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.

[Hazel Corcoran, Executive Director, Canadian Worker Co-op Federation]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good morning.

My name is Hazel Corcoran, and I am executive director of the Canadian Worker Co‑op Federation.

On behalf of our 64 worker co‑ops across the country and the three Quebec federations that constitute our membership, I am pleased to be with you in this beautiful province, a province with a robust heritage and strong co‑operative culture.

There are over 250 worker co-operatives in various industries in Quebec alone, and a total of 440 worker co-operatives across Canada, ranging from the forestry sector and agriculture to food manufacturing, construction and the service sector. In fact, right here in Quebec City there are many worker co-ops, including, as one example, the Coopérative des techniciens ambulanciers du Québec, CTAQ, which provides paramedic services to Quebec City and Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and has over 500 worker members.

To provide more background on the worker co-op model, a worker co-op is an employee-owned enterprise that follows co-operative principles such as democratic member control and concern for community. Worker co-operatives have a proven track record and a superior survival rate compared to other enterprises.

Over 100 studies across many countries have indicated that employee ownership is linked to increases in firm performance and productivity, greater job stability with fewer layoffs, significant potential to alleviate income inequality and improved quality of the workplace due to workers having greater control, more aligned incentives and increased skills development. In some ways, worker co-ops are similar to other forms of employee ownership; they are just the most democratic form of it. Worker co-operatives are well suited as a strategy for business succession, which is a huge concern as the baby boomer generation retires. Encouraging employee buyouts can help prevent the closure of locally based businesses, including many in rural communities. That is why we are so pleased to see the Government of Canada's interest in introducing employee ownership trusts in Canada and providing modest tax relief to such models in budget 2023.

However, while the government ponders its approaches to EOTs, we also request that the worker co-operative model be provided a level playing field to employee ownership trusts. We kindly ask that the government provide tax changes to worker co-ops that are comparable to those provided to employee ownership trusts.

More specifically, we recommend that the government add worker co-ops to qualifying conditions and definitions in the legislation, since worker co-ops are quite distinct from EOTs. Including language specific to them means they would be able to access these benefits and any future benefits.

Provide business owners who sell to worker co-operatives the same proposed extension, from five to 10 years, for capital gains reserves as those who sell to EOTs. In addition, as those who invest in worker co-ops themselves do not benefit from capital gains tax exemptions, we ask that you consider another tax change that could benefit worker co-ops specifically: Create a federal co-operative investment plan. A program to encourage investment in the sector through a tax deduction on the investment would support and grow the worker co-op sector.

Last, we are advocating that the government ensure entrepreneurs and businesses are not penalized when claiming the small business deduction simply because they are members of a co-operative operating in sectors other than agriculture and fisheries.

In 2016, with the passage of Bill C-29, the federal government brought in measures aimed at preventing multiplication of benefits derived from the SBD. An unintended consequence was that the provisions penalized Canadian-controlled private corporations that are members of co-operatives or whose shareholders are members of co-operatives, because they are now unfairly deemed to be a related party. Although co-ops were not specifically targeted by the measures, they and their members were affected negatively.

To sum up, although the work co‑op model has received little support from governments, it has made it possible to create thousands of high-value jobs in Quebec and the rest of Canada, while supporting workers in often vulnerable sectors.

Although we are pleased to see the Canadian government's interest in worker-shareholder trusts, the Canadian Worker Co‑operative Federation and its members seek equal consideration when it comes to applying tax changes and other incentives to those trusts.

I will be happy to answer your questions.

I want to thank the committee for this opportunity to take part in its pre-budget consultations.

Old Age Security Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, hon. colleagues.

I would like to specify right off the bat that my intervention will contain a question for the officials. Another question was for the government representative, but I believe she'll be leaving. If no parliamentary secretary is here, a Liberal elected official could perhaps answer them.

First of all, I'd like to provide a little context to members from outside Quebec. Thanks to visionaries like the late Lise Payette, who was a minister when René Lévesque was premier, Quebec has the best consumer protection framework in North America. The legislation is more specific than elsewhere. Because of our civil law tradition, we are used to prescribing and codifying everything. Above all, remedies are simple and free of charge for consumers. When important cases have to be dealt with by the courts, the Office de la protection du consommateur takes care of them on behalf of the aggrieved consumers.

The banks have never liked this Quebec difference. They argued for federal exclusivity to assert that they were above our laws. They argued for federal paramountcy in order to sweep away Quebec law. However, after losing their case before the Supreme Court in 2014, they came here to complain. This resulted in the Bill C-29, two years ago. The government affirmed the federal paramountcy of consumer protection for banks, but did not impose any real obligations on them. There was a huge outcry in Quebec. The government has backed down, which brings us today to Bill C-86, which is much more comprehensive than the bill introduced two years ago.

In contrast to Bill C-29 two years ago, Bill C-86 does not affirm federal paramountcy. The government's intention is clearly not to ignore the Civil Code of Quebec. Later, I would like to ask a question, both to the officials and to the parliamentary secretary, about the intent of the legislation and what is written in it. The intention is not to ignore the Civil Code of Quebec, the Consumer Protection Act, which follows from it, or the Office de la protection du consommateur, which applies the law and defends ordinary people.

Bill C-86 is indeed better designed than Bill C-29. While it imposes real obligations on banks, it has a major gap in terms of remedies. The only free recourse, the bank ombudsman, is neither really neutral nor decision-making. If the bank does not follow the recommendations of its ombudsman, what other recourse do consumers have? They may apply to the Federal Court, alone and at their own expense. If the case goes to the Supreme Court, it can cost up to $1 million. No one will go this far, alone in front of the bank's army of lawyers, to contest $50 in hidden fees. Expensive remedies like these are very ill-suited to an area such as consumer protection, where they are often small sums.

If the legislation specifies that Quebec law continues to apply, as the amendment suggests, consumers won't lose anything. If necessary, they may continue to file complaints with the agency if the bank does not comply with our legislation. The office may take the case at its own expense if it has to be brought before the courts.

In this regard, Bill C-86 creates uncertainty. As we know, the banks will continue to argue that they are above Quebec's laws. That's what they've always done. Since the new Bank Act will now contain a whole section on consumer protection, the Supreme Court may well agree with them. Quebeckers would then lose the free remedy they enjoy today and would have to rely on the very costly remedy provided by Bill C-86. It's a step back. I am sure that is not the government's intention. I would therefore like to ask the government's representative what the government's intention is in this bill.

The likely effect of Bill C-86 as drafted is problematic. Officials timidly confirmed a point at the technical briefing three weeks ago. I would like to ask them if Bill C-86 will set aside the Consumer Protection Act, as it relates to banks, or if it will create a vagueness that will lead to a lawsuit that would be settled before the Supreme Court?

That's why we're submitting our amendment. It states that the creation of these new federal obligations does not set aside provincial laws or prohibit enforcement actions, but rather assures us that Quebeckers will not lose out. I would really like to know if, in the case of federal banks, Bill C-86 sets aside the Consumer Protection Act.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Second Reading

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Motions in amendment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Intergovernmental Relations

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chair, I'd like to clarify a few things.

According to the legislation, when an infrastructure project is considered to be under federal jurisdiction, provincial legislation, like Quebec's, and municipal bylaws apply, so long as they do not conflict with federal legislation. Major fiascoes can arise, however, as we have seen in Quebec, where city plans and agricultural zoning rules gave way to the creation of airports. We also witnessed that with Canada Post, which did not consult anyone on the installation of community mailboxes. Mayor of Montreal and former Liberal MP Denis Coderre even took a jackhammer to the slab foundation of a community mailbox in protest of the legislation. We should expect the same problems in this case.

As Mr. Campbell confirmed, if the energy east pipeline were to go through the Canada Infrastructure Bank, it is very likely that, under its Environment Quality Act, Quebec would have a say over minor details, but not over the route of the pipeline. Constitutional expert Patrick Taillon confirmed our fears: the bank would be the agent of the government and even wholly private projects going through the bank would be considered government projects.

I therefore beg to differ with Mr. Campbell. His remarks contradict those of Mr. Taillon, a constitutional expert and professor at Université Laval. Mr. Campbell's comments also indirectly conflict with what a public servant told a Radio-Canada journalist yesterday, if we are to believe the article that came out. The public servant confirmed that any investment made through the Canada Infrastructure Bank would be wholly covered by the bank.

I appreciate that Mr. Campbell has to follow government orders. The same thing happened with Bill C-29, in the fall, when we discussed the financial sector's desire to be exempt from Quebec's Consumer Protection Act.

With all due respect, we were ultimately right, Mr. Campbell.

The Budget

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

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

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

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

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

We are very concerned by time allocation. Indeed, this is not something to be taken lightly. When you muzzle parliamentarians, it is because you want to prevent them from expressing themselves. However, we have been elected to Parliament precisely in order to be able to express our viewpoints. And so we have some serious doubts about the use of the guillotine, and we are anxious to see what form this will take. It is a dangerous instrument that has to be used with caution. Democracy consists in giving everyone a voice. Preventing people from expressing their opinions on issues alters democracy directly.

We also note that the document expresses the government's concern regarding the fact that the way motions are dealt with sometimes results in changes to the orders of the day it establishes itself, or which other parties establish occasionally. In my opinion, it is important that we maintain the possibility of introducing such motions. If urgent situations arise in current events, it is important that Parliament be able to deal with them. This can be a terrorist attempt or a major food crisis, for instance. There are all kinds of emergency situations Parliament has to be able to discuss.

These situations are not always to the government's liking, but Parliament must nevertheless be able to engage with these issues. The opposition has to be able to put the government on the spot occasionally. This is part of the roles of Parliament and of the opposition parties. It does not mean that the opposition is not doing good work. I think, on the contrary, that the fact that the government is sometimes put on the spot indicates that the opposition is playing its role properly. Indeed, the government must be transparent at all times and the opposition has to help it respect that obligation.

The document also refers to the possibility of the Prime Minister only being present one day a week in the House, and we consider this problematic. There is a seat reserved for him in the House. We understand that due to circumstances he sometimes cannot be there, but question period only lasts about an hour. There are 24 hours in a day and 5 business days in a week. Therefore I think that it is not unreasonable to expect the Prime Minister to be present in the House five hours a week. It is very little, considering the number of hours in a week. I think the Prime Minister must be accountable and that it is a matter of transparency that he also be present in the House. In my opinion, the ministers should also be there as often as possible. Quite often the ministers are not present in the House. Questions are not always addressed to the Prime Minister, they are often addressed to the ministers as well.

I would now like to speak about private members' bills. The parties introduce motions, but they also introduce bills. Members who are considered independent may also present bills. All of the members follow the same processes. However, very little time is allocated to debate private members' bills. We think there should be more time for this and that this is important. Parties and the government have a lot of weight, but private members' bills must also be heard. They sometimes raise important issues and can make significant breakthroughs possible.

Bills are not always partisan in nature. Of course all of the members have their own ideas and these are generally in keeping with those of their party. It is normal that this tendency is reflected in private members' bills. That does not mean that these bills are not interesting and do not deserve to be debated. We need to increase the amount of time set aside to debate them. It is all the more important because members cannot introduce very many.

For my part, for instance, I will probably not be able to introduce a single one in the course of my entire mandate, since the number I drew in the lottery is higher than 200. I will not have that possibility, even though this is my first mandate. It may be the only one in fact, even though that is not my wish. But the fact remains that if this is my only mandate, I will have been a member for four years without having been able to have a single bill debated in the House of Commons. I think that is not normal, and that it should not be possible. That is nevertheless the system we must work with at this time.

The fact that votes often take place during the day is another thing that concerns us greatly. Members have a lot of work to do and they must often work in their offices in Ottawa during the day.

Moreover, the votes happen sporadically. After question period, we return to our offices only to find out, often enough, that a vote is being held and that we have to return to the House. Sometimes a whole day can go by when we are unable to work on our files.

Of course, for the parties that have a lot of members, that isn't as serious because they have a lot of people to call on, a real army. And many public servants also work for them.

However, in the case of the smaller parties, the members have more work to do. When there are five, six, eight or ten votes in the same day at various times, we spend the whole day going back and forth between our offices and the House. And so this prevents us from working on our riding files and our parliamentary dossiers. Since we have fewer resources, we are more penalized than all of the others. It would be important to think about those members when things are being organized. I don't know exactly how they could be organized, but I think it is important that we plan the day better for the members, because everyone has work to do.

Sometimes we meet with citizens, groups, or the representatives of Quebec organizations who come from our ridings. It can be an association of chicken producers, egg producers, or pork producers. All sorts of associations can come to meet with us. We make appointments with these association representatives, and they expect to see us. When there are votes at all times of the day, it is not easy to have productive meetings with them. We need to be able to plan our time more easily; that would be an improvement. It remains to be seen how that can become concrete reality, and we are anxious to see it.

It's the same thing for those who answer questions. I mentioned earlier that the Prime Minister should be present more often in the House in order to answer questions. We think that the obligation to answer questions should not apply only to the Prime Minister. I think that the ministers also have a duty to be present in the House to answer questions. Quite often the answer is given by a parliamentary secretary. A lot of parliamentary secretaries are certainly devoted and interested in the files they are given, but like it or not they are not the ones who make the final decisions. In the final analysis, the minister makes the decisions; he is responsible. The minister must be able to answer members' questions when they are addressed to him. I think that is fundamental.

I don't know if there is a mechanism that could force the person to whom the question is addressed to answer it. Often, people who are not familiar with the dossier at all answer the questions simply by reading a memo, which does not move the debate forward. Such answers do not help anyone to gain a better understanding of the issue. And so we are forced to ask the same question five, six, eight, ten or twenty times and every time it is difficult to obtain an answer. If it is difficult to obtain an answer from the minister or the Prime Minister, imagine what it is like when another member or a parliamentary secretary answers us. We always hope that he is providing a good answer, which sometimes happens, but I think it is important that the minister be present.

It would also be important that these regulations state that the ministers must also spend a minimum amount of time in the House. These rules should not apply only to the Prime Minister.

This week we also discussed omnibus bills. This topic came up again. As we know, these bills were a specialty of the previous government, but we are finding that the current government has also developed quite a fondness for this type of bill.

You will remember Bill C-29. In it we found a measure that affected consumer protection legislation. This would have meant that the banks would no longer have been subject to that provision. We think that is unacceptable. There should be a restriction on omnibus bills so that when a different issue or department is involved, a different bill must be introduced. It is not normal that bills touch on 200, 300 or 500 different topics.

As I mentioned earlier, a smaller parliamentary group has fewer resources and it is more difficult for it to review an entire bill. Imagine the situation when a bill has 200, 300, 400 or 600 pages; in the case I am referring to, with fewer resources, it is much more difficult not only to have a complete and informed position, but also to find the points in the bill that are of interest to the people in our ridings. In light of that, I think it is essential that a limit be placed on the size of bills.

I don't know how that could be done because certain bills are complex. At least there should be a way of understanding the content of bills. Little poison pills should not be scattered throughout a bill either because that is the problem. Little poison pills scattered throughout the bill do not improve the government's image because, when these poison pills are discovered and discussed in public, the public is not happy and the government is in the hot seat. So the government should really never do that kind of thing.

As to the debates in the House, it is difficult at this time, as I noted, to speak to bills. In some cases, we cannot speak at all. There is a procedure to break up members' speaking time, that is, to break up the 20 minutes into two blocks of 10 minutes—which is interesting—but it should also be possible to break up those 10 minutes into blocks of 4 or 5 minutes, to give members from the smaller parties the opportunity to speak. Once again, it is important for various people to speak.

There is another issue regarding members rising to speak: it is also important to be able to ask questions to someone taking part in a debate. I submit this issue to you very humbly. I think we have to think about it. I am looking for ways to give all members as much speaking time as possible. A member might repeat themselves in 20 minutes, but perhaps the member would be more concise in 10 minutes. If more people are given the opportunity to speak, the discussion becomes more constructive. So that is something that could be considered.

Another aspect, which is an irritant right now, pertains to question period. During question period, right now our questions are systematically relegated to last place. We understand that the parties with more members are allowed to speak first. I think that is part of protocol and the way things work. At the same time, however, we believe that systematically having the last question of the day makes it difficult to capture the public's attention because, as question period wears on, people grow tired and are less attentive. If you and I become increasingly less attentive as question period progresses, the same is true of people watching the parliamentary network. This is even more so the case with journalists. In the interest of democracy and the diversity of points of view, members from the smallest parties should also be able to ask questions before the very end of question period.

Those parties' questions could be scheduled at another time, perhaps after the first blocks, because there is a block for the first opposition group and another block for the second opposition group. Blocks could also be set aside for the other opposition groups. That would provide a more balanced approach, especially as to the number of questions. The status quo seems completely unfair to me. The small opposition parties must also be entitled to ask more questions and to receive more resources. It is not normal for certain parties to receive millions of dollars for research, while we get no research budget at all.

I think there is a party in the House right now that has about thirty members. We have about ten, one third the number of that party. Yet we are very far from being able to ask a third the number of questions that party can ask in the House and very far from a third of its budget. So I think some major changes are in order in this regard. In my opinion, it is essential for us to be able to express our views as much as the other parties.

Message from the Senate

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tax Convention and Arrangement Implementation Act, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merry Christmas, everyone, especially the banks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Saint-Maurice—Champlain for a great question.

The members of the Bloc Québécois are dedicated. We are in Parliament to represent our constituents and the people of Quebec. That is what we are doing.

Bill C-29 contains some good measures, such as the child care benefit. There are good measures.

The tax cut for the so-called middle class, however, will benefit mainly the well-off middle class, which I belong to. I will be among the 10% of people in Joliette benefiting from this tax cut. I am thinking of the remaining 90%, whom this bill will not help enough.

Even though we are very happy with the amendments proposed today, Bill C-29 does too little for the real middle class.

I would also like to remind the government that, when it portrays itself as Canada's Robin Hood, that is just a mask. Beneath the mask is the Sheriff of Nottingham. We are here to strip away that disguise.

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

You cannot imagine how pleased I am to speak to my own amendments to Bill C-29, Madam Speaker. In fact, the motion moved by the government repeats word-for-word the amendments that the Bloc Québécois presented to the finance committee. It is exactly the same as the amendments that we presented at report stage.

I am proud. I am proud of our work and of our people, who came together and mobilized. The experts, consumer advocates, the National Assembly, reporters, everyone stepped up. Today, we see that it is worth it to not give up. It is not always easy to swim against the current. However, in the end, standing firm pays off.

Speaking about standing firm, I would like to add that some members must not feel very proud today. I am referring to the 40 Liberal Quebec members who voted for Bill C-29 at second reading, who voted against our amendments not once but twice, in committee and in the House. They were the ones who always said that our criticisms were unfounded, that Bill C-29 was excellent, and that our amendments were ridiculous. No, those 40 MPs must not be proud.

Members have probably seen old RCA records, with the dog sitting next to a gramophone. That dog's name was Victor, and he was sitting there because he was listening to his master's voice. That is similar to what we have seen throughout the saga of Bill C-29: members from Quebec listening to their master's voice. Well, it looks like their master has abandoned them and even decided to support amendments made by the Bloc Québécois. Way to go Victor!

I will concede that this is not the first time Liberal members from Quebec are being pushed aside in favour of their Toronto master. Here is a quote from someone in my riding of Joliette. I challenge members to guess who it is. That little guy from Saint-Alphonse-Rodriguez said:

Much more fundamental questions are raised by these events: Who should the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada listen to on decisions that strictly affect Quebec? Should he follow [Quebeckers] or his Toronto advisers who know nothing about the social and political realities of Quebec?

That little guy from Saint-Alphonse-Rodriguez knew what he was talking about, and for good reason: he is former Quebec lieutenant for the Liberal Party and current mayor of Montreal Denis Coderre. Way to go Denis!

I may be proud, but I am not trying to gloat. In Canada, the battle is never truly won for Quebec. The Minister of Finance has already announced that there will be another episode of this bad TV series next year. He wants to come back with a bill that is not quite as flawed. He said that he wants to enhance the federal consumer protection framework and that, once he has done his homework, he is going to come back and try once again to put banks above Quebec's laws, which the banks hate. I wish him luck because it will not be easy.

In order to propose a bill that provides the same kind of protection that Quebeckers now enjoy, the government would have to draft nothing less than a federal version of the Civil Code. Here is another problem: either the future bill will not protect anyone because contract law does not fall under federal jurisdiction or it will be unconstitutional because contract law does not fall under federal jurisdiction. In short, the bill will either be ineffective or unconstitutional. That is quite the dilemma, and I say to him, “Good luck, Charlie Brown”.

The new year promises to be a busy one, and we are going to remain vigilant. For now, I will smile and thank everyone who took action against the rich bankers and their co-conspirators and sided with ordinary Canadians. I thank them and congratulate them.

I would like to wish everyone here a happy holiday season.

Madam Speaker, I greatly appreciate your best wishes for the holidays and the new year. I would also like to wish all members of the House, all employees, and their families and loved ones a merry Christmas and all the best in 2017. Madam Speaker, I would also like to wish you a merry Christmas.

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

Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate the speech by my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata. I left out “Les Basques” from my colleague's constituency name, but since it is Christmas, he will understand that although I forgot part of his riding, it is still just as important in his eyes.

I was listening to my colleague talk about how surprised we were to see that the members from Quebec did not notice that this clause on consumer protection in Quebec made its way into this substantial bill, Bill C-29.

I would like to understand how consumer protection in Canada would be improved by eliminating the consumer protection that already existed in one of the provinces. I am having a hard time following the government's logic on that. I would like to know if the hon. member came to the same conclusion that I did: no one in Quebec noticed the mistake that slipped into Bill C-29. Thank goodness for the opposition.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in the House for the last time in 2016, and I wish every member of the House, especially my colleagues who sit on the finance committee, happy holidays, merry Christmas and all the best for 2017. I hope everyone will use the next few weeks to get some rest.

My final thoughts will not be in praise of the government. Today the government indulged in some interesting revisionism regarding what happened over the last weeks. Clearly, the parliamentary secretary should go back to Hansard so see what answers he gave in the House and what was discussed in the finance committee. He would realize that no one on the government side, no one among the 40 Liberal MPs from Quebec, not a single Liberal member of the House uttered a single word on consumer protection jurisdiction. Until very recently, before the minister did an about-face, the answers we got—the last one just two days ago—were still about defending the government's decision to go ahead with division 5, the amendments to the Bank Act.

The government decided to delete the provisions, thanks to the efforts of all opposition parties. Like my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent, I, too, would commend the members of the Bloc Québécois, the Conservative Party and the NDP on all their work. I also commend the Senate, particularly independent senator André Pratte, who kept pressing the issue. Consumer associations that were invited to appear before the committee to share their concerns about consumer protection and federal interference also helped to make sure that the government backed down on this issue.

