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.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-29, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

There are 24 motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-29.

Motion No. 4 will not be selected by the Chair as it could have been presented in committee

All remaining motions have been examined and the Chair is satisfied that they meet the guidelines expressed in notes to Standing Order 76.1(5) regarding the selection of motions in amendment at report stage.

Motions Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 to 24 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 to 24 to the House.

Motions in Amendment

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

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-29 be amended by deleting Clause 1.

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

moved Motions Nos. 2 and 3.

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-29 be amended by deleting Clause 29.

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-29 be amended by deleting Clause 44.

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

moved Motions Nos. 5 to 23.

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-29 be amended by deleting Clause 117.

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-29 be amended by deleting Clause 118.

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-29 be amended by deleting Clause 119.

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-29 be amended by deleting Clause 120.

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-29 be amended by deleting Clause 121.

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-29 be amended by deleting Clause 122.

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-29 be amended by deleting Clause 123.

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-29 be amended by deleting Clause 124.

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-29 be amended by deleting Clause 125.

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-29 be amended by deleting Clause 126.

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-29 be amended by deleting Clause 127.

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-29 be amended by deleting Clause 128.

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-29 be amended by deleting Clause 129.

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-29 be amended by deleting Clause 130.

Motion No. 19

That Bill C-29 be amended by deleting Clause 131.

Motion No. 20

That Bill C-29 be amended by deleting Clause 132.

Motion No. 21

That Bill C-29 be amended by deleting Clause 133.

Motion No. 22

That Bill C-29 be amended by deleting Clause 134.

Motion No. 23

That Bill C-29 be amended by deleting Clause 135.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands is not in the chamber this morning, and I will not be able to move Motion No. 24.

The hon. government House leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, what a privilege it is once again to stand and talk about a bill that is going to be implementing our national budget. It is a budget that I believe is unprecedented in so many ways. If I were to think about a single message that comes out of this budget, it is the issue of Canada's middle class and those aspiring to become part of our middle class. We would have to go back many years or decades to see a budget that has done so much in terms of what I suggest is a redistribution of Canada's wealth, but with a special focus on our middle class.

Over the last decade, we have seen a great deal of concern in regard to how well Canada's middle class has been doing. Not only here in government but even when we were the third party, there was a constant theme being raised, and that was a caring attitude toward our middle class and those aspiring to be part of Canada's middle class.

We have a Prime Minister and a Minister of Finance who have put our middle class as priority one.

There is so much in this budget we can get behind and support. We often hear from opposition benches about the importance of Canada's middle class. For the first time, in a tangible way, they have the opportunity to vote for a budget that does a great deal for Canada's middle class. Let me explain why I believe that to be the case.

Shortly after the election, we had a substantial increase in taxes for Canada's wealthiest, the 1%, if I can put it way. Most significantly, we had a substantial decrease in taxes for Canada's middle class. What does that mean? Someone who is a factory worker or a health care worker, a person in the middle class, is seeing a substantial decrease in taxes, which means that we are putting more money in the pockets of Canada's middle class.

Many of my colleagues who have had the opportunity to talk about this budget have said that we even go beyond the middle class, and that is true. There are a number of initiatives within the budget that address other issues. I would like to focus on a couple.

One deals with Canada's children. We have the Canada child benefit program, a program that has been enhanced by seeing more money going toward children. The biggest benefactors are going to be those children who are in the lower-income strata. For example, we will see thousands of children being lifted out of poverty as a direct result of the budget. We will see taxable income considerations given as part of the Canada child benefit program.

Someone who is a multi-millionaire does not need the tax credit as much as a single parent who has two or three children and is finding it difficult to make ends meet. I think Canadians would see that as a fair taxation policy. It is a great program, and as I said, it will lift literally tens of thousands of children out of poverty.

Another issue that is often talked about among my colleagues is the guaranteed income supplement. We know first hand, because shortly after the election, we engaged in a discussion on the types of things we heard at the door from our senior population, those who were finding it very difficult to make ends meet. We have seniors who are put in a position of having to decide on food versus medication. Far too often, they put their health in jeopardy as a direct result of not having enough money. The substantial increase to the GIS will make a difference, particularly for single seniors, who will receive, in the worst conditions, in excess of $900 more per year. If they are making $10,000 or $12,000 a year, that $900 is going to make a significant difference. I talked about lifting children out of poverty. This would lift seniors out of poverty.

I have brought up those three major points: tax cuts for the middle class; the helping hand; and addressing the issue of poverty, whether for seniors or children. This is one of the reasons I believe that what we have before us is a progressive budget that would move Canada in a forward direction. The redistribution of wealth would also help Canada's economy. We believe that if we have a strengthened middle class and more money in the hands of those individuals who are spending the money and cultivating the economy, we are, in fact, giving more strength to Canada's economy. That is indeed warranted.

There is so much in the budget one could talk about. We can talk about the importance of health care. I can make reference to the commitment not only in terms of dollars but in terms of a Minister of Health who is working diligently with our provinces and territories to try to get a new health care accord. We might have to be patient. It is more important that we get it right, but for the first time, we have a government that is attempting to get a new health care accord.

We can talk about the environment. We have a progressive government that is dealing with environmental issues. One can cite the Paris agreement to a price on carbon as being positive. Only the Conservative Party seems to be offside of all the political entities across the country on that front, and I must say, on a number of other fronts.

We can talk about infrastructure and the record amount of money being put into Canada's infrastructure, unlike the Conservatives, who would talk about putting money into it, but it never really materialized. We have a government that already, within 12 months of being in office, has hundreds of projects up and running, in co-operation with the different stakeholders, in particular our provinces and municipalities, which have done a phenomenal job getting those projects up and running. We have a government that is committed to Canada's infrastructure in every region of our country. This is something that I believe is being well received.

The bottom line is that it is a good-news budget. If members support tax decreases for our industrial workers and professionals, whether health care workers, firefighters, or any profession out there getting those tax breaks, this is a budget they should seriously look at voting in favour of. This bill we are talking about would implement that budget.

If they are concerned about issues such as poverty, this is a budget they should be voting for.

The only real and consistent criticism from the Conservative Party with respect to this budget is related to the issue of money, or the deficit. I am anticipating that will likely be one of the questions asked. I will let the opposition know that, as a party—

My time has run out. Hopefully I will be able to provide that answer shortly.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question will not be about the deficit but about the frankness of politicians.

Each one of us was elected on a platform. People have the right to decide if we are on the right side or the wrong side. Yes, we are democratic and respect democracy, but we also respect that we must be very frank with people.

The Liberals were elected under a platform in which they said there would be a small deficit of $10 billion, but they tabled a budget with a $30-billion deficit.

Why did they not tell Canadians the truth?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I anticipated that I would be asked a question of that nature, and that is why, in my concluding remarks, I was getting to the issue of budget deficits.

To assure Canadians very clearly, if we look at it from a historical perspective, Liberal administrations have cleaned up Conservative administrations with regard to budgets. The preoccupation that the Conservatives have on this is unjustified. If we look back, the Conservatives accumulated a debt of over $150 billion, a record amount, under Stephen Harper.

Yes, there is a budget deficit. We told Canadians that there would in fact be a budget deficit. We believe it is time to start investing in infrastructure and Canadians. At some point, as Liberals have done in the past, there will be a return to a balanced budget. Now is the time that we should be investing in Canada's infrastructure and Canadians, and that is what this budget is doing.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are so many things I could say. I will focus on Bill C-29 because we will be studying it at third reading.

I would sincerely like to know why the member was the first to speak this morning. Is it because the Liberal Party, the government, decided to move deletion of clause 1, the bill's short title, which is “Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2”?

I would like to know why the government wants to delete the short title. Is there a valid reason why it wants to delete its own proposed title? Was this just a political ploy to usurp the opposition's traditional right to be the first to speak to these bills and amendments?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure that when we look at the amendment that has been proposed, for the most part it is about ensuring that debate occurs at the report stage. We are already into that debate. I would encourage other members to participate. At the end of the day, this is a responsible approach. There are always tactics on both sides of the House. I can assure the member that it is not coming just from one direction. This is, in good part, a response to opposition and the concerns that might arise.

The bottom line is that we have a day to debate Bill C-29, the budget and government priorities. I would encourage other members to speak. We have had plenty of time already to speak on Bill C-29, whether it was at second reading or the committee stage. There has probably been more time for debate on this budget implementation bill than many of the Harper Conservative budget implementation bills. It is a pleasure for me to put a few words on the record.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak at this stage of Bill C-29, which seeks to implement key measures from the budget that was tabled, voted on, and passed in the House a few months ago.

First of all, I want to set the record straight for Canadians. I want to tell it like it is and give a clear picture of the situation, ever since Canadians voted for a change in government.

Canada was in an enviable fiscal position. The Conservative administration left a surplus of $2.9 billion. Canada had the best debt-to-GDP ratio among the G7 nations. Canada was the best of the best. Canada also had the best job creation record of all the G7 nations. Canada was the country that fared best. It was also the country that recovered the quickest from the terrible financial crisis that was felt all over the globe in 2008 and 2009. That is the Conservative record. The Conservatives definitely left the house in order, so to speak. Unfortunately, the Liberals are currently destroying our economy. In fact, that is why we strongly oppose Bill C-29, which seeks to implement the measures in the budget. We think it is a very bad budget. Why?

For decades, Canadians made every effort that was required, including under the leadership of the Right Hon. Paul Martin, a distinguished and world-renowned finance minister. He fought mercilessly against the deficit. Now the current government is sending Canada down another unfortunate deficit spiral. The thing is, we are not in an economic crisis, as was the case when the Conservatives were in power and we had to deal with this difficult situation.

What does this mean? It means that we are asking our children, our grandchildren, and our great-grandchildren to foot the bill for this deficit. They are the ones who will have to pay for the current government's mismanagement. Worse yet, the party in power got elected barely a year and a half ago by saying that they would run a small deficit of $10 billion, but we would return to a balanced budget during the fourth year of their term.

Nothing could be further from the truth today. The deficit is currently $30 billion. From the economic update we know that the Liberals will continue to spiral badly by inflicting another $32 billion in spending over the next five years. The sad reality that is slapping us in the face is that the government is unable to tell us when we will return to a balanced budget.

There is not one business owner, father, mother, or head of household who manages their budget without the expectation that one day they will keep their head above water. That is exactly the situation that the government is forcing us into. We are drowning in debt, but we have no idea when we are going to come up for air. This is unprecedented and unheard of. It is unacceptable. It is the Liberal way.

If only the Liberals would at least acknowledge that they said some foolish things during the election campaign, like running small deficits, which is not at all true because the deficit is three times the amount forecast. If only they would tell us, for example, not to worry at all because they are going to balance the budget in five years. That would be very wrong, but we would at least have an idea of the situation. However, that is not the case. This short-sighted government has absolutely no idea when it will balance the budget or how it will manage to eliminate the deficit.

I can assure Canadians that the next balanced budget will be a budget tabled by the Conservative government, which will be elected by Canadians in three years. That is a fact.

I would also like to remind members that the Liberals bragged about how, in the budget, there would finally be tax cuts for Canadians and how all Canadians would benefit from them. Well, aren't they generous. The reality is quite the opposite. The measures proposed by the government will have no impact on the taxes that 65% of Canadians have to pay. There will be no tax cuts for 65% of Canadians. Who then will benefit from the announced tax cuts? It is Canadians who earn between $140,000 and $200,000 a year. Is a person who earns $199,999 a year part of the middle class? I have my doubts.

I would like to point out right away that I am in a position of conflict of interest. As an MP, I earn around $170,000 a year, so I am one of the lucky ones who will benefit from these measures. With a salary like that, I do not feel as though I am part of the middle class. The government has been boasting that it is helping the middle class, the least fortunate, and the most vulnerable. Stop right there. In reality, 65% of Canadians will not benefit at all from these measures. Those who will benefit the most are wealthier Canadians who earn between $144,000 and $200,000 a year.

What is more, this budget hinders the creation of jobs and wealth because it does not do much to help our small and medium-sized businesses. For us, the Conservatives, small businesses are the backbone of our economy. They create jobs and wealth. We need to do everything we can to help them, not hold them back. Nevertheless, that is what this government is doing with the budget. It is imposing the Liberal carbon tax. It is imposing new fees on employers and employees under the Canada pension plan. It is failing to keep its promise by not lowering the tax rate of SMEs. The government was supposed to lower the tax rate from 10.5% to 9% but failed to do so. These are three measures that work against our business owners, our job creators and our creators of wealth. That is why we are completely against this bill.

I would also like to draw members' attention to a small but very important detail. As the saying goes, the devil is in the details, and in this case we are talking about consumer protection.

First of all, I would like to recognize the excellent job that was done by the member for Joliette, who really did the kind of work one would expect from an opposition member. He did a great job, and I would like to commend him for that.

What happened? This has to do with the enforcement of the legislation on banks and the management of financial institutions.

Let us recall the events: in 2012, the Conservative government passed legislation to implement, across the entire country, certain measures concerning the management of financial and banking institutions. Part of that law was challenged in court. In 2014, the Supreme Court ruled specifically on the issue of the Consumer Protection Act in Quebec. The act was not constitutional, so it had to be changed.

Since we are institutional people and we respect our institutions, we are going to comply with the Supreme Court’s decision. However, in this new bill the government is proposing measures that, unfortunately, do not meet the requirements of the Supreme Court ruling. Along with the members for Joliette, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques and others, we questioned senior officials in parliamentary committee in order to get specific answers to very specific questions, so that we could find out whether they were complying with the Supreme Court’s ruling or not.

Unfortunately, I cannot say that we were convinced. There are still flaws in the legislative measures proposed in Bill C-29 on the issue of Quebec’s Consumer Protection Act. We are not the only ones with concerns. The National Assembly has passed a motion asking the government to suspend the clauses of Bill C-29 that affect the Consumer Protection Act.

If we want to make a law that complies with the Supreme Court ruling, we have to talk to the lead stakeholders, because it is abundantly clear that if the bill is passed, it is going to be challenged in court on this issue, among others. It is not just us who are saying so, it is the National Assembly.

What is the Quebec National Assembly? Certainly it is the members of the opposition, but it is also the government. The day before yesterday, the Quebec justice minister, who is a member on the other side of the river, not so far from here, said that she was concerned about certain clauses in Bill C-29.

There is still time for the government to seize the opportunity and just do what ought to be done. It should pick up the phone, call the justice minister, and ask her what is not working and what should be drafted to make it work. That is what a government in touch with the reality of its citizens would do, much like us. I recall that we had an interpretation of the matter in 2012. The Supreme Court contradicted that interpretation; we are institutional people and we respect the Supreme Court. We therefore must make every effort to ensure that this is not challenged and it is done the right way.

I do not mean to insult any legal eagles in any way, but we must realize that it is not a humble country lawyer who will be challenging this. It is the Government of Quebec that will be going to court to challenge the provisions affecting the Consumer Protection Act.

On this point, I urge the government to go back and do its homework, and indeed I invite the government to look at the entire bill and really do its homework for the economy as a whole and for all Canadians.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from the Standing Committee on Finance for his excellent speech. He speaks of the legacy of the Conservative government. Indeed, the Conservative legacy is one of anemic growth; they ran deficits for nine consecutive years after inheriting a healthy financial situation from Mr. Martin and Mr. Goodale, an infrastructure deficit, a social deficit, a social housing deficit, and others still.

Now we are considering ways for the Canadian economy to recover. During the federal campaign, his party and the New Democratic party said that the budget had to be balanced at any cost. His party left a legacy of anemic growth and it was going to balance the budget at any cost.

Today, I would like the member to tell us what his plan is to get us over the slump and address dropping oil prices, the infrastructure deficit and the social deficit. What is his plan? He is very good at criticizing, but what is his plan to improve and rehabilitate the Canadian economy?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Before giving the floor to the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent, I would like to remind the members in the House today not to name still-sitting members of the House. The hon. member named two persons, one of whom is a sitting member. This reminder is meant for everyone present. I know that it is Friday and we are eager to return to our constituencies.

The hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent has the floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to answer my colleague’s question.

Indeed, it is true that, in the opposition, we have to criticize, but we were in power, and we campaigned on a platform which, from our point of view, would have a stimulating effect on the Canadian economy. Our approach was realistic. Our government made Canada number one in terms of economic performance in the face of the worst financial crisis, in 2008-09. The OECD and the G7 both say so. That is why we left Canada's fiscal house in order, with a surplus of $2.9 billion. That is positive.

We also made Canada the first job creator in the entire G7. Canada has the best debt-to-GDP ratio in the entire G7. Why did we have to begrudgingly run deficits? Because we were facing the worst economic crisis. It is in challenging and difficult times that the truly great shine, and that is what we did. We are very proud of that.

The worst thing to do is to impose taxes and additional costs on our businesses—something we did not do and that we will never do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to ask my colleague a question.

I have just heard the question that was asked by our colleague from Gatineau, who sits on the Standing Committee on Finance. He was talking about deficits, which made up a large part of the speech by my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent.

However, if I remember correctly, during the election campaign the Liberals promised to run small deficits so that they could invest in infrastructure. Now what we are seeing is that the deficits are bigger, but everyone recognizes that, for now, not much has been put into infrastructure. In the end, the government is going to have to face reality and invest in infrastructure. It is not by calling on the private sector with a big infrastructure bank that they are going to manage to keep the promises that were made.

I would therefore like to hear my colleague’s comments on this situation that I would call extremely paradoxical.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is quite true, and I recall that the NDP had the courage, the honour and the dignity to run on a no-deficit platform—a very bold move. I salute his keen foresight on the matter.

Mr. Speaker, did you hear any talk of the infrastructure investment bank during the campaign? No. It was totally absent from the Liberal platform, and now it is a major part of the government’s economic game plan. What will it do? It will receive $15 billion slated for investment in order to attract foreign investment. Why?

Nothing currently prevents foreign investment from coming into Canada: quite the contrary. Nothing prevents private partners from working hand-in-hand on infrastructure projects with the Canadian government. We call that PPP Canada. It exists, it is going on, and it is working. The Windsor-Detroit bridge that we are currently building between our two great countries, our two great nations, is a public-private partnership. We are able to work that way.

Why did the government dream up this new infrastructure bank if not to please its many pals once again?

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

Mr. Speaker, our amendments to Bill C-29 all have the same objective, which is to uphold the rights of Quebec and the rights of Quebeckers. For those who may not know this, we often do great things in Quebec. For instance, Quebec has the best consumer protection laws anywhere in the Americas.

It is precisely these kinds of Quebec differences that Bill C-29 threatens. The banks have always found that Quebec's Consumer Protection Act favours ordinary people too much. The banks have always relied on their ally in Ottawa to try to get around it. This is simply a new chapter in the showdown.

Bill C-29 is a legislative and constitutional power grab. It is a Christmas gift from the federal government to the banks, on the backs of Quebeckers. We cannot let this happen.

In this mammoth bill, the current Liberal government buried an amendment to the Bank Act that includes a mysterious new financial consumer protection framework. The effect of this new clause is clear: Ottawa wants the banks to be above the law in Quebec. Government officials confirmed this before a parliamentary committee.

We have to go back to the early 2000s to understand what is happening now. An unpleasant surprise awaited Quebec consumers returning from vacation: their banks had started charging fees without telling them. This despite the fact that the Consumer Protection Act prevents banks from claiming costs “unless the amount thereof is precisely indicated in the contract”. Ripped-off consumers who tried in vain to get their banks to reimburse them turned to the banking ombudsman, who did nothing.

The consumers then availed themselves of the recourse provided in the Consumer Protection Act and filed a class action lawsuit in 2003. Their case made it to the Supreme Court, culminating in the Marcotte decision in 2014 after 11 years of litigation. The banks were forced to pay back $32 million to the people they tried to swindle.

I would like to comment on the Marcotte case because it led to Bill C-29. The ruling made it clear that, while the Bank Act governs the banks' operations, it does not govern their consumer relations. That was a Supreme Court ruling. The federal law and Quebec's law can therefore both apply because Ottawa's law governs the banks' operations and Quebec's law governs consumer rights, and that is where Bill C-29 comes in.

Now that the federal legislation will contain a tiny section called the “Financial Consumer Protection Framework”, the banks will be able to claim that the Canada Bank Act also covers consumer protection. They will therefore be able to argue before the courts that they basically need not comply with Quebec law. At present, consumers can turn to the Quebec Office de la protection du consommateur to assert their rights, which has a simple and effective process. It is free, which ensures that even the most vulnerable can access it.

If that is not enough, consumers can initiate class proceedings and ask a judge for a ruling. This bill would eliminate all that. From now on, consumers would only be able to approach the banks' ombudsman, an officially neutral employee, but one appointed and paid by the banks. What is worse, the ombudsman cannot make recommendations and cannot impose a penalty or fine.

That is how the Liberals are going to eliminate all the legal protections enjoyed by Quebec consumers with respect to hidden fees, unilateral changes to fees or services by the banks, the requirement to provide a contract in French, the ban on misleading advertising, and the possibility of cancelling an unfair contract. This will only benefit the banks.

Our rights are being pushed aside on a promise that Bay Street will be nice to us. That says it all. Justice is being replaced by an ombudsman appointed by the banks, someone whose authority is limited to handing down a slap on the wrist. This is very serious. It is an attack on Quebec and Quebeckers. In English Canada, there is minimal consumer protection when it comes to the banks. Outside Quebec, Bill C-29 will have little impact. Back home, this will be terrible.

I want to address the 40 Liberal members from Quebec. Instead of reading a French translation of a press release that was written in Toronto, they should be defending their people and telling their colleagues how good our system is for regular people. They should be educating their colleagues instead of acting like doormats.

Yesterday, during question period, I was quite troubled to hear the response of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance. He said that the Marcotte decision called on the government for a response and that Bill C-29 is that response. It is incredible.

In Marcotte, the court was not calling on the federal government. It was addressing the banks. When the Minister of Finance confuses the banks and the federal government, that is saying something. To him, it is six of one and half a dozen of the other. Personally, I am siding with regular folks and not the minister's friends who work on Bay Street.

That is not all. Not only is the government siding with the banks and against Quebec's consumers, but it is creating a loophole that every profiteer is eager to exploit. Today, it is the banks that the federal government is putting above the law. What will be next? Are wireless service providers going to ask for Ottawa's help to double how much they charge, without warning? Are internet service providers going to ask the same? Are we no longer going to be able to go after airlines to get our flight reimbursed if it is cancelled? Is that it?

Our amendment resolves all of these problems. It ensures compliance with the Consumer Protection Act, the best in the Americas. In contrast, Bill C-29 opens the door to abuse. It opens the door to court challenges. For 10 years, Quebeckers will not know what law protects them. For 10 years, Quebeckers will be better off abandoning their banks in favour of caisses populaires and the legal certainty under which they operate. At the risk of overstating the case, the federal government is even harming banks.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendments I proposed. If I understand correctly, the NDP and the Conservatives already support them. Our job is to represent Canadians, not powerful lobbies.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

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

Like him, I served on the Standing Committee on Finance when the proposed amendments to the Bank Act were being examined. I think my colleague is laying it on a bit thick. There is nothing here that will take away protections for Quebec consumers in any area.

This bill is a response to the Supreme Court ruling requiring the Government of Canada to draft legislation and amend the Bank Act in order to provide a framework for a well-designed, well-thought-out process that fully meets the public's and consumers' needs with regard to our national financial institutions.

What does he suggest that the Government of Canada do? The government was instructed to do this work by the Supreme Court of Canada. As my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent said, we are already an institution here, and we need to fulfill those requirements. What does he suggest that the government do to respond to the Marcotte ruling?

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

Mr. Speaker, I strongly disagree with my colleague from Gatineau, who said that consumers will not lose out.

Bill C-29 and clause 131 set out a federal consumer protection regime for bank customers that will take precedence over Quebec's Consumer Protection Act, which is much stronger and goes much farther. That act will no longer apply.

Ultimately, Bill C-29 will exempt banks from Quebec's 112-page Consumer Protection Act and 400 pages of regulations, all of which are rock-solid parts of the civil code that has been in place for 400 years. Even the federal government is subject to it in Quebec. This bill exempts banks from that legislation in exchange for 16 paragraphs written in the conditional tense, all of which are toothless and offer no protection whatsoever to consumers. This is a major step backward. To suggest otherwise is a monumental mistake.

The government needs to reconsider Bill C-29 and accept our amendments to ensure that the Consumer Protection Act will apply in its entirety to Quebec's banking sector.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question, but I will begin by congratulating him on the work he has done.

My question is about our Liberal colleague's last comment. That National Assembly unanimously asked the federal government to change its mind on this issue.

When my colleague says that people are blowing things out of proportion, I feel as though he is telling members of the National Assembly that they lack judgment and cannot see what is good for the people of the province of Quebec.

What does my colleague think of the Liberal member's comment?

[Des voix]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Before I recognize the member for Joliette, I wish to remind hon. members that they are allowed to cross the aisle to speak to one another. There is no need to speak across the aisle, which makes it hard for the Chair to hear what the hon. member is saying.

The hon. member for Joliette.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska for his comment and his question.

When my other colleague wonders if it was not a bit rich, well, that is huge. That is why the motion passed unanimously in the Quebec National Assembly. It was supported by all parties, by the Premier of Quebec, and by the Minister of Justice.

Last time, this matter wound up before the Supreme Court, which ruled that Quebec had the right to keep its Consumer Protection Act. The Bank Act is a federal act, but the Consumer Protection Act must remain in Quebec.

This is a mammoth bill with over 200 clauses. The Liberals tried to pull a fast one on the people of Quebec. All parties of the Quebec National Assembly, along with all opposition parties here, are coming together to pressure the federal government to not go there. It needs to stop standing up for the banks rather than consumers and start thinking of the people, defending the people and consumers against the banks, which are going too far.

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

Mr. Speaker, so many questions and so few answers. I cannot say that I have many answers in the comments I will be making in the next few minutes, but I find it extremely disappointing that the government is so far from being able to meet the expectations that it created and made Canadians believe in, based on its claims during the election campaign.

We are currently looking at Bill C-29, which seeks to implement some of the budget's recommendations. The government is touting it as the bill that will implement the measures proposed to help the middle class, which has never been defined.

From what I can see in the various statistics on income, when we talk about the middle-class tax cuts, this means raising taxes on about 1% of taxpayers and redistributing that money to 9% of the population, while completely disregarding 89% of the people. The same goes for the Canada child benefit. The government says it is a program that will benefit everyone and so many more people than before. However, it is not being indexed for four years, which means that it will amount to roughly the same as we had before. That is a problem.

What was not said during the election campaign is also problematic. I am going to go back to the issue of infrastructure because it is a prime example of the government's lack of honesty on economic issues.

Yes, the government did mention an infrastructure bank during the election campaign, but it did not say how it would work. I can say that mayors and elected officials in our ridings understood that there would be an infrastructure bank where money would be placed, and that the money would be lent at low rates to help the Liberals fulfill their promises. That is exactly what the Liberal candidates said during the 2015 campaign. Now we find ourselves with a monstrosity into which they will inject $15 billion, which was the amount promised for communities and the funding they could apply for. This money is being put in an infrastructure bank to try to attract private capital. The private capital will make up about 80% of the total capital.

