Paralympic athletes to the chamber. I think I can speak for all members when I say this will be a very exciting day.

Last, next Thursday shall be an allotted day.