Why is it so important? If I am concerned, it is because the government does not seem to understand that the main issue is not the level of protection enjoyed by Canadian bank customers. The main issue is that consumer protection is a provincial jurisdiction. Given what we have just heard, the minister is clearly trying to find another way of imposing a consumer protection framework even if that is outside federal jurisdiction.

I am worried by the government’s interpretation of the famous Marcotte ruling. This was a class action against the Bank of Montreal. Mr. Marcotte went to court to challenge certain fees which he felt were far too high, in addition to being hidden. He went to court to complain about these fees. In the end, the Bank of Montreal and all the banks were saying that they did not need to comply with the Consumer Protection Act, because they operate under federal jurisdiction. The case went to the Supreme Court.

Contrary to what the government has persisted in saying, the Supreme Court did not ask the government for jurisdictional clarification. The Supreme Court established that the Bank Act was applicable, the Consumer Protection Act was applicable, and the two could coexist very well, since they were complementary. The Bank Act covers the operation of the various banking programs, and the Consumer Protection Act, self-evidently, covers consumer protection.

What the Marcotte ruling said was that the Consumer Protection Act was applicable. The Supreme Court never asked the government to look into the issue and assume control of the consumer protection issue, for Quebec or for the provinces generally.

Why is this a problem? Why was it a problem with regard to the jurisdiction from which we will shortly be withdrawing? The legislation created a conflict between the federal statute and the provincial statute. There is a principle called the principle of federal paramountcy, which holds that if two laws, one federal and one provincial, touch upon the same issue, the federal law will have primacy.

With regard to the Marcotte ruling, the Supreme Court said that there was no conflict, in spite of what the banks tried to make it say.

In trying to recover these powers, in trying to impose this, they created a conflict between the federal side and the Consumer Protection Act. Having created that conflict, they found themselves invoking federal paramountcy.

I would argue this is where the government’s argument failed. It is the same kind of argument the consumer protection agencies, in particular, were making, saying that the government was trying to interfere and create a problem where there was none. Obviously, the Chambre des notaires and the Barreau du Québec were saying the same thing.

That is why we are happy to see these clauses being withdrawn, indeed, to see the entire opposition in this House working in the same direction to encourage the Senate to take a look at this. Quebec, starting with the opposition in Quebec City and then the government, saw that there was a major problem, and asked the federal government to make some changes and remove these clauses. The various civil society groups did the same thing. Finally the government has listened to reason. We hope that it will learn a valuable lesson from what has happened when the time comes to make decisions which could effectively encroach upon provincial jurisdictions.

In that sense, I invite the Liberals to do some soul-searching over the holidays. We will have a few weeks to replenish ourselves. This is the perfect time to do it. I am truly very happy to have been able to play a small part in this decision. Once again, all of the opposition parties have been involved in this.

I will close by adding a few more words on Bill C-29, and perhaps replying to what has been said on the government side. They talk often of the 9 million Canadians who are going to benefit from the tax cuts. But they are always silent about the fact that 23 million Canadians, most of them earning less than $45,000, will benefit in no way from these cuts. I would prefer that they show a little more honesty. Certainly, there will be a tax reduction. They will increase taxes on the 1% richest people, but that money will not be given to the middle class as a whole. It will be given in large part to the 9% of people who are the richest. My colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent mentioned this: the people earning under $45,000 will receive nothing from the tax cut. Those earning between $45,000 and $90,000 will benefit a little from the tax reduction, but mostly it will be those earning over $90,000 and up to close to $200,000 who will benefit from it. Even those earning $210,000 per year will still enjoy a tax cut. But the people earning $45,000 will get nothing at all. That is one of the problems with the Liberal program. We tried to correct the situation by making it possible for people to get a tax reduction starting at $11,000, but the government would have nothing of it.

The second thing, also mentioned by my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent, is the fact that when the Canada child benefit program was set up, they forgot to index it. That is a major problem because the lack of indexing would have meant that the program would have been less advantageous for most families starting in 2022-2023. For this we can thank the parliamentary budget officer, who conducted a rigorous study on the subject. As if by chance, the afternoon after the report was published, the government finally said that it wanted to index the program and would do so starting in 2020-2021, that is, after the next federal election.

Can we really believe that this was part of the government’s plans? It never mentioned indexing when the program was announced, when it was set up. In the end, it took the publication of a report for them to realize that not indexing would mean that the government’s initiative was going to be less beneficial within six years. Even taking into account the amendments to Bill C-29, we are going to find ourselves in a situation where loss of purchasing power is going to come dangerously close to the level that families would have had with the old program.

So instead of congratulating ourselves on different initiatives—initiatives whose value or lack thereof we can debate, initiatives that are going to affect different groups of Canadians to different degrees—for 2017 I would like to wish the House debates that are more rigorous in terms of economic analysis. I am an economist by training, and I like rigour. There is always room for partisan viewpoints. That is normal: we function on the adversarial principle. It’s normal that we should have differing positions, but all the same, we ought to be more rigorous and disciplined in the exercise of our duties.

That is what I wish us all for 2017.

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

Mr. Speaker, I salute my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent's parents. I hope they are listening.

The only virus people were afflicted with was the Conservative virus. They found the antidote on October 19 when they elected a Liberal government. Canadians have spoken loud and clear.

People are watching us on television right now, and I know some of them in the riding of Louis-Saint-Laurent.

What does Bill C-29 mean? It means lower taxes for nine million Canadians, some of which live in my colleague's riding and are watching us right now. They will see if the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent is going to vote for or against this tax cut that will affect them. Some of these people live in Louis-Saint-Laurent, and also in Lévis—Lotbinière, a riding I know very well because my mother lives there.

Nine out of ten families from coast to coast will benefit from the Canada child benefit, including some who call the riding of Louis-Saint-Laurent home. Will the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent say yes or no to these families receiving a much needed cheque?

We enhanced seniors' pensions. Seniors in Louis-Saint-Laurent will be watching him . Will the member vote for or against seniors in his riding? I know him. He will do the right thing.

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

Madam Speaker, on behalf of all of my colleagues, thank you for your good wishes. We also extend our best wishes to everyone who helps keep the House of Commons running smoothly.

As everyone knows, it gives me great pleasure to rise and speak in the House. Today especially, I am pleased to vote and speak in favour of the amendment presented by the Senate regarding Bill C-29. I do not like anything about this bill, but the proposed amendment is a fine moment for the House of Commons.

The politicking has been really obvious these past few days. Everyone is tugging on the blanket, saying that they are the ones who got things done. The reality is that all Canadians are the winners. Well done.

First, I want to commend the work of my colleague from Joliette, who on November 17, 2016, if I am not mistaken, was the first to raise the issue and bring the debate to parliamentary committee and to the House of Commons. I also want to commend my NDP colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques who is doing a great job, as well as the Chair for its co-operation.

I would also like to commend the government for finally listening to reason and making the right decision, after admittedly creating some unfortunate uncertainty. It is never easy in politics to backtrack, to take a step back and admit that the first step was not the right one and that we have to take another. The government did that, and that is good.

I also commend our Senate colleagues, Senator Carignan, leader of the official opposition, and Senator Pratte, a new independent senator, who also alerted the government to the problems related to consumer protection in Bill C-29.

In short, Bill C-29 contained what we would call a constitutional virus. There were several clauses, division 5 in its entirety, that directly affected consumer protection. From our perspective, that is a provincial jurisdiction.

There was input galore from the opposition parties here in the House, in the Senate, and also from the National Assembly, which, in a unanimous motion appealed to the government on this, on behalf of Quebec's justice minister and the member for the Outaouais region, and on behalf of the Premier of Quebec, who even warned the government that if by some misfortune this bill were passed, it was highly likely that the Government of Quebec would challenge it in court. Finally, each individual's efforts and sacrifice for the good of the many and this government's understanding, albeit a bit delayed, are why we are gathered here today.

Let me explain some of the history of this bill. We have to go back to 2012. At that time, the federal government tabled in the House of Commons a bill that covered and addressed a lot of issues about the banking system.

As members know, the banking system belongs to the federal government, but in 2012, this bill addressed some of the issues concerning consumer protection. Then, also in 2012, we were aware of that in the National Assembly. I am using the word “we” because I was there at the time. I was a member of the National Assembly. That may remind many colleagues of some bad memories.

However, I was one of those who voted for a unanimous resolution in the National Assembly, calling on the House of Commons, saying that consumer protection was a provincial jurisdiction, not a federal one.

In 2014, the Supreme Court, in the Marcotte decision, clearly identified that consumer protection was a provincial jurisdiction, not a federal one.

At the time, our government, having acknowledged the 2014 Supreme Court ruling, was preparing to make changes to prevent what has been happening over the past few weeks, and that is a law that allows the federal government to once again infringe on the provinces' jurisdiction.

Bill C-29 is the bill that will implement the Liberal's bad budget, which I will come back to later. Sadly, this bill contained what we call a constitutional virus, one that would have sent us straight for a brick wall. The only thing this bill would have accomplished is to give hundreds of thousands of dollars to lawyers who already knew it was a lost cause.

In 2014, the Supreme Court ruled that consumer protection was an area of provincial jurisdiction, not federal. The federal government was trying to take it over with Bill C-29. We were headed for constitutional disaster. That was not a good thing because it would have cost money and taken time to get back to where we started.

As I was saying earlier, everyone's hard work and sacrifices on behalf of Canadians have made the government see reason. Bill C-29 contained a constitutional virus, but that is going to be remedied today, which is wonderful.

However, this is still a bad bill because it implements bad measures from the Liberal's bad budget. I would like to talk more about that.

I want to remind members that this budget provides for a $30-billion deficit, which is three times the amount promised by the Liberals. During the election, the Liberal Party promised that it would run small $10-billion deficits and that it would balance the budget at the end of three years. However, the reality is quite different. We are talking about a $30-billion deficit. When will the budget be balanced? It will only be balanced when the Conservatives return to power in three years.

Is this not the government that was boasting about taking a balanced approach, promising to change the tax code, promising that Canadians would be more fairly treated? Is the government aware that 65% of Canadians are not affected by the so-called tax cuts and that anyone earning $45,000 or less per year is not affected by the Liberal measures? Is the government aware that the people who will benefit the most from these supposed tax cuts are those earning between $144,000 and $199,000 per year? Are those people part of the middle class? No.

I confess that I am in conflict of interest on this. As a member, I am among Bill C-29's privileged few, which means that I will be paying less income tax. I do not feel that this is a good thing. The people who earn $44,000 are members of the middle class. Yet the government is granting them no tax cuts.

The government sees itself as a sort of noble Robin Hood figure, taking aim at the poor souls who have the misfortune of earning $200,000 a year. A word of caution, sometimes bowstrings can snap, as seems to have happened in this case. Those who are in greatest need are not affected by the proposed measures.

Time is passing, the last thing I want is to get carried away. That never happens to me. The holiday season is upon us, so let us play nice. The holidays are coming and we all realize that we are in politics for the benefit of future generations. As inheritors of our parents' legacy, we now work for our children's future.

I have been elected four times, and have served four terms as a member, whether of the National Assembly or the House of Commons. Tradition has it that I should appear at the ballot box accompanied by my parents and my children; that is part of my political commitment. I am there thanks to my parents and for my children.

In closing, then, allow me to salute those without whom I would not be here, namely my parents, who tomorrow, December 15, will be celebrating their 65th wedding anniversary.

We all get carried away sometimes. That said, it will now be my pleasure to take my colleagues’ questions.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to talk more about that.

The member for Louis-Saint-Laurent asked a straightforward question. For two or three weeks, the government did not listen to the arguments of the opposition, the Senate, the Chambre des notaires du Québec, or consumer protection groups who were saying that Bill C-29 decreased consumer protection and infringed on Quebec's jurisdiction.

What the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent was saying in his question is that the minister seems to be suggesting that he is going to come back with new consumer protection legislation, even though this is an area of provincial jurisdiction.

We did not want to know whether the government was going to introduce new consumer protection legislation or not. What we wanted to know was whether the government was going to get the consent of the provinces, including Quebec, before doing so, so as not to infringe on provincial jurisdiction.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my voice to all of the others and wish you a Merry Christmas and to thank you for enlightening us every day that we spend with you. I would also like to thank my amazing colleagues on this momentous day.

I think that the people who watch this debate will understand why this is so important on the last sitting day of the House before Christmas. We are doing something special for Canadians, and something they will remember.

My speech this afternoon might interest all parliamentarians because it is a speech in favour of the middle class, Canadian families, and people in every one of Canada's ridings who sent us here to Ottawa.

I am very pleased to be here to talk about Bill C-29, budget implementation act, 2016, No. 2. Before going over the many major benefits of this bill for Canadians across the country, I would just like to reiterate the government's commitment to strengthening the current protection system for consumers of financial products and services. We have talked about this at length and in this speech I want to clarify the government's position.

Part of our commitment is to ensure that there is a solid, effective, and consistent system in Canada that guarantees the highest protection standards for all consumers of financial services in the country, regardless of where they live in Canada and regardless of the bank they do business with.

As a member from Quebec, I would like to commend the extraordinary work of the 40 Liberal members of the government, who do a great job of championing Quebeckers and their position on this important issue. I thank them for that. They have done the work their constituents sent them here to Ottawa to do. They greatly contributed to ensuring that we consider every point of view that was expressed in this important file. I sincerely thank my colleagues.

As everyone knows, we have listened to our colleagues from Quebec and to Quebeckers, who told us how important it is for them to have a high level of protection in the banking sector, in Quebec and across the country. We have listened to the Quebeckers who sent us here, to the House. That is why the leader of the Senate, the hon. Senator Harder, has tabled an amendment that will remove from the bill the current provisions for the banking sector, namely the consumer protection measures, so that we can ask the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada, the FCAC, to ensure that the federal protection system is as solid as any provincial protection system. That way we can see to it that our objective, the one we have had since the beginning, of having the highest overall level of protection for Canadians all over the country, can absolutely be achieved in a way that will meet our goals and ensure that Canadian consumers are protected.

What has driven us from the beginning is that, thanks to the work of all my colleagues, we succeed in putting in place the best possible system, in order to defend the higher interest of consumers.

Canadians deserve to have access to a consistent national banking system that is easy to understand, a banking system that has high consumer protection standards, is designed to meet the needs of consumers of financial products and services, and is applied in the same way regardless of where consumers may live.

We remain strongly committed to organizing and strengthening consumer protection measures, making access to basic banking services easier, and improving the rules surrounding current business practices governing the way that banks deal with their customers.

We must not forget the creation of new obligations for the banks to strengthen disclosure provisions, improve complaint processing, and reinforce governance and organizational accountability for consumer protection.

Our objective is simple. It is to make the consumer protection system easier to understand and to prevent consumers from having to consult several sets of rules that apply to the same financial products and services, whether they are doing business in person or online.

We want to increase the obligations imposed on banks and hold them accountable for improving outcomes for consumers and for treating those consumers fairly all across the country.

That is why we will be working together with stakeholders and the provinces to ensure that the framework is strengthened so as to meet the highest standards, as was our initial objective, and we are going to achieve this with the sole objective of protecting consumers all over the country.

Under the Constitution, the banks lie within federal jurisdiction, and that is how it has been in this country for 150 years. This responsibility includes that of ensuring that the banks are solid and that of establishing standards governing their operation to ensure they meet the needs of Canadians, of course.

To that end, we have to oversee the establishment of a rigorous system for protecting consumers of financial products and services that is applicable in the same way throughout the country. I know that this is an issue that the House fully understands. The proposed improvements would make it possible to employ a broader spectrum of personal identification documents to open an account or cash Government of Canada cheques, and this is one of the measures that affect the people who sent us here, to Ottawa.

I can say that this measure is going to benefit people in the regions north of my riding, including certain indigenous communities, because they are having difficulty accessing banking services and cashing federal government cheques. This system will give them easier access to certain banking services.

The rules we are introducing also add a new prohibition on imposing undue pressure on consumers, and apply cancellation periods to a wider range of products and services.

Summary information boxes would be mandatory for a larger number of banking products and services, and accountability would be improved, notably thanks to requirements for banks to report on measures taken to meet the challenges faced by the most vulnerable Canadians.

Improvements would also strengthen the current complaint management requirements, so as to require banks and external complaint processing bodies to report on the number and nature of complaints received. All of these measures would guarantee that the banks are answerable for their actions.

We know that consumers are better protected when rules and rights are clearly laid out for all stakeholders. Similarly, it is easier to ensure that banks are accountable when the rules to be followed are clear and exhaustive, when they are national in application and when compliance is ensured by a designated federal regulatory agency such as the FCAC.

Our government has promised to protect the interests of middle-class Canadians and those of persons working hard to join the middle class, and we will continue to do so, particularly with regard to the protection of consumers of financial products and services.

I would also like to note how the amended budget implementation act, 2016, No. 2 would continue to make a very substantial contribution to the achievement of our objective of growing the economy, to the benefit of families, workers, and the most vulnerable members of our society.

The strengthening of the middle class and the establishment of conditions conducive to sustainable economic growth are the main priorities of our government. Tax fairness is an important part of our commitments in this regard, as is the adoption of a tax system that functions as planned and contributes to fostering an economy that works for the entire population.

As there are only a few moments left in this momentous day, I invite all members to reflect about who sent them to Ottawa, whether they are young, old, workers, families, or the people working in their riding, because these people all sent us here with a mission, and that is to properly represent their interests.

Members will find in C-29, budget implementation act, 2016, No. 2, measures that will help the people who sent us to Ottawa. All members should vote for this bill as they will be voting to support the people who sent them here.

This is a momentous day for Canada, and everyone will remember the day when we rose to work for Canadians.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

moved the second reading of, and concurrence in, amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-29, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures.

Quebec's Interests

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Political Party Financing

[Simon Marcil, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

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

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

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

Consumer Protection

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

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

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

[Michel Boudrias, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consumer Protection

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why will they not simply withdraw it?

Taxation

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

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

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

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

Intergovernmental Relations

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

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

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

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

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

Consumer Protection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Democratic Reform

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

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

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

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

The Economy

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

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

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

Why? Is he trying to help the banks?

Consumer Protection

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

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

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

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

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

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my focus here as a representative for Vaughan—Woodbridge is very simple. It is to make sure that we are working hard day in, day out to provide a better future for not only the residents I represent, but for all Canadians. That is what our government is doing. That is the plan we put forward and that is why we are executing on it, whether it is the Canada child benefit, whether it is the measures contained in Bill C-29 that deal with tax fairness, tax evasion, and tax avoidance, whether it is our regulations dealing with the Bank Act to make sure that Canadians from coast to coast to coast know that the banking system is sound and stable, that there are people they can turn to if they have concerns.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak again to Bill C-29 in this House. I am not sure my remarks will be as colourful or as passionate as the prior exchange, but I will try my best.

When I speak to Bill C-29 and think about budget 2016, I think about where it will take our economy, I think about where it will take the residents of my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge, and I think about what it will do for those middle-class Canadians, those working Canadians in our country, who are working every day and putting food on their tables and saving money for their children's future, for their children's school, for their education, for their sports and so forth.

I think about our budget and what our government is doing for Canadians on a daily basis, whether via the Canada child benefit or the tax cut that has benefited nine million Canadians over the last year, and the $20 billion in tax relief over the next five years. I think about the enhanced CPP and the historic agreement that our government reached with the provinces. I think about all these measures that we are putting in place, which will strengthen our economy, which will translate into faster economic growth and, fundamentally, translate into good-paying jobs for all Canadians.

In this part of the speech, I look at what we have done with the Bank Act and some of the regulations that we have codified and changed. I was there when the global financial crisis hit Canada and the world. I remember seeing some of the banks in the United States not make it due to a liquidity crisis, and during that time I saw the strength and regulation of the Canadian banking industry come through. I saw how strong our banks were, with their tier-one capital levels and the low delinquency rates in the Canadian housing market. I saw how the regulators, whether at OSFI, the Bank of Canada, or the superintendent of financial institutions, were all coordinating and working together to ensure that we had a strong banking sector. We have continued to evolve along that line. We have continued to work with the Department of Finance, OSFI, and the Bank of Canada to ensure that we have a strong housing sector.

It gives me great pleasure to talk about the Canada child benefit, which helps nine out of every 10 Canadian families with $2,300 extra a year that will lift 300,000 children out of poverty in Canada. That is something I am sure that all of my colleagues from all parties should applaud and vote for. I am surprised they have not done so.

The CCB is transformational. The CPP enhancement is historic. The tax cut for middle-class Canadians is the centrepiece.

With with Bill C-29 and budget 2016, we are moving our economy forward and building a stronger Canada, a more diverse, inclusive country, with better economic growth. We are in a period, I would say, of world economic history when Canada is standing out as a beacon of light. We have strong fiscal framework that we continue to improve, a balance sheet that is the envy of the world, and an AAA credit rating. I cannot be more proud to be on the Standing Committee on Finance to ensure that Canada moves forward in a strong way.

On a personal level, it speaks to my two children at home, Eliana and Natalia, my two girls whom I miss fondly when I am here in Ottawa and who I hope have brighter futures. They are 4 and 6 years old, and I am here as the representative of my riding, fighting to make sure that their future is one heck of a bright one.

I will stop my remarks there and look forward to Q and A.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in the House to speak to Bill C-29.

My constituents have identified three priorities in our riding. They have serious concerns around the needs of seniors, about housing that is affordable, and addressing the serious issue of climate change. This work has influenced my actions heavily. I am holding seniors' town halls that will be wrapping up in January, and in a riding of my size, I will be hosting a total of 11.

The need for affordable housing has been framed in my private member's bill, Bill C-325, on the right for housing for Canadians. This summer, we will begin the work we have to do with our constituents around the important issue of climate change.

Beyond these three priorities, my staff and I work hard on many challenges constituents face. They include small business needs, transportation issues around our ocean, issues with trade, and much much more.

My constituents sent me here to have a strong voice for them in this place. This is why I was very disappointed yesterday when the government reduced the time we could speak on this important bill. Bill C-29 includes 146 clauses that would amend 13 pieces of legislation. It was introduced in the House of Commons and this past Friday, three days later, debate began. With the time allocation now, there is very little time for parliamentarians to debate its content.

Time allocation provides the government with a mechanism for setting out the amount of debate a bill will receive at any given stage. When the notice is given, a short debate is had, a vote is called for, and if the motion is approved, as it was by this government, a limit for debate is established.