The government is trying to make us believe that that is what it promised from the beginning, that is what Canadians were promised, and that is how it will be able to finance the entire infrastructure deficit. We are going to find ourselves with an infrastructure bank of about $200 billion dollars in capital that is 80% controlled by the private sector.

I do not know whether the government is just naive or whether it sincerely believes that it will still have the power to decide where that money goes, even though it is investing only 20% of the capital and getting the other 80% from the private sector.

There is a sort of contradiction here. Yes, programs have been proposed by the government. The government is talking about green infrastructure, transit infrastructure, and social infrastructure, which has never really been defined. The government has promised to invest $80 billion over the next 10 years. In addition, the Minister of Finance feels it is extremely urgent that the infrastructure bank be put in place by next year. The infrastructure deficit really needs to be addressed next year.

We understand that the infrastructure deficit is an urgent matter. We, too, have been talking to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. However, if it is so urgent to have the infrastructure bank to begin to invest, why are two-thirds of the new investments announced in the government's economic update not going to be applied until 2021, 2022, or 2023? That is two elections from now.

Two-thirds of the promised amounts will not be invested until then. Only one-third will be invested before 2021, but it is extremely urgent to invest now and create the infrastructure bank.

During the election campaign, the Liberals never mentioned to Canadians that their plan might include tolls and user fees. It seems to me like that is more of a given at this point. That was never mentioned. The only time the Liberals spoke about tolls was when they said that there would be no toll on the Champlain Bridge. They never said that there would be tolls on all the other bridges. Obviously, tolls are the only way the private sector would be able to make a return on its investment in the infrastructure bank. Returns on investments do not fall from the sky. That money is not going to come for free. In order to see a return, the government will impose loans on Canadians, who will also have to help pay for this infrastructure with their tax dollars.

Do they seriously expect anyone to believe that the infrastructure issue is going to be sorted out? Almost half of the government's plan is tied to the private sector, but they seem to think that they will be able to decide which projects go forward and where that private sector money will end up.

What we heard from Michael Sabia is that the private sector wants to see a 7% to 9% return. We have also heard from various investors that they would be unlikely to invest in projects worth less than $100 million. Some have even said they would probably not invest in projects worth less than $500 million.

There are no $100-million projects in my riding, but I do know of one such project: highway 20. Does anyone really think that investors from Bay Street, Wall Street, and even China and Australia, who were at that BlackRock meeting, would be interested in setting up a toll booth on highway 20 in Rimouski when they can invest that money in Montreal, Toronto, or Vancouver, where the returns, usage, and density are bound to be higher?

What the government is doing right now is presenting a facade of sorts to Canadians, saying that it is going to solve the problem and that it is doing what the Liberals promised during the election campaign. None of this was promised.

The Liberals definitely promised to resolve the infrastructure problem and invest money. Yes, funding has been allocated. We cannot disagree with them when they talk about funding for public transit and green infrastructure, because we made similar promises. Obviously, they never mentioned the private sector's role. They never mentioned that 80% of this infrastructure bank's capital would be funded by the private sector, nor did they ever mention that they would work not just with pension funds, but also with private funds, even international ones. They never promised that they would consider privatizing our airports and ports.

The Canadian government asked Credit Suisse to do a study on whether it should privatize eight Canadian airports. It asked Morgan Stanley whether it should privatize 18 Canadian ports, the 18 port authorities. Where was that in the Liberal election platform?

We are being advised by two investment firms less than 10 years after the debacle on Wall Street and the financial crisis. At least one of the two firms implicated in this debacle is now going to advise us on whether we should privatize the ports that it may decide to invest in. Some might recall that Morgan Stanley has already held shares in the Port of Montreal.

Is there not a single Liberal willing to acknowledge the possibility that it may be an apparent conflict of interest to ask investment firms that might benefit directly to advise the government on privatizing key infrastructure in Canada's economy without having spoken a single word about all this during the election campaign? This is not a minor decision. We would be radically altering the course of the Canadian economy. We are being asked to simply close our eyes and let it happen.

I do not see a big difference between the Liberal government and the previous Conservative government. At least the Conservatives were clear. They wanted to go in this direction and they said so. We did not agree with them, but they were honest about it. The Liberals say that they are really all about the common good and are committed to helping the middle class. However, they are secretly dealing with Wall Street and Bay Street in order to reserve shares for them in Canadian infrastructure. They never mentioned it before. They are going to do business with them so they can hand them over key infrastructure such as airports and ports.

We are not going to sound the alarm when it is announced in the media and the decision has been made. Our path is clear. One only has to scan the media to see that the government asked Crédit Suisse and Morgan Stanley to make recommendations about privatization.

It is clear to me that the Liberals are not even telling us half the story with respect to their economic agenda, especially as it pertains to infrastructure investments.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member will have five minutes after question period.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-29, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Report Stage

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

The member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques has five minutes for questions and comments.

The hon. member for Sherbrooke.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will follow up on the remarks by the hon. member and Minister of International Development and La Francophonie by saying that I am somewhat surprised to see a time allocation motion after just an hour of debate on Bill C-29 at report stage. That is really surprising.

Usually members are given more time to consider the many amendments proposed at report stage. Several amendments were announced. Unfortunately, we debated at report stage from 10 a.m. to 11 a.m and then suddenly, after an hour of debate, we learned that the time for debating Bill C-29 would be limited.

Could my colleague comment in real time on the fact that the government intends to allocate a specific amount of time for the study of the bill at report stage?

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

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague from Sherbrooke, I was in the last Parliament. These types of motions were came up regularly, and any real negotiation on the length of the debates on the bills was immaterial.

When the Liberals were in the opposition, they complained about this tactic by the Conservatives, but here they are using it themselves. In fact, they are using it for bills that represent our most fundamental work in Parliament, in other words, budget bills.

I do not get it. I would like a minister or a Liberal member, especially those who were here during the 41st Parliament, to explain to us why they now have no problem adopting the same tactics and approach as the Conservative government, whose approach they once condemned.

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

Mr. Speaker, the NDP might want to reconsider in terms of how they might be voting on the issue of the budget implementation bill. The budget implementation bill ultimately implements the budget, and we see a very progressive budget.

Could the member enlighten the House as to when he believes there has been a more progressive budget than we currently have, one that does so much for so many Canadians, whether it is the tax break for the middle class, the enhancement of the Canada child benefit program, or the enhancement of the guaranteed income supplement?

It does so much for every region of our country. Why not support the budget implementation bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is the thing: saying it is progressive, does not make it so; saying that the climate change targets set up by the Conservatives are progressive, does not make it so; saying that the trade agreements negotiated by the Conservatives are progressive agreements, does not make it so. Really, the varnish is starting to be removed from this whole fabrication of the Liberals.

The Liberals are saying that their budget is so progressive, that so many Canadians will benefit from their tax cuts. Well, no, actually it leaves out over 23 million Canadians and benefits merely 9% of the population. This is not progressive. It is basically taking from the rich to give to the little less rich.

Our concern is the fact that most of those earning less than $90,000 a year would benefit little, if at all. They have actually been completely abandoned by the Liberals. This is why we are objecting to the direction that the Liberals are headed. I have not even started to talk about the infrastructure commitment, which, honestly, is going nowhere at this point.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, what the member just said is factually incorrect.

How can the member say that when he knows full well that the guaranteed income supplement is affecting those individual seniors making less than $20,000 in a tangible way, and when we are lifting tens of thousands of children out of poverty?

What the member just said is factually incorrect. Does the member understand what this budget is actually doing for a majority of Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, even a broken clock gives the right time twice a day.

The GIS increase is actually something we welcomed. However, when we are saying that the Canada child benefit will benefit more kids, that might be the case for now, but the Liberals are leaving it unindexed for four years, which will bring it back to close to what it would have been otherwise under the previous government.

I do not think the miracles that the Liberals are claiming they are doing right now are actually true and factually accurate.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-29, which implements certain provisions of the budget tabled in March.

I am pleased to speak today because I am very proud to see that our government is keeping its promises and commitments to Canadians, the middle class, families, seniors, students, workers, retirees, and veterans. All of these people work or worked very hard and deserve a good quality of life and better futures. These people often struggle to make ends meet; they need measures to help them meet their everyday needs. That is what our budget measures do.

Talking about the budget provides me with an opportunity not only to express my support for Bill C-29 but also to talk about the people in my riding who will be affected by the provisions of this bill. These people put their trust in the Liberal Party. They put their trust in me by voting for me in October 2015, and I thank them from the bottom of my heart for their support. I can tell them today that they made the right choice. They voted for the right party. The bill before us today is further proof of that.

Many measures in the 2016 budget address the concerns and interests of the people, businesses, and communities in Laval. Even today, 11% of Alfred-Pellan's population is comprised of low-income earners. These people need help to meet their most important need, which is housing. The Liberal budget makes major investments of $1.5 billion over two years to improve access to safe, adequate, and affordable housing.

Other vulnerable people benefit from this budget's measures. The Canada child benefit will finally give more to those who need it most. This measure will lift 300,00 children in Canada out of poverty. In my riding, it will benefit 14,505 families with children, who will no longer pay taxes on this benefit, and will have the full amount at their disposal.

During a community event at the church in Vimont last week, Joe, a constituent with no political affiliation or interest in politics, told me that the $425 a month makes a big difference. This measure will mainly help the 5,290 single parent families in Alfred-Pellan, which will receive more money to help provide better living conditions for their children. This benefit is much more generous than the benefits provided by the previous government and it gives more money than before to families with children. Families will see their benefits increase by almost $2,300 on average in 2016-17. This will allow families like Joe's to buy winter clothing, groceries, school supplies, and clothing. It will allow other families, like that of Marie-Carmelle and Robert, to save for their children's education.

Let us also talk about seniors, Canada's human legacy. Our government knows how important it is to improve their quality of life. For that reason, the budget includes such measures as the OAS enhancement. We also recently announced the enhancement of CPP benefits. This will ensure a comfortable and dignified retirement for our seniors who built the Canada of today.

As my Aunt Giuseppina said, after so much sacrifice and hard work, she can finally rest assured that she will not be a burden to her children. Her savings and her government are all she needs to live with dignity. That gives us a good sense of what these measures mean to people.

Bill C-29 implements some very specific measures from the last budget. These measures are part of our overall plan to stimulate economic growth in the short term and, most importantly, pave the way for a strong economy in the long term. Our country has the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. This is the right time to invest for our future success and to ensure a prosperous and green future for current and coming generations, a future in which everyone has a chance to succeed.

As a father, I want to make sure that my son, Gabriel, who is almost three years old, has a sustainable, prosperous future full of opportunity. That is what my parents did for me. That is what informs my day-to-day work as an MP: the prosperity and well-being of the people of Alfred-Pellan. They expect their MP and their government to understand what things are like for them and to pass budgets that reflect their reality and help them make the most of their lives.

Let us not forget our veterans, those who sacrificed so much to preserve our dearest values and uphold the peace in land and all over the world.

The government will give back to veterans, who have given so much in service to all Canadians, by restoring critical access to services that were recklessly cut by the previous government and ensuring the long-term financial security of disabled veterans. Canada's veterans will receive more local, in-person government services as well as better access to case managers.

Last week, I discussed with a very concerned constituent the issues of unemployment. Mario, a 55-year-old hard-working gentleman, found himself laid off from his job and wanted to know how our government would help him and the thousands of people in the same position. I assured Mario that the changes to the current EI system that we were proposing would give Canadians the help they need when they needed it, be it the changes to eligibility rules, which would make it easier for new workers and those re-entering the workplace to claim benefits; the reduction of the waiting period from two weeks to one week, which would provide unemployed workers with hundreds of dollars more at the time they needed it most; or the extension of employment insurance benefits in regions affected by the collapse of the price of oil and other commodities that would be aimed to ease the burden of Canadians in parts of Alberta, Saskatchewan, northern Ontario, and Newfoundland.

Our Prime Minister has deployed enormous efforts to make Canada once again a leader on the international stage. Helping international development for Canadian businesses and to ensure that our financial sector remains strong, we will strengthen the framework that regulates financial institutions and balance the need for stability and competition with the needs of consumers and businesses.

Moreover, as a matter of fairness for all taxpayers, the government will seek to prevent underground economic activity and tax evasion, and combat tax loopholes.

We will invest in effective administration and enforcement of tax laws and we will propose actions to improve the integrity of Canada's tax system.

All these measures define my unwavering support to Bill C-29. I invite all members to reflect on the benefits Bill C-29 has for Canadians and join in support of the bill.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as we just heard from one of the ministers in the government, the Liberals are going to move time allocation again next week. It will be the tenth time they have moved notice. Why are they ceasing debate on the bill at this point?

As a new member in the House, I was looking forward to an opportunity to hear what other members had to say about Bill C-29. Now we are not going to get that opportunity. Does the member really think that 337 members are going to show up to a committee in the Senate at some point, perhaps new witnesses, to further talk about this?

The Liberals are proposing to spend billions upon billions of dollars in the future with very little return on it. We have seen what their jobs plan has been for Canada and Alberta: No net new jobs. They have completely failed. Why is his government in such a rush to shut down debate in the House and spend billions of taxpayer dollars?

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

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

Bill C-29 implements certain measures of budget 2016, a budget that marks a turning point after 10 years, during which the only objective was to avoid a deficit—but at what cost? Seniors, children, women, veterans, low-income Canadians, and basically anyone who is vulnerable, all paid the price. This is all not to mention the cuts to programs related to science, R and D, and the environment.

Our government knows that now is the time to invest in order to create high-quality jobs, lift hundreds of thousands of kids out of poverty, help young people with their post-secondary education, and invest in R and D to make Canada a great place to invest in potential new businesses.

These measures are associated with a long-term vision for a prosperous future. We are a government that understands the day-to-day reality of middle-class Canadians. That is why we are targeting our measures and our investments, so that the middle class and those working hard to join it stand to benefit the most.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his speech. He talked about numerous positive measures in the budget.

I want to come back to one specific point. He touched on the benefits for seniors. Under Bill C-29, couples who are receiving the guaranteed income supplement and the spouse's allowance but have to live apart for reasons beyond their control, such as the need for long-term care, will each receive benefits based on their individual income.

For the benefit of those watching us, can the member elaborate on this and paint a clearer picture of what this really means for many senior couples?

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very insightful and very important question for the seniors in my riding and across Canada.

As we know, ageing has its downsides. Unfortunately, loss of autonomy and illness are in store for many seniors. These conditions sometimes mean, for instance, that a spouse has to stay at a long-term care facility or an assisted-living facility. This means that the couple has to live apart. Just imagine the cost related to this involuntary and heartbreaking separation for so many couples. These tough situations only add to their financial burden.

Through our measure, the benefits a couple will be entitled to will not be based on their combined income, but on the income of the beneficiary, which in many cases will allow them to have a higher benefit and better meet their growing needs.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join this debate, which I know now be a very brief debate because of the notice of motion the government has brought forward. I appreciate the opportunity to address it nonetheless.

We hear the government speak often about the issue of sustainability. Sustainability is a very important concept. It is about maintaining the things we are enjoying and have created into the future so our children and grandchildren will be able to enjoy the same quality of an environment, the same standard of living, the same standard in social programs that we enjoy today.

What needs to be underlined with the fiscal policy of the government is that it is very clearly unsustainable. There are certain instances where it makes sense to run timely, targeted, and temporary deficits. However, it does not make sense to have an intentionally unsustainable fiscal policy, one in which promises are made that cannot be maintained over the long term, and programs are created that will have to be cut in the future.

Commitments are made with regard to spending on infrastructure, spending on social programs, and taxes that the government knows cannot possibly last. It is setting people up for disappointment, just as it did on the electoral reform file, by the way. However, on fiscal policy and social programs as well, the government is setting people up for disappointment with its unsustainable fiscal approach.

Let us be very clear about contrasting the approach of the Liberal government with that of the previous Conservative government. I would never accuse members of the government of lying, certainly that is unparliamentary. However, there is a clear dissonance between the reality and the things government members have said.

Let us be very clear about the record in this respect. We heard the parliamentary secretary again claim that Stephen Harper added over $150 billion to the national debt. That is a clear instance of dissonance between the realities and the comments made by the parliamentary secretary.

The reality of the record is that managing Canada's finances through the worst economic recession since the Great Depression, the previous Conservative government, over the course of its tenured office, reduced the overall debt-to-GDP ratio. The numbers are very clear. When former prime minister Stephen Harper took power, the federal debt-to-GDP ratio was 34.1%. When he left office, the federal debt-to-GDP ratio was at 31%. Very clearly, there was a lowering of the federal debt-to-GDP ratio during the time in which the previous Conservative government was in power.

Yes, stimulative deficits were undertaken during a very significant global economic crisis, but they were done in a way such that not only did we return to balanced budgets, but the overall debt-to-GDP ratio went down.

In terms of raw, nominal numbers, a total over $128.5 billion was added to the national debt, much lower than $150 billion. What is the significance of the difference in numbers? It simply illustrates that there is a clear dissonance between the talking points being cited by the various government members and what Canadians can find if they look at the government's own website with respect to the numbers. Again, it was a lower number than was quoted in terms of additions to the national deficit and a reduction in the debt-to-GDP ratio.

It is worth adding in this context that if we try to figure out what the government is talking about when it comes up with this $150 billion, some have speculated that maybe it is only counting the amount that was added to the national debt during deficit years, not including the amount that was subtracted during the various Conservative surpluses.

Then we wonder whether it was only those years that the government was counting and not the other years. Even if we only count those years, it adds up to $145 billion. The government is still off. Again, it is certainly not misleading the House but creating a situation of dissonance between what is actually happening, according to the finance minister's website, and what the words are that are coming from the government. Again, I encourage Canadians to verify those facts. They are very clearly in black and white, and can be found on the Finance Canada website.

That is the current reality. The plan from this finance minister involves not only a dramatic increase in the national debt, a greater increase over the one term, hopefully, of the current government, but a greater increase in debt than has happened during the worst global financial crisis. That is happening while we are not in a time of global financial crisis. Also, the Minister of Finance's plan involves increasing significantly the debt-to-GDP ratio. According to TD forecasts, the Liberals' spending will take the debt-to-GDP ratio to 38%. Again, the debt-to-GDP ratio went down from 34.1%, when the previous prime minister Stephen Harper took office, to 31% when he left office. Now, according to these estimates, it will go up to 38% under the current Liberal government.

The question here is not whether there are certain situations where we can run a deficit; the question is whether we have a sustainable fiscal policy. The finance minister has been asked before if it is his view that the government should ever balance the budget. He has repeatedly declined to answer that question. We have had the suggestion that Liberal governments clean up the budgets in the long term, in the fullness of time. However, it is right for us as the opposition, and for Canadians, to ask what is the fullness of time in this context, because the budget projections do not show any return to a balanced budget at any point.

We have not had any kind of estimate in that respect at all. We simply know that the Liberals intend to dramatically increase the debt levels at a time when we are not in the midst of a global financial crisis. They will significantly increase the federal debt-to-GDP ratio, and that creates an unsustainable situation, one in which all of their glorious promises, whether on social policy, on infrastructure, on spending on the environment, will unfortunately lead to painful cuts in the future, unless we get back on to a track of real fiscal sustainability.

Let us underline, as well, that when we talk about the federal debt-to-GDP ratio, people like to compare Canada to other countries and say we have a much lower federal debt-to-GDP ratio than those other countries. However, Canada is different, insofar as we have provincial and municipal governments that provide a much greater share of public services than are provided at the subnational level in other states. When we are doing international comparisons in terms of the challenges we face in debt in this country, we should look at total government debt, not just federal debt to GDP. We have the Province of Ontario led by a Liberal government. The Province of Ontario is the most indebted sub-sovereign borrower on the planet. Our total government debt-to-GDP ratio is quite high. It is similar to levels in the United States, the U.K., and other countries.

We cannot, at all, take our position for granted. It is important that we have a real plan for fiscal sustainability over the long term, and we are not seeing this from the government. Not only are we seeing a misstatement of the record, but we are seeing a complete absence of a plan when it comes to the long term.

There is an important question that the government needs to answer, and hopefully it will have time to answer in the much-shortened debate that the Liberals have given us. That is, at what point will the Liberals be prepared to learn from what is happening in the real economy?

They have undertaken a dangerous experiment, one that I would argue we have every reason to already know the results of. They claim that this massively unsustainable fiscal policy they have undertaken will somehow stimulate the economy. Let us be very clear that this is not at all the traditional economics of stimulus. John Maynard Keynes would be rolling in his grave by the extent to which he has been misused by the current government. He believed that we should run targeted temporary deficits, that it was acceptable to run deficits during years of relative struggle, and that it would create a counter-circular push, but then the savings had to come on the other side. The current government's plan is long-term, constant deficits.

When will the Liberals learn the lesson? It has been a year, and they are still talking about slow growth. Unemployment is where it was a year ago.

I would like to know at what point the government will change its course if its plan does not work. Will it take two years, three years? Will it at some point realize it is not working and that it needs to go back to the policy of the previous Conservative government? I hope the Liberals will do that sooner rather than later.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, every time members on that side of the House get up and give a speech about debt, I am struck by their temerity. They watched as the previous government, a government that was reimbursing Canadian debt, that was reimbursing debts incurred by previous Conservative administrations, and doing it even before the financial crisis, then proceeded to rack up nine consecutive years of structural deficit. Those members now have the temerity to walk into the House and ask about deficit and debt under this Liberal administration. We are trying to dig out from under low commodity prices that the Conservatives presided over, an infrastructure deficit, a social deficit, and any other kind of deficit one would care to mention.

Where was that member when the previous government was racking up debt on our children and grandchildren for nine consecutive years?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, to answer the member's question directly about where I was when the previous government racked up debt for nine consecutive years, I was clearly reading completely different newspapers than he was at the time, and perhaps looking at a different Finance Canada website.

I laid out the numbers clearly. It is breathtaking how willing government members are to completely misstate the fiscal record when it is very clearly laid out on their own government website. I gave that information: timely, temporary, and targeted deficits during the worst global financial crisis since the Great Depression, which simulated the economy. Over the Harper years, there was a reduction in the debt-to-GDP ratio from 34.1% to 31%. The member needs to check his facts, because he is shouting incorrect numbers across the floor. The debt-to-GDP ratio went from 34.1% to 31% over the Harper years. The finance minister's plan calls for an increase from 31% to 38%, according to TD Bank forecasts, in terms of the debt-to-GDP ratio, and this is at a time when we are not in the midst of a global financial crisis. These are just the basic numbers.

Just because government members say it, does not make it true; Canadians can check the record. Canadians can check the facts.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if it seems like money is being managed responsibly, then it is easier to tolerate debt under certain circumstances.

In this case, rural municipalities thought they were getting money for desperately needed infrastructure projects. Now all of a sudden that money is going into an infrastructure bank, where projects will only be considered if they are worth at least $100 million. In other words, none of the rural community projects will be getting any of this money.

I recently found out that the Liberal government decided to award a $74,000 contract, or the cost of two cars, to determine how much pot costs on the black market. A consultant was given $74,000 to come up with an answer, when the police already know how much pot costs on the black market.

What does my colleague think of the government's management? Does he believe that the government is managing money responsibly, which might justify the debt, or does its approach seem entirely improvised?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague represents a constituency that includes a significant rural component, as do I. It is important that we have a government that understands the infrastructure needs that exist across the country, not just in our big cities. There is a lot of concern in my constituency, and I suspect in my colleague's as well, that the way the government is acting does not show much regard for the needs and the importance of rural Canada.

When we are talking about deficits, I appreciate that there are certain cases where it makes sense to run a deficit, but there is a need for sustainability. The Conservatives and the NDP have different philosophies about certain things, but we recognize the need to have balanced budgets, to have sustainability. If the government is going to make a commitment, whether it is to increase transfers, to lower taxes, to increase spending on a social program, that commitment has to be costed; it has to be paid for. If the government makes a commitment without any kind of plan for fiscal sustainability, then people need to know it is not going to happen over the long term.

[Neil Ellis, Liberal, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-29, the budget implementation act.

Prior to my role as the member for the Bay of Quinte, I served for eight years as the mayor of the City of Belleville. My municipal experience gave me a full appreciation of the impact that infrastructure has on our communities.

The city of Belleville, having a population of 50,000, and being a small urban municipality, has many infrastructure deficits. Investments in infrastructure provide communities with safe roads, clean water and air, efficient transportation networks, and so much more. Our infrastructure needs have outpaced our investments for decades, and at significant cost.

The perfect storm is here. It is hurting our communities. It is very important that we keep driving investment and finding new alternative ways to support the needs of our communities.

Neglected aging infrastructure directly contributes to traffic congestion, which pollutes the air and stifles the productivity of our workers and businesses. It contributes to boil water advisories that affect the health of entire communities. It means that our seniors have a harder time accessing essential services, and that some of our population have great difficulty finding safe and affordable places to live.

As I have personally experienced, underfunded infrastructure puts our cities at a competitive disadvantage. When competing to attract top companies, either the local market or the global market, it is hard to create good-paying jobs without proper infrastructure.

The City of Belleville was like so many other communities across Canada, starved for infrastructure funding and facing a mounting infrastructure deficit. Upon being elected as mayor, I began to see first-hand just how large this infrastructure deficit was in our community, and how it was growing with no real plan to fix it.

Speaking with my colleagues at AMO, association of Ontario mayors, 444 of us excluding Toronto, I realized that most municipalities in Ontario had aging infrastructure. I was finding in my community that we were not unique. Small urban communities and cities across Canada were in a similar position. There was simply no infrastructure funding to meet the needs of municipalities. The tax system with municipalities is basically property taxes and user fees. Municipalities provide 66% of our services in Ontario, yet collect only around 8¢ on the tax dollar.

The City of Belleville, an average small city, has over $3.5 billion worth of assets. This includes roads, bridges—69 bridges, I believe—public facilities, water, waste water plants, which were all built in the forties, fifties and sixties. However, they never had an asset management plan to keep these structures in repair.

After examining this asset management plan, I realized that our city was in trouble. We had approximately 350 in terms of millions of dollars in a past deficit that was hidden, a deficit that was not on our books, and a deficit that kept growing out of control. It was a construction deficit that was increasing at the time between 5% and 10%. We had interest rates that we were able to acquire at approximately 2.5% locked in. It is all about capital risk. Being a small business person myself, one of the biggest problems is obtaining capital, locked in, at an amount that could get rid of the risk.

With Infrastructure Ontario, we were able to build a plan, and our solution was a build Belleville plan. This was the second infrastructure plan to try to alleviate some of the infrastructure that was stockpiled to the city over the last 25 years.

The rationale is simple. Each year that the cost of infrastructure repairs are left and not taken care of, they increase. All of a sudden, a $300-million deficit becomes a $330-million or $340-million deficit. With infrastructure, we are not quite sure what the costs will be, so it is floating.