I take the duties of my job very seriously. Part of those duties are standing in the House debating on the bills before this place. During the last Parliament, the New Democrats decried the Conservatives' routine habit of this procedure. A year into the Liberal mandate, and the Liberals have not copied this practice; they have outright championed it.

I would like to remind members on the governing side that Canadians expect to know how they spend their money. Bill C-29 is a budgetary instrument, a bill that has specific changes to the Bank Act, to small businesses, the Canada child benefit, and the Employment Insurance Act. It must be taken seriously.

Specifically, the NDP is concerned by the fact that many relatively technical legislative changes, 239 pages amending over a dozen acts, are included in a single bill, while we have not had the time needed to debate them sufficiently.

In my riding, families are struggling daily. They have to make decisions if they can send their children to swimming with their classes because they cannot afford the $2 fee the school is requesting. Families are also facing serious challenges around finding day care. Day care spaces are limited, and the cost is often just too much. The child benefit was a step in the right direction, but the amount did not create child care spaces, nor make it affordable for families. Now we see that the Canada child benefit will be indexed in 2020, as the Liberals have proposed, rather than listening to the so-called inadmissible amendment made in the committee to see it indexed to inflation each year starting January 1, 2017. This means that each year the benefit will be worth less to Canadian families.

I have veterans who are standing outside of local businesses in my riding fundraising for their medication and seniors who are making choices among medication, food, or paying for their heat. Where is there anything in the budget that will help these folks to afford their medication?

Small business owners are looking for ways to build their businesses because they see opportunities. However, without the promised tax break, they are finding it hard to invest in the important infrastructure or human capital they need. Small businesses have grown in my riding and have provided jobs when our larger resource based jobs were lost. The government saying that businesses want money in people's pockets to spend in those businesses is only one part of the equation. The promised tax cut would have meant an equitable support to businesses across the country. Each area faces multiple challenges, and this tax break would have really made an impact in my riding.

The Liberals have rejected our proposals to cap transaction fees for credit cards and are doing nothing to facilitate the transfer of family businesses within the immediate family. Small businesses could not be clearer. As the job creators of our country, a cap on transaction fees for credit cards would make a real difference. Why is the government prioritizing credit card companies over small and medium-sized businesses in Canada?

In my riding of North Island—Powell River, it is the small and medium-sized businesses that are participating in the chambers of commerce, giving back to the communities at events, and employing people. It is time to give them the support they need, because they benefit us all so very much.

This budget also shows a worrisome trend with the government, a hands-off approach that signals an increase in upcoming privatization schemes. This comes to us as a bit of a surprise because budget 2016 did not include any details of a privatized Canadian infrastructure bank. It did have the term “asset recycling”, about which we asked numerous questions. We know that “asset recycling” is a financial term that involves the sale of an asset and the use of proceeds of the sale to invest in another asset. For the government, it means selling public infrastructure or privatizing it to raise money that will be used to fund other infrastructure.

On October 20, we learned that Liberals gave Credit Suisse, an investment firm specializing in privatization, the mandate to advise the Liberals on the benefits of privatizing Canadian airports. It seems like a foregone conclusion that the recommendation will be privatization.

Other pension fund experts are salivating at the prospect and do not even hide that it is about private ownership or private management of public assets. As Claude Lamoureux, former CEO of Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan, said on May 25, “For government, it is a way of offloading, of giving that to someone else. And in my opinion, this someone else might be more efficient than government”.

The road map is pretty clear: sell airports and possibly other infrastructure to raise some or all of the $40 billion to be invested in the Canadian infrastructure bank. The Liberals hope that these public funds will attract $160 billion in private capital. Regardless of the way the bank will work, it is clear that private investors and pension funds will be asking for a return on investment, which makes sense. That is what they do. The only way to do this is to create a revenue stream, and that means imposing tolls and user fees at a rate of between 7% to 9%.

What will this mean for communities across Canada? I represent many small and rural communities. The need for infrastructure is profound and often they are left behind. This scheme would not benefit the people of these small communities. How long will they have to pay tolls or user fees to get a benefit of 7% to 9% return on investment? This scheme is so speculative that even president-elect Donald Trump thinks it is a great idea.

Since we are on the topic of implementing certain provisions of the budget, can the government finally admit which ports, airports, and bridges will be privatized? What will be tolled and which user fees can Canadians expect? These are simple questions. My constituents, who work so hard, are left wondering when these costs will appear. I am particularly concerned with what this would mean for smaller communities that will not be able to generate the kind of user-fee revenue streams that would be attractive to investors of this bank. Why is the government taking away allocated funds for infrastructure for a new scheme that simply will not help communities in my riding?

During this time of year, many organizations, service groups, and people are working to ensure the holidays will be good ones for those struggling to make ends meet. I remember being in Port Hardy and one member of the community showing me the food bank. He said that 20 years ago they did not have them, that there were enough jobs, but now they had been forgotten and they fundraised to feed themselves. This budget could do so much more.

I want to thank all of the people, organizations, and service groups that are actively working to feed those across the riding who are hungry, whether it be the Eagles Ladies Auxiliary that has been fundraising for weeks now, selling food to raise money to feed those who desperately need it; the Angel tree, where people buy a gift for a child who would go without if not for the generosity of the communities I serve; the Community Resource Centre in Powell River; the Salvation Army; the Good Food Box; all the food banks across the riding; Grassroots Kind Hearts; and the Beacon Club, just to mention a few. Poverty is real in our communities and I thank all of those who work everyday on the ground to fight it.

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

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

Although he represents a Montreal riding, I know that he is also aware of the reality of the regions. At the end of his speech, he talked about the infrastructure privatization bank.

For my part, I represent a riding whose largest town has a population of 56,000. The second largest town has less than 10,000 people, and the third largest has 5,000. The 22 other towns have even smaller populations, as small as 500. They feel abandoned by this government when it comes to its choices on infrastructure.

I would like the hon. member to elaborate on what the infrastructure provisions in Bill C-29 mean for rural communities like the one I represent.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a first. Compared to the previous speaker, it seems like I am the calm one in the House. I would like to start by saying that I will be sharing my time with my wonderful colleague from North Island—Powell River. It is an honour.

I would remind the House and those watching us that, again, we are discussing the budget implementation bill under the pressure of closure imposed by the Liberal government, who promised to do politics differently, to respect the institutions, and give parliamentarians their rightful place.

It is amazing to see how the bad habits they once criticized became standard operating procedure for the Liberals, once they won their majority.

Speaking of which, since there is a lot of talk about this these days, maybe the following question could be added to the mydemocracy.ca website: “Are you in favour of giving the Liberal Party a majority, knowing full well that it will not keep its promises?”

The first point that I would like to make with regard to Bill C-29 has to do with the changes related to banks and credit card companies. Quebec is extremely concerned about consumer protection. It is strange. Even though Quebeckers elected 40 Liberal MPs in the last election, no one on the government side has raised this issue.

Bank customers in Quebec are protected by Quebec's Consumer Protection Act. This law does all kinds of good things for people, such as limiting credit card fees. It also protects people when their credit card gets stolen and the thief uses their card to make all sorts of big purchases, such as electronics and other things. I think most people can relate to that situation. Under the Quebec law, the credit card holder is liable only for a maximum of $50.

The fact that these provisions are absent from Bill C-29 is worrisome. People do not know what is going to happen. Will the government allow credit card companies to raise the maximum liability from $50 to $200, $500, or even $1,000?

We could lose this protection, which was hard-won for consumers, and their concern is quite justified.

The host for more than 10 years of La facture, a Radio-Canada program, went to the trouble of writing an article for this morning's edition of La Presse. He told everyone to beware because we run the risk of losing all the protections that we take for granted.

I see some government members opposite nodding their heads. I hope we will be able to fix things and make amendments to preserve those protections.

There is also some uncertainty with respect to annual credit card fees. We are not quite sure what the future holds. We are concerned, and I hope that we will be able to work together to find solutions.

One thing that is bothering the NDP is the whole issue of the Liberal promise to help the middle class. The Liberals droned on about it for 78 days. They said that we would have a government that would finally meet the aspirations and the needs of the middle class. How? By cutting taxes. That is just one way. We prefer to provide services that cut costs for families, such as public, affordable, accessible child care. The Liberals talked about it, but nothing is happening right now.

When we look at the Liberal government's plan to cut taxes for families, we realize that their definition of the middle class benefits the rich. Anyone earning less than $45,000 a year will not receive any tax cuts. Anyone earning less than $23 an hour does not qualify for assistance from the Liberal government. For a single person with no children who earns $21 an hour, the Liberal government's promise is worthless.

We find this unacceptable, given that the median income in Canada is around $33,000 or $34,000. Right away at least half of the population is left out of the Liberal plan. There is still another $10,000 to go before we get to $45,000. The ones benefiting the most are those making $80,000, $100,000 or $120,000 per year. We do not believe that they are part of the middle class. They are not the ones who need help. This is extremely disappointing on the part of the Liberal government. This is another broken promise.

Bill C-29 also deals with employment insurance. We must admit that it includes a more acceptable redefinition of what constitutes suitable employment, and this is a step in the right direction. However, one of the major problems with the employment insurance system in the country right now, and this has been a problem for years, is that fewer and fewer unemployed workers qualify for benefits when they need them.

The employment insurance fund, as its name would suggest, is insurance. All workers put money into the fund so that if one day they unfortunately lose their job, because of a plant closure or if misfortune strikes, they will be able to get what they need in order to transition to another job and pay bills, the rent, the mortgage, and groceries.

In the 1980s, practically everyone who lost their job received EI benefits. Today only 38% of unemployed Canadians receive benefits. Most people who contribute to the kitty do not have access to it when they need it. Bill C-29 does nothing to change the situation, and that really worries us. EI is part of our values and part of our social safety net, which is supposed to ensure that no one is left behind.

No one wants to lose their job, no one wants to see a plant close, and no one wanted Canada's manufacturing sector to be eviscerated, without any industrial policies in place. We need to be able to help the unemployed. We also have to work harder to help seasonal workers who were hit hard by the actions of previous governments. There is nothing on the table right now to help the unemployed or future unemployed Canadians. That is unfortunate, because their numbers keep increasing.

What is noticeably absent from the budget implementation bill is the promise to help small and medium-sized businesses. These are the creators of new jobs, the jobs of tomorrow. These businesses invigorate our communities, whether we live in urban or rural areas. The SMEs of Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie are its lifeblood. They create jobs and wealth, which makes the riding an attractive and good place to live.

What did the Liberals tell small and medium-sized businesses? They said that they would be there for them and that they recognized their contribution as job and wealth creators in Canada. Where is the help for SMEs in Bill C-29 and in the Liberal budget?

The Liberals said they would lower their tax rate from 11% to 9%. Where does it say that? There is nothing about that in the bill. This is utterly disappointing. We had hoped that the Liberals meant what they were saying during the election campaign. We had hoped that they understood the message of those who start up small businesses, of those who work for them, and of those who have managed small family businesses for a long time.

There is one very simple way to help small businesses, but it is not in Bill C-29. More and more frequently, corner stores are not letting customers pay with credit cards because the fees are exorbitant. When people use Interac, there is a set fee that is not too high, and merchants do not complain about it much. The percentage charged on credit card payments, on the other hand, is ridiculously high. We kind of expected the Liberal government to do one simple thing to help small businesses: reduce the cost of accepting credit card payments.

The infrastructure bank is a huge scheme to privatize our public services and our infrastructure, and we should all be very worried about it. Why attract private investment with a guaranteed return of 7% when the government can borrow money at 2%?

We are extremely worried at the prospect of major economic drivers, such as our ports and airports, being sold off to private and, in many cases, foreign interests. We do not understand why the government is consulting Credit Suisse, a company that specializes in airport privatization.

That gives us great concern, and I hope we will get some answers from the government. Unfortunately, we do not have a lot of time to debate it, but then again that was the government’s decision.

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

Mr. Speaker, maybe a good place to start is to provide a comment. We have heard this from other Conservatives. They try to demean the importance of all jobs. I come from a working-class riding where all jobs are important. Not everyone wants to be a member of Parliament, or a car salesman, or a health care worker. There is a good selection of jobs from coast to coast to coast and some of them are part-time, some of them are full-time. Over the last number of months, we have been able to accomplish a great deal as government. We constantly hear from the other side that they are just part-time jobs. I can assure the member that many of those part-time jobs are of great value and Canadians truly do appreciate part-time jobs too. Part-time jobs do matter and they do count.

We have seen in the last 12 months, I believe the record was 139,600 new jobs. I believe the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development indicated that number has gone up in the last month to just over 145,000. I might be a little off in that number. The bottom line is that this is a government that does care about jobs. We are concerned about how the economy is improving and that is the reason we brought forward such a progressive budget. Quite frankly, I am disappointed in the Conservatives and especially in the New Democrats for not recognizing what most Canadians believe and that is that this government has it right. We have a budget that all Canadians can get behind because it literally assists every region, every community of our country.

I would suggest that if members want to reflect on what has been said over the last number of months, because we have been talking about this budget for months now, it is nice to see that we are going to have the final vote on Bill C-29 in the not-too-distant future. I would suggest that the budget is one that all members should get behind. I do not say that lightly. I say it because I genuinely believe it. There is so much in the budget that people can be very proud of. Even the Conservatives should be proud. After all, they talk about the importance of tax breaks. There is good news in this budget. There is a tax break worth hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars for Canada's middle class.

Who are the people we are talking about? The bulk of the benefits are going to individuals who are firefighters, sales people, health care workers, or factory shop workers, and many of those jobs are in the hard-working middle class. In excess of nine million Canadians will benefit from this middle-class tax cut. One would think that the Conservative Party would be behind that tax cut. I am sorry to say that the Conservative Party is not voting for that tax cut.

I say to my colleagues across the way that if they were to canvass some of the constituents I just referred to they would find that people would be disappointed in the criticism coming from across the way in regard to this middle-class tax cut.

I would like to think that there is always an opportunity to see one's way clear and understand that this is a good tax cut. I would suggest to my friends across the way that they might want to reconsider their position on this budget.

As much as I am disappointed in terms of how the Conservatives are voting on this, I am somewhat surprised by my New Democratic friends because there is even more within this budget. When we talk about equalization or tax fairness, one of the things I thought the government was right on was to do some readjusting where we actually have a tax on Canada's wealthiest, a significant number of dollars that are going to be coming in and that money is going to be reused.

Given some of the rhetoric coming from the New Democrats on the issue of tax fairness, they are voting against the budget, which ultimately would see an additional tax put on some of Canada's wealthiest people.

However, it is more than that, because when we talk about reaching into our communities and families and trying to enable those who are working hard to become part of the middle class, or are middle class, we have a couple of initiatives that we should all be proud of. I have had the opportunity to talk at great length in the House about them.

One of them is the Canada child benefit program. This is tax free, unlike the Conservatives, who felt even if someone was a multi-millionaire they should still get the tax benefit. We disagreed with that. Those who need it the most are the ones who are going to receive the most under the Liberal plan, and there is a dramatic overall increase to the Canada child benefit program. This is good news. We are going to see thousands of children being lifted out of poverty because of this direct increase to the Canada child benefit program.

We could go on about the guaranteed income supplement. Again, this is something I have talked about in the past. We often talk about the most vulnerable in our communities. How many of us have knocked on a door and run into a senior who is finding it difficult to meet their financial needs? Perhaps it is medication, or additional food supplements, whatever it might be. Often, the most vulnerable are those seniors who are limited to their old age supplement. We have seen a historic commitment to the GIS to the degree that some seniors will get an additional benefit of $900 plus on an annual basis. Many might say that is not much money, but I can assure them, if someone is only receiving $10,000 or $12,000 a year, that is a lot of money. What we are doing by increasing the guaranteed income supplement for our seniors is lifting them out of poverty. We are voting on a budget that is going to lift thousands of seniors out of poverty.

That is not all. We can talk about the infrastructure, but I will defer that for the moment. I want to talk about the importance of a national government working in co-operation with our provinces on two issues. I like to think that we are not only a government for today but we also think about future generations. Not only is our government demonstrating strong national leadership on the file, but we are working with the provinces. I am talking about the Canada pension plan. For years, I sat in opposition when Mr. Harper and the Conservative government did absolutely nothing in regard to the CPP. Even though we had provinces calling for strong national leadership, the Conservative government at the time did absolutely nothing in that regard. Within a year, under the leadership of our Prime Minister, and the Minister of Finance, we were able to get a historic agreement with the provinces and territories that is ultimately going to ensure that our future seniors, our workers of today who are moving our economy forward, are going to be able to contribute a little more toward a pension. At the end of the day, they are going to be receiving more money when it comes time to retire.

That is about having a vision and thinking about future generations. That was something we did not see with the Harper government. It was non-existent in dealing on the issue of pensions.

The other issue that I often hear members talk about is the price on carbon. They made it very clear. The Conservative Party here in Ottawa, albeit unique in the entire country, has declared that the price on carbon is a bad idea. It does not care what real Canadians have to say.

Mr. Speaker, one or two member are starting to applaud on it.

It is a good way to demonstrate just how out of touch with Canadians the Conservative Party today still remains. Political parties of all stripes—and we can talk about the Progressive Conservatives in Manitoba, the NDP in Alberta, or the Liberals in other jurisdictions—have acknowledged the importance of dealing with Canada's environment. We saw that from the Prime Minister, shortly after becoming the Prime Minister, becoming a part of the Paris agreement. Then literally months later, here we are, meeting with our provincial counterparts and we now have an agreement, which includes provincial governments of all political stripes saying that the issue of a price on carbon is a good thing.

We have the Conservative Party saying that, no, it is a bad thing and that the federal government is just trying to raise more money. I should remind the Conservatives—because sometimes I think they like to play with reality and maybe stretch the truth to turn it into a bit of a falsehood—that under that price on carbon, yes, we saw strong national leadership and, through that strong national leadership, we have an agreement that applies in every region of our country. However, Ottawa is not going to get a dime from it. All the money is going back to the provincial and territorial jurisdictions. That is a good thing.

At the end of the day, if we have premiers who want to take that revenue generated and reduce their income tax or another form of tax, they can do that. It is going back to the individual provinces. In fact, many of the provinces already have it in place.

Only the Conservatives are trying to make us walk backwards on the issue. It does not make sense; unless, of course, we believe that the Conservative Party, as I have argued, has lost complete touch with reality and what Canadians feel and know are important.

I would suggest that it is indeed the latter.

The nice thing about when we have debates of this nature is that we are able to express ourselves and, hopefully, members of the Conservative Party will start to question some of their leadership. There are a number of leadership candidates who are running to become their new leader. They might want to try to think outside of the box and see which ones are starting to come up with ideas that Canadians can buy into. I can tell members that there are initiatives that are being taken by this government that will have a very positive impact on Canada's economy and our environment because, as the minister responsible for natural resources has so well articulated, we can do both.

That was clearly demonstrated by this government when we saw the approval of two pipelines and, ultimately, the rejection of one pipeline. We do not believe that there has to be a tradeoff, unlike the NDP that would like to keep all the oil in the ground or the Conservatives who would build a pipeline anywhere, even though they never built an inch of it to tidewaters. If we listen to rhetoric from the two, we hear they are at complete odds.

I would suggest that this government got it right. We set up a process that is fair, a process that allows for consultation, and we are starting to see the benefits of that already. In just over one year, we have been able to accomplish more on the pipeline file than the previous government did in 10 years. We are very proud of that. At the end of the day, look at the benefits of getting the job done: tens of thousands of direct jobs, not to mention the indirect jobs, that are being created by a government that not only cares, but has the ability to get the job done—something the Conservative Party failed at doing.

A lot of things are happening on this side of the House that will impact the everyday lives of Canadians, and those things are coming through a budget that is good for all Canadians in every region of this country.

A great way to emphasize that is by talking about Canada's infrastructure program. I said earlier that I would add some thoughts on the infrastructure program because it is one of the programs whereby we made a tangible commitment to Canadians. Once again, our government is delivering on the commitments that we made to Canadians. We are investing historic amounts of money in infrastructure. Unlike the Conservative Party, we are actually spending the money today in a big way to ensure that the infrastructure moves forward.

Member ask where. Many members are critical of us with respect to Alberta. Not only are we moving forward in Alberta, but for the first time in a long time we have a government that actually walks the talk, as opposed to just talking. Those members just need to look at the number of infrastructure dollars that have been committed to the province of Alberta. The only reason I single out Alberta is because of some of the comments coming from members across the way in regard to that province. The principle I am talking about with regard to Alberta could be applied to every region of our country, where we have seen our national government work with local governments, whether they be municipal or provincial, to deliver priority projects. Millions of dollars have already been committed.

Let us not underestimate the important work of city councillors, MLAs, and community advocates. They came to the table and put in an effort that made it possible for this government to do what Canadians wanted us to do, and that was to invest in Canada's infrastructure. They wanted us to not just talk about. That is something we saw when Mr. Harper sat in the prime minister's chair. This is a government that not only talks about it but gets the job done, because we understand the importance of it.

I could be a bit out on this, but about 70 projects have received approval to date in the province of Alberta. Many of those projects are actually under way; the sod has been turned. This could not have been done without that high sense of co-operation.

So much is happening within our country. There are so many things to talk about. I focused on the budget, and I also focused attention on some national initiatives.

Earlier today a number of members raised the issue of the murdered and missing indigenous women and girls. This is an issue that is very close to my heart. For many years while I sat on the opposition benches I called on the prime minister of the day and the Conservative government to hold a public inquiry. A couple of months into government the Liberals initiated that public inquiry.

Our Minister of Health is truly committed to our strong national health care system. We all benefit from it. Members should ask their constituents what makes them feel good about being Canadian. From my perspective, one of the things would be our health care system. For the first time in many years, we have a Minister of Health who truly believes in Canada's health care system. She has been working diligently at trying to achieve something that the Conservative Party could not achieve and that is to get a health care accord. I would argue that it was because the Conservatives did not want one. We finally have a Minister of Health who is committed to working hard to achieve a health care accord, something that is long overdue.

A personal favourite of mine with respect to policy is immigration, and I referenced that in an S.O. 31. Immigration is so important and valuable for Canada. The population of my home province of Manitoba would have decreased if it were not for immigration over the last 10 years. Our Liberal government continues to fix the many problems with immigration today, whether it is processing times or especially family reunification. I underline family reunification. Marriage is a serious issue and it has to be dealt with.

I see I am out of time, but I still want to talk about housing and so much more. I will wait for a question or two.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to stand today to speak to Bill C-29.

Just last month, a group of respected physicians in Edmonton and the surrounding area wrote to me about a new federal tax proposal in Bill C-29 that would alter the small business deduction to exclude group medical structures. Their email reads:

I urge the federal government to amend Clause 13 of the Legislative Proposals Relating to Income Tax, Sales Tax and Excise Duties by exempting group medical structures and health care delivery from the proposed changes to S. 125 of the Income Tax Act regarding multiplication of access to the small business deduction.

The proposal outlined in C-29 will hobble the efforts of these doctors and their colleagues from effectively serving Canadians, as it would unfairly penalize group medical structures, These structures are not formed to avoid the taxman. They are formed to deliver team-based integrated medical health services according to priorities set out by the provinces.

In many of the sub-specialties these physicians work in, these arrangements are the standard of delivering care in a safe and cost-effective manner. This tax proposal threatens to tear this balance apart, heaping rising costs upon health care providers and forcing many to potentially move their practice to other countries with less punishing tax burdens. Most important, these changes will directly impact the medical care received by Canadian families across the country.

These arrangements are the fruit of years, decades even, of careful planning and negotiation between the provinces and their health care providers to implement their health care priorities. The division of powers is quite clear in this country: the delivery of health services is a major component of the provincial mandate, not the federal government's. The government is once again ignoring the concerns and opinions of experts and forcing its views onto our provinces.

I would like to turn my comments to Alberta. Alberta is struggling right now. It is going through one of the worst job crises in the province's history. The unemployment rate right now is at a 22-year high. Over 222,000 Albertans are out of work. They are not just from the oil patch, but work in restaurants, in small businesses, and in gyms as physical fitness experts. I was speaking with one the other day. These people are the heart and soul of Alberta and to have them out of work really leaves Alberta at an incredible disadvantage.

We are suffering from the low oil and gas prices. That is fair. The government on the other side will stand up and announce its decisions on pipelines, issue a press release, and say everything is fixed: “Move on, Alberta, on to our next hurdle”.

We cannot just rely on these pipelines. Right now what we have is a jobs crisis. It leaves us at a disadvantage in all of our sectors. These pipelines that we hope will be built eventually do not address anything happening right now.

We need to ensure that we have particular infrastructure in place, yet we have no shovels in the ground. We need more jobs. However, we keep seeing part-time jobs. It is unfair what is happening in Alberta and there seems to be a real lack of recognition of this on the other side.

Furthermore, to add to everything that is happening in Alberta, the Liberals have now announced a carbon tax. The carbon tax is going to $50 a tonne. The Alberta provincial government has set the carbon taxes at $30 per tonne, but because of the good faith in these new pipelines, they have decided to move it up to $50 a tonne.

That has an impact not just on the oil and gas sector, but on regular families. I have a letter I received from a family in my area, which said that the YMCA daycare, a solid daycare provider in our constituency, has decided to raise the annual fee for parents in the community, because they think the carbon tax will have an impact on the YMCA. It seems to me that this carbon tax is not just building social licence, as the government states, but is really having an impact on young families on the ground.

We figure, great, the Liberals have put in place a carbon tax, let us apply pressure to the government to ensure that it understands the impact of this. Then the government landed the CPP increases on small businesses, and on families as well; then there were mortgage rules, and now we are hearing today about taxation of health and dental benefits.

There is only one taxpayer, and this one taxpayer continually has to pay all of the taxes that are added on. I plead with the members on the other side that Bill C-29 is yet a further indication that the current government is completely out of touch, not just with Alberta, but with the families across the country this bill would have an impact on.

We keep hearing that infrastructure investments are going to save the day, are going to be the way to put Albertans and other western Canadians back to work. We have a minister who can stand up here and say “from coast to coast to coast” as much as he likes, yet quite honestly, we have not seen a single shovel in the ground yet. Oh wait, there is one in central Alberta for waste management. That is the only one. The minister will stand in Edmonton and Calgary and call press conferences with anyone who will come, and he will say, “Look at us, we are creating jobs”. Where are the jobs? We have yet to see a single full-time job created. We have part-time jobs. Statistics Canada reports say there are all these part-time jobs, but that in terms of full-time jobs on the infrastructure side, we actually lost construction jobs. Over the last year, there were fewer construction jobs than the year before. It does not add up and does not make sense how this infrastructure plan is going to jumpstart our communities.

Then we asked the Minister of Infrastructure, the Prime Minister, the natural resources minister, and the minister of industry what we are supposed to tell Albertans when none of this is coming to fruition, when nothing is happening, and when people are still unemployed. The unemployment rate is still the highest in 22 years. We are told to hang in there by the Prime Minister. We are told not to worry, that we will hold hands together and get through this, by the infrastructure minister. I do not know how the minister's warm embrace will help the many people who are unemployed in Alberta. It seems a little optimistic on the minister's side.

I would encourage the minister, the Prime Minister, and the finance minister to listen to us on this side of the House. We are sitting down with everyday Albertans. We created what we call the “Alberta Jobs Taskforce”. Every Alberta member of Parliament is participating, actively meeting with as many stakeholders as they can. We are sitting down at round tables, town halls, and one-on-one meetings. I cannot say how many people have been in my office crying because they have lost their jobs, because they do not know how they are going to put a roof over their heads, and because now that their government is increasing the carbon tax, they are not going to be able to afford day care for their children.

I believe it is incumbent on us, in a non-partisan approach, to ensure that we are listening to those in our constituency. I know that the member for Calgary Shepard has had a number of round tables and is meeting with his constituents regularly. I know that the member for Lethbridge has met with a number of youth who do not know where they will get jobs out of university. So it is incumbent on us as members of Parliament to communicate to the government what we are hearing on the ground.

We have a budget coming up in the new year. As part of that budget, we want to make sure that the Prime Minister and the finance minister have heard exactly what we have heard from these Albertans. We are hearing not only from small businesses and oil and gas companies, but also from food banks. I spoke with an individual at a food bank the other day who said that because of the carbon tax, the people there are concerned about how they will continue operating. There are now more people lined up at the food bank, yet the people working there do not know how the food bank will continue operating. That would bother me if I were sitting on the side of the House. We need to ensure that we have solutions for this crisis in Alberta.

Over the years, Albertans have stood shoulder to shoulder with other provinces across the country, making sure that we were there in their time of need. Right now, Alberta is hurting. Alberta is going through an incredible jobs crisis, and we need the rest of the country to listen to Albertans and hear our thoughts.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member from the beautiful area of Edmonton Riverbend.

I am honoured to represent the hard-working people of Elgin—Middlesex—London, and today I stand to discuss Bill C-29 with many of their concerns in mind.

Just one year ago, the Liberals promised modest deficits, and made many more promises. We have seen media reports that show the cost of food will go up 5% in the new year. Not one new full-time job has been created. With the new measurements put in place by the government, it is harder for Canadians to purchase homes under the new mortgage laws. Instead, we see huge deficits, high taxes, and low economic growth.

We have heard about the carbon tax that will be introduced by all provincial and territorial governments, and enforced by the federal government. We have an infrastructure bank that will not be supporting rural Canada at all. We have infrastructure projects that the government suggests have been approved, but where is the actual work being done? The tax cuts that were scheduled for small businesses have been reversed. The tax credits that helped families offset the costs of children's arts and fitness programs have been cancelled. We have seen extravagant spending on programs, but nothing to show for the expenditure of these dollars.

Canadians are growing concerned. Just yesterday in the House, the government did not deny its plans for new taxes on health and dental benefits.

With every middle-class tax cut, there is a new tax introduced for all Canadians, young and old, rich and poor.

Let us stop kidding ourselves. The economy is stagnant, and the Liberals' promise to spend their way to prosperity is failing. Although there is a lot of talk, I am honestly worried not only for the next generation and the large debt load that the government is burdening it with, but also for our current generation, where people find it difficult to pay for their hydro and cannot find a job.

Students are graduating from universities with no chance of permanent full-time positions, and they are not getting the chance to use their higher education because the government is not creating the necessary environment for job creation.

Is the sky falling? No, but it is pretty gloomy out there.

Back in July, I did a lot of media interviews regarding the new Canada child benefit. As the critic for families, children and social development, I was asked my thoughts on this new program. I will not deny that it does help families. However, we are talking about a very unsustainable program. According to the parliamentary budget officer, it will cost $42.6 billion over the next five years. The parliamentary secretary said that these plans would be going forward regardless of the strain on public finances. I wonder where this money will come from? If we have a government that does not create a single job and spends out of control, where do we get the revenue to pay for these programs? I hope the government is listening to this speech and keeping that in mind.

The answer to this question, as we see it, is more taxes. More and more taxes will continue to be introduced by the Liberal government with no concern for the average taxpayer.

In an open letter received at my office on December 1, which was sent to the members of the Canadian Parliament, the author discusses the impacts of Bill C-29, and, “the complicated, administratively burdensome, and compliance challenged income tax provision” that will be placed on businesses. Who would want, and why would we want, this to be the case? We see a lot of things coming down from the Liberal government that do not seem to be looked at and do not seem to be the appropriate measures for an average Canadian and for Canadian businesses.

We have heard many quotes in the House from executives and analysts, but I would like to share with the House five quotes from people who I think are experts, taxpayers who pay their bills, and the bills of the government. These are from householders, and I will quote the fantastic people and constituents from Elgin—Middlesex—London.

Wayne Johnston from St. Thomas wrote, “I believe that policies such as the carbon tax and so-called cap and trade initiatives are environmentally useless and serve only to increase the tax burden on Canadians who are already over taxed.”

Karl Crocker from my hometown of Sparta wrote, “I don't think our present government gives a...about the average rural tax payer. With the carbon tax, hydro rates and now natural gas going up. We are mad.”

Gary and Vickie Gould from St. Thomas wrote, “The carbon tax is going to chase us out of our home....We have already two medium size businesses going to the United States if the carbon tax goes through. They do not want to move, but we have to because of the cost of their utilities.”

James Manning from Dorchester, “1. Good paying jobs need to be secured and new investment in Canada in job sectors is needed. 2. Follow up on government work projects to be completed as stated.”

These parties have concerns also for the 2017 budget. People are getting on track and voicing their opinions now because they are concerned with what they are seeing in their Canada today.

Edwin Zavitz from Dorchester said, “The Liberal Goo will do the same as always and tax and spend and steal from the people. The Prime Minister is the same as his father. Looks down his nose at Canadians.”

The government needs to start listening to taxpayers who are the people burdened by the government's debt. Without proper employment and precarious employment, revenue to the government is going to be precarious.

Despite the big spending being done by the government, the Bank of Canada, the International Monetary Fund and the OECD have all downgraded their forecasts for Canada for both 2016 and 2017.

Jobs are in short supply, and I have not seen the job creation that the government has promised. The cost of living continues to rise and the government is making it harder for Canadians. The government needs to refocus its plans for growing the economy. Instead of meeting at Liberal fundraisers with billionaires, the government needs to start meeting with small business owners and ordinary everyday Canadians.

The philosophy that actions speak louder than words needs to be front of mind for the government. We hear so much about the government's plans to raise more families into the middle class, but we do not see programs that actually do it.

We hear time and time again about reducing taxes for the middle-class on the one hand, but on the other hand, all we see are tax increases for every Canadian.

The carbon tax is something extremely concerning to me. During the month of November, I held an agricultural round table with local producers. The carbon tax was discussed and it was a great concern to many of these farmers. I would like to note that during this discussion, it was not I who brought up the carbon tax. It was just in a regular round table where people could speak their mind.

We know it will increase the costs of doing business. In Elgin—Middlesex—London, over 20% of people are connected to the agricultural sector. What type of negative impact will we see? We hear that the price of gas will be going up 11¢ per litre. What happens to rural Canadians who have to drive to work every day?

Public transportation is not an option, therefore the growth with their strategy does not have any impact on farmers or rural people from Rodney to Thorndale in my riding. Because of this new tax, they will see increased expenses.

We know that the cost of shipping goods will be increased. At the end of the day, this cost will be passed on to the consumer. The same people will be paying more for gas, taxed on their dental and health benefits, and taxed to pay for this huge debt. They will continue to pay more money out of their pockets.

The government needs to find a solution to help put people back to work. It needs to find a way of getting those who are looking for jobs back into the labour force. People cannot continue to be unemployed.

That takes me to the changes to the employment insurance, changes that were made to the program in 2013 and were focused on helping get people back to work. We recognize that employment insurance is a temporary solution, and a huge majority of Canadians believe so as well. The best option is to improve employment insurance to assist people to find jobs and create jobs.

Instead, the government is taking anything done in the past 10 years, good or bad, and reversing it. We see that with so many of its bills that have been introduced in the past year. The government has indicated that Canadians voted for change. I am not sure that Canadians who voted for change expected to see what they do today.

I hear all the time that we can do better, and I definitely agree. When is the government going to start?

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleague to read an article published in today's La Presse+ penned by Vincent Brousseau-Pouliot, in which he cites two professors, including one professor from Université Laval, which, I believe, is his alma mater.

In addition, clause 131 of Bill C-29 clearly states in black and white that this federal statute is intended to be paramount to any provision of a law or regulation of a province. My colleague need not check with any constitutional experts; he just has to read that clause. It is written in black and white.

The experts cited by Mr. Brousseau-Pouliot, among others, remind us of this, and so does the open letter from the representative of the Chambre des notaires du Québec. These are experts in contract and civil law. They have no interest in defending a client as litigators would. Rather, they defend the common good, the clarity of contracts. They agree with us on this.

I urge my colleague to defend the interest of Quebec, and I urge him to vote against Bill C-29, which was put under time allocation.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very thoughtful and passionate remarks in this debate. I think he may have raised people's awareness of certain things, and I sincerely thank him for it.

The only point in his speech that I really take exception to is the same point that always bugs me about the Bloc Québécois, namely when they try to say that they are the only ones defending the interests of Quebec. Of course I strongly disagree with that.

Professors of constitutional law have issued an opinion. I would like him to name the professors who are saying that the Consumer Protection Act could not be supplemental to what Bill C-29 provides. Could he give us some examples?

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

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert. It is awful.

For example, in Quebec, if someone's credit card is stolen, the law says that banks cannot charge fees in excess of $50. Bill C-29 encourages credit card thieves because it does away with both law and limits. The bank can claim the entire $2,000, say, that the thief spends. This is a major, serious, and appalling step backward. The government is helping itself to a huge power.

Earlier, my colleague from Hull—Aylmertalked about the patriation of the Constitution when he was talking about Mr. Dion's remarks. In this case, the government is patriating power. It is stealing the Quebec Civil Code. This is unprecedented, outrageous, and an appalling attack. The government is exempting banks from the Quebec Civil Code.

In conclusion, I want to mention that Minister Fournier of the Quebec National Assembly announced a few minutes ago that he is considering taking legal action against the federal government if it goes ahead with Bill C-29.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will stick to Bill C-29 and the impasse put before us. Never have the rights of consumers in Quebec been so diminished than they will be by this bill.

In the drafting of the government’s Bill C-29, just like in the answers that the Minister of Finance gave to Senator Pratte earlier, the solution of “opting out”—which would maintain the Quebec Consumer Protection Act and strengthen consumer protection in the other provinces—was never proposed.

This is not the case, and the masks have come off. This does not strengthen protection for Quebec consumers, but instead weakens it to the benefit of the banks and shields them against the people. This is despicable, and those words were not far-fetched at all. What is far-fetched is the government’s attitude, and this is why I am angry. We need to protect the people, not the banks.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no words to express my outrage. Bill C-29 is a scam perpetrated on Quebec consumers that benefits Toronto bankers. That is not all. Bill C-29 is a direct attack on Quebec, on segments of our legal system and on our ability to decide for ourselves how to run our own society.

Legally speaking, Bill C-29 is the biggest power grab since the patriation of the Constitution in 1982, but that is not all. Bill C-29 is a hypocritical bill, a gift for cigar smokers and champagne drinkers hidden in this massive bill. This bill is being rammed through without an opportunity for debate, defended by Bay Street hacks with bogus arguments. These arguments are categorically untrue. I will come back to that in a few moments.

No matter how we slice or dice it, this bill stinks. It reeks of cronyism and moral turpitude. In fact, the only good thing I see about the bill is that it takes the masks off. Now we know who Ali Baba’s 40 thieves are. We can see how two-faced they are, with their fake smiles, which, when we look closely, look more like snarls.

When it comes to consumer protection, Quebec is nothing short of the most advanced society in North America. Back home is where the average citizen has the most rights to confront big money. That is what Bill C-29 is jeopardizing. Everyone knows that Toronto banks are no fans of Quebec's legal system. They would not be disappointed if Quebec were more like Canada. Then they could have a standard practice from coast to coast to coast, as the government says, without having to worry about some original and distinct society somewhere on this continent.

Indeed, Quebec is unlike any other nation in North America. The Supreme Court got it right two years ago when it asked the banks to respect Quebec's laws. It got it right when it ruled that Quebec's different approach was not a major threat to the banking system.

Even the Supreme Court, the court that almost always rules the same way, sentenced the banks to respecting Quebec and its laws. Outside Quebec, Bill C-29 will not have many adverse effects, but back home it will. Back home, our government sets the strictest safeguards to ensure that consumers are not swindled.

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

In order to ensure that banks obey the law, there is a simple, yet legally binding, recourse mechanism available, and it is the Office de la protection du consommateur, a Quebec government institution. This organization defends ordinary people rather than profiteers, and has the ability to initiate class action suits so that David does not have to go up against Goliath alone. Bill C-29 has just replaced all that with a few provisions that do not protect anyone.

These provisions are written in the conditional tense. Banks should not gouge people and should not charge hidden fees. If they do, the banking ombudsman, who is appointed by the banks themselves, will not be happy with them. That is it. There are no sanctions, no fines, no reimbursements, nothing. This is a joke, and Quebec consumers are the butt of it. They are the ones who are losing out.

The Consumer Protection Act stems from the Civil Code. Quebec's powers in civil law are at the heart of the society we have built. All of the Government of Quebec's economic powers are derived from our autonomy with respect to property and civil rights. These powers are just one reason why Quebec has become the most egalitarian society in North America. The Consumer Protection Act is another. The federal government has always respected that, even if it was not happy about it.

During the British military dictatorship, which began in 1763, the Civil Code was enforced. When Quebec ceased to exist under the Act of Union, the Civil Code applied. Since 1867, even the federal government has respected the Civil Code in its relations with the people of Quebec.

The federal government is not above the Civil Code, but with this measure the banks will be. This is an incredible blow. What is more, not only is Bill C-29 appalling, but so is the manner in which this measure is being introduced. It is hidden among a multitude of clauses in a mammoth bill, and is being rammed through by gagging members to ensure that there is no debate. We have no way of knowing why this is being done.

The only argument cited by the government is the Supreme Court ruling. Apparently the Supreme Court required action on the government's part, which responded with Bill C-29. I have read the Supreme Court ruling several times. In Marcotte, the court does not cite the federal government, but requires the banks to respect Quebec and Quebec laws. In fact, the only time that the court refers to the federal government, it tells the government to do nothing.

This is what the court had to say about Quebec's consumer protection act:

It is hard to imagine how these provisions would force Parliament to pass legislation to countermand them...

The government is therefore not responding to the court ruling; it is going against it. That is not the same, and it does not bode well. I can understand why Liberals outside Quebec support Bill C-29. It does not take away any rights from Canadians outside Quebec. It is in Quebec, and nowhere else, where ordinary folk are being taken to the cleaners.

The Liberal MPs from Quebec are beneath contempt on this issue. They are hacks being used by Bay Street to work against their own people. It is not surprising to see them all by themselves. The National Assembly has denounced them. Their own friends, the Quebec Liberals, are asking them to backtrack. The usually quiet Chambre des notaires du Québec is alarmed by this direct attack on our legal system. There is not a single consumer rights or constitutional law expert on their side. There is absolutely no one standing by them. What is happening is serious.

This debate reminds me of one thing: my people, whom I love, are a minority in this country. The boss is not us, and this country is not ours. In my anger, a quote from Léon Dion comes to mind. Yes, I am talking about Léon Dion, political scientist and father of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who said this:

Since 1763, we no longer have a history, except one, by refraction, that our conquerors would have us experience, as a way to pacify us. Their task has been made all the easier because we produce our own worst enemies.

There is no need for me to name these executioners. There are 40 of them and they know who they are.

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

Consumer Protection

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2

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

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I want to congratulate the new member, the member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, for his intervention in the House today. It is always great to welcome new members, whatever side of the aisle they are from. It is good to see that he is a very quick study on the Conservative talking points. I praise him for that.

It is a pleasure today to rise to support Bill C-29. This legislation, once passed, would implement budget 2016.

I would like to take this opportunity to briefly highlight some of the important aspects of budget 2016.

Canadians are willing to work hard to build a better future for themselves, for their children, and for their grandchildren. They want a government to work with them to make that goal a reality. Budget 2016 would do just that.

The budget would focus on the economy, on creating jobs, on strengthening the middle class, and on helping those working so hard to join the middle class.

I think all of us in the House can agree. Every Canadian deserves a real and a fair chance at success.

Let us take a step back in history, if we may. For generations, Canadians worked hard under the belief that hard work would be rewarded. Canadians believed that by working hard they would get ahead. Canadians believed that their children and grandchildren would have, if not a better opportunity, at least the same opportunity that they had.

That was the Canadian dream. That was the promise of what it meant to be lucky and fortunate, and blessed enough to be born or to live in Canada.

Back in the 1960s, the 1970s, the 1980s, our society was marked by optimism, by decades of economic growth, by scientific discovery, and by nation-building projects that made Canada so much more than the sum of its parts.

However, over the past 30 years, median wages have barely risen. Meanwhile, the cost of living has continued to rise. Increases in food prices, increases in child care costs, increases in tuition, all are making it harder and harder for the Canadian family and Canadians to feel like they are getting ahead. Canadians were working harder and harder, yet feeling like it was not worth it. They were concerned about the ability to pay for their children's education, concerned about the ability to care for elderly parents. Frankly, they were concerned about their own retirement. Canadians were asking themselves, sadly, “Is the Canadian dream dead?”

Budget 2016 is an answer to these real and legitimate concerns of too many Canadians. It is an answer for shifting global economic forces. Most important, it is a long-term plan for growth; in particular, it is a plan for inclusive growth.

Canada is well-positioned because we have the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio of all G7 countries. Couple this with the fact that interest rates are very low. Now is the time to make strategic investments in things like better roads, better transit, broadband Internet, better infrastructure, affordable housing, and clean technology. These investments will grow the economy today, for tomorrow, and well into the future.

It also builds communities. It is an investment in communities and it is a key investment in Canadians. The only way for Canada to move forward is to ensure that our growth is inclusive.