Coming up with a plan for locking in our capital risk, recognizing that interest rates were low, it was time to launch a plan and try to convince council that we needed to mitigate the risk of bridges collapsing. We had to mitigate the risk of not having a waste water plant that was capable of meeting our industry.

City council supported build Belleville and the $91.5 million loan for the first stage of infrastructure upgrades and maintenance. The build Belleville plan was featured in many trade publications, including Canada Business Review, Municipal World, The Undergrounder and ReNew.

The program not only attracted the attention of magazines and media, it attracted a great deal of attention from municipalities. In 2008, I was asked to speak at AMO, to all mayors about the plan.

My city is also in the plan. It expanded our industrial park by extending roads and services to build our economic base. It has put us in a very great position now to attract industry and create more jobs.

This past August, I met with local mayors to announce over $7 million in federal gas tax funding. This is specifically for municipal infrastructure projects. More recently, I held an announcement event at our local college, Loyalist College, for a $1.6-million federal investment toward a $3.2-million renovation of the Northumberland wing and health and wellness centre. The wellness centre hosts the school's highly respected practical nursing program and state-of-the-art clinical simulation lab.

This investment will make for greater energy efficiency, which has positive impacts both on the environment and the school's operating budget. Of course, it will significantly improve the learning environment and hopefully keep our youth and our community educated, and help in the workforce.

These are good reasons why it is so vitally important that we continue to work with our municipal and provincial partners across the country to develop a long-term infrastructure plan that meets the real needs of all communities across Canada.

Our government will provide more than $180 billion over 12 years for public transit, green and social infrastructure, and trade and transportation. These investments will have a dramatic impact on all communities across Canada, including small communities and rural regions. The plan provides unprecedented levels of funding for projects across the country, projects that will help create long-term economic growth; build safe, inclusive, and sustainable communities; and support a low-carbon, green economy.

Budget 2016 launched the first phase of our infrastructure plan, which will invest a total of $11.9 billion. This includes $3.4 billion for public transit systems, $5 billion for green infrastructure projects, and $3.4 billion for social infrastructure, which includes affordable housing.

During my community pre-budget consultations, our not-for-profit agencies could not stress enough the importance of investment in safe and affordable housing. The first phase of this investment makes possible repairs and upgrades to long neglected critical infrastructure. Bilateral agreements were signed with all the provinces and territories, and more than 750 projects have already been improved.

Projects are already under way in our rural and smaller communities such as: waste-water upgrades in Red Deer, hard surfacing of the Trans-Labrador Highway, upgrades to the town of Lanigan's water facilities in Saskatchewan, rehabilitation of bridges in the Northwest Territories, a new Pond Inlet small craft harbour in Nunavut, and a water treatment plant upgrade in my neighbouring town of Deseronto.

We have also made major investments in infrastructure projects for public transit that once complete will help drastically reduce congestion in our cities, and get all moms and dads home earlier, hopefully, to spend time with their families and to get their families safely home. They are things like the light rail transit in Ottawa, the Toronto Commission surface track replacement program, the Waterloo Fairview Mall transit terminal, and the Trent-Severn Waterway National Historic Site, for a total investment of $267 million.

I had the great honour, on a hot summer day, to be with a great Conservative member, the member for Simcoe North, in Peterborough to cut the ribbon on the announcement of the Trent-Severn system, which affects my community, as the Trent Port Marina in Quinte West is the start of the Trent. I invite everyone to visit the Trent Port Marina in their boats this year, and come and enjoy our wineries and our cities.

Equipping municipalities with the resources they need and access to low-risk capital is essential to sustain and grow our communities, providing the building blocks they need to thrive and succeed. Infrastructure is an essential component for healthy, vibrant communities, and creates the conditions for sustainable economic growth and development. Investments in infrastructure are investments in our future and that of our children.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask about the infrastructure bank, because that was one issue the Liberal Party did not run on in the last election, and in particular the impact of that infrastructure bank on smaller communities. We already heard many times in the House that those with a population of 100,000 or less will not benefit from this infrastructure bank.

I would also like the member's comment on this. When FCM recently visited Ottawa I met with them and I was shocked to learn that when the Prime Minister had his meeting with the equity banks and investment firms, there was not one representative from FCM at that table. I am just wondering if he could confirm that, and answer the question about the infrastructure bank.

[Neil Ellis, Liberal, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question and for his municipal experience. I know that he and I have talked about our municipal experiences.

Members are well aware of capital risk. When we look at Ontario, it has an infrastructure program that gives loans to municipalities, and gets away with that capital risk.

Smaller projects are sometimes less risky and easier to obtain funds for. However, for bigger projects that are Canada-wide or projects that need financing, it is time to look at that capital risk. If we, through the infrastructure bank, can get these projects pushed forward and get private investment, we cut down and reduce that capital risk for cities to get these projects done on time and on budget. This is what we are trying to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Bay of Quinte for his speech.

I gave my speech earlier and I was surprised that I was not confronted by some Liberal members. I made some rather serious allegations about the Liberals' lack of results with respect to infrastructure and about the infrastructure bank, which my colleague just mentioned.

Does my colleague not realize that the infrastructure bank gobbled up $15 billion that the people of his riding could have used? Does he not realize that it will not be in the infrastructure bank's interest to choose and invest in his community's projects because the population density is not as high as that of other cities, like Montreal, Toronto, or Vancouver? Does he also not realize that despite the urgent need for infrastructure investment, a point on which he and I agree, the infrastructure bank will only be set up in 2017, and two-thirds of the funds will not be available before 2021-22, or two elections from now?

I would like him to be able to reconcile what he said in his speech with these facts, which were brought to light in the government's economic and fiscal update.

[Neil Ellis, Liberal, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about time frames and planning in infrastructure, we all know that infrastructure is built for a 20- or 30-year period. In past experiences, to get infrastructure launched, it is usually three or four years to get a shovel in the ground. From past experience, when we look at a city intersection and tell the staff that they have been given all the resources and money to complete that infrastructure, by the time they do the needs study, environmental study, it takes a long time to implement programs and get them out. Therefore, it is about planning in a cycle.

My daughter attends Queen's University in an MBA program. She phoned me the other day and asked me a similar question. She said that we were planning outside the election cycle. Well, it is about looking at what the total infrastructure is, making plans out of that cycle, and building in a 10- or 15-year plan to totally create a plan that does eliminate infrastructure deficits.

If the hon. member, or any member, wants to run their next election on cancelling the infrastructure program or not extending it past our mandate, I would invite them to do that.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to rise today to address the chamber on this important subject.

Every society is judged by how well the most vulnerable fare among the rest of the population. Canada is no different. In this country, we have witnessed a spectacular decline in poverty, particularly over the last decade, under the previous government.

In the mid-1990s, poverty rates in Canada peaked. They reached a high in the mid-teens. People in the country who were at the bottom end of the economic ladder were suffering. However, gradually, over the course of the previous decade, we saw that number drop to 8.8%, which was both the lowest level in Canadian history and the biggest decline that has occurred under any government since the low-income cut-off line was established in 1976. To understand the reasons why, we have to examine the policy conditions under which it occurred.

Let us start back in 1976, when the low-income cut-off line was created. During that period, poverty was measured to be about 13%. About 13% of people had to spend more than 20% above average on the basic necessities of life, things like food, clothing, shelter, and utilities. That actually increased during the final eight years of the Trudeau government, from 13% to 13.8%.

Of course, that was a period in which middle-class incomes also declined. They declined by about 8%, according to the very first chart in the very first budget Mr. Trudeau's son introduced here in the House of Commons. In that time, poverty grew.

Now, that might seem counterintuitive, because Pierre Elliott Trudeau liked to style himself as a man who pursued a just society, one built upon massive state intervention, big government. Government was aggrandized under the pretext of creating social justice: taking from the rich to give to the poor. This is particularly interesting, because after the period during which Pierre Elliott Trudeau increased the size of the federal government to 24% of the Canadian economy, the middle-class incomes of average Canadians plummeted, again according to data the present Liberal government released in its recent budget, and poverty actually went up. This demonstrates that as government gets bigger, the poor get poorer.

That, of course, runs counter to all the narratives we have been taught for so long. We have been taught that big governments equalize society, that government and the state are like a grand fairness machine, constantly taking from the privileged in order to give to the many.

In fact, as government gets bigger, the poor get poorer. Why does this happen? For one, in a government-run economy, a company is rewarded if it has the best lobbyists. In a free market economy, a company is rewarded if it has the best product. Government-run economies are based on force. Free enterprise economies are based on billions, literally billions, of voluntary transactions. In a free market economy, millions of people, through billions of transactions, decide what businesses produce and at what price. In a government-run economy, the state tells people what they get and what they will pay for it. In other words, it is a relationship of force, and in any relationship of force, the most powerful win.

Who are the most powerful? They are the people who can afford to hire lobbyists to pressure the government, lawyers to get around the rules or to sue those against whom they are competing, and accountants to avoid paying the cost of the massive apparatus we call the state. Those are the powerful interests that always do best when government gets big.

We see this in the province of Ontario, where the government introduced something called the Green Energy Act, which was supposed to create jobs producing windmills and solar panels. What actually happened?

According to the Auditor General of Ontario, over the whole life of this program, a massive government program that forces consumers to pay higher electricity bills in order to purchase wind and solar energy would increase the cost of electricity by an extra $160 billion, above and beyond what it would have cost otherwise. Of course, those costs will fall on the backs of the people who can least afford it, the poor. Electricity and other utilities make up a larger share of the income of poor families than it does of rich families.

Furthermore, wealthy interests are able to pay to have a solar panel put on their house or to invest in a wind turbine park in somebody else's backyard. Wealthy interests are able to aggrandize their own financial situation by benefiting from the government forced pricing system that rips everyone else off. In fact, the former Liberal Party president, Mike Crawley, presided over a company that received a half a billion dollar contract in the process. A lot of wealthy insiders were made instant millionaires overnight and a lot of middle-class people were made instant food bank goers at the same time.

Food banks from places like Windsor have said that people have come in with their hydro bill, saying they have a choice to either eat or turn the lights on, so maybe the food bank can feed them so they can pay the bills. Again, it is a massive wealth transfer from the very poor to the very rich, from the have-nots to the have-yachts.

We see other similar examples. The carbon tax will raise the price of the basic necessities of life, things like heat, hydro, food, and shelter. Those are things on which a lower income family spends a third more of their income than does a wealthy family. In other words, low-income people will pay more as a share of their income than will rich households. The result is that those with the least will suffer the most. Who will benefit?

In Ontario, the government says that it is going to use the money to subsidize all kinds of green programs. Already such programs exist. One paid for five millionaires to buy the wealthiest car ever produced, the Porsche 918 Spyder, under the guise that this was a very green car. Middle-class taxpayers suffering to make ends meet were paying for millionaires to buy Porsches.

The story goes on and on. The Liberals and people on the left like to compare themselves to Robin Hood, taking from the rich to give to the poor. In reality, Robin Hood was not a redistributionist. Robin Hood was not a medieval Marxist. He was a tax fighter, leading probably the most famous tax revolt in the history of our civilization. He fought against heavy taxation by his arch nemesis, who was a tax collector, the Sheriff of Nottingham, and who at the time collected from the peasants and the landowners so he could aggrandize all of the adventures and the luxuries of the aristocratic elite.

In a much less admittedly dramatic form, we see that occur again and again throughout history. The result is that throughout history we have seen that as government gets bigger, the poor get poorer. We see in studies done by the former IMF director, when he compared big government countries, medium-size government countries, and small-size government countries, that countries with the smallest governments actually had the best social outcome; that is those countries where government represented less than 40% of the economy.

The empirical data shows that if we want to give people opportunity, particularly those with the least, we do so by getting government out of the way and unleashing the unmatched force of free enterprise to allow people to pursue their own dreams and benefit from their own work, invest in their own ambitions, and build up their own communities. That is the way to lift up those with the least. That is the way to build a stronger and more vibrant middle class. That is the reason why we were able to reduce poverty to unmatched levels under the previous government. It is the only way that the current government will continue to build on that success.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, whose riding is across the river from my riding of Gatineau.

The member again is getting very good at reciting all of the dogma and the failed experiments in supply-side economics. What he fails to realize is that with respect to outcomes, in terms of the real world, and in terms of what we were left as the situation when we entered office was a failed economic experiment by relying unduly on commodities in our country; crumbling infrastructure; a social deficit in social housing, as my friend from Belleville outlined, or other measures, we were in all sorts of social deficit; and, finally, nine consecutive years of unfettered, unchecked borrowing. The Conservatives never saw a ledger with black ink.

The member now chooses to get up and speak from the Friedman school, but while in power, demonstrated none of that orthodoxy or discipline that he now would have us espouse. Could I get the member to explain a bit of the dissonance that I am experiencing?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot explain the dissonance the member is experiencing, but I can explain our record. We reduced the size of the federal government to its smallest as a share of the economy in the last 50 years. We had the least expensive government as a share of the economy in the last half century, and the results were very positive. As I said, poverty rates fell down to 8.8%, which is the lowest level in recorded history, much lower than when the Liberals were previously in government and vastly lower than during the last Trudeau government, whose policies the present government is trying to replicate.

The member talked about supply-side economics. He and his party subscribe to a theory of trickle-down government. If they take money from working people and they put it on the top of a big bureaucracy, it will trickle down through that bureaucracy, then it will go to another level of government, then maybe to the municipal government and then it will be given to interest groups that will fan out, and a few drops will trickle down to the people at the bottom who pay the bills. We do not accept trickle-down government. It is a theory that has been disproved time and again. It has failed. It leads only to bankruptcy and suffering, as we saw in Greece.

We believe in bottom-up economics. We raised the personal exemption by $1,500, lifting a million people off the tax rolls altogether. We lowered federal income taxes for people earning less than $30,000 a year by 90%. The result was people were able to earn their way out of poverty and build a brighter future for themselves.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know whether my colleague also gets the impression that the Liberals are living on another planet and that they do not understand people's daily reality at all.

They do not seem to understand what it means to live on $23,000 or $25,000 a year while supporting two or three children. The government does not even consider people like that to be part of the middle class. How can it make sense to act this way without even understanding what Canadians' day-to-day lives are like? How can it make sense to abandon these people, particularly those living in rural communities?

Does the member get the impression that the Liberals are living in another world and completely out of touch with people's everyday financial reality?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do get that impression.

I think that the Liberals surround themselves with people who are extremely well-off and who can give them $1,500 donations. The Prime Minister is meeting billionaires at the Ritz-Carlton. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance are millionaires themselves. The Prime Minister had a very privileged life. I am not condemning him for that, but it is clear that he grew up in an environment where he never had to worry about money. He was always given everything he wanted.

People who have to work for a living are the ones who are suffering as a result of this government's elitist policies.

[David Lametti, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak in the House this afternoon on something that really is a centrepiece of our government's policy moving forward: the budget. The budget is important to Canadians in so many ways, but, in particular, because it represents a strong and courageous change in direction from policies that the previous government undertook that would have the impact of making my children and grandchildren and everybody else's children and grandchildren across the country a whole lot weaker for many years.

We plan to invest over $180 billion in infrastructure over the next 11 years. So many of these expenses will directly touch upon my riding, such as social housing. The previous government, over the past 10 years, completely abandoned its responsibility in the area of social housing. I am privileged to sit in the House next to the member for Spadina—Fort York, who greatly inspired our platform and, therefore, greatly inspired the budget as it now stands. I really would like to pay homage to him.

He has an urban riding in Toronto, which is much like my urban riding in Montreal, and the housing needs are glaring, in particular, because of the federal government's abandonment of its responsibility 10 years ago. We need better social housing, we need to renew co-op agreements, which are very important in my riding. We need to have the money available for those co-op agreements to be renewed, and for those co-operative housing arrangements to reinvest in their own infrastructure, such that the buildings do not become dilapidated and continue to be vibrant communities moving forward.

My riding straddles the end of the city and the beginning of the suburbs, and there is the question of affordable housing as well. We need to be flexible to allow homeowners to repair their own homes and for landlords to repair their rental properties, particularly at the lower end of the rental scale, such that tenants will have a good stock of affordable housing. The fact that we have had the courage to say we will run deficits in order to improve our stock of social housing and infrastructure generally, I think, is an important change of direction.

There is also money in infrastructure for social innovation and technological innovation, two things that are very dear to my heart. I taught intellectual property for many years and have had to follow, for professional reasons, quite happily, I might add, the whole digital revolution. The world has changed immensely since I started teaching intellectual property in 1998. It has been unbelievable and the possibilities created for both economic advancement and the reshaping of society through the digital revolution are breathtaking.

I have, and I hope to have, social innovation projects accepted for my riding, as well as trying to bring some of the fruits of the digital revolution into my riding to create good middle-class jobs, but also to allow people to live closer to where they work and allow the community to thrive in that manner. It is a new generation where people do not necessarily want to commute for a long time in order to get to work. I hope I have the ideal riding for that possibility. By investing in infrastructure, particularly in these kinds of digital areas, we might be able to create those possibilities.

My riding is also blessed with two jewels, the St. Lawrence River and the Lachine Canal, both of which could profit greatly from investment in green infrastructure. The Lachine Canal is, for many reasons, so historically important in the history of Canada, in the development that occurred along that canal. Now we need to re-deploy the Lachine Canal as a recreational space. That requires infrastructure spending not just on the canal itself, such as the walls of the canal, and its development into a 12-month-a-year recreational facility, but also for decontamination.

All the lands in the southwest of Montreal are effectively contaminated because of their industrial history. Moving forward on any kind of project, whether around the Lachine Canal or whether a social housing project in Verdun or in Ville-Émard, we need to be thinking about funds for decontamination in order to make our infrastructure projects work.

Let me open with the following, because we are talking about the environment, and it is something that I feel needs to be said in the House as regards the price on carbon. People who speak out against a price on carbon seem to think they have a right to pollute. It used to be treated in the economics literature as an externality, something a property owner or business owner did not have to think about. It was external to his or her thinking. However, that kind of analysis is completely wrong. No one has the right to pollute. No one has the right not to consider these externalities of their own business activities. It is their responsibility precisely to consider the environmental impact of everything they do. It is part of the responsibility of being a property owner. It is part of the responsibility of being a business owner. I spent the better part of 20 years as a property theorist arguing just that. Therefore, it is not unjust to price carbon. In fact, it is equitable and just, and it is righting a historic wrong, whether in terms of analytical thinking or in terms of justice itself.

One of the most courageous things we are doing in this budget is the idea of an infrastructure bank. This is precisely in recognition of the fact that some of our infrastructure needs are so great that we need to turn to pools of investment capital in Canada and throughout the world to realize these kinds of projects.

There is a project currently being conceived in Montreal for a high-speed rail. Funding for that would come from Quebec's massive investment from the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec. This is the kind of project that the investment bank would target. They are projects that have some income stream that an investment fund or pension fund might want to invest in over the long term, with a stable and steady rate of return for its investors.

Why not tap into this? It makes possible all sorts of projects that will help my children and grandchildren move around the city of Montreal, should they choose to stay there, or anyone else. It really takes courage. We envisaged this in our platform, it was in our campaign booklet, and we are bringing this to reality. It is going to be fantastic.

Finally, I need to speak about the families in my riding, both the young and the old.

The Canada child benefit will help many families who live in my riding who are struggling to make ends meet. This non-taxable benefit, which is much more generous than the previous benefit, will certainly be an advantage over what we previously had, a miscellaneous mumbo-jumbo of tax credits and whatnot that was far less generous than our single, clear program.

When the future Prime Minister announced this in Montreal at the Olympic stadium, it was pointed out that the 70,000 seats in that stadium matched how many kids in Quebec would be raised out of poverty by this measure. I am proud to be part of that.

Finally, for the seniors in my riding, reducing the age for eligibility for benefits to 65, increasing the old age supplement, in addition to what we are doing in Bill C-26 on the CPP, means that our benefits for seniors are going to give them a dignified retirement. It will help, in particular, those who are really struggling, and believe me, I met many of them at the door.

There are measures in here to help veterans. There are measures in here as far as employment insurance goes. It would take another two or three days to recite these, but I am happy to conclude at this point by saying that this is a courageous budget. “Courage” is the word that characterizes it. We have had the courage to come forward to take these measures, put them in place for our kids and our grandkids, and I am proud to be part of it.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member will have five minutes of questions coming to him when we resume debate on this legislation.

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

The House resumed from December 2 consideration of Bill C-29, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I wish to inform the House that because of the proceedings on the time allocation motion, government orders will be extended by 30 minutes.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to speak in the House, even if it is after the government has decided not very many members of Parliament should actually get that opportunity. That is what we are facing here again today. We are seeing a government that is very proud of the fact that 60 members of Parliament have spoken to this. Last time I checked, there were 336 members in the House of Commons currently, with two vacancies, so that is fewer than 20% of members of Parliament being afforded an opportunity to speak to the budget implementation act. The government has brought down the hammer. It has shut off debate. It does not want members of Parliament to speak in the House.

It is kind of funny. I just did the Liberals' MyDemocracy.ca survey where they ask things like, “Do you think members of Parliament should better represent their constituents or should they toe the party line?” We have seen their preference here today. Instead of representing their constituents, getting up and defending their own budget, they get up and defend cutting off debate in the House.

It is shameful but it is becoming a part of their routine business. They said, “Trust us. We will do things so much differently.” They talked about real change. The only real change is, after Friday, a single hour of debate on the budget implementation act at this stage, they brought in time allocation. For the people at home, that means they no longer want members of Parliament to be able to debate this.

It is no wonder the Liberals do not want Canadians and members of Parliament debating the bill, because it is about their economic performance. The budget implementation act speaks to their ineptitude, quite frankly, on the economy. That is what we are seeing day after day and time after time. Their economic plan, if we could even call it that, is not working.

Statistics Canada said on Friday that for the second month in a row all job gains were in part-time positions and noticed the jobless rate only fell because fewer people were seeking work. Some 8,700 full-time jobs were lost in November. Gluskin Sheff chief economist David Rosenberg said that the latest numbers were clearly a case of “nice headline, shame about the details”. In fact, full-time employment in Canada has not risen in almost a year and a half. What happened just a little over a year ago? This government took office. Since it has taken office, it has not created a single net full-time new job. It is outrageous.

The Liberals talk about how we need to get this passed so that they can deliver on their economic platform. We need to prevent that from happening as much as possible because it has been an unmitigated disaster. They have misled Canadians time after time, and their budget is the primary example of where they have done that.

I want to continue to quote from David Rosenberg. He said the Liberal economic performance is “in a word, pathetic and attests to a usually high level of uncertainty among the business community, writ large”.

There were 8,700 jobs lost just in November. That was in addition to the 100,000 jobs that have been lost in the energy sector since the government took office. Its plan, if we can call it that, is simply failing Canadians.

The budget, and the budget implementation act, is a litany of broken promises. The Liberals promised in the last campaign that they would have a $10-billion deficit and that it would be gone within the time of their mandate, that within four years there would be no deficit and we would be back to a balanced budget. One year later, it is now a $30-billion deficit, and there is no plan to ever get back to a balanced budget. That is the Liberal record. They no longer even pretend they are going to get back to a balanced budget. That is after our Conservative government left them with $2.9 billion in surplus, and over 1.3 million net new jobs was our record. In one year, they have blown through the entire contingency fund they had set aside in their first budget and they are three times more money in debt.

What does that mean? It means that future generations, our children and grandchildren, will pay higher taxes to pay that money back. Canadians know, when they borrow money, they have to pay it back. The government has said that it was just going to borrow a little bit. It was going to spur the economy on to create all kinds of jobs. It has not happened. It is a record of broken promises.

The Liberals also said that they would be cutting the small business tax rate for communities like mine in Chilliwack—Hope. Small and medium-sized enterprises in Chilliwack—Hope are the backbone of my community. Every major party in this place promised in the last election that we would cut the small business tax rate to 9% from 11%. Every single one of us here in the major recognized parties campaigned on cutting the small business tax rate to 9%.

What did we see? The Liberals got into power, and it said sorry to all the small business owners who create all of the jobs in this country, but they did not have the money for them. They had to spend it on other things. They are running a $30-billion deficit, but they cannot afford to keep their promise to them. Instead, they are going to raise their payroll taxes and make it more expensive for them to hire people. Not only were they not going to give them the break they promised, but they are going to make it more expensive.

It is no surprise, given the comments of the Prime Minister during the campaign when he said that small businesses were simply a way for rich Canadians to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. This is what the Liberal Party believes about small business in Canada, that they are simply avoiding taxes and avoiding their obligations to Canadians.

The Liberals are making life more expensive for the people in my riding by raising their taxes. They talk as well about how they are raising taxes on the wealthiest Canadians and cutting them for lowest-income Canadians, except they are doing nothing of the sort.

In my riding, the average income is $34,787 per year. Guess how much the average income earner in Chilliwack—Hope got from the Liberal tax cuts? It is zero. They do not make enough money to qualify for the Liberal tax cuts, because they kick in at $45,000 a year. Therefore, the person who actually makes the most money from the Liberal income tax cuts is someone making $199,000 a year. That might be who the Liberals represent, but in my riding, that is not who I represent. I represent middle and low-income Canadians who are looking for a break. They were promised a tax break from the current government and they got nothing.

Another group that has gotten nothing from the government is the natural resource sector. I was honoured to be named the natural resources critic, and it is a tough time for our natural resource industries. Right now in committee, we have been studying the mining industry. Mining company after mining company has come before the committee to say that a carbon tax will put more people out of work, and it may prevent projects from even starting. That is how serious this is.

The government has not adjusted its plan at all, given the surprising outcome in the United States where we now have president-elect Trump, who says he is going to cut corporate and business taxes. He has no intention of bringing in a carbon tax. Yet the Liberals continue on as though nothing has changed, as if it is still going to be Barack Obama in the White House in another month or so.

Things have changed. The landscape has dramatically shifted. If we do not adjust, we will continue to see massive outflows of capital from the natural resource sector to other jurisdictions. Businesses are going to leave this country, jobs are going to leave this country, and yet the government has done nothing except make it more expensive for businesses to operate in Canada. It is shameful. The 100,000 lost jobs in the energy sector that have happened since the current government took office will seem like the good old days if it continues down this path where people continue to look for lower-cost jurisdictions in which to operate.

Therefore, this is not a plan to get Canadians back to work. It is not a plan to make life more affordable for Canadians. It is a failed plan. It is a litany of broken promises. We on this side of the House will not support it.

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

Madam Speaker, I am surprised, and I am sure the member can help me understand, because he said that few people in his riding would be impacted. Let me remind him of what we have done for people in his riding.

When we cut taxes for nine million Canadians, is he saying to this House that there is no one in his riding who is going to benefit?

When we introduced the Canada child benefit, nine families out of 10 in this country are going to be better off. Is the member telling people watching at home that there is nobody in his riding who is going to benefit from the Canada child benefit?

We have increased the GIS top-up, and 900,000 seniors are going to be better off in Canada because of that. Is the member pretending that there are no seniors in his riding who will benefit?

For youth in our country, we have increased grants. I am sure there are students in the member's riding.

My question to the member is: Why does he not support measures that are going to help the same people who sent him to Ottawa?

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Madam Speaker, of course, if he had been listening to my speech, he would note that the average income in my riding does not qualify for the so-called middle class tax cut of the government. They get nothing from it, and he wants to walk past that.

There has not been a single net new job created. The small businesses, as I said, that are counting on that tax cut that he promised when he was going door to door have got nothing from the government. The Liberals have broken that promise.

My constituents know that when a government comes in, it is expected to keep its promises, not break every single milestone that they promised they would deliver on within a few short months.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a question for my Conservative colleague and fellow British Columbian about perhaps not what is in this budget implementation act, which is of course under the guillotine of time allocation, which the Liberals said they would not use. Sorry, that was the 2015 Liberals. These are the different ones.

We have a lot of fundamental challenges in our economy. We can see the economic numbers that my friend points out and that they are universally accepted, that the economy is sputtering at best, and I am being complimentary, yet we have seen a government go out and borrow an extraordinary amount of money, much more so than it promised, and we are wondering where the results are.

There are a lot of incentives in our tax system for manufacturing and some other businesses, but not a lot for adding value to our natural resources. It seems to be remaining in forestry, oil, and other industries, raw resource extraction model is still in place. Are there any suggestions he might have to improve the state of the Canadian economy to change that particular conundrum?

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think under a Conservative government we certainly took steps to improve the tax regime for manufacturers, for natural resource industries to make sure that the accelerated capital cost allowance for LNG, for instance, in my province of British Columbia will be a big advantage.

I think there are always opportunities to incentivize the behaviours that we want to see in Canada, but we do not do that by raising taxes on small businesses. We do not do that by raising payroll taxes on small businesses, which is exactly what the government has done, which it promised it would not do.

I think Canadians are waking up to the fact that this is a government that breaks its promises.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Madam Speaker, I completely disagree with the hon. member's assumptions. Budget 2016 has been very positive for my province. One of the ridings that has benefited the most is Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, with $3.5 million for a new water treatment system in Gimli and $3 million for a new waste-water treatment facility in Selkirk.

Why does the opposition continue to vote against a budget that is so beneficial to the province of Manitoba, especially the rural municipalities?

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Of course, Madam Speaker, we thank Stephen Harper for that infrastructure plan. It was the biggest and broadest in Canadian history, and we also thank the member of Parliament for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, one of the finest members of Parliament in this House and certainly in Manitoba for getting the job done for his constituents.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the House today about Bill C-29 and to invite my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bill, which is a step forward for Canadian society and the country. As I said earlier, this bill will help families and all Canadians. Naturally, I encourage our colleagues to support it.

Our government made a solemn promise to Canadians. We promised to help members of the middle class who work hard every day and those who are working hard to join it. The government built its 2016 budget around them, and I am proud to speak in favour of that budget in the House today. I am particularly proud to speak in favour of the Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2, which is before us today.

Our government has tabled a bold budget, one that considers all those who are supporting their families through their work and yet feel they still cannot catch up. Therefore the government is going to stimulate the economy through measures that foster the growth of the middle class, because when the economy is working for the middle class, the entire country is pushed into a cycle of growth. We listened to Canadians all over the country before tabling this budget, and what we heard is that they need a financial breather.

One of the budget’s primary measures is therefore an income tax reduction. Almost nine million Canadians have more money in their pockets thanks to one of our government’s very first measures. That measure has been to reduce income taxes for the middle class, putting them in a better position to save or invest in their own priorities.

Families are at the heart of the middle class. In this bold budget, we find a social innovation that directly affects families living in each of the constituencies represented here in the House. This innovation, called the Canada child benefit, came into effect last July 1. I will cite the numbers for the House, since they speak for themselves. Those who are watching us today know this very well. For each child under six years of age, a family can receive up to $6,400 a year, that is, $533 per month for each child.

For children between six and 17 years of age, the allowance is up to $5,400 per year, or a maximum of $450 per month for each child. This is an innovation because it is a direct investment in the country’s middle class. The Canada child benefit is producing results which can be felt all over the country, in each of our constituencies.

First of all, the Canada child benefit is much more generous than the previous benefit. For the families affected by this change, this represents close to an average of $2,300 for the 2016-17 benefit year. Next, it is simpler: families get a single payment every month. It is also tax-free, as the money received does not have to be partially refunded on the income tax return. It is also better targeted, since low- or medium-income families receive higher benefits, while families with very high incomes receive lower benefits than what they received under the previous system.

I am delighted to tell the House that the bill that we are debating today will only increase this benefit, and at the same time improve the lot of this country’s children and their families. There are also plans to index benefits to inflation starting on July 1, 2020, which means that benefits will rise with the cost of living.

In addition to helping Canadians, the bill also protects them as consumers, and that protection is tailored to their needs. This bill strengthens and modernizes the protection framework for consumers of financial products and services. We must also ensure that the financial system is adaptable. It met the challenge of the 2008 crisis and demonstrated its soundness to the world.

Traditional business models are nonetheless upset by technological innovations, new consumer demands, and new modes of consumption. Accordingly, the banking sector has to adapt.

What the bill proposes is to simplify and consolidate the current consumer provisions by grouping them under a single section of the Bank Act. It would introduce amendments to the Bank Act to improve consumer protection, that is, to guarantee better access to basic banking services, limit certain business practices, ensure that consumers have access to all the information they need to make informed decisions, ensure that complaints management is better organized, and finally, improve corporate governance and accountability.

Canada's government is showing leadership by taking this series of steps to strengthen financial protection for Canadians, wherever they may live in the country. This is a matter of maintaining public trust.

I have a little time left to talk about another important measure in this bill, specifically the legislation to combat international tax evasion and tax avoidance.

Our country already has measures to combat non-compliance with tax law. However it is important to fight tax evasion and tax avoidance in co-operation with other countries and international organizations.

This bill proposes the adoption of tools and procedures originating in the G20 and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the OECD.

First of all, there is country-by-country reporting. This is an instrument that will oblige big corporations to report their activities and the nature of those activities in each jurisdiction where they operate. This will enable the Canada Revenue Agency to have a global view of the activities of multinationals. The interest of this tool is that it can tax the profits of companies in the countries where those profits are made. This is then an initial measure to combat aggressive tax avoidance.

A second instrument provided in the bill applies to tax evasion. It was developed by the OECD and is called the Standard for Automatic Exchange of Financial Account Information in Tax Matters. It will compel Canadian financial institutions to put mechanisms in place to identify all accounts held by non-resident Canadians. This information will have to be transmitted to the Canada Revenue Agency. The 100 or so countries and jurisdictions that have adopted this standard will also identify accounts held by foreign nationals, including Canadians. Next, a series of security mechanisms will be introduced to ensure that this information is exchanged among the standard’s signatories.

These measures constitute a step forward for compliance with tax obligations for all Canadians and all businesses established in Canada.

I encourage all members of the House to vote in favour of this bill because it will help every family in our country. There are people who expect this Parliament to take responsibility and pass this bill in order to help families in need in Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, when the Liberals refused to moved on their promise to lower the small business tax rate, I know a lot of small businesses owners across Canada felt a little betrayed. They really are the life blood of the Canadian economy.

Furthermore, we know that a lot of small business owners pay themselves quite a low salary just to make sure they can keep up with costs and so that their employees have a adequate standard of living.

Under the Liberals' tax measures, small business owners are not going to get the benefit of a small business tax rate reduction, but they are also going to miss out because they not pay themselves enough to qualify for the middle-income tax bracket.

I would like to hear the parliamentary secretary's response to those people who feel a double betrayal, those who work in small businesses and who were really hoping for a lot more.

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

Madam Speaker, what we did is very simple. We went across Canada to talk to thousands of Canadians about budget 2016. I went from Moncton to Yellowknife and met a number of small business owners. They told us to invest in the economy. That is what small business across this country wants, an economy that will work for the middle class. When it works for the middle class, it works for entire of this country. That is what small business wanted.

In addition, the first thing we did was to reduce taxes on the middle class, leaving more money in the pockets of people who can go to these small businesses and buy their goods and services. It is the same thing with the Canada child benefit. We put money in the pockets of Canadian families, so they can invest, save, and make sure their children will be better off.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, during the campaign, the Liberals were very clear that they would run a modest deficit of about $10 billion. We know that has ballooned to well over $30 billion. In the House, my colleague has asked the minister many times when the government will return to a balanced budget. The minister has not been able to answer, so I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary would answer the question of when Canadians can expect the current government to return our spending to a balanced budget.

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

Madam Speaker, I am happy to respond to the member and to repeat that our priority is growth. It is about investing in Canadian families, because confident economies today invest in their people. That is exactly the choice we have made: to invest and grow our economy to generate inclusive growth that will benefit middle-class families across the nation.

The member well knows that our policies have not only been applauded in this country but also around the world. We have the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7 and G20 countries. That obviously allows us to invest in the economy, and that is what we are going to continue to do—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I would remind members that when a member has the floor, he deserves the respect that other members get when they ask questions.

The hon. member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a rather simple question for my colleague.

The four parties at the Quebec National Assembly unanimously passed a resolution denouncing Bill C-29, since Quebec has consumer protection legislation. For example, in Quebec, an individual whose credit card has been stolen is liable for a maximum of $50 only. However, this bill gives the bank full discretion to claim the full amount that was stolen. Quebec has been operating this way for 40 years now.

As a member from Quebec, how can my colleague steamroll the very clear will of the Government of Quebec, here in the House of Commons?

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

Madam Speaker, I run into the member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel regularly. I thank him for his question.

The answer is as simple as his question. We are working in the interest of Canadian consumers across the country, including those from Quebec. In Marcotte, the Supreme Court asked us to clarify our position on consumer protection. We not only clarified it, but we also modernized and simplified the legislation for the sole purpose of looking out for Canadian consumers. That is what the Supreme Court asked us to do and that is exactly what we did with this legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, it was only 13 months ago when I attended an orientation session for new members of Parliament here in Ottawa. There was a cameo appearance by the Prime Minister, which was very much appreciated by all of us. During that cameo appearance, he said that the role of opposition is to make government better. I fail to see how bringing time limitations on debate works toward that objective of making government better. However, I will do my best in the time I have to make some suggestions on how we can make this a better bill.

I want to start with the tax break for the middle class. In my riding of Kootenay—Columbia, when I tell people about the tax break for the middle class, which goes from $45,000 up to potentially $190,000, frankly, my constituents shake their heads. We put forward an amendment to try to bring it down to from $20,000 to $45,000, which was defeated in this House. I can assure members that the middle-class salary in my riding of Kootenay—Columbia is not $45,000 to $190,000.

With respect to small businesses, I am holding a series of sessions around the riding, meetings with small businesses, and bringing together a representative of the provincial and municipal governments, along with myself representing the federal government, to talk to small businesses about how we can help them get ahead. Interestingly, members will not find too much congruity between what small businesses at a meeting in Fernie had on their list and what is in the current bill from our friends across the floor.

I will read from their list of how to help small businesses.

With respect to payroll taxes, businesses want a clearer understanding of how they are being used. With respect to the temporary foreign worker program, the program is cumbersome and needs fixing. The $1,000 fee is too high, and there is no clear path to citizenship, so the turnover is high. They think there should be an increase in minimum wage. There is a need for subsidized affordable housing units. This is from small businesses.

Programs should be redesigned to be suitable for small businesses rather than just targeting medium-sized businesses and manufacturing. There is a real lack of support for small business programs. Youth employment programs should be expanded. A scientific development tax credit for sole proprietorships should be introduced, something which is not currently available. The digital technology adoption program should be redeveloped to include use by small businesses.

We need to recognize and rectify the reality of the digital divide in rural areas and small communities, which is a barrier to cloud-based systems, and redefine broadband to bring it to the level of modern requirements. Right now, the definition of “broadband” is too low in terms of speed.

Canada Post needs to reinstate more affordable shipping options, particularly for books. We have a book publisher in my riding. It can cost more to ship a book via Canada Post than the profit he makes on that book. Credit card fees are too high for small local businesses.

These are things coming right from small businesses, and, had they been included in this budget, it would have made it a much better budget for small businesses.

I want to turn now to helping people in real need. There are 15% of Canadian children who live in poverty. For aboriginal children, that number is 27%. In my home province of B.C., the rate of child poverty is even worse than the Canadian average, at 19.8%. The majority of these children have parents in paid work. If we think about that for a moment, one in every five children in British Columbia is living in poverty.

My colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot had a recommendation for Bill C-245 that would help fix some of that, by bringing in the office of the commissioner for poverty reduction and proposing a national council for the promotion of social inclusion and elimination of poverty.

Approximately 35,000 Canadians are homeless on any given night in the year, and one in five household is is at risk of homelessness because they spend over 50% of their income to secure shelter. However, over the past 25 years, while the population of Canada has increased by 30%, national housing investment has decreased by 46%. We need a national housing strategy. I know the government has one on the books, but we need to see the details to know whether that will really help the groups that need it.

This morning I met with a group called Inclusion BC, and number one on their list is also affordable housing for people who are living with challenges. They want housing to be integrated so that people with challenges are part of a regular community and not set aside in special housing. Affordable housing for all Canadians is really important moving forward. We need to hear a little more about what is in the budget around that particular initiative.

As a former mayor, I can say how important having access to dollars for infrastructure is, particularly for smaller communities. I was mayor of a community of about 20,000 people. When we look at the current formula that was in place for many years, it was a one-third formula. The municipality had to come up with the first one-third, the provincial government the second one-third, and the federal government the third one-third. For small communities, coming up with that first one-third is a real challenge. I will give a quick example. In Cranbrook, if we wanted to raise $1 million through property taxes, every 1% increase in property tax equalled $200,000. To raise $1 million to meet our one-third was a 5% increase in property taxes. One is not very popular as a mayor with a 5% increase in property taxes to cover one project.

As the infrastructure project funding rolls out, we need to make sure that the federal government provides at least 50% of the infrastructure dollars and that the provinces continue to provide their 33 1/3%, reducing municipalities' input to a little over 16%.

Infrastructure funding needs to be long term, so that municipalities can plan. It should not just be one year at a time. We need to change the definition of infrastructure. Those of us who have worked for municipalities know that infrastructure is generally considered to be sewer, water, roads, and storm drains. We need to have dark fiber and high-speed Internet as a basic fundamental piece of infrastructure in all communities moving forward.

It is great to see some money in infrastructure, but how that money rolls out is important. In 2014, the Conservatives announced a multi-billion infrastructure program, and none of it made it to us in the municipalities that year, at least in rural areas. In the end, my Conservative colleague at the time, who was our member of Parliament, blamed the province for not getting on board and getting the money out. However, we need to make sure that the infrastructure dollars actually make it into communities.

I want to talk a bit about private sector involvement in infrastructure. We had one project in Cranbrook prior to when I became mayor, which was our recreational complex. It was a private-public partnership. That partnership went bad, and the city had to buy out the private partner. We ended up with about 15-year's worth of loans, locked in at 8% and higher, that we could not get out of, even though as a municipality we could borrow money at about 2% from a special fund in British Columbia. From Cranbrook's perspective, privatization of infrastructure does not work.

The thought of selling airports or bridges to reduce this $30 billion to $40-billion deficit is absolutely the wrong way to try to get a deficit under control. We do not sell assets in order to pay down debt.

Those are a few of the ways that the budget could be improved. There are some good things in the budget, but there are many ways to make it better. I hope that we can see a better future for poverty, for small businesses, and the way that infrastructure is handled in Canada, and, of course, in Kootenay—Columbia.

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

Madam Speaker, I suspect that the member across the way, as with many of the New Democratic members of Parliament, is having a difficult time with this piece of legislation, for the simple reason that it implements a good news budget that addresses many of the needs of Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it. It addresses the issue of poverty, whether it is poverty with seniors or with children, literally lifting thousands of Canadians out of poverty. This is all good news.

The member made reference to infrastructure. We have a record amount, billions of dollars going to Canada's infrastructure. Every region of this country is going to benefit by this budget in a profoundly positive way. Why does the member believe that the NDP members are going to be voting against what is likely to be the most progressive budget we have seen in decades?

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

Madam Speaker, as with many things in life, of course, the devil is in the details. What we would have liked to have seen is a better budget, for example, indexing of the Canada child benefit rather than waiting for five years to increase it. As inflation goes up over the next five years, the value of that contribution will decrease, bringing more people back down into poverty.

On infrastructure, as I said, it will depend on how the money rolls out and whether the government makes it easy for municipalities to access the money. We have a start that will benefit some Canadians, but in the end there are a number of improvements that would have made this budget much better.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Before we go to statements by members, I want to remind the member that he will have about three minutes left for questions and comments when the debate continues.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-29, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

The hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia has three minutes remaining in questions and comments.

Questions and comments. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, in the last federal election, the NDP made a solid commitment to have balanced budgets. I wonder if the member could comment on whether he believes today that the NDP would have maintained a balanced budget. Does he feel that it would have been warranted to create any form of a deficit?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for the question, because it gives me an opportunity to be more complete in my answer as to why Bill C-29 is not going to be supported.

First, the tax break for the middle class does not include the middle class in my riding, which starts at around $20,000. There is no national poverty strategy in the bill, which is really needed for Canada.

During the election, the Liberals promised to bring down the tax rate from 11% to 9% for small businesses. That never happened. There is no cap on credit card fees. Privatization of infrastructure is going to increase costs for Canadians. There is no indexing of the Canada child benefit. That is why we are not going to support Bill C-29.

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

Mr. Speaker, I keep hearing the Liberals talk about the middle-class tax cut, and I think what Canadians need to realize is that it is actually a middle-income tax break, that the people who receive the most benefits are those with incomes between $100,000 and $200,000 a year. That may be the Liberal middle class, but it is certainly not the middle class I represent, not when we have a median income in Canada of $31,000 a year.

I just want my hon. friend to talk a little bit about the situation of constituents in his riding and maybe some of the measures that could have been put in the budget to help the most disadvantaged members of our society, because I do not really see many measures in the Liberal budget that actually do that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his hard work on behalf of his constituents.

As I said in my speech, when I talk to constituents in my riding and tell them that the middle-class tax break starts at $45,000 and potentially goes to almost $200,000, they just shake their heads, because that is not middle class in my riding at all. Of course, we put forward an amendment to bring that down to $20,000 so that people earning between $20,000 and $45,000 would be covered, but it was rejected by the government.

Also in my riding, poverty is an issue, as it is right across Canada. There is nothing in here that sets out a national strategy to deal with poverty.

On housing, there is hope, I suppose, but we need to see what is actually in the national housing strategy. Finding a home is the number one issue for people living in poverty.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the importance of culture and diversity in our country and to highlight some of the investments our government is making to ensure that we protect, preserve, and promote our country's cultural institutions and multicultural society.

Our culture, our ideas, songs, and stories give meaning to who we are as Canadians. Our culture and cultural products are the instruments that help us communicate with others and share different views, entertaining and informing us, all the while weaving together a shared sense of identity.

Culture is at the heart of every community across our country and around the world, and Canada is a testament to the ability to include and respect all cultures in one society. Perhaps we are uniquely poised to be welcoming and accepting due to the way our country was founded as distinct societies coming together to found one country. People from other parts of the world quickly joined, adding their cultures and traditions to the fabric of our country, weaving the ever-changing tapestry that is Canada.

Our government has a solemn duty to act as a steward of Canada's cultural institutions and an obligation to promote and foster the institutions, activities, and people that help our culture flourish, grow, and adapt to changing times and circumstances.

Our cultural mediums help us to exchange diverse ideas and experiences, and the conversations they invoke are the greatest celebrations of the diversity that is at the heart of Canadian culture. They also make a significant contribution to our economy.

Over the years, the number of companies and individuals involved in producing cultural products has grown dramatically. One of the companies that has always been at the heart of Canadian content is the CBC. There are some on the opposition benches who would like to see the CBC eliminated. Strikingly, they are some of the same members who seem most out of touch with what true Canadian values are. The CBC not only ensures that all Canadians have access to Canadian content, but that every Canadian can also access local content.

The reality is that in a country as vast as Canada, there will be areas where it does not make financial sense for profit-driven entities to produce local content. Every Canadian deserves to know what is going on in their area of the country, and to partake in the shared experience of cultural exchanges that build communities.

To that end, I am proud to say that our government has invested $675 million in the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation/Radio Canada to disseminate and support world-class Canadian content and to provide Canadians with better access to programs and services in the digital era.

Since I know this question will be coming from my Conservative colleagues, I will address it now. Yes, I am aware that CBC/Radio Canada has asked for an additional $400 million from the government. The opposition has made great fanfare of this request, decrying it as just a cash grab. What they fail to mention, however, is that this request comes because CBC/Radio Canada wants to eliminate all ads.

I would like to ask those watching to think about what this means for our national broadcaster. Much like the BBC, our national broadcaster can give strong, stable, well-funded public broadcasts with the primary goal of serving the interests of domestic audiences and diverse communities in helping to promote Canadian content. Agree or disagree, this is an idea worth seriously considering, and I am happy the government is doing just that.

Although our cultural industries are a key part of the Canadian economy, our government also recognizes that culture and cultural products are more than just goods that can be bought and sold. Our stories, our songs, our symbols, and our sacred spaces can sometimes generate profits, but they are also precious because of their significance or the sense of belonging and understanding they induce.

Understanding the intrinsic value of our cultural spaces is very important to me. I am therefore very proud that our government has decided to invest in the spaces and institutions that serve as guardians of our cultural objects, including our national museums, our national historic sites, and our parks. Canada's national museums are important cultural institutions that play a vital role in preserving Canada's heritage and educating Canadians.

I am pleased to say that in budget 2016, our government provides up to $105.9 million over five years to our national museums, and up to $280.9 million over five years to support the infrastructure needs of three important Canadian cultural institutions: the Canada Science and Technology Museum, the National Arts Centre, and the National Gallery of Canada.

What is more, we are committed to allocating $168.2 million over two years to the Canada cultural spaces fund, as part of our investments in social infrastructure. Through initiatives like this one, budget 2016 will ensure that the community spaces that preserve, protect, present, and promote our culture, while entertaining and informing us, will be there for us and for our children in the future.

This process is critical not only to ensure that cultural artifacts from our past are protected but also to ensure that the innovators and artists of tomorrow have welcoming, well-funded spaces to help inspire them.

Artists are our country's storytellers. Regardless of the medium they use, our artists capture moments and ideas and weave them into the fabric of our individual and collective identities.

The weaving of this fabric of identity is especially important in a quickly changing and globalized world, as we work within the context of our ever-changing and diverse society to create a sense of what it means to be Canadian.

Fostering the development of the arts here at home is an important part of ensuring that those who have stories to tell are given the opportunity to weave their own contribution into this national fabric.

Encouraging this freedom of expression is fundamental to our understanding of ourselves and to ensuring that all voices have the opportunity to be heard in our democracy. However, if art is to flourish, artists need to be able to work in an environment in which their voices can be heard, regardless of how popular the sentiment they express is, and regardless of their viewpoint or background.

Ensuring equal access to the artistic world is why it is so fundamental that our government works to foster the development of the arts in Canada through grants, services, and awards to professional Canadian artists and arts organizations, as well as through scholarly awards.

In budget 2016, our government has committed to ensuring that avenues to expression are open to all Canadians through its investment of $550 million in the Canada Council for the Arts. Furthermore, our government has made commitments to the industries that support these artists, including a $22-million commitment to Telefilm Canada and a $13.5-million commitment to the National Film Board of Canada, as they work to ensure the cultural, commercial, and industrial success of Canada's audiovisual industry.

This funding will work in tandem with our commitment to work with other countries to realize new and creative artistic projects, a commitment demonstrated when the Minister of Canadian Heritage signed an audiovisual co-production treaty with the Republic of Ireland earlier this year.

Working through partnerships like this allows us to tell new stories and achieve new levels of creativity as we support each other in telling our country's stories.

In 2004, the British culture secretary, Tessa Jowell, commissioned a paper on the arts, which argued that the primary purpose of the arts is to communicate perceptions about the human condition that can't be communicated in any other way.

The arts are unique. They are able to help people interact with the world around them by helping them understand, work, and play in that world to enrich their experience by bringing feeling, beauty, and passion to their lives, and to provide a safe place where they can work to build their confidence, self-worth, and self-esteem.

Other efforts can only do some of these things. The arts do all three. That is why we must continue to support them.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my neighbour from Kitchener Centre for his work in his riding.

I do not think anyone in the House is denigrating the arts. However, we all know that whatever project we want to support, there has to be money to support it. When we are borrowing money on more money on more money to build up a deficit of $30 billion, adding $10 billion per year in interest costs alone over the next four years, this is a concern. Could my colleague comment on the costs of his proposals?

Also, there was a question that I asked the Minister of Finance this morning, which we did not receive an answer to. It is found in the Order Paper today. It refers to Bill C-29. Motion No. 1 by the member for Winnipeg North proposes that one of the clauses of Bill C-29 be deleted. Could my colleague explain why a member of the government would move to delete a clause in a government bill?

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I also thank my hon. friend for the work he does in his riding. He has been a great mentor and adviser since I was elected, and so I want to thank him personally.

One of the things I did not get to in my remarks was the importance of the arts and culture community, not only in my riding, where it is very strong, but also in Canada. We know, from the latest analysis by the Conference Board of Canada, that the arts and culture community in Canada provides $84.6 billion worth of economic benefits to Canada. That represents 1.1 million jobs. Arts and culture are a very important part of the Canadian fabric, not only as an economic multiplier but also as a social multiplier that keeps us all together. Also, as a final statistic, the arts and culture community adds 7.4% to our collective GDP.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech.

I know that it focused on culture, but since we are talking about Bill C-29, I am honour bound to bring up another aspect of this bill, which is just as critical and which seems to be central to the government's plan, and that is infrastructure.

Of course, we have talked about the infrastructure bank, but right now the government is also undertaking initiatives that could potentially lead to the privatization of ports and airports. In fact, the government has already given mandates to Credit Suisse and Morgan Stanley.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about the potential privatization of our ports and airports. I think he will agree with me that this infrastructure is key to our economic development. I would therefore like to know what he thinks about his government's idea to potentially privatize ports and airports.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the only thing I can say is that if we look at the economic indicators in the world right now, we know that long-term bond rates are very low in parts of the world. We know that inflation is at 1%. We know the lower bond rate is close to 0%. This is the right time in our country's history to look at the infrastructure projects out there that are important not only for our communities but also for a nation-building exercise. After highlighting those statistics, I am sure that the hon. member would agree with me that now is the best time in our history to make sure that we make those infrastructure investments for the benefit of all Canadians.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the Liberal government's budget. It seems to me that we are stuck in a tax-and-spend cycle with the current Liberal government. Every time we turn around, it seems that the Liberals are finding another way to try to increase government spending, with no regard for Canadian taxpayers. Therefore, we see an increase in taxation, and the prospect for future generations of further increases in their taxation, as a result of large deficits and debt left behind by the government through all of this spending.