Our growth should leave no one behind. Fairness is a key attribute of what it means to be Canadian. We now see globally what happens when large segments of populations feel left out or left behind and that no one is speaking for them. We cannot go down the road where growth only works for a few. It is bad economic policy and, quite frankly, dangerous social policy. Canadians are better than that, and we must always remain vigilant toward that end.

Of course, Canada's economy is intertwined with the global economy, but Canada must use its fiscal policy to deliver stronger economic growth. In the words of the IMF at the meeting of the G20 finance ministers and central bank governors in February of this year:

...a comprehensive approach is needed to reduce over-reliance on monetary policy. In particular, near-term fiscal policy should be more supportive where appropriate and provided there is fiscal space, especially through investment that boosts both the demand and the supply potential of the economy.

I could not agree more.

I neglected to mention that I will be splitting my time with the member for Joliette.

We know that wages are not growing at the rate to which Canadians have been accustomed. We know more and more Canadians are feeling that, no matter how hard they work, they will not get ahead. On top of that, global growth continues to slow and market volatility is rising. Emerging market economies are slowing. All of these factors make it incumbent on us to invest now in infrastructure, innovation, communities, our country, and most importantly, Canadians. There can be no doubt that investment is needed, and it is needed now.

I would like to highlight a few of the key investments that are an important part of budget 2016. First, on December 7, 2015, one year ago tomorrow, one of the first acts of this government was to introduce a tax cut for Canada's middle class, which benefited nearly nine billion Canadians. Colleagues have talked about the benefits of the Canada child benefit, we have heard about the important investment in the CPP expansion, we moved the retirement age to 65, and we increased the GIS. These are some of the key features of budget 2016.

What I am very enthused about is that the budget shows a great commitment to youth. Historically, parents have told their children that if they want to succeed, they should stay in school, go to university or college, or become an apprentice. Unfortunately, this is becoming more and more out of reach for too many young people. It is harder to save for education and to pay back loans. The reforms to the Canada student loan program would make post-secondary education more affordable and attainable.

Budget 2016 would help youth in Canada, which I think everyone can agree is an important component of our society. All students who qualify deserve the right to go to university or college or to train in the skill of their choice. The inability to pay for that should not be an obstacle or a closed door to the great young Canadians of today, so they can continue to contribute to Canada well into the future. I think everybody in the House agrees with that.

Under this plan, nearly 250,000 low-income students would benefit and nearly 100,000 middle-income students would benefit. It would be an investment of $1.5 billion over five years. What is more, budget 2016 would also make student debt more manageable. Students would not have to pay back student loans until they earn more than $25,000 a year. This, I suggest, is welcome relief.

Youth also need valuable work experience. We know the age-old dilemma that they cannot get jobs without the experience, but they cannot get the experience because they cannot get jobs. This government would commit another $165 million to the Canada student jobs program, which is fantastic. It would give youth an opportunity to get the experience and the job skills they need to continue to be contributing members of society.

Lastly, I want to briefly highlight this government's investment in innovation. This budget would establish Canada as a centre of global innovation. We must empower our creative and entrepreneurial citizens, and this budget would do exactly that by working in partnership and coordination with the private sector, the provinces and territories, municipalities, universities and colleges, and the not-for-profit sector. This plan would see innovative companies move from start-up to commercialization to global success.

Canada is at its best when every Canadian has the opportunity to reach his or her full potential, and long-term economic growth that is fair and inclusive will do just that.

It is imperative that the House support Bill C-29 and create a strong, inclusive economy for today, tomorrow, and well into the future.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-29. First let me say that I am truly humbled to be here as the voice my constituents and to hold the government to account.

At a time when Albertans, and specifically the people of my riding of Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, need it the most, the government has failed them. The Liberal economic action plan has failed Canadians. The only solution the Liberals seem to have for our current economic downturn is to spend more. Borrowed money has to be paid back, and it will be paid back by working Canadian families for generations to come.

Constituents across my riding are concerned about the downturn in our economy and its impact in terms of devastating job losses, out-of-control Liberal spending, the staggering $35 billion deficit, increased taxes, the looming national carbon tax, and the Liberal opposition to the northern gateway pipeline, which would have provided thousands of well-paying jobs for Canadians.

The Liberal legacy of just the last 12 months has sucked the hope and optimism of many in my riding. The good news is that this legacy does not have to be our future. The Conservatives advocated a different path, and our record has spoken for itself, with balanced budgets, 1.3 million net new jobs, the lowest taxes in 50 years, the approval of four new pipelines that move over a million barrels of oil a day, a commitment to our allies, and ongoing support for families.

On October 24, the constituents of my riding sent a strong message to the Liberal government that they were not in favour of rising taxes or wasting money on misplaced priorities. They want someone to stand up for the things that we Albertans, and quite frankly, most Canadians, believe in.

Just over a year ago, the Liberals promised they could spend their way to prosperity, that if hard-working Canadians trusted them to borrow a modest sum, they would create jobs and put more money into the pockets of Canadian families. Canadians are still waiting, and by most measures they are worse off now than they were the year before the Liberals took office.

The economy is stagnant. Despite a big spending budget, the Bank of Canada, the International Monetary Fund, and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development have all downgraded their forecasts for Canada this year and next. Moreover, the Statistics Canada “Economic Insights” report for fall 2016 states:

Labour market conditions in Alberta deteriorated markedly since oil prices began to decline in mid-2014....

The province’s unemployment rate rose above the 8% mark during the summer of 2016, averaging 8.5% from July to September....This marks the first time that the unemployment rate in the province has risen above 8% since mid-1995.

This is the sad reality for Albertans. Where are the jobs that have been promised by the Liberal government?

What is more, with a national unemployment rate of 7%, Canada is worse off now than when the Liberals entered office. Recent reports indicate that a further 30,500 full-time jobs have been lost in the last year alone. Good jobs are in short supply, and the vast majority of new jobs created under the Liberals have been part time.

The situation in my riding of Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner is no different than the outlook for Alberta. According to labour force survey estimates, the unemployment rate is at a five-year high of 6.9% in 2016. The “2016 Medicine Hat's Vital Signs” report by the Community Foundation of Southeastern Alberta states that the average number of EI recipients in the municipality of Medicine Hat alone rose from 890 in June of 2015 to 1,340 in June of 2016. That is a 51% year over year increase.

What do all of these jobless statistics mean for our community? The reality is that many of those who used to donate to the Medicine Hat and District Food Bank now find it necessary to use its services for their very survival and that of their family. Residents are struggling to make ends meet, evidenced by the increase in the number of Medicine Hat and District Food Bank clients over the last three years.

In 2014, the food bank served a total of 5,336 clients, 1,898 being children. In 2015, that number grew to a total of 12,371, with 4,614 being children.

On December 2, last Friday, the food bank has already served 16,137 clients, 6,165 of them children, and that is within a population of 63,000. This represents nearly 475,000 pounds of food so far in 2016.

These are not just vague statistics. They are the faces of families and what is really going on across this country, especially in Alberta. The devastating reality of our economic climate is that some individuals have gone so far as to take their own life. Sadly, they saw suicide as the only way to resolve their specific situation. This feeling of being destitute is what many are experiencing back home.

Jobs should be priority number one in all of Canada, especially Alberta. Too many families are struggling, and instead the Liberal government is repealing employment insurance measures our previous Conservative government introduced to help unemployed Canadians get back to work. We have always focused on the priorities of Canadians by helping families to make ends meet through reductions in income tax, and the creation and protection of jobs.

As I said earlier, the Conservative record speaks for itself. During the worst economic downturn since the great recession, Canada had the best job creation and economic growth record among G7 nations. We reduced taxes to the lowest point in 50 years, with the typical family of four saving almost $7,000 a year. After running a targeted stimulus program that created and maintained approximately 200,000 jobs, we kept our promise to balance the budget and left the Liberals with a $2.9 billion surplus in 2015-16.

Not only have the Liberals mismanaged the surplus that was left to them, they rolled back small business tax cuts, tax-free savings account increases, as well as the arts and sports tax credit for kids. They are proposing a new CPP premium as well as a massive new carbon tax on everyone. These CPP premiums will affect employees and employers at a time when they are struggling to keep employees employed.

The carbon tax and the Liberals' opposition to pipelines are also kicking people while they are down. Any form of carbon tax will diminish Canada's continental competitiveness. It will be a threat to even more job losses and create an unbearable burden to thousands of families already struggling to stay out of poverty. As of yet, I have not seen any evidence that suggests that a carbon tax will have any measurable positive impact on Canada's extremely small global carbon footprint. This is a tax grab, plain and simple.

Imposing a punishing new tax while holding back approval on job-creating pipeline projects, such as the recent rejection of northern gateway, shows how misplaced the current government's priorities are when it comes to jobs and economic growth. In rejecting northern gateway, it is unacceptable for the Liberal Prime Minister to be killing jobs. All options should have been left on the table. It was truly a tough day for unemployed Canadians who just want to get back to work to support their families. Instead of more jobs and growing wealth, Canadians are left with higher taxes, out-of-control government spending, and broken promises.

In closing, our previous Conservative government believed in creating a competitive environment for business, keeping taxes low, limiting red tape, and getting out of the way so that job creators can do what they do best. The Liberals believe that the best way to create a job is through increased spending, government programs, and regulation. That method has shown time and again that it does not work.

For the sake of those in my riding, all Albertans, and the well-being of Canadians, I will continue to speak up against higher taxes and challenge the Liberal government on its blatant disregard for Albertans, for misplaced priorities, and its continued wastefulness on bureaucracy and bloat.

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

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

Indeed, we are in favour of the position so well laid out by the member for Joliette in parliamentary committee. There was also a vote here in the House, yesterday or the day before yesterday, if memory serves. We all voted together here against this measure, except for the Liberal government.

History has its lessons, and history tells us that in 2012 the Conservative government proposed and passed a law to oversee all banking institutions, and there was a court challenge. In 2014 the Supreme Court ruled that, on the specific issue of Quebec’s Consumer Protection Act, the federal statute did not apply. Consequently the government had to rework its method and approach, as the current government is doing with Bill C-29. However, after hearing expert witnesses in parliamentary committee, we were not convinced.

The National Assembly has passed a unanimous motion, with the following outcome: if this bill is unfortunately passed tomorrow morning, it will be challenged in court, and we will be paying a lot of lawyers’ fees. The only winners in this story will be lawyers, not Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks and even recent days, there has been some discussion about an element of Bill C-29 that allows the banks to circumvent Quebec’s Consumer Protection Act.

My hon. colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent cannot be unaware of the unanimous motion of the National Assembly, adopted last week, denouncing this practice of the federal government, which wants to circumvent the Consumer Protection Act to ensure that the banks can escape their obligations.

This will allow the banks to raise credit limits and increase their fees without asking the permission of consumers and to stave off all class action suits, since those lawsuits will no longer be possible, as they are now.

Since my colleague comes from the National Assembly, does he share my concerns on this sensitive matter? It must be said, it makes no sense.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by saying that I will be sharing my time with the brand new member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, who was elected about a month and a half ago and arrived here with a flourish. He has already spoken in question period and in the period for statements by members. In a few minutes, he will be giving his maiden speech. It will be very interesting. I invite all Canadians, particularly those from Medicine Hat, to listen carefully to what he has to say.

We are gathered here for what is likely the final stage of consideration of Bill C-29, which, to some extent, implements the government's budget. It is a very bad budget, which will, unfortunately, once again lead Canada into an unacceptable inflationary spiral of colossal, runaway deficits. We still do not know when the Liberals plan to return to a balanced budget, even though we, the Conservatives, left the house in order when we left office a year and a half ago.

In 2008-09, the entire world was facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression in the 1920s. The industrialized countries of the world had to make tough choices and deal with major problems. Which country bounced back more quickly than any other and had the strongest economy after the crisis? It was Stephen Harper's Canada.

Our government achieved the best debt-to-GDP ratio and the best job creation record in the G7. Our government established a prosperous economy. We had the best record in the G7, and it was thanks to Stephen Harper's government.

Canadians' tax burden was also the lowest in 50 years. Today, it is not even close. Furthermore, 192,000 jobs, most of them full-time jobs, were created through the sound management of the Conservative government. I did say “created through the sound management” because the government does not create jobs. It is the private sector that really drives the economy, especially when no obstacles to creating jobs are thrown in its way, as this government is doing. I will come back to that later.

When the Liberals regrettably came to power 14 months ago, the house was in order. However what did they do? Unfortunately, they partied hard, and our children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren will pay later for this government's poor management.

We have to recognize one thing. The Liberals had the gall to get elected by saying that they would run deficits. That took some guts. However, they talked about a small deficit of $10 billion over three years. After that they would miraculously balance the budget. That was the Liberal platform.

However, what is the reality today? We are no longer talking about very small deficits, but instead colossal deficits of $30 billion. That is the reality of this government. This year there will be a $30-billion deficit, and it will be the same thing for several years, since the government is unable to tell us when we will be returning to a balanced budget. It is not because we have not been asking, because I have put the question to the Minister, not once, twice, five times, ten times, but 13 times. I have asked the Minister and his parliamentary secretary 13 times when will Canada return to balanced budgets. The government has never been able to tell us when Canada will be getting back to zero deficits.

This is completely unacceptable management. No administrative technician would keep his job if his boss asked him when the company would be returning to balanced budgets and he responded by talking about the debt-to-GDP ratio requested by customers. His boss would ask him for an exact date, and if he was unable to give one, you could count the seconds until he was no longer working for that company, because that would be completely unacceptable.

However, the government never answers questions about when the budget will be back in balance. This is appalling to all Canadians.

Fortunately, it is becoming abundantly clear to more and more Canadians that this does not make sense. Just a month ago, the Liberals delivered an economic update. The new thing we learned is that there is no recovery plan and no consideration being given to the current economic situation. On the contrary, the party is continuing and spending is out of control. Another new thing we learned is that there is $32 billion in additional spending.

That is another $32 billion for something that is not working. Why is it not working? Because since this government has been in power, no net full-time job has been created by the private sector, by Canada. Zero. That is the current government’s record on job creation. Again, it is not the government that creates jobs, it is the private sector, but it needs help.

Speaking of small business, let us talk about the reality. For us Conservatives, small businesses are the backbone of the economy. These are the people who create wealth. Those are the businesses that create employment. These are the people who create wealth for the economy and what is good for Canadians, not the government. But the least the government can do is to help businesses and not impose more taxes.

What has the government done for the last full year? It was very creative. Month after month, the Liberals created a new tax. They created the Liberal carbon tax that will be imposed on all businesses, especially small businesses that will have to pay a high price for the Liberals' carbon tax. They have also imposed more pressure through the Canada pension plan. It will cost $1,000 more for each person who works at an entrepreneur's business. For the people who work there, it will cost them $1,000 more every year and they will not see the results of that for the next 40 years.

It is all wrong. The government can help small businesses that create jobs, wealth, and create a strong economic Canada. That is what we need to do.

This government makes such a big deal about making income tax changes and about being like Robin Hood, taking from the rich and giving to the poor. Stop it. The way I see it, their Robin Hood policy is to shoot arrows like a bad archer and then get hit in the face.

Here are the facts: 65% of Canadians will not receive this so-called help for families. This means that 65% of Canadians do not get a tax cut. The ones who benefit the most from these tax changes are those making between $144,000 and $200,000 a year. Yes, someone making $199,999.99 per year has won the Liberal government jackpot. Is this anywhere close to the middle class and ordinary workers? No.

Once again, in the interest of honesty and integrity, I want to give Canadians the facts. I have a conflict of interest, as do all the members of the House of Commons, including the parliamentary secretaries. In fact, we benefit the most from these tax changes. I could be selfish and think only of myself and be happy and say how wonderful it is that the government is helping me a lot, because since I make $175,000 a year, I am the one benefiting the most.

I prefer, however, to put such selfish considerations aside. My thoughts are with the taxpayers first and foremost, 65% of which are not affected by these changes. The Liberals continue to crow about their great principles. My friend and colleague the hon. member for Québec, the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, says that the government is thinking of Canadian families, the least fortunate, all of those people. We are not against any of that.

The only difference is that we were reaching our goals without creating a $30-billion deficit as they are doing. Better still, these people have forgotten one little detail, once again. When they did their calculations, they forgot to index. They forgot that, over time, the cost of living goes up just a trifle. Well, maybe more than that: after five years, that trifle begins to swell. That is the Liberal reality: once again, pure amateurism.

The Liberals cannot say when we will return to a balanced budget, and when they draw up the family allowance budget, they forget to index after five years. That is totally unacceptable.

We hope that this debate will cause some Liberals to open their eyes before it is through. Unfortunately, there is a risk this budget will pass. It is not a good budget because it commits us to out-of-control spending by a government that has already lost control of public spending.

[TJ Harvey, Liberal, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am truly honoured to rise and speak on behalf of my riding of Tobique—Mactaquac today in favour of Bill C-29.

I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Gatineau.

One year ago, the people of Tobique—Mactaquac entrusted me with the responsibility of being their member of Parliament. As a new MP, the last year has been full of learning, challenges, and new relationships. Overall, it been an overwhelmingly positive experience for me as I have worked on behalf of my constituents, and with them, on the opportunities and concerns related to their everyday lives.

The investments we as a government are making to strengthen the middle class and to help those working hard to join it have been unprecedented. Our economy will grow not only in the short term but over the long term as well as a direct result of this. Canada is one of the first countries in the world to put into practice the idea that when we have an economy that works for the middle class, we have a country that works for everyone.

We listened to Canadians when they told us that they are working harder than ever but not getting ahead. That is why we have put in place a plan to help them, not only in the present but also into the future.

There are measures like cutting taxes for close to nine million Canadians who need it most, but also increasing taxes on the wealthiest 1%. We have also introduced the Canada child benefit, which puts more money into the pockets of nine out of 10 families with children to help them with their present need and to ensure they have the tools to succeed in the future. This investment alone will raise over 300,000 children out of poverty.

As a government, we signed an agreement with the provinces to enhance the Canada pension plan so that those entering the workforce now and future generations of workers could be assured of a stable and dignified retirement. There are also measures like increasing monthly payments of the most vulnerable seniors, especially single seniors, and restoring the eligibility for old age security to 65 years of age.

In my riding, I have conducted numerous “Let's talk” events, consultations on topics such as Canada's summer jobs, infrastructure, climate change, electoral reform, economic development, youth job creation, employment insurance, pre-budget 2016, pre-budget 2017, and general town hall meetings quarterly on any open topic about which my constituents wish to speak with me. Our Senior's Healthy Living & Aging Well Expo was attended by over 200 seniors. This illustrates that seniors are a priority in my riding and continue to be so.

Our government is also working hard to help young Canadians succeed. This summer I saw for myself how budget 2016 was helping young people get valuable experience through the Canada summer jobs program.

In my riding alone, funding was increased for Canada summer jobs by $221,000. We have doubled the number of jobs funded in 2016 by giving businesses and organizations that applied for funding the opportunity to put more young people to work, to earn incomes and gain valuable experience that they will carry with them as they transition into the workforce in the coming years.

Youth in my riding have come together and their voices are being heard. The Tobique—Mactaquac Youth Council has met and understands that the government respects and values its input. Our budget committed to increasing grants for students, from low and middle-income families, as well as part-time students. We have done all of this while simultaneously making strong investments in infrastructure that will help small and medium-sized businesses grow and take advantage of the current and upcoming opportunities as we transition into a cleaner, greener economy.

Since November of 2015, an unprecedented number of businesses and not-for-profit organizations in my riding have received business development funding through ACOA, an organization that plays an integral role in the economic development of rural Canada in the Atlantic provinces. Over 25% of municipalities and not-for-profit organizations in Tobique—Mactaquac have been approved for Canadian infrastructure program funding, CIP 150, for projects such as upgrades to local parks, renovations, and enhancements to community facilities. This type of infrastructure funding is of great importance not only to my riding but to ridings all across this country.

David Dodge has said that over the past 10 years, Canada has been in an infrastructure deficit. Not enough has been committed to infrastructure renewal and now more than ever, the provinces need a federal partner they can work collaboratively with to address these challenges, whether it is crumbling roads, bridges or ports, and rail access.

My riding, Tobique—Mactaquac, is a vast rural riding that relies heavily on agriculture and agrifood, the riding's main industries, as well as manufacturing and natural resources.

Having grown up on a large family-owned farm myself producing seed potatoes, oilseeds, small grains, and having worked within primary agriculture, construction, transportation, and food processing prior to being elected last year, I have an acute understanding of the many challenges faced by small and medium-sized businesses.

Over the past year, I have had the opportunity to speak with hundreds of small-business owners, as well as large-business owners, about the opportunities and challenges in growing their businesses in an ever-changing and increasingly demanding market.

I also had the opportunity this fall to host a rural economic development round table with key business stakeholders from my riding. I heard their thoughts on budget 2016 and how they feel they can leverage hard work with the initiatives put forth by our government to seize opportunities to grow their businesses. They collectively praised our government's efforts to invest in infrastructure, citing it as traditionally being a major impediment to growing a company in a rural environment. Business owners spoke of the potential positive impact the Atlantic growth strategy will have in the years to come by allowing us to tailor programming investments not only in infrastructure but also in innovation, green technology, skills training, market development, and immigration to the four Atlantic provinces. I completely agree with them.

As one of the 32 elected Liberal MPs from Atlantic Canada, I am proud of the approach our government has taken through budget 2016 and the Atlantic growth strategy to address the need for increased immigration through the Atlantic immigration pilot. It will allow us to grow our population and will allow business growth, with the certainty that we, as a government, will be partnering with them to help them flourish.

In my riding, we have successfully welcomed Syrian newcomers and families in Woodstock, Perth-Andover, Nackawic, and Florenceville-Bristol, with the help of many hands serving on community boards, to ensure that newcomers feel comfortable and supported. Giving newcomers the opportunity to access the necessary supports, training, and tools to become employed and full integrated into the community is a priority for the employers and volunteers in my riding.

Harrison McCain once said that “if you are in business or starting a business, you should do it with the plan to grow”. Working hand in hand with the government is essential to allowing this to happen. Successful government programs that allow the private sector to grow are recommended. I believe that this quote very much reflects our government's approach to rural economic development. It is an approach the government can and should play an active role in to help businesses, both big and small, in both rural and urban environments, access the tools they need to prosper for years to come. That is why we have made specific commitments to help grow Canada's rural and northern economies with a $2-billion dedicated investment to help them succeed. We understand the vital role rural economies play in the overall health of a nation.