When the Liberal government released its fall economic update, it confirmed what we already knew. Liberals are spending so recklessly that they are going to have to borrow more money, and they have no plan to return to balanced budgets. I stand here today because on this side of the House we believe that fiscal responsibility, a framework for creating a strong economy, and a plan to create jobs and get Canadians back to work are what Canadians need and what they have asked for. We will continue to be the ones who stand up for the hard-working taxpayers of this country and hold the Liberal government accountable for its out-of-control spending.

In discussions I have had with constituents, through town halls and a survey prior to the introduction of the 2016 budget, along with a number of other methods that we conduct through the year, the one common link, the underlying concern that constituents had, was about ballooning deficits they were seeing from the Liberal government. This is simply not a solution to Canada's economic challenges. In fact, nearly every constituent who was surveyed indicated that a balanced federal budget was important, almost unanimously. This obviously comes in very stark contrast to what we see in the budget implementation act.

When it comes to broken promises, the Liberals ran on a campaign promise to cap deficits at $10 billion a year and return more to a balanced budget in 2019-20. That frankly was not good enough to begin with, but that was their promise. Instead, they are spending deficits of nearly three times that amount, almost $30 billion in borrowed money. This is in their first year alone. Through the budget implementation act that we have before us today, the Liberals will continue to run deficits, and with no explanation whatsoever about how or when they will return to a balance.

The Liberals may try to blame higher deficits on a weak economy or lower revenues, but it is very clear from the parliamentary budget officer and the Finance Canada “Fiscal Monitor” that Liberal spending is the real culprit. Hard-working Canadians across the country run their personal finances with fiscal restraint. They know that when they run out of money and keep spending, they are going to have an issue. Why does it seem like the Liberal government has such an issue with this concept? The budget is a steep deficit trajectory with no intention to return to balance and no clear plan to create jobs. That is pretty evident when they have not actually created a single net job since they were elected over a year ago. There is nothing to help get thousands of unemployed Canadians back to work. When it comes to managing an economy, there is no second chance. Clearly, Canadians are worse off today than they were a year ago.

The budget still offers no insights into how the government plans to create jobs. Unfortunately, the forecasting by the Liberals is not reliable either. When our previous government introduced a stimulus package in response to the global financial crisis, we used outside experts to vet our estimate of 220,000 jobs that would be created or maintained. The target was actually exceeded by 28,000 jobs.

In contrast, the parliamentary budget office reported in October that despite their out-of-control spending and their skyrocketing deficits, the Liberals have not created one net full-time job since they took office, not one; not a single job. The report also stated that the number of part-time jobs that were created in the last year is only half the average rate of job creation of the previous five years. All of them were part-time jobs.

Further, in comparison, while Canada's employment rate has been falling, rates in the U.S., G7, and OECD have risen. It is very clear that despite a year of reckless spending, the Liberal plan has done nothing to improve our economy. Instead of supporting real job creators, the Liberals are making it more expensive for companies to hire and raising taxes on the small businesses that employ 95% of Canadians.

For small businesses, the budget reneges on promises to lower the small business tax rate that were planned in the last Conservative budget, from 11% to 9%. Instead, the Liberals will hold the rate at 10.5% and have introduced new conditions around eligibility. I will get to those in a second.

It is not only that, but the budget did not renew the tax credit for El premiums paid by small business, and over $1 billion in new El expenditures points to higher premiums for all employers in the near future.

All of this drives away jobs and drives away investment. Now the Liberals are talking about a federal carbon tax, and we know what impact that will have on every Canadian family's budget. We know what it will mean for businesses and their costs. Again, it is further costs being added to families, further costs being added to businesses who are trying to employ Canadians.

Not only are the Liberals not creating jobs, but they are not even going to enable the private sector to do the job it wants to do, which is to create jobs. They are also saying to some small businesses that they are too small to be small businesses, so they are now going to be increasing their tax bills. For some of these small businesses we are talking about, when they deal with rules around active and passive income, they will see a tripling of their tax bills. This will put people out of business, and it will put more Canadians out of work.

I also want to touch on our natural resources industry and the workers it supports. The Liberals have imposed arbitrary, political, and unpredictable regulatory processes at a time when we urgently need to get our resources to new markets and when we should be supporting our natural resource workers. While unemployment in Alberta continues to climb, the Liberal government's budget fails to address support measures for our natural resource workers.

Skilled workers are struggling to provide for their families and are being forced to leave the province to seek better opportunities for employment. The number of unemployed Albertans has nearly doubled since the start of 2015. It went from 112,500 in January last year to 206,900 in August 2016, up 84.6%.

I see the signal you are giving me, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, I have so many points that I want to raise about the nature of this terrible budget that I will have to leave some of them out. Of course, we can thank the Liberal government for that as well. They have indicated that we are going to have a limited debate on this, so unfortunately there is no opportunity to raise all the points we would like to raise.

I want to touch on the point of infrastructure. I think I have already made it clear that the Liberals are completely oblivious to the needs of Alberta energy workers and getting them back to work. The budget certainly reflects that.

When we talk about the infrastructure program, the Liberals claim they are going to create this legacy of infrastructure. However, when we look at it, most of the claims are quite false, because it is in the so-called phase two of the plan where we will see most of the infrastructure. Most of these things will not even be realized for at least six years. Until then, the municipalities are basically out of luck.

The Liberals have taken a huge chunk of this fund and put it into an infrastructure bank, which means small communities across the country are out of luck because they do not have access to any of that We talk about them having to be massive projects of $100 million or more.

On top of all that, we have higher taxes. We keep hearing from the government how families are better off. I asked my constituents if they were better off. I went to their doors and asked them in a survey. Over and over again, what I heard was no, that they were worse off. The government has taken away some of their tax credits for income splitting, fitness, arts, education, textbooks, their ability to save through tax-free savings accounts, and that it is forcing new mandatory premiums increases on them for the Canada pension plan.

It goes on and on. Then, of course, the cherry on top is the carbon tax. We are not all looking forward to that one. My constituents are telling me that they are going to be worse off.

Not only is the government taxing Canadian families to death and putting them in huge deficit and debt situations so that their kids and grandkids will be taxed to death, but it is not doing anything to create jobs or to help businesses do the same. It is a terrible budget, and I speak in opposition to it today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was amused to listen to the member's comments about how much the government has done in a short period. I wonder if the member could remind the House how many years it took for the Conservatives to cause all the damage they caused to this country. They caused quite a bit of damage and, after 10 years, they still had not finished everything they wanted to do.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am amazed to even hear that comment. We are talking about a government that took us through one of the most difficult economic times that the world has ever seen. Conservatives came out of it with a balanced budget, lowered taxes for Canadians, and somehow that was damage? I can understand why he might think that, because what we are seeing from the Liberals is the complete opposite. There are huge new deficits being created in a very short period of time, and there are massive new taxes being put on Canadians. That, to me, sounds like the real damage, but, of course, Liberals always have it all backward.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I obviously have some differences of opinion on issues, especially economics. However, there is one thing we actually agree on, which is that the Liberals made a lot of commitments on infrastructure during the election campaign and nothing has been done that was promised during the campaign.

Yes, they talked about the infrastructure bank, but they never explained how it would work. Now we find out that about 80% of that bank will be funded by the private sector, which will obviously have a large role to play in this. It was never mentioned during the campaign. Another thing that was never mentioned was the fact that the government would consider privatizing ports and airports.

I would like my colleague to comment on what should and should not be said during electoral campaigns. It seems that Liberals are under the misguided assumption that platforms count for nothing and are only to engage citizens.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question. The answer is that when a party makes promises during an election campaign, it should keep those promises. We have definitely seen very little of that from the Liberal government. As the member said, that is the one thing we can certainly agree on, that it is not keeping any of its promises. It promised what I think was a terrible promise to begin with, which is that there would be a $10-billion deficit, but it certainly did not keep that promise. It has blown way past that already.

The member talked about infrastructure. The Liberals claim they are going to create all of these jobs with all this infrastructure, and that is why they need to run these deficits. Not only are they running this deficit and taxing Canadians, they are not even providing the promised infrastructure or the jobs. No jobs have been created, and the infrastructure is deferred until way into the future. What we are getting from the government is nothing but new taxes and a massive new debt. That is what we are getting from the government. That is going to be its legacy: taxes for us, our children and grandchildren, and a huge hole that it dug for the entire country. That is its legacy, and it is shameful.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I know there are not many who talk to their constituents more than my colleague. I believe that he was previously voted as one of the hardest-working members of Parliament for his constituents.

I am curious about his thoughts. The many times that he has been at people's doors, has he heard that a carbon tax is the answer? Has he heard that infrastructure spending is actually creating jobs? I am not hearing that at the doors that I knock on. He lives in a different part of the province of Alberta, and I am curious if he is hearing something different than I am hearing.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I can tell the member that I am certainly not hearing anything different from what he is hearing. There was recently a huge rally in my riding that was organized by citizens who are opposed to a carbon tax. There were probably thousands of people who showed up. I noticed that cars going by were honking their horns in support. People are hugely concerned. It is like being kicked while we are down. There are thousands of workers out of work, and while needing support and wanting something that offers them hope, the government offers a carbon tax, which would tax everything.

When I knock on doors, in addition to hearing concerns about this carbon tax, I hear about the measures that the government claims will somehow help middle-class Canadian families. I asked my constituents at their doors, and they said they are worse off. I also did a survey in which I asked constituents if they are better or worse off, and 65% of them said they are worse off under the current government. That was 65%.

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it has been exactly one year and a day since the Governor General of Canada delivered the Speech from the Throne, opening the 42nd Parliament, and setting in motion our government's plan to make real change happen throughout this country. When I look back over the past year, it is apparent that real change is happening across Canada from coast to coast to coast. It is the result of hope and hard work, values that continue to build our great nation, and it began with the faith and trust that Canadians put in our party.

I am proud to speak today to Bill C-29, the budget implementation act, because the budget is the centrepiece of our government's plan for change. This budget represents the hopes and dreams of so many Canadians who believe in a better and brighter future, not only for each and every Canadian today but for generations to come, that they will inherit a greener planet and a world of opportunities.

In my riding of Scarborough North, which straddles the edge of the city of Toronto and the beginning of the Rouge Urban National Park, hard-working Canadians want to know that their government is hard at work for them. The hard-working father wants to know if public transit will be improved so that commuting to work downtown from Malvern does not take up two hours of his precious time each day. After working two long shifts, he can think of no greater joy than to be at home in time to tuck his three-year old into bed. The hard-working single mother wants to know that the federal government is committed to a national strategy on inclusive, sustainable, and affordable housing. After living with her two children in unsafe and overcrowded housing for many years, she has finally saved up enough money to carry a modest mortgage for a Habitat for Humanity townhouse unit currently under construction at the 140 Pinery Trail site. The hard-working Tamil immigrant family wants to know that their children will receive a good education and a fair chance to succeed. After fleeing the Sri Lankan civil war, there is nothing more important than to see their next generation live in a peaceful society, with the opportunities that the previous generation never had.

I feel humbled and privileged to represent the people of Scarborough North and to make sure that their priorities are heard here in Ottawa. I am proud to stand in support of Bill C-29, which will help implement a budget that is making real change happen for Canadians, change that will result in new investments for much needed infrastructure, such as public transit and affordable housing, as well as clean water, and the expansion of trade and transport.

Now is the time to invest, while interest rates are low and Canada's debt-to-GDP ratio is the lowest of any G7 country. Over the next decade, our government plans to invest over $180 billion in infrastructure, helping residents not only in Scarborough North but all across our country.

After raising taxes on the wealthiest 1% so that we could cut them for the middle class, this budget further helps Canadian families with the high cost of raising kids. Through the new Canada child benefit, nine out of 10 families will receive more money each month, lifting hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty.

This budget also ensures that post-secondary education is affordable and accessible, especially for students from low- and middle-income families.

This budget will help seniors. Through increased benefits, our elders will now have greater comfort and dignity in their retirement years.

This budget is there to support our veterans. For all that they have done to serve our country, Canada's veterans deserve respect and better access to government services.

These are just a few examples of how real change is happening all across Canada, and today we are continuing this theme with Bill C-29.

Our government remains fully committed to growing the economy and strengthening the Canadian middle class. That is why certain provisions in this bill are designed to ensure tax fairness and a strong financial sector. Hard-working Canadians, like the people in my riding of Scarborough North, want a government that will uphold fairness for all taxpayers. The vast majority of Canadians work hard each and every day. They pay a fair share of taxes, hoping that in return the government provides the programs and services they need. However, there are some wealthy individuals who continue to abuse the system. That is precisely why this bill seeks to combat underground economic activity, close tax loopholes, and prevent tax evasion here in Canada and abroad.

When the rich elite benefit from unwarranted and unintended tax advantages, it is hard-working, everyday Canadians who have to pay the price. When wealthy individuals inappropriately use private corporations to reduce or defer taxes, for example, it is simply wrong that they are not paying their fair share.

That is why our government will ensure effective administration and enforcement of Canada's tax laws, making the necessary changes to improve the integrity and fairness of our tax system.

Hard-working Canadians also expect that our financial institutions remain strong. Banks are indeed where Canadians typically go to cash their paycheques, to deposit their retirement savings, and to take out their mortgages. We know that Canada's strong banking system is well-respected all around the world. The robustness of our large and diversified financial institutions was proven during and after the global financial crisis in 2008. That is why our government is strengthening Canada's financial sector, in order to support stable economic growth. By keeping our financial institutions robust, through a strong regulatory framework, our government will ensure that the needs of Canadians and Canadian businesses are met.

We are also making it clear that it is not the taxpayers but, instead, the shareholders and creditors of large banks who will be responsible for any risks taken by their respective institutions. That way, hard-working, everyday Canadians will not be left with the bill when economic turmoil hits.

It is evident that this budget implementation bill is there to provide both help and protection for Canadians. That is why I stand today in support of Bill C-29, and all of its provisions.

We must continue to build Canada's economy because we all know that a strong economy starts with a strong middle class. There is no other national project more important at this time. When middle-class Canadians have more money in their pockets, it means they can feel confident to spend more, to save more, and to invest more. This grows the Canadian economy. It grows Canada's future. I cannot think of anything more crucial than creating opportunities for both today and tomorrow.

When I think about the hopes and dreams of hard-working Canadians in my riding of Scarborough North and, indeed, across Canada, I think about what it is we want to leave behind for our future generations. The choice is ours to look ahead and ensure that we work toward a future for our country that we can all be proud of. When we invest in the economy and build a stronger middle class, Canada becomes a country that works for everyone. That is why our government is laying the groundwork today for a strong and productive economy that will last for generations to come.

I will be voting in favour of Bill C-29. I encourage all of my colleagues in this House to stand together with me for real change today and in the months, years, and decades ahead.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the member. What he said actually sounded quite nice. However, in reality, taxes are increasing on Canadians. The rich, as he said, are not paying their fair share. The fact is Canadians are being overtaxed by the government.

My particular concern is for seniors. We have Canadian seniors who are living in poverty. We have heard from the government that it is increasing the guaranteed income supplement, the GIS. We applaud that. The fact is it should be more than what it is doing. It is minuscule and it should be more.

The government has also said that it has lowered the age for OAS back to 65. Again, we are supportive of that. However, that is all that it is doing. It is not doing anything else for seniors. Seniors are struggling.

And, now, the new carbon tax is a tax on everything: medicine, food, housing, heating.

Does the member support the grief that the government's policies are creating for Canadian seniors?

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, we have raised taxes on the wealthiest 1% so that we can cut them for the middle class.

Specifically, for seniors, we are working hard to make sure that we provide the support that is needed. For low-income single seniors, we are increasing their GIS top-up benefit up to $947 each year. We have rolled the eligibility age for GIS and OAS benefits back from 67 to 65.

These measures, along with the investments that we are making into infrastructure, will help grow the economy; they will help create jobs; they will create a brighter future, not only for our seniors, but for each and every Canadian across this great country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not doubt the sincerity of my colleague when he talks about families. When I talk with a lot of families in my riding, especially young ones with young children, the biggest issue they bring to my attention is the fact that there is a lack of affordable child care spaces. Even if a family member were to get a job, that job actually would not pay for the child care, so there is no upward mobility for families.

That being said, there was an attempt made at committee with the bill to bring the indexing of the child benefit to January 1, 2017. That amendment was rejected. It was ruled out of order, and I do not see any action coming from the government to fix this problem. As a result, families will have to wait for 2020 to see if the benefits actually keep pace with inflation.

Why is the member's government not indexing the benefit starting next year? Why is it forcing low-income families to wait until 2020?

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, when I speak with families in my riding of Scarborough North, they are happy because the new Canada child benefit is a better benefit. It gives more money to families. It gives families who need it the most the greatest benefit.

This program will lift 300,000 children out of poverty, starting with the benefits that began last July. For example, a family with a child who is under the age of six will receive up to $6,400 a year. For older children, they will receive $5,400. These families will benefit from that increased benefit, money they can use to help buy school supplies, to buy winter jackets, and to provide the things their children need to have a bright future, a good education and a good start to the day as they continue to grow and become Canadians who will eventually contribute back into our society.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague had the chance just now to answer a question about the work we are doing for seniors and the work we are doing for families with young children.

Could he talk about how we are helping middle-class families through our investments in infrastructure, whether it is enhanced productivity in communities like the community he represents, and/or enhanced quality of life? Could he take a moment to explain how the government is working to improve both the economic situation and the quality of life for middle-class Canadians?

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend and colleague for his incredible work on this file and for continuing to advocate for his community.

In fact, it is such a wonderful thing when we invest in infrastructure to build public transit, to build affordable housing, to make sure that bridges and roads are repaired, and to make sure that Canadians have the infrastructure they need. It will help create jobs, and those jobs will help grow the economy. It will create a brighter future for all Canadians and it will create the conditions for success that we need so desperately.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise to speak to the budget bill, but I do it with a heavy heart because I am concerned about the direction the government is taking. I want to talk about the government's record first, and I want to contrast the two records that we have seen in the House lately as well as over the past few years.

Take for instance the Conservative record, with a balanced budget in 2015. Contrast that today to the Liberal budget with a $30 billion deficit.

In terms of the economy, we saw a modest growth over the last number of years, and I will get to that with a little history lesson later, whereas we have seen no growth with the Liberal government in the past year. There has just been stagnation.

Speaking of employment, during the time of the great recession, the Conservative government saw the growth of 1.5 million new jobs, most of them full-time jobs. Members will notice that I did not say we created those jobs; far from it. Far be it from any one of us to say that we create jobs. The only jobs governments create are ones in the public sector. We are talking about jobs that were grown in the private sector. Contrast that to today's Liberal government, where we see no new jobs being created. Full-time jobs have been lost and the only added job numbers are part-time jobs.

I want to talk about deficits, but first of all I am going to give a little history lesson. I want to take members back to when the Conservative government was elected in 2006. Those were pretty good days. We saw something that we do not see a lot of now, and that is surpluses in government. During the years 2006, 2007, and partially into 2008, the Conservative government saw fit to tackle the deficit. It was not a great deficit, but any deficit is not a good thing. The Conservative government had the good sense to fight the deficit, to bring the deficit down.

Our Conservative government did that while at the same time lowering the GST by two points. We also lowered other areas of government revenue and paid down the deficit by $37 billion. Contrast that to the 2015 budget. When our Conservative government delivered the budget to the Liberals, we delivered it with the lowest tax rate in 50 years. The typical family was paying $7,000 less in taxes. It was the best record in the G7.

In 2015 the Liberals were elected. They told the electorate that they had a better way of doing things. Did Harper say? They said it was not true, and it almost sounded like a biblical story. The Liberals introduced a new concept of spending more, and they told folks that if they spent more money they could grow the economy. Canadians were used to lower taxes and lower deficits. They had been promised a balanced budget by the Conservatives and that is what they received, and the Liberals were introducing this whole new concept of spending money to improve our lives. This was suspect. The Liberals did say the deficit would be only $10 billion, but that modest deficit ballooned to $30 billion, and it did not stimulate the economy or create any new jobs; no new jobs, no growth.

I want to go back to the deficit and ask a simple question. Why would somebody go into a deficit position? I would suspect possibly Gerald Butts, the Prime Minister's chief of staff and also the former chief of staff to Dalton McGuinty. There seems to be a pattern here. The Ontario government did the same thing. It said, if it spent more money, that it could do a lot of great things, that it could grow the economy.

It is interesting to note that the Prime Minister's first trip was to Davos, Switzerland. It is an obscure little town in Europe, but it is the seat of the world banking system, which is interesting. These folks had heard that the Prime Minister was going to spend money and go into a deficit situation.

On his second trip, he made great friends with the President of the United States, Mr. Obama. Mr. Obama was well versed in that kind of ideology too. As a matter of fact, he doubled the deficit in the United States. It went up from $9 trillion to $18 trillion. I remember the first time we started talking about a trillion dollars, and I had to get my mind around that. I just know it is an awful lot of money. The Prime Minister went to Mr. Obama and they became great friends.

I have to give the Liberals credit. I went over their record on their candidates and team, and I just wanted to introduce myself to the team. However, I have never seen more doctors, more lawyers, more Ph.D.s, or Rhodes scholar. I feel a little intimated, because I am just a farm boy. I think we have more commoners on this side of the room.

I can tell members that I am just a farm boy who had some modest success in the auto industry. However, in 1993, I had a lesson in debt. The banks came around and they pulled my line of credit. It brought me to my knees, but it taught me a valuable lesson. I learned that I would never be indebted to a bank again.

Members can ask most business people if they would rather have a huge debt or no debt at all. I do not think there is a person in the House who would not say the latter. That lesson was something I needed to learn, because it helped me become a better businessman. Yet, the current government is telling us that debt is not a bad thing, and that we can borrow our way to success. I am here to tell members that it will not happen and it will not work.

Now, central banks are a whole different subject. Maybe I will have the opportunity to talk about central banks at some point. They know there is no better customer than a nation, especially a rich nation. Do members know why? It is because they will always pay their bills. They have a method of payment that is unequalled on the planet, and it is called taxes. They will just tax their citizens. Members should understand that there is no other means for a government, for a country, to raise revenue. It is just taxes.

Members might ask what about borrowing money. Well, that is just deferring the inevitable. Eventually, we are going to pay the piper, and banks know this. Banks know that they are always going to get their two points, whatever that is. The bank rate is at 3%, but they will get 5%. We like to say that if bank rates are at 0%, then that is a whole different discussion. I know that one day we are going to have that discussion, because it is a non-reality. However, if we assume that is the rate, banks will always get their 2%.

God help us if we ever go to traditional rates. Can members imagine, if we are paying at this point about $35 billion on an interest rate at 2%, if that were to spike to 4%, 6%, or 8%? Some of the younger folks here are surprised at 8%. I remember mortgages when we thought we were getting a real good deal when we paid 12.75%.

The Speaker is telling me I do not have much time left, but I do not think the current government has much time left either if the Liberals continue on this trajectory. If they continue this avenue of free spending and they continue to put this country, the people, and especially our children into a position where they are indebted and they can no longer pay that debt. I do not want to paint a picture that is unreal. Far be it from me to do that.

I will close by saying that the idea of spending money to get richer is foolhardy at best, and it is a mistake for the government to continue in that direction. I would ask that the Liberals look again at the direction they are going and reverse this terrible direction.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could speak to the different kinds of debt. It is an unfortunate thing when we talk about debt to Canadians as just debt. There is capital infrastructure debt, operating expense debt that we might incur, and there are very different—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

There is a rule that you can be in the House and you can vote in the House without a tie, but unfortunately, I am going to cut it off. I just noticed the hon. member does not have a tie, I am going to have to ask him to sit down. I am sure it was a great question.

The hon. member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.

[Rémi Massé, Liberal, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative member’s presentation was an interesting one. He contrasted the previous government with the Liberal government. I can assure the House that the contrast is obvious with our Liberal government, since it is a government that is here for the regions. The member also spoke about the debt, in reference to what my colleague said earlier.

I would like to hear more from the member on how the Canada child benefit has improved the lives of 9 out of 10 families, on the fact that it has lifted 300,000 children out of poverty, with all of these new measures being tax free. I would like to hear his thoughts on how the Canada child benefit is making it easier for families to break the debt cycle.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have to be honest. I have kids with kids. They tell me it is neat to get that cheque. However, I remind them that they have to pay it back and their kids will have to pay it back too. Had the Liberal government been honest with the Canadian public and said it was going to really increase this but it would cost them, that it was not going to pay for it, but it was going to charge it, I wonder if Canadians would have had the same response.

I repeat, when it is Christmastime and mom and dad come home with piles and piles of presents, the kids will be delighted, but in the same breath if they tell the kids that they charged it and the kids will have to pay for it, it would really make for a crummy Christmas.

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

Mr. Speaker, my heart goes out to the member for Beaches—East York. If he wants to borrow a tie, we have some very stylish ones in the NDP lobby.

I wanted to bring to the attention of my Conservative friend that, in March 2016, there was an advisory council on economic growth that was struck by the Liberal government and Michael Sabia was one of the members of this council. That was right around the same time that he appeared on March 3 before the Toronto Board of Trade and stated that:

For long term investors, infrastructure offers something that’s not easy to find today: stable, predictable returns in the 7 to 9 per cent range with a low risk of capital loss—exactly what we need to meet our clients’ long term needs.

When we hear the private investment industry making those kinds of claims, about 7% to 9% return on investment, where does my friend think those returns are going to come from and how do they compare with what the government could offer or what the government did promise with low interest rates?

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish I had more time. I think it was Nathan Hale who spoke about having another life to give, but I wish I had another hour to give; we could talk about those things, but the long and the short of it is this. I would be the first to say that I am not an economist, but I am a businessman. I would say there are a lot of folks here who are not economists and yet they have learned to balance their own chequebook. When we do those things, we know that what is coming in had better be equal to what is going out. We always like to make one a little more than the other. However, it is just common sense that we cannot spend our way to prosperity. There are times when governments have invested. We use that word so freely and everything seems to be an investment nowadays. Nevertheless when we go to the bank and we borrow money, we have made a loan and we have to pay back that loan.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Mount Royal is rising on a point of order.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-29, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today I take this opportunity to speak to Bill C-29, the budget implementation act. This budget will have such a profound, progressive, and positive impact on the families, kids, students, and workers in my riding. It will make a tremendous difference in their lives.

However, by their nature, budget bills are largely collections of various budget-related matters, and many of these matters can be very technical in nature and mind-numbing, I would say. However, other parts of these bills pertain to matters of substantive policy, including the important policy choices made by governments. I will address you on the parts of this bill that pertain to the important policy decisions made by this government.

The first policy decision made by this government that I will speak to is the Canada child benefit. I refer to its indexing to inflation, the maximum benefit amounts, and the phase-out thresholds under the Canada child benefit beginning in the 2020-21 benefit year. This decision will keep the Canada child benefit up to date, effective, and relevant, regardless of any future inflation.

The Canada child benefit is a critical program for Canadians, now and into the future. Our Canada child benefit is responsible for lifting over 300,000 Canadian children above that poverty threshold. In a stroke, it reduced Canada's child poverty rate from 11% to 6%. It cut our child poverty rate nearly in half. That is outstanding. It is something that many of us have talked about for decades and never seen done. To see this happen before our eyes is truly amazing. This is the sort of societal-changing action we all entered into politics to effect.

Moving over 300,000 children out of dire need means nearly one-third of a million Canadian children will eat better, will be better clothed, will be better educated, and will benefit from the opportunities many other Canadian children can take for granted. These opportunities might include soccer lessons, music lessons, or science camps. Not only is this program, which this legislation underpins into the future, the right and decent thing to do, it is the clever thing to do.

Children raised out of poverty have better health outcomes. These better outcomes will save us untold billions of dollars in health costs in the future. Children not burdened by poverty get better educations. These better educated Canadians will result in a more productive Canadian economy in the future.

The increased productivity from this poverty-reduction program will contribute billions in extra Canadian economic growth and Canadian government revenues. Children not haunted by poverty have better life outcomes. They are less likely to suffer from debilitating social problems, such as crime and addiction. Reducing such social problems will not only prevent untold personal grief and tragedy but will save all levels of government more billions of dollars.

Poverty reduction might even have a surprising effect on our democratic system. There is some evidence that increased income increases the likelihood of voting. This makes intuitive sense. If we feel our society has cared about us and our children, we will tend to care more about our society. Therefore, we are likely making more engaged and better citizens with this measure.

It is no wonder that the Canada child benefit has been described as “one of the most ambitious social policies to be implemented in Canada in decades”. Bill C-29 supports this progressive and ambitious societal change.

Bill C-29 also makes post-secondary education more affordable for low and middle-income families. Further, it makes it easer to repay any student debt incurred to obtain that post-secondary education. These are yet more progressive and forward-thinking government measures to position Canadians and Canada for the future.

Successful world citizens in the future will not be working harder, but will be working smarter. It is our duty to ensure that Canadians are overrepresented in the future cohort of successful, highly educated world citizens. These budget measures are some of the ways we are fulfilling that duty.

The measures I have addressed so far relate to our duty to the youngest Canadians and future generations. The measures I now address concern our duty to the most vulnerable of our oldest Canadians, our seniors.

Currently, these vulnerable seniors—i.e., those couples receiving the guaranteed income supplement under the Old Age Security Act—are penalized when one or both of them become so ill that it requires the couple to split up for health reasons. While they are forced to incur the extra costs of living as two single people, they are not each entitled to the single-person supplement. Currently, they are restricted to the couple supplement only. The couple supplement is less than that for two single persons.

The amendment in the budget would correct that unfairness by allowing each involuntary single to claim that single-person supplement. This would recognize their increased costs, which are beyond their control.

CARP is a 300,000-member national, non-partisan, non-profit organization advocating for financial security and improved health care for Canadians as they age. It “applauds the government for the proposed amendment to the Old Age Security Act, contained within Bill C-29”, and our earlier increase in the guaranteed income supplement. While certainly wanting us to do more, CARP further states, “these amendments have our unconditional support”.

This measure is a part of our commitment to ensuring that Canadian seniors have a dignified, comfortable, and secure retirement.

The bill would also implement the part of the election platform that Canadians voted for last year regarding increases in infrastructure spending, some $180 billion over 12 years. Canada, like the rest of the world, has realized that monetary policy, including the low interest rates that we find ourselves with now, is no cure for sluggish growth. It cannot fix everything. These needed investments are not necessarily made because of the low interest rates. That is why, with government intervention, we are able to get some of that needed infrastructure built. We are in such a situation right now.

We also realize that there is an infrastructure deficit in Canada. Sewer systems, bridges, railroads, social housing, and rural high-speed Internet are but a few of the areas in which we must invest more. The timing is right for this infrastructure push right now. As the British magazine, The Economist, said on October 4, 2014, there are concrete benefits as a result, because “Public investments in infrastructure do the most good at times like the present”.

Municipal leaders, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, are raving about the leadership that we have taken on infrastructure and the improvements that will come to municipalities coast to coast to coast.

Our current prosperity did not come out of thin air. We have to realize this. It came out of investments and hard work. Canada's most iconic infrastructure investment was the “National Dream”, that is, the building of the transcontinental railway. That investment helped make Canada. It created untold wealth and knitted us together. It is a classic example of the far-sighted infrastructure investment that we need.

We must be equally far-sighted today. There is a myriad of new infrastructure opportunities that exist in public transit, local and regional airports, disaster mitigation, community energy systems, health care facilities, and I could go on and on.

Many societies around the world are confronting new tensions and perhaps even a questioning of the traditional bonds between citizens and their leaders. This legislation would address those strains by emphasizing the inclusive nature of our Canadian democracy.

I am concerned about the state of our democracy and the world's democracies. To that end, I allude to the broader positive societal impact of the measures to help Canadian children whose families are struggling.

I have also highlighted the long-term nation-building implications of infrastructure investment.

We are determined to ensure a strong economy based on a strong middle class. When middle-class Canadians have more money to save, invest, and grow the economy, everyone benefits. These benefits are not only economic, but democratic, social, and cultural.

I think about Canadian parents, who are struggling to join the middle class, and working hard. This bill is a concrete, monthly, and effective demonstration of Canadian societal concerns for them. I support this legislation wholeheartedly, and encourage everyone in this House to vote in favour of Bill C-29.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I would like to raise two things.

First, we know that our economy’s biggest job creators are small and medium-sized businesses, which generally create about 80% of new jobs. This is the case in Montreal, especially in Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

During the election campaign, the Liberals promised to help small businesses to give them some breathing room. Unfortunately, in their first budget, there is no hint of this promised tax break for small businesses. I would like to hear my colleague’s comments on that.

Second, I heard my colleague’s concerns about infrastructure. In Montreal it is pretty catastrophic and there is a lot of catching up to do. Personally, I am deeply concerned to hear the government referring to privatization and the new infrastructure bank, which will attract a great deal of private capital. They will guarantee a return to provide for dividends.

Why will we guarantee this bank a return or a profit of 7% when we could borrow at an interest rate of 2%?

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, small businesses are the lifeblood of our economy. They are the engine. I have so many small businesses in my riding of Mississauga East—Cooksville.

I can tell the member that they have come to me. The Canada child benefit has made a difference to those businesses. That extra spending money that those families now have means they can buy that winter coat at this time of year, or put their kids in soccer or in music class, or provide more for their children. It is an investment, and that investment also moves in to those small and medium-sized businesses.

The same thing happened with our middle-class tax cut. That means more money in the hands of more people in the middle class, and being able to spend that money within the local economy, because these businesses are local, and they make such a difference. They are employers of many people in our community.

I say to the member that these are investments that will have a major impact on our small and medium-sized businesses.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Mr. Speaker, budget 2016 was very well received in Manitoba, both in the rural areas and in the city areas. In fact, in the riding of Provencher in the village of St-Pierre, we received $3 million for a lagoon expansion. In the city of Winnipeg, we received $55 million for transit improvements, something that is direly needed for Winnipeg.

I am wondering if the hon. member could speak to the importance of transit improvements in large urban centres and how so very important that is for the future of moving people, moving goods, and increasing productivity for cities.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is so right. I want to thank him for all he does for his community and understanding the importance of those buses, trains, roads, that help move people and goods so that they can get to work a little quicker and get home a lot quicker and be able to spend more time with their families. There is also the productivity impact. I think of what that means to those businesses.

We talk about our carbon footprint and the reduction in the amount of emissions we have by having more people on buses and therefore better service. We also have a bigger uptake in terms of people using public transit. I often hear that if there were more buses, if there was better, more frequent service, more people would then use public transit.

That is happening right across the country, especially in the member's riding and in Manitoba. I know the type of impact that makes, especially for the middle-class working families and those working hard to reach the middle class.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-29, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to take this opportunity to rise in this place to speak in support of this legislation and to discuss the international assistance provisions outlined in budget 2016, as well as provide some additional insight into the direction our government is taking with regard to Canada's international assistance overall.

In terms of new funding, budget 2016 allocated an additional $256 million over two years, 2016-17 and 2017-18, to the international assistance envelope, the IAE. The international assistance envelope is the Government of Canada's primary planning tool for managing official development assistance and for funding our international assistance activities. Though the majority of the resources in the IAE are programmed by Global Affairs Canada, it is truly a whole-of-government mechanism for implementing the government's international assistance agenda.

The budget 2016 infusion of new resources complements the significant steps we have taken to address key global challenges, including climate change, instability, and humanitarian crises in Iraq, Syria, and the surrounding region, as well as ongoing development challenges, particularly those facing women and girls.

In the last year, our government has committed $2.65 billion over five years to help developing countries tackle climate change, provided over $1.1 billion over three years in development and humanitarian assistance to address the needs of people affected by the ongoing crisis in the Middle East, and increased our contribution to The Global Fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria by 20%, to $785 million from 2017 to 2019.

The international aid commitments that the government has recently made are a reflection of our desire to help implement the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

We have leveraged our significant commitments to encourage other donors to dig deeper. During the event hosted by our Prime Minister in Montreal last September, donors pledged over $12.9 billion over the next three years to the fifth Global Fund Replenishment Conference to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. This is a tremendous global commitment to end the spread of AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria once and for all.

Under the leadership of the Minister of International Development and La Francophonie, we launched a review of Canada’s international assistance, including development, peace, security and humanitarian aid.

This means that we are reviewing what we do, where we are targeting our efforts, our operating practices, and the partnerships we must forge to make our contribution.

At the core of our review is a commitment to refocus our assistance on the poorest and the most vulnerable, including in fragile states. We will channel our efforts on advancing the empowerment of women and girls as powerful agents of change. By investing in their social, economic, and political empowerment, we can promote dramatic and positive change in the lives of entire communities.

As a recent UNDP report highlighted, the future of the world will depend on us doing everything in our power to ignite the potential of a 10-year-old girl today. That commitment to a feminist and human rights-based approach will also be a catalyst for achieving all 17 goals of the 2030 agenda for sustainable development.

To ensure that we get this right, we consulted broadly and transparently with Canadian and international partners, seeking to build on areas of Canada's success, examine evidence and best practice, and strengthen the partnerships, mechanisms, and tools needed for improved delivery on the ground. More than 15,000 Canadian and international stakeholders in over 60 countries took the time to contribute to these consultations. I thank them for their thoughtful, engaging responses.

We know that the global development and security context has changed and Canada's international assistance needs to adapt to this new reality. In our response to crises in the Middle East, we are ensuring that our security, humanitarian, and development assistance is part of an integrated response in the region.

To move forward, the Government of Canada will need to forge new partnerships with Canadians, NGO partners, international organizations, research institutions, and the private sector to ensure that the best ideas and minds are brought together to develop innovative solutions to the most enduring problems. We will need to look beyond official development assistance and make use of different types of financial flows to overcome financing gaps.

Most important, we will continue to engage with stakeholders and local populations, including the poorest and the most vulnerable, to ensure that their voices are heard and form part of the decisions that affect their lives and livelihoods. In the coming months, we look forward to sharing our new international assistance vision that will support Canada's engagement on the world stage, thus contributing to a more stable and prosperous world for all.

I am pleased to be supporting this legislation to achieve those objectives.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her fine speech. Everyone in the House is quite aware of what is happening in other countries. That is all well and good, but what about Canadians who today are struggling to support themselves?

I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development to tell me, above and beyond the ideals of helping others, why are we not starting at home?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

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

I believe that it is clear in the budget that we presented to the House that we are starting by helping Canadians. Take for example, the tax cut for the middle class; the Canada child benefit, which will help nine out of ten families and lift 300,000 children out of poverty; and our programs and strategies to increase the guaranteed income supplement for seniors. We are doing a lot for Canadians. As a party and as a government, we understand that we need to start here at home in Canada.

However, we also have global responsibilities. We are part of an international system. We have the responsibility to contribute to it to build a better future, not only here in Canada but also in other countries around the world.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would tend to disagree with the hon. member's last comments, that we are helping back home first. In Alberta, we have a massive jobs crisis that is occurring, we have a carbon tax implemented, and we have CPP increases on top of that.

As part of the member's speech, she indicated that she is helping young families. Could the member comment on how those initiatives would help young families, because, quite frankly, I do not think they would.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I of course recognize the struggles that Alberta and the member's fellow Albertans are going through. Our government has been very clear in giving concrete assistance in terms of infrastructure dollars that are making an impact right now, in terms of approving the pipeline that will not only get our resources to market but will also help put many people in Alberta and across this country into well-paying, middle-class jobs.

In addition, I have spoken to many individuals in my community. The member questioned whether these measures would help young families. I can tell him that the Canada child benefit is having a real, meaningful, and tangible impact on the bottom line of families. It is helping them make ends meet. It is helping with the costs of raising children. It is really making a tangible difference in their lives. I am proud of the work that our government is doing to ensure that we are raising kids across this country out of poverty.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. parliamentary secretary appears to be misinformed about the jobs impact of Kinder Morgan. The National Energy Board refused to hear evidence on jobs and the economy. Unifor, the largest union representing the oil sands workers, wanted to make it clear to the National Energy Board that the expansion would come at the cost of all the jobs currently in the Chevron refinery in Burnaby, as it will likely close if Kinder Morgan is expanded. I would like the hon. parliamentary secretary to clarify the lack of information on which the government was operating.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to creating an environment in which we can have well-paying, middle-class jobs. We know that infrastructure projects, whether social infrastructure such as housing or child care, green infrastructure like waste-water treatment plants or other important infrastructure projects, or infrastructure that is going to help us get resources to markets is going to create jobs. Building is going to require new jobs.

There are many different areas in which jobs will be created. Jobs are an important factor for our government in making these decisions for all of Canada.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Essex, Steel Industry; the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, Health.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House. “Pleased” might be a bit of an exaggeration, but I always like talking about bills in the House.

When it comes to Bill C-29, it is sad to see that Canadians have been taken for a ride, and I am not talking about a ride in Santa's sleigh. The Liberal government omitted some things. Opposition members here in Ottawa are not the only ones questioning Bill C-29. Members of the Quebec National Assembly are too. The Quebec National Assembly even passed a unanimous motion, which is saying a lot because it means that friends of both the Liberals and Conservatives supported it. I know a member of the National Assembly in Quebec City who is probably not very impressed at having to work against his natural friends.

The motion of the National Assembly reads as follows:

That the National Assembly reiterate the importance of preserving the strong consumer protection regime enacted in the Quebec Consumer Protection Act;

That the National Assembly call on the federal government to remove the provisions of Bill C-29, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures, that would render inapplicable the provisions of the Quebec Consumer Protection Act that govern the relationship between banks and their clients.

This comes from the Quebec National Assembly. So it is not just the opposition here in Ottawa that has questions about Bill C-29.

At the launch of the campaign in 2015, the Liberals promised us just a small deficit of $10 billion. This has now become an enormous deficit of $34 billion. It is surely going to skyrocket yet again, because the Liberals forgot to tell Canadians and Quebeckers that, when they were given power, they were also given the power to spend like drunken sailors.

They are not consulting us. They spend, and then they say they have made a mistake that is going to prove expensive. They should have thought of that before, or consulted Canadians to see whether it was the right thing to do.

It is a shame, because today’s Liberals have not changed much from the Liberals of 10 or 11 years ago. One need only think of the preferential access to ministers at a cost of $1,500. I am not sure the people in my riding are prepared to pay $1,500 just so that a business can get the help it so badly needs.

The Liberals had promised to reduce the small business tax rate. That is another broken promise. The Liberals are still telling us many wonderful things, but it is what the Liberals do not say that is dangerous. That is what they fail to tell Canadians every day. Not everyone reads the fine print.

We are here in the House and we watch them in action, but Canadians watch the news and learn that there are fewer and fewer full-time jobs available for our young people. However, the Liberals promised a year ago to create a whole raft of new jobs. We have a job, but our young people need full-time jobs. Not all young university graduates want to go to work at McDonald's, even though it may be just fine to do so.

They took courses and got their degree, and they want to work in their field. However, thanks to the taxes and surtaxes imposed by the Liberals, they have no employment. There has been a decline in full-time youth employment.

People everywhere are asking questions. The president of Option consommateurs has wondered whether Bill C-29 is not perhaps a way for the federal government to open the door for the banks to circumvent Quebec law. There are Quebeckers sitting opposite us, on the other side of the House. The 40 elected Quebeckers—they can hear the people of Quebec. Can they rise in the House to defend Quebeckers?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

I am pleased to see you want to stand up for them. However, they have to stop telling Quebeckers fairy tales. The other day I was talking about unicorns, and today I am talking about fairies. What I am trying to say is that at some point you have to stop dreaming and start being honest with people. It’s fine to consult with them, but you also have to listen to them. A consultation is not a monologue. On the contrary, it is a dialogue with the people.

The Liberals are holding consultations all over the place, but they are not listening to anyone. They are not listening to anyone because they are the best. The Liberals are the good guys, until it all blows up in their face. Before getting to that point they should think about the ordinary Quebeckers and Canadians who are having trouble making ends meet. Thanks to the Liberals, those people find themselves cut adrift.

Let us just consider the infrastructure bank. Who will benefit from it? The Liberals’ friends and those who can invest $100 million. You do not see too many $100-million projects in a little community like Saint-Urbain or Saint-Irénée. However, it is the small communities that need help. We can help the big cities like Montréal, Vancouver, Ottawa, or Québec, but we also have to help the regions.

The Liberals have forgotten one thing. Unfortunately, I must be honest and say that every political party for the last 25 or 30 years has forgotten it as well. It is the country that feeds the city, not the other way around.

Today, our small communities are being choked in the interests of the big communities, of friends who have money and millionaires. I am truly proud to be a member of a political party that cares for the regions and the smaller municipalities, a party that works for ordinary Quebeckers and for those who don’t have millions of dollars in the bank. I am a member of a party that also takes care of those who do community work, but who come from the same place as the people sitting here today. I salute them.

I remember a time when I myself was poor and in need of money. I have to vote against this bill being proposed today, because it will not help poor people, just the opposite. There is a lot of talk about the middle class, but they are in the process of bleeding it white.

The Liberal Party will make the middle class of today into the poor of tomorrow. I think that is unacceptable. One need only visit the food banks and volunteer at Christmas dinners for the less fortunate to realize that the face of poverty has changed over the last 20 years. Poor people are no longer just those who live on the street; they are also people who work and struggle to pay for electricity, rent, or anything else. They are taxed and squeezed dry again and again.

I must therefore vote against Bill C-29, because it offers no solution to the problem of poverty and the problems of the rural world, from which I come.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Before we go on, I would like to remind members that they must not address anyone directly using the second person pronoun. I am sure that the hon. member was not talking about me as the Speaker. In the House, members must use the third person.

The hon. Minister of Transport.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech even though it made me scratch my head a few times.

Since she raised the subject of poverty, has she asked poor people in her riding who are now receiving the Canada child benefit, an extremely generous, tax-free benefit that will lift 300,000 children out of poverty, whether that benefit has made things better for them? Has she told seniors who receive the guaranteed income supplement that they will receive nearly $1,000 more thanks to our government?

She is welcome to speak passionately about poverty and people, but she needs to acknowledge that this government has done some good things.

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

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

Of course my constituents have talked to me about those things. I even know some people who put the money aside because they do not know when they will have to pay it back. That is a fact.

Since my colleague mentioned seniors, I will talk about my mother, who will not benefit from this measure at all because it will cost her more since she has Alzheimer's. The Liberals did not consider that. I know what things are like for seniors and lots of people.

The Liberals, like the Conservatives, have certainly done some good things. However, you have to admit that, by breaking promises, you have hurt Canadians. It would be nice if you could admit that because, for middle-class people, there is a big difference between $10 billion and $34 billion.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Again, I would remind the hon. member that I did not do those things. I imagine she was addressing the government members.

The hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. I will not say the name of her riding, because it is one of the few whose name is longer than that of my riding.

My colleague talked about the changes being made by Bill C-29 to the Bank Act. At the Standing Committee on Finance, of which I am a member, a representative from the Public Interest Advocacy Centre said that adopting an out-of-court settlement provision or a provision to prevent class action lawsuits is prohibited under the Consumer Protection Act.

It is ironic because the government wants to make changes in response to the ruling in Marcotte, which stemmed from a class action lawsuit having to do with foreign currency conversion fees.

Contrary to what the government is saying, power is being shifted from the consumer to the banks, which, unfortunately, have no regard for Quebec's jurisdiction over consumer protection.

What does my colleague think of that?

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

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

Quite frankly, it is appalling that the consumer is the loser here. Canadian consumers should have been the ones to benefit from Bill C-29.

As for the Consumer Protection Act, that is a Quebec law, and we do not want to lose it. The government and the members across the aisle who are from Quebec are very aware of how things work in Quebec. This bill undermines Quebec jurisprudence, and that is wrong.

What I think is even worse is that consumers are the ones who lose here, because if they are ever dissatisfied, they have no recourse under Bill C-29.

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

Mr. Speaker, I once again have the great pleasure of rising to talk about how successful the Liberal 2016 budget has been, along with Bill C-29 to implement it. It is a budget that plans for the future, invests where investments are needed, helps our seniors, returns science and innovation to its rightful place, lays the groundwork for our youth, and addresses the priorities of our regions.

At 19,694 square kilometres, my riding, Laurentides—Labelle, is the 46th largest riding in Canada. Our smallest municipality has 41 permanent residents; our largest has about 13,000. My home town of Sainte-Lucie-des-Laurentides, where I still live, is the median of our 43 municipalities with 1,024 residents.

Our communities are aging. In 2011, the average age was 49.5. This year's census data will be released shortly, and I can only imagine that the average age will be over 50, so this budget and the initiatives that will affect our region are important.

In this bill, we are making it easy for senior couples no longer able to live together to receive greater old age security benefits. We are helping seniors in the short term, and we are planning for future issues involving seniors through the changes we have already rolled out for a significant 10% increase to the guaranteed income supplement for single seniors; through lowering the eligibility age for old age security from 67 to 65; and also through Bill C-26 on the future of the CPP.

We have been here for only a year and we did all that. The three budgets remaining in this mandate can only be even better.

Speaking of the future, I want to take this opportunity to talk about our innovation agenda. Our budget puts billions of dollars into social, transport, and green infrastructure. Our investments in scientific research are finally back on, after years of having a creationist minister of science. We understand the importance of research, of science, and of being truly progressive. Progressive comes from progress. Progress is a forward or onward movement. Moving forward is what we do.

While the official opposition objects to even the most basic progress, when even the notion of switching to digital clocks in this chamber was pooh-poohed by the Conservatives when we had a debate on Standing Order 51, the rest of society moves ever forward.

Mr. Speaker, 2016 marks the 25th anniversary of Linux, the open source operating system started by Linus Torvalds and developed into a world powerhouse by tens if not hundreds of thousands of contributors from all walks of life and all corners of the globe.

I have been involved in the Linux and open source community for most of that time, mainly through the open and free technology community SourceForge and its predecessor organizations, Software in the Public Interest and the Debian community. It symbolizes to me what a community can do when it works together. Indeed, DebConf17 will take place next year in Montreal, and it is an excellent and concrete example of what that looks like.

We in rural Canada are still trying to figure out how to reduce packet loss on our TCP-over-smoke signal Internet connectivity and our UDP-over-carrier pigeon cell phone service. The rest of the world is not waiting.

Amazon, Google, and Facebook built their empires on Linux. Linux now runs 498 of the world's 500 fastest supercomputers, only one of which is in Canada. Even Microsoft recently finally joined the Linux Foundation this fall.

I believe it is very important to understand the lessons of the open source community.

In 25 years, Linux went from a university student's hobby to the software backbone of the Internet. Many people became very wealthy because of it, with it, and through it, yet all the while, the software, the product, was free for anyone and everyone to use, to modify, to take apart, and to understand.

While some people refuse to use a web browser other than Internet Explorer because its proprietary nature is seen as the only possible avenue to being secure, I see it as the other way around. Open source software, with its peer-reviewed scientific approach to development, tends to be the most secure option available. Getting open source logic into government can only see innovation improve.

With our innovation agenda, the options are there, but to get there, we need communications infrastructure. That we only have one of the world's top 500 supercomputers, and that it is 196 on the list, speaks to the need for infrastructure and investment in innovation. After a decade of the previous government dismissing science as an inconvenience, unhelpful facts in the way of an ideological agenda, the government we have today clearly believes in researching and preparing our way into the future.

In rural Canada, as I mentioned, Internet is our big file. Of the 43 municipalities I mentioned earlier, all 43 see the lack of proper, competitive, high speed Internet as among the top priorities. Without it, our average age will continue heading north. When our average age reaches retirement age, the social structure of our region will necessarily change.

To address this, we need to address the issues that are keeping youth away.

When I asked high school seniors who among them will stay in the region after they graduate, it was rare to hear one of them say yes.

When I ask them why they leave, the answers are always the same. They say that there is no post-secondary education, that there is not a lot of public transit, that the regional service covers 35 municipalities with a couple of retired school buses, and that there is substandard Internet and cellular service. Without these, not much is going on. When newcomers see that their cellphones do not work, they do not think about buying a house in our region, moving there or making their lives there.

Internet access is only through slow and unreliable satellite service or by telephone. Surely members can remember that noise old modems used to make. Unfortunately, it is still the case for many of our residents. For the luckiest, it is a blurry image at the end of a Skype call with their grandchildren.

Our budget is beginning to tackle these problems. We are investing $500 million in digital infrastructure to help bridge this technical gap. The lack of internet means fewer young people, less immigration and fewer opportunities for those who stay.

In investing a half a billion dollars in digital infrastructure to begin with, we are creating opportunities for those who stay and some appeal for newcomers. We are also helping to keep young people in the region.

The bill also aims to improve the lives of our seniors and to even out the average age of our regions over the long term. It is a budget that plans for the future, that invests where investment is needed, that helps our seniors, that reinstates science and innovation to their rightful place, that paves the way for our young people, and that examines the priorities of our regions. I am proud to support it.

What I am most proud of in this budget is the Canada child benefit. It helps thousands of people in the country. Over 300,000 people will find more money in their pockets.

When I tour my riding, people will often stop me and say they have never been interested in politics, but they really appreciate what we have done for families.

Last Friday evening, someone told me that she became a single parent just before the change in policy, and that it has helped her directly. It also provides concrete assistance to the region’s youth and families. I am proud of everything we have done. We have be proud of this budget. I am proud to support it.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was intrigued by the opening comments by my colleague, who listed a number of so-called achievements. Then he said that all of this was done in only one year.

I would like to list a few other things from only one year. The Liberals promised a $10-billion deficit. Now it is over $30 billion, all in one year, resulting in interest-cost increases of $10 billion per year. Big spending; no results. There are fewer full-time jobs than a year ago. The cost of living has increased. It is harder for Canadians to qualify for or afford a mortgage. The Liberals also forgot to index the Canada child benefit. Now to index it, we find that it would cost $42 billion over five years. That is all in one year.