I would be remiss if I did not take a moment to speak about the work we have done and will continue to do through our first budget, budget 2016, to begin to address the inequalities for first nations. We have made historic investments in first nations through budget 2016, and we have renewed the dialogue with first nations. I am particularly proud of the great work of the Tobique First Nation and the Woodstock First Nation in the past year as they together moved forward in investing in education, infrastructure, training, and other programs that will directly contribute to a better quality of life for indigenous peoples within Tobique—Mactaquac.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, I fully support our government's commitment to develop our resources sustainably, ensuring that economic prosperity and environmental protection go hand in hand, which will help indigenous people, ensure that local communities benefit economically and socially, and make resource development a nation-building exercise.

While Canada has the resources to lead the global transition to a lower-carbon future, we will only do so by ensuring that our environmental house is in order, by continuing to engage meaningfully with indigenous peoples, and by earning the confidence of Canadians.

Our government is determined to lead the way. We demonstrated that again last week with the decisions we announced on several major pipeline projects. In each instance, the decisions we took were based on solid science, meaningful consultations, and the best interests of Canadians.

As the Prime Minister has said, the choice between pipelines and wind turbines is a false one. Bill C-29 speaks to this reality and Canada's potential to create the prosperity we seek while protecting the environment we cherish.

We as Canadians agree that veterans should be recognized for their service to Canada and that it is the Government of Canada's official duty to recognize, with respect and dignity, the achievements of Canada's veterans and the fallen. The Prime Minister of Canada gave the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence the mandate to re-open nine previously closed Veterans Affairs service offices and to hire new service delivery staff to better support veterans and their families where they live. I am proud that our budget 2016 reaffirmed the government's intent to give back to veterans and to deliver on its promise to restore critical access to services.

I would like to end my speech today by asking Canadians from coast to coast to coast to join me and my family in thanking the hundreds of Canadian men and women in uniform for their efforts and sacrifices, particularly as they spend the holiday season away from their families and family traditions. I wish to thank them for their continued service to our country.

In conclusion, I am grateful for having the opportunity to represent my riding of Tobique—Mactaquac. I am looking forward to the new energy and hope our Prime Minister brings to Canada and to the world. On behalf of my wife Tanya, our daughters Emma, Madilyn, and Sarah, and our son Jack, I wish the entire chamber, my family, and friends the best holiday season.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, let me thank my hon. colleague for his return to childhood humour and fun in his speech just now.

I am proud to rise in the House today to discuss Bill C-29. The act would fulfill commitments made in budget 2016 and build on other actions taken by the government that would strengthen Canada's middle class, ensure seniors achieve a secure and dignified retirement, and provide necessary supports for our women and men in uniform, among other important measures.

Budget 2016 would have a significant and tangible benefit for Canadians and for people in Fredericton, New Maryland, Oromocto, and the Grand Lake region, the riding I am honoured to represent.

Our government's first order of business was cutting taxes for nine million Canadians, part of our commitment to strengthen the middle class and help those families working hard to join it. This targeted tax cut provided roughly $3.4 billion in annual financial relief to middle-class individuals and families. More money left in the hands of middle-class Canadians means more money being spent and invested in our local economy.

This measure is one of the many changes our government has made to give Canadians what they want and deserve: a fair tax system that gives everyone a chance to succeed and prosper.

The government is committed to putting forward a budget that prioritizes supporting families and ensuring their well-being. That is what we did, and we did it quite decisively by creating the Canada child benefit. This innovative child benefit was designed to help families that need it most so they can cover the high cost of raising children nowadays.

In New Brunswick, the Canada child benefit has had a transformational effect on thousands of families. More than 112,000 children in New Brunswick alone are benefiting from this new instrument, which consequently will add more than $622 million to the regional economy in its first two years.

As the first tax-free Canada child benefit cheques were sent to families in July, I read a story in Fredericton's The Daily Gleaner about a young mother and father of two children who said the benefit had changed everything for them. The mother told the newspaper that every month it was a struggle to keep on top of their bills, keep a roof over their children's heads, and keep food in their bellies, but thanks to the Canada child benefit, the family was getting its bills in order, could comfortably cover the cost of essentials, and could afford opportunities to make memories with their children, such as a trip to the Moncton zoo with the children's grandparents, something that would not have been possible without the new Canada child benefit.

The mother also said that the Canada child benefit would give her the flexibility and possibility to pursue post-secondary studies so she could further improve her family situation. A benefit for families that can do all this is certainly something I know my colleagues can all get behind, as well as Canadians.

In New Brunswick, there is an aging population that is more pronounced than elsewhere in the country. For this reason, I was pleased to see measures in budget 2016 that would provide support and help to seniors and those about to enter retirement.

By bringing the age of eligibility for old age security back down to 65, we gave thousands of dollars back to Canadians entering their senior years. The lowest-income seniors will get up to $17,000. Our government provided additional assistance to more than 900,000 of the most vulnerable seniors when it enhanced the guaranteed income supplement by up to $947 per year for seniors living alone.

While shifting demographics present us with many challenges, they also provide us with new and exciting opportunities. I am proud that the Fredericton region has positioned itself as a national leader in addressing our health care challenges in innovative ways and that this vision has been met with enthusiasm from our government.

In September, I was pleased to announce $36 million in combined funding for the University of New Brunswick to build a centre for healthy living on its Fredericton campus. This project was made possible because of our government's strategic infrastructure fund. This new centre will allow researchers at UNB's faculty of kinesiology to work collaboratively on solving big issues in health. This research and the applications that will come from this centre promise to improve the lives of all Canadians, from my home town of Freddy Beach.

There are already several solution-based projects and commercial development at UNB's faculty of kinesiology, including oxygen-based therapy for healing and wearable robotics that assist people with mobility issues. This is just the start of a vision to establish our province as a living lab and national leader in preventive health care.

As the representative in the House of the riding that is home to Canada's second largest military training base, 5th Canadian Division Support Base Gagetown, I am proud of our women and men in uniform, our veterans, and their families. Soldiers who train at Base Gagetown serve our country and promote peace and stability at home and abroad, and the base itself is an important economic engine for the Fredericton region and the province as a whole.

In fact, Base Gagetown represents roughly 70% of the population of Oromocto and surrounding communities, employs 5,500 military members and 1,100 civilian personnel, and contributes more than $600 million annually to New Brunswick's economy. As it is such an integral part of the region, I was pleased to join the Minister of National Defence this summer to announce $38 million in funding to improve critical infrastructure and build new training facilities at Base Gagetown. This investment will ensure suitable infrastructure within the base's vast training grounds and will increase the quality of training for our women and men in uniform.

It is just as important to help the active members of the Canadian Armed Forces as it is to ensure that veterans are getting the support and services they deserve after all the efforts and sacrifice they made for our country.

Over the past year, the government's determination to provide better service to veterans and their families has been clear. We are committed to reopening the nine Veterans Affairs Canada offices that were closed by the previous government. This will help us ensure that our veterans have access in their home communities to the services, care, and compassion they deserve.

I know that this is just a few of the many measures that the Government of Canada must take to improve the services and benefits provided to our veterans.

The government is committed to improving the lives of all Canadians, including families, seniors, and veterans. Bill C-29 demonstrates the government's deep commitment to moving the economy forward without leaving anyone behind. Budget 2016 works to improve the lives of families and to combat poverty through the Canada child benefit. With a simpler, tax-free, and more generous Canada child benefit, nine out of 10 Canadian families will receive higher monthly benefits and hundreds of thousands of children will be lifted out of poverty.

The government is working for seniors across Canada and is determined to improve their quality of life.

Budget 2016 will work to give back to our veterans who have given so much in service to our country. We will restore critical access to services for veterans and ensure the long-term financial security of disabled veterans and their families.

The government is devoted to improving the lives of all Canadians and Bill C-29 works to do just that.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-29. I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Fredericton. Today I want to talk about how the budget implementation bill will affect an ordinary family in my riding.

One of the things we all saw during the election was how Canadians as a whole, men, women, and children, were affected by actions taken by the government. We listened to what our constituents had to say.

I thought it would be interesting to take an average family of five and put it into this budget. As I do not want to use an actual family in my riding, I will use a fictional family. Let us call them the Simpsons.

The Simpsons are five people. There is a father named Homer. He works in a nuclear power plant and is the sole income earner of the family. His wife's name is Marge. She is a stay-at-home mom, and they have three children, Bart, Lisa, and a little baby named Maggie.

Homer earns approximately $85,000 a year in the nuclear power plant. That is the sole income for the Simpson family. Homer will now see an added 1.5% on all of his income between $44,500 and $85,000, approximately $1,500, for Homer and Marge to spend on their family. Whether it is for Lisa's saxophone lessons or for such indulgences as hair dye for Marge, the Simpsons will have extra money in their pockets because of the budget this year.

As for the family allowances, now on a tax-free basis, for little Maggie, they could see up to $6,400. They will not, because they are in a higher income tax bracket, but they will see more money. For children under six, it is $6,400, and for kids between six and 18, it is $5,400 for those who are at the lowest income levels. Their neighbours, who are at lower income levels, are actually seeing their children coming out of poverty. Over 300,000 Canadian children are coming out of poverty because of these tax-free Canada child benefits.

The Simpsons will have added money as well from the Canada child benefits, because at their income level, like 90% of Canadian families they will see more money in their pockets for all three of their children.

Let us talk about communication. Marge has two sisters, Patty and Selma. They live in a rural Canadian community where the Internet is difficult to access. This budget puts $500 million toward enhancing broadband Internet access for those rural communities so that Marge will one day be able to Skype with her sisters and watch them light up as she talks to them.

Homer's dad lives in the community. Abe Simpson, who we will call Grandpa Simpson, lives alone, a single, poor man who is a veteran.

First, he has enhanced veterans benefits now. As well, veterans offices closer to him are re-opening to ensure that his role in protecting his country is recognized.

Second, he is on a guaranteed income supplement. The guaranteed income supplement has been up by close to $1,000 a year to allow him to live better and in more security.

Let us say that Abe has a partner, and she is in the hospital or in a long-term care facility. One of the things I am happiest about in this budget relates to the fact that now they are recognized as living on their own, for the purpose of the guaranteed income supplement, and not as living together, which would reduce the total benefit they are receiving.

These things are helpful. They help Canadian families and they are making a true difference.

Lisa, alone among the children of Homer and Marge, is an incredibly bright girl and wants to go to college. According to what was laid out in the budget, she will have more ability to get student loans and more ability to afford to go to a good college anywhere in Canada. Not only that, but she will only need to start repaying these student loans when she starts to earn $25,000 a year, so she will have a great chance to further her education and then become a very successful person in society, no matter what she chooses to do.

Then there is also more money for vocational training. Let us say Bart does not want to go to college, but he wants to become a plumber or a mechanic. There is more money to help him achieve his goals, including internships, in this budget. On the whole, taking this typical Canadian family, this budget would make things so much better for them.

Let us talk about infrastructure. Homer takes the bus to work. There was a lot of money, which has now been agreed on with the provinces and the federal government, in this budget to go to infrastructure to help public transit, to make our buses greener and cleaner, more environmentally friendly. As a former mayor, I went into federal politics in the hope that there would be budgets like this that enhanced and increased infrastructure spending. This budget achieves that, and would allow Homer's ride to work to be cleaner, safer, and better.

I am just going to talk about the roads that they drive on. In my riding there is the Cavendish Boulevard extension, linking two parts of Cavendish Boulevard together, from the riding of Saint-Laurent to the riding of Mount Royal. This is the most important missing piece of the Montreal Island road network and is something for which we desperately need infrastructure monies. It is one of those projects that could come to fruition because of this type of budget that gives more money for cities to be able to enhance roads, water mains, and all kinds of hard infrastructure, as well as social infrastructure, like public housing.

It could be the case that Marge has another aunt who lives in public housing, in one of those places where the funds were cut by the previous government when it stopped renewing agreements. The Liberal government renewed those agreements to give monies back, so that Marge's aunt would have more money in her pocket to pay her rent. That is important.

One thing I wanted to talk about is the following.

Our colleagues in the New Democratic Party talked about the Bank Act and the Marcotte decision. In Marcotte, the provisions of Quebec's Consumer Protection Act were upheld because, although the federal legislation has precedence when it comes to banks, also known as the paramountcy doctrine, the federal government had failed to legislate in certain areas. It was in those areas that Quebec's Consumer Protection Act applied.

If we do not legislate these matters, the Consumer Protection Act will continue to apply. We know that, at present, we refer to the regulations. We do not know exactly what this legislation will look like. We may legislate certain areas and we may not legislate at all. In those areas, the Consumer Protection Act will continue to apply. In the areas in which federal legislation exists, it is true that the Consumer Protection Act might no longer apply. However, we want to have a national approach.

I want to say that, as a Quebec MP, I am happy that consumers across Canada would be more protected because of this act. There would be the introduction of a cooling-off period during which a consumer could cancel an agreement for products or services provided by a bank. There would be an unfair practice regime to add to the tied selling restriction, and a prohibition against taking advantage of persons who are unable to protect their own interests.

There would be an amendment regime, where banks could not just amend their contracts without notifying and giving the details to consumers. There would be an easier way to set up bank accounts with more types of identification. I am very happy that our government is introducing accountability within the banking framework in Canada and trying to protect consumers from across Canada against the abuses from the banking sector.

In closing, I support Bill C-29. I am sure my hon. colleague from Fredericton, who will follow me with an incredible speech, also supports Bill C-29. I encourage all members of this House to support Bill C-29.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to rise in the House for the third reading of Bill C-29.

It will come as a surprise to no one that I will be devoting part of my speech to infrastructure. First, however, I would like to look back in general on the work accomplished by the Liberal government that has been in power for a year now.

Over one year, we note in the end that a myriad promises have not been kept. Infrastructure is one example. The election platform of the Liberal party promised to create an infrastructure bank. However, the Liberals were careful not to indicate what this bank would be like.

My colleagues in the House tell me that their mayors and their municipal officials had the impression that, ultimately, the infrastructure bank was money invested by the federal government to ensure that the municipalities could get low-interest loans to finance their infrastructure programs. That impression derived in part from the discussions they had with their Liberal candidates at the time.

Today we find ourselves facing a monster that is a long way from the glowing picture painted for the mayors. In the end, the bank could hit $200 billion in capitalization, and be about 80% financed by the private sector. Eventually it will have to earn a return for the private sector so that it can make good on the investments. According to some observers, such as Michael Sabia of the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, the rate of return could be around 7% to 9%.

This is not at all what Canadians had been told. On the contrary, during the campaign, members will recall that the Liberals said that a small deficit of $10 billion would be needed so it could be invested in infrastructure projects. We now realize that this is not what is happening at all. The deficit is far higher than predicted, since it is over $30 billion this year, and a tiny portion of that is invested in infrastructure.

During the debate at report stage, I asked a Liberal member some questions. I wanted to know how he justified the fact that the government wanted to invest, and was boasting about investing, an additional $80 billion over 10 years when, at the end of the day, two-thirds of the new envelopes promised will not be available until two elections from now. He said it was perfectly normal, because we need to take the time to prepare good projects. That is true. However, the current $30-billion deficit clearly shows that that money will not be invested in infrastructure.

This is an important commitment. The situation promised to Canadians is not at all what the Liberal government is delivering, but that should come as no surprise. The Liberals made big promises to Canadians on a number of different issues, but those promises are not being kept.

For instance, the Liberals made a solemn promise, with hands over hearts, that they would consult first nations on development projects and that those consultations would be meaningful and genuine. However, the approval of Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain project, the Site C project, and the Muskrat Falls project, which involves flooding the area, clearly illustrate that this promise is not worth the paper it is written on.

The government swore up and down that the Trans Mountain and energy east projects would not be approved until the environmental assessment process and the public consultation process were complete. However, we recently learned that the government approved the Trans Mountain project using the Conservatives' process. The Liberals sugarcoated things by saying there would be an extra consultation process, but ultimately, the process they used to approve Trans Mountain was the one the Conservatives implemented in 2012. The same thing will happen with energy east because the government has shown no interest in changing the National Energy Board other than getting industry insiders involved in a process to re-examine what the board should be.

The Liberals also promised to end legal action against veterans and first nations.

My colleagues from Timmins—James Bay and Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou ask questions about that in the House all the time. They ask questions about the fact that the government is pursuing legal action that was originally launched by the Conservatives. I really do not see the Liberals keeping most of their highest-profile promises.

I would like to say a few words about Bill C-29, and then I will come back to infrastructure. One of the fundamental elements of Bill C-29 that we oppose is changes to the Bank Act that will supposedly better protect consumers. It is really just Liberal positioning. Most of the legal experts we have seen and most of the journalists on this file agree that, on the contrary, consumers will lose big if the federal government encroaches on this because it is under Quebec and provincial jurisdiction. I am looking squarely at the Liberal members from Quebec.

It is quite ironic. I asked the parliamentary secretary about this. The the government is saying that it is responding to Marcotte ruling. In that case, a consumer, Mr. Marcotte, filed suit against the Bank of Montreal. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court. The dispute was over the excessive foreign currency conversion fees charged by the banks. The banks claimed they were subject to the Bank Act and not the Consumer Protection Act. The Quebec Superior Court and then the Supreme Court ruled against them.

The government decided to respond to that and change the legislation. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of Mr. Marcotte and forced the banks to pay more than $30 million in this class action suit. There is a principle referred to as the doctrine of federal paramountcy, which establishes that where there is a conflict between two valid laws, the federal law will prevail; if there is no conflict, the doctrine of federal paramountcy does not apply. That is what the Supreme Court ruled on when it sided with Mr. Marcotte, because the Consumer Protection Act was not in conflict with the Bank Act in the case in question.

What was the federal government's response? It plans to voluntarily create a conflict. It is going to voluntarily create an ombudsman position, and that office will be the only place that people who feel they have been cheated by the system will be able to go for help. They will no longer be able to go to the Office de la protection du consommateur du Québec or to file class action suits. Therein lies the irony. If the amendments that the Liberals want to make to this law had already been in effect, there would have been an ombudsman, it would not have been possible to go to the Office de la protection du consommateur, and the Marcotte decision would never have been rendered. There would not have even been a lawsuit because that would not have been possible. The amendments proposed by the government will prevent the type of class action lawsuit that led to the amendment proposed in this bill.

That makes no sense, and many journalists and legal experts have recognized that. One of the people we heard from was a representative of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre. He said that this was an intrusion into provincial jurisdiction, and that the federal government should expect this matter to end up before the Supreme Court because it infringes on this area of jurisdiction. The government could also end up in court if it is not careful about the single securities regulator it wants to establish, despite opposition from Quebec and Alberta in particular.

I would like to draw my colleagues' attention to the editorial that Brigitte Breton wrote in Le Soleil, which is entitled “Prime Minister protecting banks”. Of course, I changed the title so as not to name the Prime Minister. Ms. Breton summarized the situation as follows.

In Marcotte—a class action suit between the banking community and customers who objected to being billed for conversion charges on foreign currency credit card transactions given that they had never been notified that such fees would apply—the Supreme Court ruled that the provincial consumer protection laws applied even though banks fall under federal jurisdiction.

That was what the Supreme Court had to say. The federal government's response is to pass legislation in the hope of getting around the courts, Quebec, and the provinces by saying that it will now appropriate that right.

I would like Quebec members to realize that the information they have been provided by their own party is not consistent with the legal opinions or the media analysis of people who are quite knowledgeable about this matter.

Now that I have stated my main objection to Bill C-29, I would like to go back to the issue of infrastructure. I spoke about the infrastructure bank and the fact that the Liberals led Canadians to believe that they intended to run a deficit in order to invest in infrastructure. I have shown that that was not the case. There are other problematic elements in the Liberals' approach that really should be brought to the public's attention.

First of all, I would really like government members to start reflecting on the following situation: the federal government asked the investment firm Credit Suisse to provide advice on the privatization of airports. Credit Suisse, which is in the business of buying infrastructure, is going to give the federal government advice on whether it should privatize airports in which Credit Suisse itself would have an interest in investing. Does that not seem like a conflict of interest?

Let us move on to something else. The federal government asked Morgan Stanley, another investment firm, to advise it on privatizing 18 port authorities. This same firm was caught up in the 2008 financial crisis. Now the federal government says that all is forgiven and forgotten. There is a link for sure. Imagine a firm caught up in a financial crisis. Oh my God, there have been so many books and films about the roots of the financial crisis. We know how these firms sometimes think.

What should we expect to see at the end of the Morgan Stanley report on whether to privatize our 18 port authorities? Does anyone seriously believe that Morgan Stanley will say it is not in the federal government's interest to do it and that the firm could not in good conscience take advantage of the government like that? Of course the firm will say that privatization is in the public interest. Actually, Morgan Stanley was once a Port of Montreal shareholder, and it still has an interest in buying and in recommending privatization to the federal government.

Does that not seem like a conflict of interest to the government? I am asking in all sincerity. I do not see how the Liberals could have sat here in the last Parliament and let the Conservatives get away with this if they had decided to take that route. It is unconscionable.

The Liberals are acting fundamentally differently now that they are in power, compared to how they acted when they were in opposition. If they were still in opposition, they would be screaming that the Conservatives had no mandate to privatize airports and ports. However, that is what the Liberals are doing, even though they said nothing during the election campaign about the possibility of privatizing these pieces of infrastructure that are key to Canada's economic development.

Anyone who thinks that privatizing this kind of infrastructure is not a problem needs to think again. We have 18 port authorities. If they are to be privatized, of course the private sector will only want the juiciest pieces. That goes without saying. There is no guarantee that all 18 port authorities would find takers. The government will be stuck with the least profitable, and the most profitable will be handed over to the private sector. However, there is nothing to say that they will still be profitable in 20 years' time. That will depend on the government's decisions.

The Port of Churchill, which is vital to Canada's Arctic sovereignty, was privatized 20 years ago. Things were going well for a while. However, various decisions made by the federal government over the years led to the port being closed by the buyer. It was all smoke and mirrors for the people of Churchill. They were told that by privatizing their port, it would be revitalized by private interests.

The same thing may happen to ports, airports, and even infrastructure. What the government said during the election campaign seems to have been completely forgotten. It made fine promises, just as it did on electoral reform.

The Liberals promised to run deficits in order to invest in our infrastructure. Yes, we know that we currently have a major infrastructure deficit. We know that we have to reinvest. That was one of our election promises. However, we would have invested directly in infrastructure. That is what the Liberals said during the election campaign.

Never did they suggest asking the private sector, investment banks and pension funds to invest upwards of $170 billion on the promise of returns in the form of tolls and user fees. This was never mentioned during the election campaign. The only thing the Liberals said about tolls was that there would be none on the Champlain Bridge. There are going to be tolls everywhere because these pension funds and investment banks are obviously not going to want to invest unless they get a hefty return on their investment.

The Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec said that it did not expect to get a rate of return of 9%. Does the House really think that it will invest in projects that are going to give it a 2% to 4% rate of return only, when the total rate of return on its investments was 9% for the past year? It has the fiduciary responsibility to get the best return possible. It is not going to give up a potential return of 8% to 9% to go after a return of 2% to 4% because it is in the public interest.

I am not talking about private investment funds such as BlackRock. Dominic Barton, head of the advisory council on economic growth, appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance where I asked him a question about private investors. I said that BlackRock must be interested in major infrastructure. He said no, because this investment fund was not big enough for that. However, it is bigger than the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec.

Right now, the government is trying to be reassuring. It is saying that there is nothing to worry about, that this is going to happen, that everything is under control, and that there will be no loss of control over our infrastructure. The government is saying that the private sector and investment funds will get involved in the infrastructure bank because it will be more worthwhile than the 1% or 2% in returns they get elsewhere but that we will not lose control over our infrastructure.

Eighty per cent of the infrastructure bank's capital will come from the private sector. Does the House think that the private sector is going to let the government make all of the decisions regarding that capital? That makes no sense. The House needs to think twice, and maybe even three or four times, before going ahead with this. Would it make sense for the private sector to invest billions of dollars in capital in an infrastructure bank and then leave all the decisions up to the federal government? No.

What we are seeing more and more in the main financial publications is that this infrastructure bank will have to be free and independent from all federal government ties. The government will put the equivalent of $40 billion in the investment bank, $15 billion of which will be taken from other funds, in the hopes of attracting between $160 billion and $170 billion.

After that, the government will no longer have a say because the bank will be independent and will not have any link whatsoever with the federal government. It will be the bank making the big decisions. It will be making the decisions since it will be 80% capitalized by the private sector. Does the House really think that the private sector will not find this opportunity irresistible? Of course it will.

It is a matter of priorities. If the private sector is seeking a high return, where will it get one? It will get one from projects that yield a good rate of return, such as from tolls and user fees mostly.

In a small community such as mine, which is largely rural, we have a project that could be worth over $100 million. Obviously, the banks and investors would not be interested in projects under $100 million. We have a project, highway 20. Does the House think that these investors will be interested in investing in highway 20 to Rimouski instead of investing in what could become a toll highway around Montreal, Toronto, or Vancouver? The answer is obvious.

Bill C-29, just like the budget and its so-called accomplishments, is mostly smoke and mirrors. During the election campaign, Canadians were tricked by the promises being sold to them, which ultimately, with few exceptions, do not at all reflect what Canadians believed from the Liberals during the election campaign. This is a big part of the reason why we will be opposing Bill C-29 at third reading.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise to participate in a debate in this chamber. Normally, it is rare for me to speak to a bill numerous times. However, there is so much in Bill C-29 that is of serious concern, it begs for debate.

To be clear, I understand that omnibus budget implementation acts, as bill C-29 most certainly is, will always carry criticism. As a member of the former government in the last Parliament, I can attest to that, as could any member who was a member of Parliament and is elected with us today.

However, I have noticed that there is one profound difference between much of the criticism of the last Conservative government and the criticism directed at the current Liberal government. What is that difference? By and large, when criticism was levied at the former Conservative government, more often than not it was based on hypotheticals. Headlines would typically read, “X, Y, Z could happen”, or “Event Y, X, Z might happen”.

Typically, this criticism was from some sort of expert of which there is no shortage in the Ottawa bubble. Even with my own “free the grapes” bill to legalize direct-to-consumer interprovincial wine shipments, which the former Conservative government expanded to apply to craft beer and artisan spirits in subsequent omnibus budget implementation acts, experts warned it could cost provincial liquor monopolies millions of dollars. Yet, we know in those provinces that do allow direct-to-consumer shipping, like my very home province of British Columbia, this of course did not happen. In fact, in British Columbia, we see consumption and sales of B.C. wine, year over year, perform better and better. Again, the experts were wrong.

However, with our friends, the Liberals, the criticism is not what might happen or what could happen, it is what will happen.

Let me give an example. As part of Bill C-29, the Liberals propose to seriously change the multiplication rates on the small business deduction rules.

We all know the Prime Minister does not like small business. The Liberals have reneged on promised cuts to small business. The Prime Minister is on the record for past stating that he believes small business is simply a way for wealthy people to avoid paying higher tax, which is ironic, coming from a trust fund millionaire. Why have a trust fund? Obviously for tax advantages, but I digress.

Why should we care that the Liberals are making these tax changes for two small business tax rates? Here is a simple example. Many Canadians are not aware of this or may not be aware of this. However, a significant number of physicians and surgeons operate in partnership with each other as small businesses. We all know physicians and surgeons work together within our medical community. Therefore, it is not a surprise that this extends into business and taxation areas as well.

Without delving too far into the technical tax ramifications of Bill C-29, from my time on the finance committee, the end result is that these changes will massively impact many Canadian physicians and surgeons.

Those who know me know I do not normally use a word like “massively”. What does “massively” mean, in the context of this discussion? In some cases, the amount of corporate tax paid could increase not by 2%, not by 5%, not 10% or 15%, but it could actually double. This is not what could or possibly might happen. This is what will happen.

The Canadian Medical Association hired a well-respected independent accounting firm to assess and quantify these numbers. They are not hypothetical. These changes will seriously impact a significant amount of physicians and surgeons all across our great country.

Let us not forget the Liberals are also raising taxes on those earning $200,000 per year. Many physicians and surgeons will be hit there, as well.

In short, we could easily call this the “Liberal war on doctors”.

Probably every member in this place knows of ongoing struggles in communities, not just in Canada but across North America, with respect to a shortage of doctors. Considering the massive amount of taxpayer subsidies in Canadian post-secondary institutions, Canada can ill afford to act as a training ground for new doctors to take those much-needed skills elsewhere.

Let us look at the more likely scenario. As much as this federal Liberal government enjoys taking money away from Canada's doctors and physicians, Ottawa, for the most part, does not pay or employ them. It is up to provinces to employ doctors and physicians. In other words, to keep doctors and not lose them to more competitive jurisdictions, most notably the United States, the provinces will likely be forced to make up the hit to the pocket books of doctors' net take-home pay created by the Liberals. It is yet another form of downloading from the Liberal government, and most people have not heard about it.

It gets more offensive. At the same time the Liberals are looking to severely reduce the net take-home pay of doctors, they are conducting a whisper campaign. They may start taxing employer provided medical benefits, all to pay for the Liberals' reckless spending in Ottawa. This is an insult to Canada's doctors. It is unlikely there is a member in this place that has not heard from physicians and surgeons warning the Liberal government of the dire and serious long-term consequences if the Liberals continue to impose these punitive tax changes.

In my riding of Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, I can state with certainty that I will stand for our doctors in speaking out in opposing these changes. Keep in mind, in many regions we are increasingly relying on foreign trained doctors to make up for our lack of capacity. I mention this because a foreign doctor taking the time to immigrate to Canada could just as easily look at other countries as alternatives. These are all very serious concerns. I hope the government is taking this fully into account. It is another reason why I oppose Bill C-29.

While on the same subject of long-term problems that the budget implementation act is creating, let us not forget there is no longer any path to return to balanced budgets. This is yet another broken promise from the Liberal government. Every member in this room, regardless of what side of the House he or she sits on, knows that one day down the road this will create a serious problem. Contrary to what the Prime Minister and the government have past stated, budgets do not balance themselves.

We already see the Liberal government raising taxes in many areas and hinting it is looking at adding more, all because their fiscal plan is failing. I appreciate the government would rather not be in the fiscal situation it is in. It was handed a surplus by a former government, a $2.9 billion at the year-end of 2015, as confirmed by the parliamentary budget office. That is a fact. Now it is massively in deficit, adding huge debt, all while the Prime Minister just sits around. Our finance minister has become an investing in the middle-class Liberal talking point machine. How did we get here, and so soon?

I know members on the government side are also concerned. People enter public office to help build a stronger Canada, not to break promises and create massive debt while creating hardship both now and down the road. Those are things we should realize.

I also want to give some credit where credit is due. I commend the fact the Liberal government did support the Trans Mountain pipeline recently, a decision for a populist Prime Minister, who is very image conscious, knowing it would be very unpopular with many of those who voted Liberal. I commend the government for making a difficult decision that hopefully can help to reverse the current trajectory this budget is putting us into.

However, I also have to point out that much of the anger of many first nation communities against this pipeline stems from the fact that they believe the Prime Minister promised them a veto, which will be seen as another Liberal broken promise, one that I imagine will carry some consequence for members in British Columbia.

We still have the challenge of the much-needed softwood lumber deal. The Prime Minister jetsetted off to Washington with a massive entourage of Liberal elites on the tab of taxpayers. He told Canadians that they would get good value from the trip on deals like softwood lumber. Now we know that has not happened. It is no different than jetsetting off to Davos. Once again, big promises from the Prime Minister, but he came home empty handed.

Now we have what we are told is an infrastructure bank coming. Billions that could be spent building Canadian infrastructure is instead being diverted, ultimately to act as seed money where it will line the pockets of wealthy corporate interests, with a $100 million-minimum project price tag. How many members in this place have a municipality in their riding that can afford projects of the magnitude they are discussing? Guess what? They will all get to pay for the high interest rate of return, for those few who can.

People can understand why wealthy foreign nationals are lining up to pay $1,500 for each pay to play access to our Prime Minister. That $1,500 is clearly for them a great investment. However, it is a terrible return for Canadians who will be left paying the bill. On top of that, they will be paying for a national Liberal carbon tax, all at a time when our largest trading partner and competitor is going to be lowering taxes to be more competitive and raising taxes on those companies moving outside of its borders. Meanwhile, the Liberal government is helping them to do exactly that by raising taxes here to make being an employer more costly and less affordable.

Let us not forget that the Liberal government has also made changes to the mortgage rules, which will see the dream of owning a home for many Canadian families gone. We are repeatedly told that all of this is being done to help the middle class.

In my riding, many real middle-class families are already telling me that they do not want this help from the Liberal government, because they cannot afford it. Who could blame them, more so if one is also about to be taxed on health care benefits? This would be particularly punitive and unfair in British Columbia, because British Columbia also charges monthly medical service premiums, MSP, which is over and above what is paid in income tax. Hopefully, the Liberal MPs from B.C. have raised that point with the finance minister.

While I am on my feet, the final subject I will broach is the good news I have to share with this place. Recently we learned that the Comeau decision will be referred to the Supreme Court by the province of New Brunswick. This has huge potential ramifications for Canadian internal trade. While the Liberals opposed this case being heard by the Supreme Court, I remain hopeful that our Supreme Court will take the case on and give it careful scrutiny. As much as I like the new pro-trade tone I have been hearing from the trade minister, the Liberals continued silence on internal trade just is not good enough, but hopefully that will change.

Before I close, I would like to pass on that this was not a speech I greatly enjoyed giving. However, these concerns are very real and I feel must be put on the record. I know there are good people on the government side of the House and we know the Prime Minister spends more time in airports and in the air than he does in his office. Whoever comes up with some of these policy ideas is part of the problem not part of the solution. In my view, a good internal shakeup is required, and we need a clear path in a different direction.

Over the past decade, we watched the Canadian middle class surpass the United States in prosperity, all while taxes were being lowered, jobs increased, and the budget was ultimately balanced. Today, the budget implementation bill sets us in the wrong direction, the opposite direction, with massive debt, deficits, no net new jobs, and higher taxes coming in many areas.

Every member in this place hopes that this situation changes. However, in my view, Bill C-29 is simply not the answer and I simply cannot support it.

I thank all members for hearing a member's concerns. I do hope we can find ways in the future where we can see jobs, where we can see added investment, where we can see further facilitated trade, where we can see the things that people sent us here to do, the public interest to be maintained, and for the Liberal government to look at the way that it is fundraising and ask if that is in the name of the public trust, because we should always be mindful that democracy, that the rule of law, has to have real meaning. If the leaders of a country cannot project those values, if they cannot project those items that are core to holding those things, then how can we expect anyone else to follow that example?

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

Madam Speaker, I must say that the speech I have just heard from my colleague on the other side of the House is one of the most tiresome and cynical speeches I have heard since being elected to this place.

The government is in such a hurry to please the banks that it decided to impose a gag order yesterday so it could move forward with Bill C-29. They talk to us about modernizing the banking system by reducing the rules, by setting aside the Consumer Protection Act we have in Quebec, and by ensuring that people are less well protected with a uniform system, even though the entire National Assembly has denounced this.

What matters most to my colleague: the Quebec voters in his riding or the rich bank lobby?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I just want to raise a question for the member opposite. His government talks all the time about innovation and how we need to support innovation in this country. He and his government talk about how they need to co-operate with the provinces on health care and improving our health care. Yet, Bill C-29 targets doctors, particularly medical specialists, so that those who work in group-structure plans could not access the preferential tax rate for small businesses. This would drive doctors to other jurisdictions, particularly the United States.

How can I go back to my riding of Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola where, when I go to the rural areas, I continually hear about access to health care and access to doctors? Why is the only innovation the government has for health care taking more money from doctors and chasing them away?

[Amarjeet Sohi, Liberal, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

moved that Bill C-29, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures, be read the third time and passed.

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

moved that Bill C-29, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures, as amended be concurred in.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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 visions 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.

[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.

[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]

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 occurences 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.

[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?

[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, 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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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?

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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

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.

Consumer Protection

[Simon Marcil, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Report Stage

[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, 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.

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.

Bill C-29—Time Allocation Motion

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

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

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

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

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

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

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Report Stage

[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 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.

[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 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.

[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 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.

[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?

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.

Bill C-29—Notice of Time Allocation Motion

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

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

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

Consumer Protection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Motions in Amendment

[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 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 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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

Speaker's Ruling

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, 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.

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.

Business of the House

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consumer Protection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finance

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

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

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

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

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

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

That completes Bill C-29.

Mr. MacKinnon, you have a motion.

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

I'd like to get some clarification and make three comments.

First of all, we are understandably opposed to Bill C-29 overall, so naturally, we won't be voting in favour of this clause.

Second of all, does the clause, in its current form, satisfy the requirements set out in the Supreme Court's decision?

[Glenn Campbell]

Pardon me. The government's amendments that are reflected in Bill C-29.

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

Certain aspects of Bill C-29 are already unconstitutional, are they not, given that they were described as such in the Marcotte decision?

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

I would like to get the officials' opinions on three things.

First, if Bill C-29 is passed without our amendments, will the banks still be subject to Quebec's Consumer Protection Act, or will they be exempt from it somehow?

Second, will the banks have any control whatsoever over the hiring of the ombudsman? Will they be allowed to look at candidates' CVs? Will they be able to recommend people for the job?

Third, in Marcotte, did the Supreme Court indicate that certain aspects were already unconstitutional?

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

As I was saying, in 2012, the Harper government gave the banks precedence over everything in the preamble of the Bank Act. The government thought it could shield the banks from the requirements of Quebec's legislation. The Supreme Court, however, wasn't convinced.

Now the government is again trying to get around the court's decision, this time through Bill C-29. It is trying to use the back door to encroach upon civil law, a 400-year-old legal system protected under the Constitution, and is depriving consumers of their rights in the process. This is very serious.

The government can expect to face another legal battle, like the one that resulted in the Marcotte decision, and consumers will be in for years of uncertainty, not knowing which legislation is applicable.

If Bill C-29 is passed in its current form, without our amendments, the banks will be able to do what they want. If a customer is swindled, they will no longer have any real recourse. Gone are the days of customers being able to take advantage of the free and simple complaint mechanism available through Quebec's office of consumer protection. The only place bank customers will have to turn is the office of the banking ombudsman, an organization funded by the banks.

Clause 131 of Bill C-29 as well as the English version of clause 117 raise serious constitutional questions. They set consumer rights back and open the door to legal challenges, while encroaching upon civil law, a coherent legal system that has existed in Quebec for more than 400 years.

For all those reasons, I urge you to adopt Bloc Québécois amendments BQ-2 and BQ-3. I'd also like to hear the officials' views on these amendments, if I could.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Trevor McGowan]

We received a number of submissions from the Canadian Medical Association and the Canadian Association of Radiologists, and looked at the testimony before the committee.

A few points probably warrant further mention. Obviously from their perspective, it affects doctors, but it is a provision of general application. The small business deduction is available regardless of what business you're in.

As was said earlier, these measures would follow the existing policy where there's one business and one business limit of up to $500,000 that applies to partnerships as well in this context. The rules are called the specified partnership limit rules, and they provide that when you have a partnership with a number of corporate partners, that one limit is shared among the partners. These rules are currently in the act, and the amendments in Bill C-29 are an extension of that policy.

I mentioned as well that it's a provision of general application. As we've heard, it applies to doctors, and it would also apply to lawyers, accountants, dentists, engineers, architects, or any group that could organize themselves into one of these structures. It is not a provision aimed solely at the medical community. It is reinforcing the integrity of the small business deduction rules and the $500,000 limit, and it does not look at what type of business is being carried on.

I know a number of comments were based on numbers. They mention certain numbers. The Department of Finance had others. I believe we have our costing measures, our numbers that we provided in the last hearing. But one thing that had been mentioned I heard earlier was the $32,000 number. I can explain briefly where that came from, but in doing so, I would have to provide a little context into how these rules work, and the sort of planning that is going on.

If an individual earns income directly, they pay taxes at the normal marginal rates, as was said, often around 50%. I think the top marginal rate in the relevant example provided was an Ontario individual, so that would be, I think, 53.53%. If you earn income through a corporation, there's corporate tax. The general corporate tax rate is 15%, and the small business deduction rate is 10.5%. That's federally, obviously. There are provincial taxes on top of that, but I don't want to list them all. We're not neglecting them, but it does make it higher.

Due to the corporate shareholder integration mechanisms in the Income Tax Act, if you earn income in a corporation and then pay it out in the same year, you generally pay the same combined corporate and individual tax rates as if you earned them directly. In the $32,000 case, that was $500,000 of income from Dr. M., and so if they earned it directly or through a corporation, we'd have roughly the same amount of tax in Ontario.

The benefit sought to be obtained is when funds can be retained in the corporation, so there's a lower corporate tax rate, 15% federally, as opposed to a top federal rate of 33%, assuming Bill C-2 is passed, so that's a significant difference.

To the extent those funds are not needed for personal costs of living, maxing out your RRSPs or whatever, to the extent that those funds are available to be left in the corporation and invested, then that presents a deferral benefit if they're not taken out in that year. In the case provided, I think some $214,000 was left in the corporation and the difference between the small business rate and the general corporate rate was calculated at about $32,000, but those are the funds available to be invested and to get the benefit of the one-year deferral, you can invest those funds at around a 5% rate of return, and that might give you, I think, about $1,500 over a year. I think there were comments on that. Then that $1,500 would be taxed, so the actual benefit would be even lower. That's just by way of explaining the differences in the numbers.

It looks at the benefit, at where you take the computation. Do you look at the dollars available to be retained in the corporation or do you look at the actual value of the deferral benefit?

I hope that provides some more context into where some of these numbers are coming from and the planning itself. It really involves the ability of particularly professionals, such as lawyers and so on, to leave their excess funds in their corporations and to invest them to earn an enhanced yield. If you're earning income directly and you're a top-rate taxpayer, taxed at 53% in Ontario, and then you earn $100—your last $100 subject to the top rate—you'd have $46 or $47 available to invest. If you earn it in a corporation and the corporation pays tax at 20%, say, you'd have $80 to invest. That's a good head start.

That's the benefit of the deferral, and that, of course, is not being touched, the general difference between the general corporate rate and the personal rate. It just provides some context into the nature of the benefit and the differences in the numbers.

To kind of tie it all together, those benefits will continue. What will be preserved is the general policy underlying the small business limit, which is to say that one business, either a sole business in a corporation or a partnership, has one $500,000 deduction, and that can't be, to use our phrase, just multiplied. If you have one partnership, you have one $500,000 limit; if you have 10 partners, that could be $5 million or $5.5 million; 100 partners would be $50 million, and so on.

I understand there were questions about the use of the word “multiplication” as well. That's the sense in which the term was used in the Department of Finance documents.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In Bill C-29, the government is eliminating a series of small tax loopholes. For instance, SMEs were recording one deduction twice, and small savers reported the income from stripped coupons as capital gains. However, Bill C-29 has failed to eliminate the biggest tax loophole, which is the use of tax havens. I suppose that was just forgotten, hence this amendment.

Those who followed the debate concerning motion M-42 on tax havens, which I introduced, know this: the use of tax havens is due to the regulations that exceed the scope of the law and of treaties. Amendment BQ-1 does not really change the laws, and scrupulously respects fiscal treaties. It only repeats what is in the Income Tax Act, but does it in a direct way that makes it very clear that certain tax regulations are illegal.

Subparagraph (ii) reiterates that in order to be tax exempt, income derived from a foreign branch must be covered by a tax treaty. Through this clause, Parliament will invalidate paragraph 5907(11) of the Income Tax Regulations. In those regulations, the government discreetly exempted from taxation income generated in 22 tax havens with whom we had not even concluded tax treaties.

As for the third paragraph of amendment BQ-1, it repeats word for word what clause XXX of the tax treaty with Barbados says. If businesses open branches in Barbados to avoid paying tax, they will simply not be covered by the treaty.

However, unfortunately, the government again discreetly adopted a regulation to exempt them from paying tax, despite what the law and the treaty said. I am referring to paragraph 5907(11.2) of the regulations. These two provisions may well be illegal. By adopting this amendment we will say so clearly, and this will invalidate them. For the five big banks alone, we are talking about $6 billion a year that will stop going up in smoke.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay.

Do you want to suspend for five minutes for people to have a break before we get into Bill C-29?

There are quite a number of witnesses here for the part 1 of the bill, “Amendments to the Income Tax Act and to Related Legislation”. From the Department of Finance, we have Mr. McGowan, Mr. Greene, and Mr. LeBlanc. I believe they will come to the table in case there are questions on that part.

We'll suspend for five minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

All right, we'll start on Bill C-29.

I think we were going to start on it versus committee business, weren't we?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay, that will end it.

Thank you, Minister, and your officials for your time on the estimates and Bill C-29.

Thank you, Minister, Andrew, and Leah.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Moving on to another topic, if the changes in Bill C-29 are incorporated, I'm wondering about the Bank Act changes and the consumer protections. Can you elaborate on how this will situate us in comparison with other G20 or OECD countries in respect of the bank protections for consumers, and what this actually means for the average Canadian?