My really big disappointment is to see the Prime Minister not allowing us to have full debate on this bill in the House. This budget implementation bill is important for the future of Canada. It should have a more complete and full debate.

I wonder if my colleague would comment on why he thinks the Prime Minister is not allowing full debate on Bill C-29.

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

Mr. Speaker, with nine days of debate, we are not facing a major debate deficit.

If the Conservatives want to go after us on deficits, they have quite a record. The Conservatives have passed maybe four budgets since 1900 that actually had a surplus. I am not going to take any great lectures from the Conservatives.

There is a huge deficit in our infrastructure. There is so much work that needs to be done. The member wants to put the deficit in our infrastructure and in our communities instead of in our line items.

It is important that we do this correctly. We need to invest in our country, in our communities, to build for the future.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle comes from Quebec.

With Bill C-29, we are facing a situation where the government wants, unilaterally of course, to appropriate consumer protection powers, where banks and financial institutions are concerned.

The problem is that what we see in Bill C-29 is much weaker than what is now in Quebec’s Consumer Protection Act. Not only that, but it is a recognized fact that consumer protection falls under provincial jurisdiction.

I acknowledge that the Bank Act is a federal law, but we are talking about consumer protection here. What is more, if there are amendments made by Bill C-29 in connection with this issue, that is because of the Marcotte ruling, which dealt with currency conversion fees. That matter went before the Supreme Court, notably after a class action suit.

Incidentally, this Bill C-29 would no longer permit class action lawsuits against banks. I think there is a sort of contradiction here. Quebec organizations generally recognize that Bill C-29 is going to reduce the level of consumer protection.

As an MP from Quebec, why does he not rise in the House to protest this situation and to defend his riding's consumers, especially bank users?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have heard that question several times today.

The Marcotte decision asked us to clarify things, and that is exactly what we are doing with this bill. It is important to heed court rulings, and I do not see how this can be a bad thing.

[Michel Boudrias, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle about what was said in the House today. Quebec's National Assembly passed a unanimous motion.

I do not know if he is aware of this, but Quebec's Consumer Protection Act is 45 years old and was passed by Robert Bourassa's Liberals. According to the Canadian Constitution, the Consumer Protection Act falls under Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction because of its powers under the Quebec civil code.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks of that as the member for Laurentides—Labelle. Is he comfortable with the federal government's bulldozer-style intrusion into a matter under Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle has 30 seconds to respond.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not need 30 seconds. The question was already asked, and I answered it.

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

Mr. Speaker, it truly is an honour to stand today on behalf of the hard-working residents of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford to debate Bill C-29 at report stage. It is very unfortunate that I am doing so under the yoke of time allocation. I feel that today's motion to limit the ability of members of Parliament to give viewpoints on behalf of their constituents was truly a reprehensible motion. The government brought down a guillotine to cut off our ability to speak on behalf of our constituents. When it comes to budget implementation acts, they are vast pieces of legislation. They cover so many different areas. If any bill deserves close scrutiny, it is this type of legislation.

We have had some odd occurrences in this debate. On Friday, one of the first motions moved by the government was a motion to delete the short title. It was moved by the member for Winnipeg North. I am not sure why the committee had not decided to do that, but the government found the wisdom to do it. There have been some strange occurrences with this bill.

I find that when members of Parliament move to that side of the chamber, they tend to suffer from short-term memory loss. The Liberals used to be the most vocal opponents; they used to scream with moral outrage every time time allocation was invoked. I think it is helpful to go back to some actual quotes to help to remind them.

On February 8, 2012, the member for Winnipeg North said:

The only way in which the government has been able to deal with the legislative agenda as opposed to working with the opposition is to ram it through the House of Commons in an undemocratic fashion.

Why has the government been a total and absolute failure in not recognizing the importance of working in negotiation with the opposition and ensuring that Canada is served better through the normal process of...debate?

I would love to ask that question of him today. I wonder what answer he would give, the 2012 version versus the 2016 version.

Report stage is a particularly important time in the legislative process. It gives members of Parliament who were not able to participate at the committee stage the chance to move important amendments. The fact that we have only had Friday, and now cutting it off today, I think shows an extreme disrespect.

That being said, I want to move on to talk about some of the substantive measures of the bill and my views on it.

The Liberals ran strongly on extolling the virtues of their middle-class tax cut. What I have to keep reminding my constituents, and indeed all Canadians is that this is not a middle-class tax cut. They will not see the full benefits unless they are earning a six-figure income. That is certainly not members of the middle class in my riding, and indeed in Canada. When the median income is $31,000 a year, those people are not receiving any benefit. Even if they had a decent income in the $60,000 to $70,000 range, their benefits would certainly not be as much as someone earning $150,000, or even up to $199,000. It is important to bring that up. The Liberals like to sell this as a middle-class tax cut, when in fact it is anything but.

I also want to speak up on behalf of the hard-working small business owners in my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. They really are fantastic people. Over the last seven years, I have had a lot of opportunities to work with small businesses when they have had problems with their taxes. I was given the very privileged position, in my former life as a constituency assistant, to see the details of small business tax returns. I know how difficult it is for them to survive in today's environment. Often, small business owners are paying themselves very meagre salaries and cutting corners for themselves personally to ensure their employees have jobs and that the business continues to be a source of employment for the local community. That is a pattern that we see across Canada. Therefore, it was quite disappointing to see that the Liberals did not move ahead with their promised small business tax cut.

Also, I think there was a real opportunity in the budget implementation act to take some meaningful action on credit card fees. Credit card fees can be an enormous expense for businesses. If they do not have the machines that take credit cards, they are not going to get customers, but there are huge fees for using that service. There was a missed opportunity to take some meaningful action on that measure, and it would have done some great work for businesses across the country.

The next thing I want to talk about is the child benefit, which is another program extolled by the Liberals. I would agree that it is a good thing any time we can provide families with money, because I know very well that families struggle a lot.

We do not want to overextend ourselves in praising this benefit, considering the situation that many families are going through with the lack of affordable child care spaces and the maximum child benefit being around $6,400. That is only going to meet parents halfway when they are looking for child care spaces with how expensive it is.

Furthermore, if there are no good full-time jobs out there with a standard living wage, then a lot of parents will not be able to afford a second job because the cost of child care completely outweighs their income. There is no chance for upward mobility, and that is the main thing. It has been proven time and again that if decent affordable child care is provided, then families will be able to make their way up. Furthermore, a strong, safe minimum wage is an added benefit.

I am disappointed that families will have to wait until 2020 until the child benefit gets indexed to inflation. That leaves a big question for me: Why is the Liberal government not taking action and implementing indexation next year? I have not yet received an adequate answer to that simple question, and I will remind my constituents of that point time and again.

The next part that I want to talk about goes to the infrastructure bank proposal. We first heard about this in budget 2016, earlier in the spring, when the government started talking about asset recycling. I am always wary when new terms, new technical jargon, come up. It usually means trying to change the meaning of something so people get confused about what is really going on.

Andrew Coyne had this to say in one of his columns earlier this year. He stated that asset recycling “can finance capital projects like roads and bridges by charging the people who use them. Once these would have been known as user fees or road tolls; in the language of today’s technocrats, it’s called “asset monetization” or “asset recycling.”

When private investors make these substantial investments in infrastructure projects, they are going to want a good rate of return. When Michael Sabia appeared before the Toronto Region Board of Trade on March 3, 2016, he said he was looking for stable, predictable returns in the 7% to 9% range. Canadians were not acquainted with that during the Liberal campaign promise. For 7% to 9% rates of return, we would have to look at charging tolls and user fees to ordinary Canadians and residents. That goes way above and beyond the kind of interest rates that Canadians were hoping for when the federal government can use its borrowing power at extremely low interest rates to finance these kinds of capital projects. That is a far cry from the 7% to 9% that private investors are going to be looking for.

Those are some of the major concerns overall. There were some incredible missed opportunities in this legislation. We in the New Democratic Party have been raising this consistently. There were some real opportunities that could have been made use of to help lower-income members of our society move forward, such as showing leadership on a federal minimum wage, providing child care spaces, and making sure the federal government uses its borrowing power to make those much-needed investments in infrastructure, rather than relying on the private sector and the tolls and user fees they are going to extract. We also hope the child benefit will be indexed to inflation starting next year.

I will leave it at that because I have made my points. I appreciate this opportunity to speak on behalf of the amazing constituents of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague about a question that was asked previously by his colleague related to the consumer protection aspects of Bill C-29. Would the member not agree that a national framework for consumer protection, with rules and regulations relating to the banking industry, would be a step forward for his constituents in British Columbia?

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

Madam Speaker, in the course of debate on Bill C-29, and even in its predecessor, the previous budget implementation act, there are measures in this budget that we can support. Whenever we are looking out for consumers and making sure they are being protected against nefarious business practices, we can absolutely get behind measures like that.

It is for the reasons I outlined earlier, because it is such a wide-ranging bill and there are so many areas that we believe could have been improved, and because this bill has to be passed in its present form with all of the measures, that those are the reasons we will have to be voting against it.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member neglected to talk about two things that we talk about on this side of the House. There is the carbon tax, which we will see in about 26 days in Alberta and the impact that will have. However, I am also curious to hear the member's thoughts on the pipeline approval that was just announced. I know that in his area in B.C., people probably have some opinions on that. I am curious to know what he would think. I know that back home in my province, the provincial premier seems to be saying that she did a lot of it. I am curious to know what the hon. member thinks.

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

Madam Speaker, when we talk about a carbon tax, or indeed any kind of a price on pollution, if we look at the realities of today and going on in the 21st century, almost everyone I know of agrees that a price on carbon has to be instituted if we are going to change our behaviour.

With respect to pipelines in British Columbia, I will absolutely echo my constituents' extreme disappointment. It is not only because the pipeline is being built; it is because the Liberal government completely betrayed British Columbians when it made a promise to institute a new environmental review process. We have always sought value-added products. In shipping raw undiluted bitumen, we are not getting any value out of that product. I would like to see some refining capacity expanded in Alberta so that we can sell a value-added product and use that to fund our transition to a renewable energy future. That is where the future is. I owe that to my children, and I think we all owe that to the next generation.

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

Madam Speaker, the New Democrats talk a lot about the middle class, but they do not necessarily do it in a positive way. We look at the middle class, and the vast majority of the middle class who are working hard and deserve the tax break. The NDP is voting against the tax break, ultimately saying it would not help the poor. Yet we are helping the poorest of our seniors and the poorest families in terms of children, through wonderful enhancements like the Canada child benefit and the GIS.

I wonder why the New Democrats do not recognize the other benefits. They just focus on the middle class tax cuts. People such as health care workers and factory-floor workers are the bulk of those who would get the advantage of the tax break. They are voting against that, but they are also excluding the benefits for families with young children and for our seniors who are the most vulnerable. Why is that?

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

Madam Speaker, I did actually point out that the child benefit is going to have some benefits. As the NDP's critic for seniors issues, I did welcome an increase in the GIS. However, I also want to point out for the member for Winnipeg North that I was very pointed in my criticisms of the Liberal tax cut, because it would benefit people the most who have six-figure incomes. The people earning the median income in Canada of $31,000 a year are not going to see any benefits.

I will reiterate that what Canadian families need, especially the low-income ones, is affordable child care spaces to be built because that is the true cost to Canadian families. Unfortunately, the child benefit does not allay that gigantic cost to Canadian families.

[Karen McCrimmon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, it has been interesting to sit and listen to the debate. I have heard a lot of good ideas.

There is more work to be done. I can that about even my own portfolio. However, I really have to share the good news. We are heading in the right direction. Is it all done yet? No, it is not. However, we have taken some major steps forward. A lot of them involve the financial stability and security of veterans. To me, that is something really near and dear to my heart.

We can talk about the difference it is going to make in veterans' lives when we increase the disability award from $310,000 to $360,000, which is part of this budget, and when we increase the earnings loss benefit for injured veterans, so that instead of their getting just 75% of their pre-release salary, they will now get 90% of their pre-release salary. That will make a big difference in their lives.

There is also an upcoming change in the permanent impairment allowance. We are going to change it and call it “career impact allowance”. The eligibility criteria for the permanent impairment allowance were so narrow that hardly anyone could get access to that particular benefit. By making it a career impact allowance—and this is something that is particularly important for young veterans—if they are injured when they are very young, we will give them the financial security they would have had if they had not left the military early due to their injuries. That will make a big difference in the lives of very young veterans. That is one place where there have been significant shortfalls and gaps.

There is a lot of work to do. The start that we have made is to improve the service that Veterans Affairs Canada is providing to veterans. Are we there yet? No, we are not. Opening 10 new offices is a huge step in the right direction, because it is much easier to get things done face to face than online or by telephone. We have heard again and again that a high-touch kind of system, in which people can go to talk to someone face to face instead of waiting on the telephone for a long time, makes a big difference.

It is the same when we talk about hiring new caseworkers or service agents. There was a huge backlog of cases. The service standard for Veterans Affairs was not even close to being met. Now that we are hiring new people, who are now in the middle of being trained, we will be able to deal with those disability requests a lot sooner than we had in the past. We started with this backlog. It is coming down. However, it takes time, because we need to train new people.

There have been shortages at Veterans Affairs Canada over the last few years. There was a loss of 900 employees. The rest of the employees who were left behind really care about veterans. They want to make sure they are well-served. However, because there were so few of them, a lot of them ended up suffering burnout. These veterans mattered to them. However, there were so few of them and they were carrying so many cases that they could not help the veterans and they, the people who were supposed to be helping others, have ended up being injured because of the shortfall of workers at Veterans Affairs Canada.

We know it is never an easy thing to change government departments and how they are structured and move forward. However, we have a wonderful group of people who really are committed to these veterans and to providing them with the kind of service they need and deserve. Part of this budget implementation act is to get these things moving.

There is a lot left to do. There is absolutely no doubt about it, but we are on the right track. I can say the same thing about looking after veterans as with looking after Canadians. Have we got it all done yet? No we have not. Are we heading in the right direction? Yes we are.

I was out knocking on doors on Sunday, and people were telling me what a difference the Canada child benefit is making to their lives already, especially for those who do not have a large income. For example, I heard that they now have the money they need to have their son play hockey, or that they now have the money they need to get him involved instead of sitting in the basement playing with his iPad or watching television and videos. Now he is participating in sports. Now he is involved and getting that social interaction with other people in his neighbourhood. They are celebrating. Now small communities are working to get their kids involved and get them active. Now they have the money and opportunity to do that.

It is the same thing with the middle-class tax cut. There is huge opportunity out there, and I do believe that if the middle class is doing well, everyone will end up doing well, because it creates opportunity. It creates jobs. Did members know that here in Ontario retail sales are up by 7%? This creates jobs. It creates opportunities, because people have more money to spend. We can see the absolute evidence of that here in Ontario.

If we look at our economy as a whole, investments are happening and starting to show results. Do the results happen overnight? No, they do not. They take a bit of time. However, we are now seeing that people have more money in their pockets.

If the middle class is given more money, it will be spent here at home. It is going to be spent and invested here in hockey equipment, in opportunities for children, in community events, and in making their lives just a little bit better. That is what this first budget bill is about. It is about improving the lives of Canadians and knowing that if we make these targeted, strategic investments, there will be opportunities created by others.

I prefer to talk about it in terms of employment generally. While I talk about employment for veterans and others talk about employment for young people and seniors, we need to talk about employment across a broad spectrum. We need to talk in terms of innovation, job creation, and creating new jobs, the ones that we need for the future. This is what we are trying to do, not to look at things just in one particular silo, but to look across the spectrum and to create those kinds of benefits and opportunities for all Canadians.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague's comments, and a number of times she said something to the effect that we are on the right track. A number of times she said that we are heading in the right direction. I would like to point out a number of areas where the current government is absolutely not heading in the right direction.

In the budget book, on page 234, members will find that the interest cost alone between today and 2020 will increase by $10 billion per year. Added to that, in the fall fiscal update, on page 66, we clearly see that an additional $5 billion in interest costs per year by 2020. That is $15 billion per year that Canadians will be spending simply on paying interest. A number of times we have asked the finance minister when we will return to a balanced budget, but there has been no answer.

How can we say that we are heading in the right direction and that budget 2016 is good for our kids and grandkids, when they are going to be the ones saddled paying this debt down? It does not add up, and I would like my colleague to answer that question.

[Karen McCrimmon, Liberal, Kanata—Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a discussion that we need to have. I know what the fiscal update is. It is a snapshot in time. The previous government, depending upon who one listens to, added $150 billion in additional debt. When I knock on doors and hear that people are concerned about the debt, I get it. I tell them it is like having a beautiful house that has a leaky roof and basement and infrastructure in the house that is not working. What do we do? Do we go into debt to fix the roof and the basement so we do not lose the entire investment?

While I understand the concern about debt, the things we are doing now to enhance, promote, and preserve our infrastructure are really important.

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

Madam Speaker, I would really like the member to help me out with something, because I am quite confused. With the average income being $31,000 across Canada, how did the Liberal Party decide that $45,000 to $190,000 describes the middle class in Canada for purposes of this tax break?

Second, if you truly want to benefit children and families living in poverty, why would you not have agreed to index the Canada child benefit annually so that people can keep up with inflation over the next five years?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I would remind the member that he is not to address his questions directly to another member. It has to be done through the Speaker. I would suggest that members do not use the word “you” to avoid that situation.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary.

[Karen McCrimmon, Liberal, Kanata—Carleton, ON]

I cannot give you a specific answer to your first question, but I think I understand why. As I said, we are not finished yet. This is just the first step to get the money flowing into the economy and to make sure that the most vulnerable are looked after. We will continue to grow from there.

There is some thought that if we get the middle class going, it will create opportunities for others. As I said, I know there is definitely more to do. When we talk about indexing to inflation, etc., just because it is not done now does not mean it is not part of a plan for later. I do not know the answer to that, but if that ends up being something that needs to be done, I am sure it will be discussed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Similarly, I would remind the parliamentary secretary not to use the word “your” when she was addressing the question directly to the member. It has to go through the Speaker.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased that I am not denied, like so many of my colleagues, the opportunity to rise today in the House to speak to Bill C-29, the budget implementation act, 2016, No. 2.

The provisions in the bill will have a wide range of effects on my constituency and all of Canada, and it is important that the Liberals understand how their decisions truly impact Canadians.

I will start off by giving a bit of background about the current issues facing my riding, located in southeast Saskatchewan. It is a rural riding, and many people are employed in either the agricultural sector or the energy sector. In fact, my hometown of Estevan is known as the energy city. Because of this, the downturn in the oil and gas industry has been devastating, particularly in the smaller communities.

There are thousands of laid off workers who are looking for employment. These men and women are wondering how they will feed their families. It is unfortunate that the government seems to be unable or unwilling to provide them with the help they so sorely need.

The trickle-down effect is also happening in my riding. Small businesses, such as retail stores and restaurants, are closing their doors for good, because the customers simply are not there. It is difficult for a family to justify going out for a nice dinner when they have not received a paycheque in months. My constituents need their government to help them in their time of need, but they are seemingly being ignored.

As I said, the biggest issue currently facing my riding is lack of jobs. The Conservative Party understands that jobs are created by small and medium-sized businesses. We need to support these businesses in every way we can to ensure that our economy continues to thrive in the future.

There are hundreds of farms in my riding, and there are thousands of people employed in the agriculture industry. These farms are small businesses. Many are owned and operated by families that have been farming for over a hundred years. They are essential to both the cultural and economic fabric of Canada. Farmers feed the world, and Saskatchewan farmers are known for producing some of the best agricultural and agri-food products available worldwide.

When the Liberals were campaigning, they promised that they would lower the small business tax to 9% from 11%. Somehow this did not seem to make it into the budget. Unfortunately, I am not shocked by this omission. The Liberals have broken promises time and time again, and the failure to lower the small business tax is no exception.

Farmers in my constituency are extremely disappointed. At a time when jobs are scarce, the government is essentially telling them that they do not need the help that tax cuts would provide. It is despicable that the Liberals would mislead Canadians so blatantly, but thus far, it is what we have come to expect.

The bill also increases contributions to the Canada pension plan by small businesses. Not only did the government neglect to fulfill its promise to lower the small business tax rate, but now it is making these businesses pay even more for their employees' pension plans. For a small business that employs 15 people, this is an additional $15,000 per year that an employer has to pay. That is a huge amount for a small business. It could be the difference between keeping the business open and closing it down for good.

Not only did the government mislead small business owners about a reduction in the tax rate, it will also add to their financial burden by increasing the amount of CPP contributions. That is astounding.

Changes to the CPP are not helping my constituents. One gentleman from my riding has attempted to bring attention to this issue through petitions, but nothing has happened. My office wrote to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour on his behalf, sharing his concern that an increase in the cost of medication has meant that his CPP payment does not even cover his basic necessities, like food and heat. The response from the minister's office outlined the government's plan for changes, stating that fully enhanced benefits will generally become available after about 40 years of making contributions. Not only are the Liberals refusing to make a payment increase for those in need, they are touting changes to the CPP that my constituent will not see in his lifetime.

The Liberals like to talk a lot about helping the middle class. They say that they want to help those who are struggling to join it. The bill does not do that. The government has taken away measures that were making Canadians' lives easier, such as the children's fitness tax credit.

I am the official opposition critic for sport, a role I am very proud of. I have seen first-hand the importance of getting children involved in sport at an early age and have witnessed the benefits that come from participation in sport. Sport improves social skills, leadership skills, and confidence and it promotes health and fitness.

However, this can get expensive, and the children's fitness tax credit was a way to ease that financial burden on parents who just want what is best for their children. Now they will not get that extra help.

The Liberal plan has failed Canadians with tax hikes and red tape. This is not helping families, and it is not helping the middle class.

Speaking of benefits, I must touch on the government's Canada child benefit, or CCB, which is essentially just an expensive reinvention of the wheel. Under the previous Conservative government, there were three measures put in place to help Canadian families with children: the universal child care benefit, the Canada child tax benefit, and the national child benefit supplement. Those three programs worked. They kept more money in the pockets of hard-working families, which should be the goal of any government.

When the Liberals announced the Canada child benefit, they forgot one important issue, indexation. Bill C-29, the second budget implementation bill, now confirms that the government will index the Canada child benefit to inflation, beginning in 2020. According to the parliamentary budget officer, the estimated cost of indexing and enriching the CCB will cost $42.5 billion over the next five years. This is an expense the government did not budget for. Canadian families simply cannot afford another tax hike. That is exactly what will happen to pay for the current government's lack of oversight. My constituents do not need to pay more taxes, and Canadians in general do not need that either.

I have spoken about jobs many times in this speech. I feel as though I need to so the Liberals can start to understand just how dire the situation is.

Due to the lack of available work in the oil and gas sector, many of my constituents have had to use employment insurance. Under the previous Conservative government, reforms were made to the EI system that actually helped Canadians get back to work. The changes made EI more efficient, focused on job creation, eliminated disincentives to work, and helped to support unemployed Canadians by helping match workers with jobs. These changes are now being repealed.

On this side of the House, we know that the best cure for unemployment is job creation. Employment insurance is meant to be a temporary support that helps unemployed Canadians through a difficult situation. It is not a permanent situation, which is why the changes introduced by the Conservatives were so beneficial. These people want to work. My constituents want to work. They do not want to sit at home. They want to earn their paycheques. Anything the government can do to assist in finding jobs for these people, they should be doing. Instead, the Liberals are repealing measures that were truly helpful. Again, it shows how out of touch they are with the current needs of Canadians.

One way the government can create jobs is through investments in infrastructure. The Liberals say that their infrastructure will be the biggest and best that Canada has ever seen. They are spending billions of dollars, all of which needs to be paid back by the taxpayer, and most likely by our children, our grandchildren, and our great-grandchildren. Yet in my riding, there is virtually nothing to show for it. With the millions of dollars available to enhance public transit in urban areas, small rural communities and their applications for infrastructure funding are being ignored. This is unacceptable at a time when job creation should be a main focus of the government.

Simply put, infrastructure projects create jobs. They need these jobs. However, it appears that the Liberals are forgetting about rural Canada once again.

The record in Saskatchewan is plain to see. The Library of Parliament provided me with the figures on federal infrastructure spending in Saskatchewan over the past 20 years. From 1994 to 2005, total spending was $222.2 million under the Liberal government. From 2006 to 2015, under the previous Conservative government, total infrastructure spending in Saskatchewan was $1.256 billion. That is a huge increase in spending, and it came at a time when the province needed help. Why is it that now, when the people of Saskatchewan need their government's assistance in creating jobs, they are being left out in the cold?

The budget will not balance itself. The spending by the current government will affect Canadians for generations to come. The Liberals' only solution to the problems facing Canadians seems to be to borrow and spend even more money than the budget initially set out, money that will have to be paid back by Canadian workers, families, and job creators.

This bill does not help the middle class, and it certainly does not help my constituents. We need jobs. We need support. We need the Liberals to show confidence in the agriculture industry and in the oil industry. We need them to show confidence in innovation and recognize the value of carbon capture to the coal and power industry. We need it to come now.

For these reasons, I cannot support this budget.

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

Madam Speaker, I believe the member could not be more wrong.

This bill, through the implementation of the budget, would in fact be of great benefit to Canada's middle class. This bill, as I have pointed out on numerous occasions, would bring literally thousands of children out of poverty and thousands of seniors out of poverty. This bill would put more money in the pockets of Canadians, which would allow for a larger disposable income, thereby providing more business for small businesses. If we have a healthy middle class, we will have a healthier economy.

The Conservatives talk about supporting tax cuts, yet they are going to be voting against nine million Canadians who would be receiving a substantial tax cut. The question is why.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, I have had a chance to walk around my riding and talk to all these people who are getting the CCB payments.

Many of them are asking who is going to pay for this. All this money is fine, but who is going to pay for it? They are asking how to turn it back, because the bottom line is that they say that it is not helping them, it is not going to help their children, and it is not going to help their grandchildren.

They are asking how the government is going to pay for it. It is not going to balance itself. Budgets do not do that.

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

Madam Speaker, I keep hearing from the Liberal side that their budget is actually great for the middle class.

I have a very simple question, because I have never heard a single Liberal member of Parliament define it. What is the middle class? Why do we have a tax cut that only starts at $45,000, which is fully accessible once people reach $90,000? That is considered by the Liberals to be the middle class, when the median income in Canada is $31,000.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is a question I have. What is the middle class?

My understanding, and Canadians' understanding, of what is middle class is totally different from what the government's idea of what the middle class should be. The middle class needs to have the opportunity to work. That is what they want. They want jobs. They want the opportunity to step up and have those jobs and to get out there and do something.

The government is not creating jobs. It has not created one single full-time job since it came to power.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was a little astounded when I heard the member's comments about the Canada child benefit and that the people in his riding who are receiving it are telling him that they cannot understand why they are getting this money and that it will not help them. They are asking how they are going to pay for it.

As we know, in the previous incarnation of the family allowance, all people of all income levels received it. Now the Canada child benefit is essentially going to people who need it the most. I have not had one person in my riding who is now getting it telling me, “Oh my goodness, I really should not be getting this”.

I am wondering how the member reconciles the idea that the richest used to get this. Now it is mostly going to the people who need it the most, and somehow they are coming to him and telling him that they do not really need it. I do not understand.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, a lot of times, what we have is Liberals inventing words. The reality is, you are taking one thing and giving another. Here is a word for you, “dispocketnesia”—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I would remind the member to address comments to the chair and not to individual members, please.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, I apologize.

Here is a word that I think needs to be put in the dictionary. It is “dispocketnesia”. It is a very simple word. It means, from “dis pocket to dat pocket.” That is what the Liberal government is doing. It is taking it from one hand and putting it in the other.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in today's debate on Bill C-29, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures.

When I got into politics a few years ago, I had one objective in mind, and that was to help my community and my riding, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles. With our first budget, presented in March 2016, our government took direct action to help middle-class Canadians and those who need it most. Today Canada has the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7, and our interest rates are at all-time lows. Now is the perfect time for Canada to invest in its own future success.

As a mother of four children, two girls and two boys, I want to ensure they have the same opportunities, and only by investing now will we create long-term, sustainable economic growth.

Strengthening the middle class will also help ensure a better quality of life for Canadians, who work hard, as well as better future opportunities for our children.

By creating the right economic context for the middle class we can build a country where everyone has the opportunity to succeed. I was very proud of our commitment to help the middle class during the last election campaign.

One of the first things we did as a government was implement a tax cut for the middle class and increase the tax rate by 1% for wealthier Canadians. Those changes are putting more money in the pockets of middle-class Canadians by making taxes fairer for everyone.

The Canada child benefit falls under that same line of measures. Thanks to this benefit, nine out of ten families will receive more in monthly benefits, which will help lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty. The benefit will be indexed as of 2020. In my riding, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, 10,300 families and 18,870 children will receive more money. Many people are very happy, contrary to what my colleague was saying. My constituents are very happy to receive the Canada child benefit.

When I meet with my constituents in Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, they tell me that they feel supported by our government's measures. However, I know that the work has just begun. In Canada and elsewhere in the world, there is a growing consensus that governments need to invest to stimulate short-term economic growth and pave the way for long-term economic growth. That is why people across the country welcomed the big investments that were announced in the November 1 economic update.

The fall economic update proposed new commitments of $81.2 billion between now and 2027-28 in green infrastructure, social infrastructure, public transit, and of course transportation infrastructure that supports trade and rural and northern communities. In short, over $180 billion will be invested in community infrastructure across Canada.

We are investing today to build 21st century infrastructure because our government understands that infrastructure plays a key role in helping members of the middle class find good jobs and live in welcoming communities with clean air to breathe and clean water to drink.

The investments we are making will help reduce commute times for the middle class. This is one of the most important issues in my riding of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, in the northern suburb of Montreal.

Finally I would like to reiterate my support for Bill C-29. Its progressive measures will help Canada's middle class and ensure that no one is left behind. We are laying the foundation for a more prosperous future for our children and grandchildren.

[Simon Marcil, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I understand that my colleague is happy to read the lines her party wrote for her.

She is telling us that she wants to pave the way for the future and for economic development and to invest in infrastructure. The problem is that the Liberals are doing it with our tax dollars and that the government wants to save money and protect its banking buddies from losing money. My colleague here voted against motion M-42, which is completely at odds with what she just told us.

I would ask the member to explain to us why she voted against this motion. As well, why is what she is saying inconsistent with her actions?

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague from Mirabel, whose riding is north of mine.

The middle class and young families are thriving in his riding. He should be happy with the Canada child benefit and support Bill C-29.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, a number of times today we have tried to find an answer to the question of when the Liberal government will actually tell us when it intends to return to balanced budgets, to discontinue its deficit upon deficit spending.

I pointed out that in the budget book itself, it clearly indicates that another $10 billion per year in interest alone will be added over the next four years. The fall economic update added another $5 billion per year in interest. That is $15 billion per year in interest going out the window, just for interest, let alone paying down the debt.

I would like my colleague to answer the question as to when she sees the Liberal government returning to balanced budgets.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

As I said in my speech, interest rates are at record lows. Now is the time to invest in infrastructure, in order to pave the way for the 21^st century.

It is green, social and transit infrastructure that will help stimulate economic growth and help the middle class.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, I have a question about the infrastructure bank. The budget includes $15 billion to initially fund that bank. There is another $20 billion that would be generated by leveraging up assets that Canada owns. On top of that, we are going to invite foreign investment into our country to fund public infrastructure, to the tune of $180 billion, and give them a rate of return of 7% to 8%. Why would we not offer that to Canadians, perhaps by way of an enhanced Canada savings bond program, or something else where the money could stay here in Canada?

I do not think anyone disputes the necessity of funding infrastructure projects, but let us leave the money in Canada instead of sending it across the water.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

As I said earlier, now is the time to invest. Interest rates are at record lows. Now is the time to invest and do what has been neglected for several years now. It is time to develop the economy, green and social infrastructure and highway infrastructure.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Madam Speaker, the small business tax is critical in my riding. We have a tremendous number of small businesses that are suffering. If that small business tax were to decrease, those are the businesses that really help support our community. What is your opinion of not having reduced that small business tax?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Again, you are doing that through me.

The hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I come from the small business community, so I am glad he asked me that question. If we want small businesses to do well, people need to have money in their pockets so they can spend that money at local businesses and in the secondary economy.

If people are supported by the Canada child benefit and all the other measures we are providing, they will help stimulate the economy, which is good for small businesses.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Before I go to resuming debate, I know there has been a couple of questioning looks about how I am picking members. Therefore, I want to remind members that the Deputy Speaker on November 3 indicated that “we recognize that the time for questions and comments is often the most valuable time for an exchange between members”. He went on to say that “time is generally afforded to the members of the parties who are not associated with the member who has just spoke but not to the exclusion of that party.”

Therefore, it is to give an opportunity for people from the opposition or from the government to be able to ask questions to those who are delivering the speech.

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a great honour to speak on behalf of the government on this bill in front of us, in particular to focus on the accomplishments that are contained within our budget implementation bill that we are debating and will be voting on soon.

I think my proudest moment remains looking up at the Assembly of First Nations chief as he heard the budget commitments to truth and reconciliation, and renewing and creating a new partnership with our first nations people, Métis, and Inuit. There is work to be done on that. The pressure that the opposition delivers to us to do more and to do it faster is welcomed pressure, and anything we can do to forward this is critical.

I remember in the summertime, as well, another very proud moment. I was stopped in the street by a single mom who almost broke into tears as she said “thank you”. The support through the child tax benefit had delivered her not only substantial resources with which to contend with some of the challenges in her life, but she said it gave her the first opportunity to think that she could actually save for her kid's post-secondary school.

The idea that this tax benefit not only provided immediate relief, but long-term and future relief and a vision for a better tomorrow, I think is reason enough for this budget to be passed immediately. Those benefits have already started to flow to people, and I am proud of that.

Another area is for single seniors. We know that women quite often are left alone without a full pension. We have moved on pension reform, but the move for the guaranteed income supplement to be boosted by 10% is lifting largely older women in this country into a better position financially so that they can take care of themselves. When their partners pass on and they are left alone, quite often their bills stay the same but their incomes change. Therefore, this is a step that we think is tremendously important, as is the CPP reform negotiated with the provinces, as is the EI reform, which is also under way and being delivered, especially to workers in Atlantic Canada and Alberta who are suffering as commodity prices turn in the wrong direction.

At the end of the day, this budget is about one thing and one thing only. It is about jobs. It is about delivering economic opportunity to every corner of this country to get people back into the workforce.

The phrase that we hear the Prime Minister use, “supports the middle class and those aspiring to join it”, is what this budget is all about. Nowhere is this delivered in a more pronounced way than on the issue of infrastructure, which is a program that I have a great deal of pride in. I look at this budget and see extraordinary accomplishments.

I left municipal government and came to Ottawa to get exactly this kind of budget put in place, exactly this kind of support for Canada's municipalities, large and small, northern and southern, rural and urban, the whole mix. The agreements that we have with every province now mean that money is flowing to places like Alberta.

Alberta had next to no infrastructure investment, because there had been no agreement between the province and the federal government for the last two years. Imagine if the two years of spending commitments announced but not delivered to municipalities were under way in Alberta. Imagine the unemployed tradespeople who would be working on infrastructure as the oil patch recovers. It could sustain that economy in a totally different way. However, instead what we had from the previous government were a lot of announcements. In the case of Prince Edward Island, the billboard was more expensive than the actual infrastructure project in Charlottetown. The Conservatives cut a lot of ribbons; they just did not cut any cheques, which was problematic for municipalities right across the country.

The most important investment, from my perspective, is in social infrastructure, which is primarily housing. The $2.3 billion delivered for new housing in this country over the last six to eight months has been transformational in so many communities. It is supporting the most vulnerable Canadians, but, again, it is also putting people back to work, building, repairing, and sustaining our public housing stock.

The biggest investments that have come to major cities are around transit. That is going to change the way that people move in our cities. It is going to allow goods and services to get to market faster, and allow people to get to work, to play, to school, and back home again, that much more effectively. It is going to change the way we generate greenhouse gases, by reducing them, by creating modal shifts as transit becomes more plentiful.

On green infrastructure and flood proofing our cities, a few hundred million dollars in Calgary five or six years ago would have prevented the $600 million in flood remediation. The investments we have to make around storms of the century are fundamental, and we need those agreements put in place and delivered to cities across this country as quickly as possible.

We have also stepped up for rural Canada, recognizing the needs and capacity limitations that smaller towns have in accessing government funds. We have increased the federal contribution. We have made it an easier process to get at money, and we are supporting the rural projects in the small communities that need special attention in order to become healthier and stronger places. As I said to our rural caucus chair in the Liberal Party, my job is to make their small towns bigger towns. This infrastructure money is aimed at doing exactly that.

Broadband access investment is required not just in the last mile but in the core needs of so many communities, to knit them into the modern economy, to ensure economic development opportunities and kids' ability, quite frankly, to connect to learning, to research, and to a wider world. All of these things are critical. This government has stepped up and put the dollars down, $2 billion in rural and $500 million in broadband, with more to come. Wait for next year's budget.

Universities were not in our platform and nobody criticized us for it, but universities are one of the most important economic drivers in many communities across this country. The investment in construction projects, science, and research have bolstered those institutions' capacities. Again, that is part of this budget, one more reason it should be supported.

The infrastructure spending is about building Canada, building strong communities and stronger families, and contributing to the GDP, the employment numbers, and the economic growth we need to succeed as a nation.

Finally, I want to talk about the infrastructure bank. The infrastructure bank is a revolutionary idea for this country in terms of what possibilities exist if it is done properly. I have heard the concerns raised about public-private partnerships or joint ventures, if it makes it more palatable for my friends on the left. I have understood the risks. Of course, there are risks. There is risk in any expenditure government makes. There are risks in 100% publicly financed projects right across this country. We can check local provinces' or cities' auditor general reports to see that even publicly funded projects with no private partners go off the rails sometimes. If we are going to avoid risk, we are going to avoid infrastructure, and that is too big a risk to avoid. We have to find new ways to do it.

All the hue and cry does not really tell the whole story. Only 8% of the $180 billion put down for the next decade is tied to this idea. Ninety-two per cent of the $180 billion is going to flow to traditional infrastructure programs, and not just traditional ones. There is a modification that is also critically important. For small communities, the federal input is 50%, leaving it to the province for 30:20 or 25:25 splits, which means that it is cheaper to access federal money for smaller communities. That is part of our infrastructure program.

On the infrastructure bank, smaller communities can bundle projects together and move together with expertise housed in Ottawa and financed in joint ventures with public and private partnerships. There is nothing bad or irregular about that. It happens all over the country.

We can also look at big Canadian projects that require financing. Instead of using municipal funds to fund big Canadian projects, like the Great Lakes seaway, which needs to be repaired as it was built with the same concrete as the Gardiner Expressway and is falling apart in the same timetable, we need major Canadian investments made and the infrastructure bank is just the vehicle to do that, to protect the traditional infrastructure money for municipalities, smaller communities, and large cities across the country.

We will also in-house the expertise. By in-housing the expertise, such as smaller communities that may have hockey rinks to build, which have a rate-supported funding system built in as everyone pays for ice time in this country, those sorts of projects are ideal for public-private partnerships, ideal for the kind of community development we want to do, great job creators right across this country. What will happen is that smaller communities that have those aspirations will not have to generate their own bureaucracy in order to manage joint ventures. They can lean into the infrastructure bank to both access the capital and structure the deals. This is part of what the infrastructure bank would accomplish on behalf of municipalities and communities right across the country.

I got criticized because I said opposition to this idea is stupid, but it does not mean that the people expressing that opposition are stupid. They just have not heard good ideas expressed about the benefits. Therefore, the criticism was not of the people, it was that the opposition idea, in and of itself, is good or bad. The reason this is such an important idea and the reason criticism is so short-sighted is that when I talked about flood protection, it is absolutely vital if we are going to preserve major metropolises and small towns. We cannot wait until the money accrues or wait to borrow, or wait to do that. We have to do it quickly. To not do it is irresponsible, to not do it is stupid.

Utilizing this methodology in order to put flood protection in place is smart. If we want to do it faster, and sometimes we have to do it faster to protect cities, sometimes the borrowing costs are different, but we can figure that out with an infrastructure bank in the way that smaller cities might not be able to on their own.

I will leave everyone with one last good idea. There is a guy called Mike Layton. Members might recognize the last name. There is another guy called Joe Cressy, someone I ran against. Both are New Democrats in Toronto and support public-private partnerships and toll roads in order to build infrastructure in Toronto. It is called the Don Valley Expressway and the Gardiner Expressway. The NDP is pushing this idea and I hope the party can follow the lead of some guy called Layton because—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think the parliamentary secretary may have failed to grasp the criticism, since he mentioned P3s only in a general sense, when we are talking specifically about the plan the government presented with regard to the infrastructure bank.

Let us look at a firm like Crédit Suisse, for example, which has built its reputation on privatizing airports. That is the kind of thing that worries us. It is also a foreign investment. All of these issues put taxpayers in a very precarious position.

We understand that some private investment is necessary to get certain projects done. The problem here is that the government's proposal is going to create a situation in which people who work for Chinese firms, for example, will be the ones to be invited to Liberal Party fundraising galas, and those firms will purchase that infrastructure. I want my colleague to understand this nuance and to answer my question.

If I take the Champlain Bridge in my home province, for instance, are the Liberals going to bring in a toll if it is sold to a private firm?

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

Madam Speaker, direct questions have been asked of the ministers responsible. There was no confirmation to the member's question a few days ago that we are selling off anything. Ideas have been circulated. We are thinking about things, but we are not thinking about doing them. We are just trying to understand what the propositions are as they come in from different sources. As for the source of foreign capital, I am not sure why the Chinese keep getting singled out in this conversation, but I find it a little disturbing.

I will tell the House about an idea that would benefit from this sort of project. Near the Toronto Island ferry docks on Bay Street, a street my friends opposite like to reference quite a bit, a ferry terminal that serves millions of Torontonians is currently being rebuilt. The funding for that is coming from a public-private partnership. It involves selling a parking lot to a pension fund from Quebec, building a new park, building new office towers, and building a new bus and GO terminal in the heart of downtown Toronto. Profits from that are being invested in the new ferry terminal. It is a joint venture, a public-private partnership. The name of that terminal is the Jack Layton ferry terminal. If members want to cancel P3s, then that ferry terminal should be cancelled first and that nomination put to rest.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, the reality of the situation is far more dire than the member opposite has portrayed.

He talked about job creation. As we heard from Statistics Canada the other day, the reality is that we have lost 31,000 jobs over the last year in spite of Liberal promises, with hands over hearts, that they were going to create jobs. The reality is that more part-time precarious employment has been created as a result of government policy.

What scares us the most is the fact that when the Liberals spoke about debt and deficits, these were going to be teeny-weeny deficits. The member for Louis-Saint-Laurent has been quite vocal about this. He has asked the finance minister at least 12 times in the House when we are going to get out of deficit. There has been no answer.

In the member's idyllic view of the way things Liberal are going to be, when are we going to get out of our deficit?

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

Madam Speaker, listening to Conservatives' lecture anyone about debt is a bit like listening to those southern ministers talk about sins of the skin and then getting found in a brothel the next day.

When do we pay off the Conservatives' $150 billion of debt? We have to pay that $150 billion from the Harper government first before we even start talking about whatever debt we may incur. If we add to that the debt that Mulroney dumped on us, it is magnificent. The only government that has left a surplus of any note in the last decade, let alone the last 25 years, is a Liberal government.

I can assure the member that is the direction this government is heading in. We are going to get there by investing in building a strong country. The Conservatives talk about balancing the books, but they did not do it. As soon as they get finished paying off their $150 billion in debt, I will give the member an answer on how we are going to play with our money.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I would just say to the member for Barrie—Innisfil that he had the attention of the House when he was asking his question, and I would anticipate that he would be as respectful to the parliamentary secretary while he is answering. I expect that from everyone in the House.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Louis-Hébert.

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

Madam Speaker, I think I will continue along the same lines as the hon. parliamentary secretary, since we have been criticized repeatedly in the House by the Conservative Party, which formed the previous government—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order. I just want to remind the parliamentary secretary and the other members on the other side that it is the member for Louis-Hébert who has the floor.

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

Madam Speaker, we are often criticized by the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent and other members of the Conservative Party for running deficits. We know that interest rates are at historic lows, that the IMF and the World Bank recommend that we invest and run deficits precisely when interest rates are low and when there are pressing needs in infrastructure, as we see from coast to coast to coast in Canada.

It is a bit surreal to hear the Conservatives criticize us for running deficits when, for eight consecutive years, they did not table a single budget that was in the black. The budget was in the red every year and they keep telling us without fail that they had to invest in that way because of the financial crisis in 2008.

First they invested because they were told to, it was an important thing to do to stimulate the economy. It was the right thing to do at the time. One of the main reasons we fared so well in 2008 after the financial crisis in Canada was precisely because the previous Liberal government, that of Paul Martin and Jean Chrétien, refused to regulate our financial industry, which is what the Conservatives wanted and Mr. Harper got all worked up about in the House.

If we had listened to the Conservatives at the time, we would have ended up much worse off than we did in Canada. We did not listen to them then, fortunately, and we are not listening to them now. Thank God, we are very careful about taking their economic advice. With the $150 billion in deficit they left us, we ended up with the worst job growth in 69 years and the worst economic growth since the Second World War. When it comes to taking lessons from my hon. colleagues across the way on managing public finances and the Canadian economy, thanks, but no thanks.

One of the most important things about the budget and budget implementation Bill C-29 is that they reduce inequality. When our Conservative colleagues talk about the deficit, they say that we need to think about future generations. Were they thinking about future generations when they increased the TFSA limit from $5,500 to $10,000? No. When asked that question, even the finance minister at the time, Joe Oliver, said the following:

“leave that to Prime Minister Stephen Harper's granddaughter to solve”. That is not our attitude. That is not our philosophy. We are dealing with the issues we are facing today, and doing so in a manner that is conscious of future generations.

When they raised the TFSA limit to $10,000, it is worth noting that the inventor of the TFSA, Mr. Kesselman, was against raising the limit so high. Even the Americans do not go that far. It would be the equivalent of putting this country in a fiscal straitjacket for generations to come, because of all the revenues it would be deprived of.

One of the good things about this budget is that it cancels that increase in the TFSA limit, which, according to the parliamentary budget officer, would benefit only the wealthiest 10%. We think that most Canadians need to benefit from wealth in this country. We think that a country where inequalities are consistently being reduced is a good thing. That is exactly why we changed those policies, including the increase in the TFSA limit. They were unfair and unjustifiable from both a moral and a tax perspective.

The increase in the TFSA limit was not the only problem. There were many other tax policies put forward by the previous government that also benefited only the wealthiest 10%. Take for example income splitting. In my riding, as in most others, this would have only benefited the wealthiest 5% or 10%, not all Canadians.

Rather than forging ahead with policies that increase inequality, which is what the former government was bent on doing, we introduced the Canada child benefit. To give an example, when I was a child, I was raised by my mother in a small Quebec City apartment with my brother. She was a single mother. We did the math this summer. That would have given us an extra $1,066 per month tax free. I can say that that would have made a big difference in our lives back then, just like this is making a big difference in the lives of thousands of Canadian families today. When I am not feeling as motivated to come here to do my job, I think about the Canada child benefit and I can say that I am very proud to defend this budget, on this side of the House, because it is lifting 300,000 children out of poverty.

I would have encouraged my colleagues, whom I salute by the way, to vote in favour of such a socially progressive and revolutionary policy for Canada, but no, they voted against it, just like they voted against the middle class tax cut that benefits 9 million Canadians across the country.

They also voted against increasing the guaranteed income supplement, which helps 900,000 seniors across the country by giving them almost $1,000 more per year. That is not peanuts. When I went door to door in my riding, especially in low-income housing areas, seniors told me that their income was not keeping pace with the rising cost of living. That is exactly what we are trying to address via the guaranteed income supplement, which had not seen a significant increase in years, certainly not under the previous government. That government was more interested in the well-off, the richest 10%. That is what it did for 10 years with policies such as increasing the TFSA limit and income splitting. I am very proud that we have overturned those changes.

With respect to infrastructure investment, the IMF and the World Bank concluded that austerity in times of slow growth is not good policy, so they asked all countries to invest in infrastructure to stimulate growth and innovation. That is exactly what our government is doing by investing $180 billion over the next 12 years. We believe that our unprecedented investment will address Canada's growing infrastructure deficit and stimulate the economy.

Whether it is in public transit or social housing, we have some catching up to do in terms of investing in infrastructure. There is no better time to do it than when interest rates are low and the economy has slowed down. It is in fact one of the tools that Prime Minister Paul Martin used when he was minister of Finance. Back then he decided to invest in infrastructure by creating deficits. When we see growth, it is much easier to balance the budget and return to surplus.

This is what the government is banking on. The idea is to stimulate growth so we can eventually reduce the size of the debt and balance the books. That is what we are hoping for and so is everyone else. It is a target we can reach when there is growth, and for that we need to invest in innovation, science and infrastructure. This is what our government is doing.

When I think of the investments we are making in science and innovation, I think about how, over the past 10 years, as the innovation train was picking up steam, Canada was stuck at the station eating dust. Université Laval is in my riding, and I meet with researchers and scientists practically every week who tell me that we are finally emerging from the little Conservative darkness. Some people would call it a great darkness. I certainly would, and so would a lot of scientists.

Who could forget that Prime Minister Harper appointed a prominent creationist? That was just the tip of the iceberg. His government then adopted policies to disengage our investment in science and innovation just as European countries and the United States were making massive investments. Canada stood by and did not invest in science.

With budget 2016, our government is trying to make up for lost time in science and innovation investment.

That concludes my speech. I am eager to take questions from my hon. colleagues across the aisle, and I know they are also very eager to ask them.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech. I was only able to hear the end, so I hope my question is relevant.

I have spoken with my colleague many times, and he is very professional. He is a lawyer with a large Montreal firm. However, I never thought he would be so partisan as to portray the Conservative era in such a negative light, when we gave the most substantial tax breaks in 50 years thank to 63 successive measures. We also created 1.2 million jobs after the recession.

As a lawyer, my colleague from Louis-Hébert should stick to the facts. Does he not find it odd that he and his government are talking about a tax cut for the middle class, when in reality, it applies only to people who earn over $140,000 a year? A Conservative senator, Larry Smith, did some excellent research that proves it. In other words, this tax cut does not at all apply to those who need it most.

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

Madam Speaker, it is quite something to have a Conservative member criticize me for being partisan. After campaigning in the same region during the election campaign, I can assure hon. members that I definitely have no lessons to learn about partisanship from the members across the way.

That being said, I can say that this tax cut will affect nine million Canadians. I thank the hon. member for giving me the opportunity to reiterate that. This tax cut will affect the $45,000 to $90,000 tax bracket. However, let us look at the budget as a whole. The Canada child benefit will lift 300,000 children out of poverty.

When my colleague rises to speak, I have the following questions for him. How many people benefited from the increased TFSA limit? How many people benefited from income splitting? I can count them on one hand. How many people can my colleague name?

The parliamentary budget officer did the math and answered that question. It was always the wealthiest 10% of Canadians, or those for whom the Conservatives were working. On this side of the House, we are working for all Canadians.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I would like to ask him a question about an issue concerning his riding. In the last Parliament, we asked questions about the Quebec Bridge and the Conservatives showed no interest. Now all of a sudden, they are interested. I imagine it is because they got some seats back. We know how this wishful thinking works when in government. When you have a riding, you help; when you do not, you ignore it. At least that was how things were during the past four years.

The issue is still unresolved, even though it attracted some attention in the Quebec City area during the last election campaign, as I understand it. With respect to the infrastructure bank, is the member at all concerned that privatization will be one of the proposed solutions along with the negative effects that this would have on the Quebec City area and its residents?

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for Beloeil—Chambly. This gives me the opportunity to highlight the positions of the various parties during the last election campaign.

We know that for 10 years the Conservatives hid behind the courts regarding the Quebec Bridge. When Stephen Harper came to Quebec City, he jokingly asked if the Quebec Bridge was still standing. I can say that it is very important for us to find a solution for the Quebec Bridge.

Meanwhile, the NDP had another position, which was to impose special legislation in an attempt to force CN to paint the bridge. However, for years CN has been winning in the courts, saying that it has no aesthetic obligation. This would mean once again going back to court.

On this side of the House, we are prepared to put $75 million on the table. We are in discussions with various stakeholders in the Quebec City area, including CN, the provincial government, the municipal government, the chamber of commerce, and Laval University. We did not see as much progress on this file over the past 10 years as we are seeing right now under a Liberal government, with only two Liberal MPs in the Quebec City area working as a team. We have five or seven Conservatives who are issuing fine press releases, holding press conferences, and getting all worked up about anything and everything every week, yet they never do anything constructive.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

It being 6:45 p.m. pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division is deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motion No. 3.

The next question is on the Motion No. 5. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on Motion No. 5 stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 6 to 23.

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions at the report stage of the bill.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #169

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare Motion No. 1 defeated.

The question is on Motion No. 2. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 3.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

The hon. chief government whip is rising on a point of order?

[Andrew Leslie, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you were to seek it you would find unanimous consent to apply the results of the previous vote to this one, with Liberal members voting against.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives agree to apply the vote, and will be voting yes.

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

Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party agrees to apply the vote and will be voting against the motion.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my party agrees to apply the vote. We will be voting against the motion.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply the vote, and I am voting against the motion.

[Hunter Tootoo, Independent, Nunavut, NU]

Mr. Speaker, I will be voting with the government on the motion.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #170

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare motions Nos. 2 and 3 defeated.

The question is on Motion No. 5.

A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 6 to 23.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #171

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare Motion No. 5 defeated.

I therefore declare Motion Nos. 6 to 23 defeated.