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

In other words, I take that as a “no”, that you're not planning to make any changes to Bill C-29.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Under clause 44 of Bill C-29, you are removing the ability for group medical structures to claim a small business deduction. They will be taxed at a corporate rate, which is a significant hit for the medical professionals.

I would like your comment on whether that is something you're planning to carry through on, because I have a lot of emails in my inbox to respond to.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Thank you, Minister, for being here. I'm pleased to see that our colleagues from the government side used their question time to get all these softie questions thrown at you, so maybe we could challenge you a bit. We'll get off script a bit and ask a couple of questions that I'm hearing from my constituents, quite frankly, and that we also heard from witnesses who testified before our committee on Bill C-29.

I'd like to ask you first about a concern that's being expressed. I'm sure that your inbox is flooded, like ours are, by those medical professionals who are concerned about the elimination of the small business deduction for group medical structures under clause 44 of Bill C-29.

Both the radiologists and the Canadian Medical Association, who were here last week, referred to it as “unintended consequences”. I actually challenged your colleagues on this committee, because several of the questions were pretty clear that this was not an unintended consequence but a direct attempt to get at small businesses.

I'd like you to clarify before this committee whether this was an unintended consequence and whether this is an attempt to fix a loophole, which seems to be the indication coming from your colleagues on the other side, or are you going to look at an amendment based on the representations we've heard?

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

I am pleased to be here to discuss Bill C-29, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures.

I thank you for giving me this opportunity to share with you the progress we have made for middle-class Canadians over the past year. I will be happy to answer your questions.

As Minister of Finance, my overarching goal is not only to grow the economy, but to do so in a way that benefits families, workers, and the most vulnerable members of our society. You will have heard me say before that we simply can't claim progress unless we all share in the prosperity that we create together. I can tell you that this has now truly become a global challenge. The world's attention has been focused recently on the fact that many of our citizens haven't seen the benefits of the growth we've had over the last several decades. Unfortunately, hard work doesn't always equal progress anymore. It's what Canadians asked us to fix when they elected our government a year ago. It's what we're working to fix with measures like the ones contained in the budget implementation act that we're reviewing today.

Just a few days ago, I had the privilege of travelling to the United Kingdom to tell Canada's stories. I met with students studying at the London School of Economics, where I studied myself just a few short...well, maybe more than a few short years ago. I met with members of the editorial teams at the The Economist and at the Financial Times. I spent some time at the BBC. I met with investors who are looking for opportunities to invest in our country and in our people. Across the board, the feedback I got was this: it's nice to hear from a country that has such a positive story to tell. I can say that I felt very proud to be Canadian after that trip, and we all should. That's because we were one of the very first countries to put our finger on the fact that when you have an economy that works for the middle class, you have a country that works for everyone.

You know the story well, but I'd like to provide a few highlights of what this means.

In the past year, we took some big, important steps towards helping families regain the confidence they'll need to drive our economy forward. We cut taxes for nearly nine million people and introduced the new Canada child benefit, which puts more money in the pockets of nine out of 10 families with children.

With the budget implementation act that we're discussing today, we'll help ensure that the Canada child benefit will be indexed to inflation starting in 2020 so that families can count on the real value of this benefit well into the future.

Over the past year, we also increased Canada student grants for students from low- and middle-income families, and part-time students. We increased monthly payments for the most vulnerable seniors and struck a deal with the provinces to strengthen the Canada pension plan so that this generation of young Canadians and future generations will be able to retire in dignity. Know that we'll be discussing ways of making the Canada pension plan even better at the upcoming meeting of provincial and territorial finance ministers in December in the context of the triennial review.

In our fall economic statement, we clearly indicated that Canada's success in the economy of the future rests on investment and openness. We act in the way confident countries do. We invest in our country and its population by supporting the growth and prosperity of today's middle class, while generating economic growth for the years to come.

Thanks to our measures, Canadians will get home faster after work. They will spend more time with their children. They will breathe clean air and have quality drinking water. They will be able to live in better neighbourhoods and will have confidence in their future.

In this same economic statement, we also took steps to facilitate the process we are undertaking for the future. Over the coming months, we will co-operate with you in order to devise a more coherent calendar for the presentation of the budget and the main estimates.

I know this will be an improvement we will all appreciate.

Mr. Chair, allow me to come back specifically to the bill we're studying today and focus on two measures in addition to the ones I've already mentioned. The first is tax fairness, which is a central pillar of the promise we made to middle-class Canadians. The second is consumer protection.

On tax fairness, let me be very clear. We believe that everyone should pay their fair share of taxes, period. Budget 2016 committed $444 million in new resources for the Canada Revenue Agency to address offshore tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance. This will enable the Canada Revenue Agency to enhance its assessment capabilities through the hiring of additional auditors and specialists who will have the resources needed to undertake more expansive and comprehensive investigative work.

In addition, we're committed to combatting international tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance by strengthening existing efforts at home and abroad by introducing new measures. The introduction of the common reporting standard for the exchange of information between national revenue agencies on financial accounts held by non-residents is an important global development. Canada will implement the standard consistent with our commitment to the G20 and similar commitments made by more than 100 other jurisdictions.

Similarly, we're proposing to implement one of the key recommendations from the G20 and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to address so-called base erosion and profit shifting, BEPS, by multinational firms. With our international partners, we are proposing to require large multinational enterprises to file a country-by-country report with a tax authority in their headquarters jurisdiction. The reports will provide revenue agencies with a high-level overview of the firms' global operations to assist them in performing more effective risk assessments.

Through this second budget implementation act, we also want to amend the Bank Act in order to strengthen and modernize the financial consumer protection framework. We are introducing enhancements to financial consumer protection to strengthen access to basic banking services, business practices, disclosure, complaints handling, corporate governance, and accountability. Together these enhancements will make the regime easier to understand and accommodate consumers' needs in a rapidly changing sector, as well as allow Canadians to benefit from an efficient national banking system from coast to coast to coast. We'll be working collaboratively with stakeholders to support the implementation of the framework.

I want to thank the committee for your work on this important piece of legislation.

Consequently, Mr. Chair, whether we are talking about the Canada Child Benefit, protecting consumers, or measures to guarantee tax fairness, you can see that our document makes the interests of middle-class families our priority.

By supporting Bill C-29, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament in 2016, you will support us in continuing our plan to put people at the heart of the economy and to give them the help they need right now, while investing in the years and decades to come.

I would now be pleased to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I'll call the meeting to order.

As you'll note on the agenda, pursuant to Standing Order 81(5), we're dealing with supplementary estimates (B), 2016-17, and pursuant to the order of reference of November 15, 2016, we're studying Bill C-29, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures.

We have the minister and his senior officials here to talk about those issues, both the estimates and Bill C-29, in one hearing.

Welcome, Minister. The floor is yours.

Consumer Protection

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

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

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

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

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

It's unfortunate, to be honest with you, to hear this tone from Ms. O'Connell, as if we're heartless.

First of all, in principle we don't agree with the bill because it's a tax. In our opinion, it is a tax. We're not going to debate that here. We're discussing a motion, a very reasonable motion.

If you're not going to commit to a motion even here, through the committee, that means...because the NDP were talking about it all day yesterday. They were talking about and raising this issue in every speech. Probably they won't even be supporting Bill C-29 unless those amendments are there.

The bottom line is that you're not giving them even this very little improvement they're asking for. I think they're asking for something logical at this stage, and for you to come and just change their motion is not fair. We're just trying to explain ourselves here, sitting around this table, and I believe there's a point of logic that needed to be raised. That's why we're defending it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I think there's probably going to be a motion lifted off the table.

Mr. Duvall, just to be fair, there is one division on Bill C-29 with officials whom we didn't get to. I don't think it'll take that long. It's division 7 of part 4.

Mr. Wu or Mr. Joshua, could you give your presentation?

We'll take questions, and then we'll move to hear motions.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

I appreciate everyone's contribution to our discussions on Bill C-29. I'm going to start with the Canadian Medical Association. Thank you for your briefing note.

First, let's talk about Canada. In your briefing note, there is quite an array of different provincial tax rates. Removing the small business preferential rate on the first $500,000 would deeply affect some physicians. You note that, in Nova Scotia, it would be quite a steep increase in taxation. Do you feel that the implementation of this policy may cause a lot of harm to patient care in Nova Scotia, as physicians redetermine where they want to practice based on the return?

[John Feeley, Vice-President, Member Relevance, Canadian Medical Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm John Feeley, vice-president of member relevance at the Canadian Medical Association. I'm joined here today by Dr. Rick Davies, who is a professor in the division of cardiology at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute and managing partner of the Associates in Cardiology group medical structure.

Let me first thank the members of the committee for recognizing the risk to health delivery posed by the proposed changes in Bill C-29 affecting group medical structures, and for inviting the CMA to appear before you as part of your study of this important legislation.

The CMA watched your first meeting on this bill with great interest. As part of my remarks today, I'll address the questions posed by the committee during that meeting.

Since the release of this proposal in the 2016 budget, it has become increasingly clear to the CMA that Finance Canada is vastly underestimating the risk to medical group structures. I'm here today to clarify that the risks are real. If this proposal applies to group medical structures, there will be a negative impact on medical research, physician training, and the delivery of specialty care in Canada.

Group medical structures are prevalent within academic health science centres and among certain specialty groups as we heard earlier, notably among radiology, cardiology, anesthesiology, and medical oncology.

The CMA estimates that about 10,000 to 15,000 physicians are incorporated in these group medical structures. This team-based care is essential for educating and training medical students and residents in teaching hospitals and for conducting medical research. Unlike other professions, group medical structures have not been formed for taxation or commercial purposes. Also unlike other professions, physician compensation is set by negotiations with provinces and is based on the existing tax framework.

Group medical structures are formed to deliver on provincial and territorial health priorities primarily in the academic health setting, such as teaching, medical research, as well as optimizing the delivery of patient care.

Maintaining the current framework for the small business deduction is critical to the continued viability of these structures. It is critical that the committee understand that Finance Canada is significantly underestimating the impacts to group medical structures. Changing the eligibility to the small business deduction will have a significantly larger implication than simply the 4.5% difference in the small business versus general rate at the federal level, as suggested by the department.

With no practical way for the provinces to use a different definition, the combined tax rate increase would be as high as 17.5%. As a result, this federal tax change would establish a strong disincentive to practices in the impacted structures. While we recognize Finance Canada's validation of cost-sharing arrangements, this is unlikely to resolve the concerns we're raising today because we're talking about pooled income and reallocation of revenue amongst a group practice.

The CMA is also aware that the department developed financial impact scenarios that show the net impact will be in the hundreds of dollars. While unfortunately we were not afforded access to this analysis, it is our position that these results are not an accurate portrayal of the impact of this federal tax proposal.

To demonstrate this case, the CMA worked closely with MD Financial Management to develop real financial scenarios based on real financial information from two typical incorporated physicians in group medical structures. MD Financial Management is a subsidiary of the CMA providing financial management services to Canada's doctors.

This real financial calculation revealed annual net reduction of funds of $32,500 and $18,000 for each of these physicians respectively. Projecting forward when extended to all incorporated members of each physicians group structure, this would represent a negative impact of $39.4 million and $13.4 million based on a 20-year time frame and 4.8% rate of return.

In closing, I would like to underscore the importance this issue has to health care delivery. Since the release of the budget, the CMA has received an unprecedented level of correspondence from physicians expressing their grave concerns with the federal proposal.

To date, we've been copied on over 1,800 submissions to Finance Canada, the finance minister, and to members of this committee. In comparison, when we informed our members of the increase to the top personal taxation rate, we did not receive one message—not one single message.

When we surveyed physicians they confirmed the concerns we had heard regarding these specific proposals. Sixty-one per cent of respondents indicated that the group structure would dissolve. Three-quarters said that other partners would leave the group practice, almost 80% said the tax proposal would lead to reduced investments in medical research by their group, and over two-thirds said that the tax proposal would limit the ability to provide medical training spots.

I thank the committee again for inviting the CMA to appear during your study of Bill C-29 and I strongly encourage the committee to adopt CMA's recommendation to exempt group medical structures as the only means of avoiding this negative and unintended consequence.

Dr. Davies and I would be pleased to address any questions you may have.

Thank you for listening.

[Angella MacEwen, Senior Economist, Canadian Labour Congress]

Hi. Thank you.

I'm here on behalf of the 3.5 million members of the Canadian Labour Congress. I want to thank you for the opportunity to present our views on Bill C-29.

The CLC brings together Canada's national and international unions along with the provincial and territorial federations of labour and 130 district labour councils whose members work in virtually all sectors of the Canadian economy, in all occupations in all parts of Canada.

As my colleague from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation did, I'm going to touch on just two parts of this bill because the bill is very long.

Part 1, subclause 43(1) amends section 122.61 of the Income Tax Act, indexing the Canada child benefit to inflation, but only starting in July 2020. The Canada child benefit replaced the universal child care benefit, which was taxable and not indexed; the Canada child tax benefit, which was not taxable and indexed to inflation; and the national child benefit supplement, which was also not taxable and was indexed to inflation.

The Canada child benefit was introduced and came into effect as of July 2016. It is not taxable, like two of the previous three, and not indexed to inflation, like the UCCB. It simplified the other three programs and it better targeted this benefit to low-income families, so it was very popular and one of the things that the Canadian Labour Congress pointed to as a success that would lift children out of poverty.

The maximum benefit under the old system, if you had one child under six, would be $5,700 for this year. The new CCB gives those families an extra $650 a year for that child. This is a considerable amount of money if you have a low income, but since the CCTB and NCB were indexed to CPI, this advantage shrinks to only $190 in 2020. It is inexplicable that a benefit aimed at reducing child poverty would be allowed to erode by so much in such a short period. An alternative to keep costs down would be to phase the benefit out earlier. Right now, two-child families with incomes of up to $200,000 still receive some benefits. It's also inexplicable that we're allowing.... Because we're not indexing either the $30,000 or the $65,000 as peoples' incomes rise, they'll grow out of those groups...in order to keep benefits for fairly wealthy families.

Part 4, division 1 introduces a definition of “suitable employment” into the Employment Insurance Act. This definition was previously spelled out in EI regulations and in the “Digest of Benefit Entitlement Principles”. Most of the definitions from the EI regulations have been moved into legislation but some parts of them are specifically missing.

The health and physical capabilities that allow workers to commute and perform the work is no longer a factor in considering suitable employment nor is it necessary that the hours of work are not incompatible with family obligations or religious convictions. That's quite significant. If you are offered, say, a night shift but you have a child in school, do you have to take that night shift or can you say that's not suitable employment? Most of us have to be accommodated for our family situations, and it would be incongruent if EI did not also accommodate us for our family situations.

That the nature of work not be contrary to moral convictions or religious beliefs is no longer included in the definition of suitable employment. This was in EI regulation 9.002(1). The definition in Bill C-29 is otherwise the same as EI regulation 9.002(2) and (3). I'm wondering if this was an oversight, or if it was intentional, given that the Social Security Tribunal relied heavily on years of jurisprudence from the Board of Referees and the umpire. We're likely to get more consistent decisions if we can stick to the established definition and people will have more consistent outcomes.

Thank you very much.

[Aaron Wudrick, Federal Director, Canadian Taxpayers Federation]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

As you said, my name is Aaron Wudrick. I'm the federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. We're very pleased to appear this evening to comment on Bill C-29, which, of course, contains various provisions to implement aspects of the 2016 federal budget.

At 244 pages, it's a rather voluminous bill. Rather than even attempting a micro-level analysis of it, I just want to touch on a few measures in particular that the CTF takes a view on, specifically the indexation of the child care benefits and anti-tax avoidance measures, and I have a comment on the government's overall attempts to simplify what is a very complex tax code.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation supports the government's modification of the UCCB into the new means-tested Canada child benefit. Our only concern about this measure is the total cost of it, specifically that it was presented during the election campaign as part of a package of measures that were supposed to pay for themselves, but ultimately, it ended up costing more than advertised. In this sense, I'd actually suggest it's a miniature version of the government's overall fiscal situation.

That said, we do support indexation generally. I note that the Taxpayers Federation was one of the vocal groups that advocated for the elimination of bracket creep for income taxes, whereby individuals were pushed into higher income tax brackets just because of inflation. Paul Martin, when he was finance minister, implemented this in the 2000 federal budget.

While that measure was designed to protect taxpayers from higher tax brackets, the CCB indexation, by contrast, because it is an entitlement, will lock in a higher expenditure level. We think that this is ill-advised, given that the government is already spending more on this measure than it had planned to.

With respect to the anti-tax avoidance provisions, the Taxpayers Federation applauds these measures to clarify the law. We strongly oppose tax evasion and believe that those who break the law should face the full force of the law. But we should also be absolutely clear about the potential effect of eliminating so-called grey areas, these loopholes that have effectively functioned as safety valves to lower the overall tax burden, since the practical effect of eliminating those loopholes is to raise the overall effective tax burden. We should be honest about the potential impact there. I know that not everyone on this panel might agree, but we would argue that raising taxes is not a good way to boost economic growth, which, of course, we know is one of this government's central objectives.

The last thing I want to touch on is the simplification of the tax code. I think it's safe to say that concern about the excessive complexity of our tax code cuts across the political spectrum. As of this year's tax filing date, the Income Tax Act was over one million words long and would take the average person 59 hours non-stop to read. To give you an idea of how long this is, Leo Tolstoy's epic war novel War and Peace is only 587,000 words. By contrast, the Income Tax Act is about twice as long as War and Peace. I really think we need to look at ways of making the tax code simpler. We can always debate what the right level of taxation should be. Of course, our group will always be there arguing that lower is better, but whatever we settle on, I think we should be looking to try to find simpler, more effective ways to raise the same amount of revenue.

I'll leave it at that. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Let's come to order quickly.

I think everyone heard my introduction before. We're dealing with Bill C-29, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016, and other measures.

The first witness will be Mr. Wudrick from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

Go ahead and start.

[John Lawford]

I will answer in English.

Consumers don't necessarily want a uniform approach. There are some advantages to that, but what they really want is a good approach. The rules that are being offered here today in Bill C-29 basically sweep a bunch of current rules into the act and add not very much. In return, consumers are being asked in certain provinces, notably Quebec, to forgo protections that they have, but there will be other provinces where there are higher standards, which will potentially be cut off at the knees by this bill.

What consumers really want is good banking practice, good financial services practice. That's what they're looking for. The suggestion that they'll be confused by it is unnecessary. If this bill had had more consumer protection in it, there would have been less need to say there's going to be a problem in the future. However, because there's so little, I can guarantee you there will be problems in the future, because consumers will be dissatisfied. They will go to their governments, provincial or federal, and ask for more.

[Terry Campbell]

Sure. Thank you very much. I appreciate those comments.

Again, I go back to the financial crisis. If we looked at many other jurisdictions in the world, certainly south of the border, we saw a multiplicity of regulators often working at cross-purposes. We didn't have that here.

I do agree with you that strong regulation and strong supervision through a unified regulator was part of the recipe of why Canada was able to get through the crisis with its head held high, and it served as a model. I see the bill, quite frankly, in front of us as carrying on that tradition.

Our sense is that what is important for the consumer is a consistent, clear, and coherent set of rules that is under a uniform system of supervision. It doesn't help consumers at all to have duplication or conflict or confusion as to whom to turn to in cases of concern.

Now, the devil is in the details and we haven't seen all the regulations yet, but what Bill C-29 does, from our perspective, is provide that clarity of intent, provide uniform consumer protection and uniform supervision. We think this is the strongest system. It already has a high-quality set of rules, which are higher, actually, in terms of some of the changes and enhancements and new provisions put in. We think this will be good for consumers.

[Scott Chamberlain, Director of Labour Relations, General Counsel, Association of Canadian Financial Officers]

Thank you.

Honourable members, thank you for the opportunity to appear today. The Association of Canadian Financial Officers represents the operational core of the federal government's financial workforce.

We understand how important public revenue is to delivering vital public services to Canadians and that fiscal responsibility requires both prudent spending and fair tax collection. We believe the best way to serve Canadians is through responsibly funded public services delivered by a professional and modern public service.

We believe that our leaders must first ensure that all Canadians contribute their fair share before resorting to austerity measures and the sale of valuable public assets. We recognize that progress in this regard is being made by this Parliament. You are delivering and engaged in a mission to modernize the tax regime. Millions have been invested in efforts against tax havens, and there has been a corresponding increase in recovered revenue, investigations, and audits.

We are encouraged by the government's ongoing review of tax expenditures with the purpose of further simplifying and rendering fair taxation in Canada. ACFO supports these efforts and we support Bill C-29, which includes provisions that contribute to this work.

Today we offer suggestions only on what further provisions could be implemented to maximize the effectiveness of this new regime. I'll start with the OECD BEPS initiative. In budget 2016, the government committed to working with the OECD and its action plan on tax avoidance. The OECD BEPS initiative represents an unprecedented international effort to modernize international tax and to ensure fair and stable government funding globally.

Bill C-29 helps establish the cornerstones of OECD BEPS by implementing both the country-by-country reporting standards and the common reporting standard for the automatic exchange of information between tax authorities. These are crucial steps towards a comprehensive global strategy against tax evasion. The country-by-country reporting framework, however, will require further improvements if it is to function optimally. Specifically, many developing countries, including many tax havens, lack the capacity to participate in the OECD BEPS framework, and the vast majority of multinational entities will not be required to report under the current thresholds.

Canada should seize the opportunity to lead on tax globally by spearheading the following: supporting developing nations' efforts to build capacity in order to participate in the OECD BEPS framework; calling for the establishment of a UN international tax body to complement the efforts of the G20 and the OECD and broaden the base of participation; calling for the lowering of the country-by-country reporting thresholds, which currently would not apply to 90% of the multinational entities; and finally, calling for most information in the country-by-country reports to be publicly available.

The details and full rationale of these recommendations can be found in ACFO's recent white paper, “Tax fairness: An opportunity to lead”, copies of which have been provided through the clerk today.

In addition to leading on OECD BEPS, Parliament could continue to focus on complementary domestic measures, including implementing this committee's October 2016 report, “The Canada Revenue Agency, Tax Avoidance and Tax Evasion: Recommended Actions”. The recommendations therein serve as a practical and reasoned road map for building on the progress made thus far. As someone who appeared at that committee, I thank the members for the good work on that report. We fully support it.

Other complementary domestic measures that Parliament could focus on include establishing a national public beneficial ownership registry, and finally, continuing in efforts to eliminate tax expenditures, which in our opinion should include the stock option deduction, which costs $100 billion annually, encourages speculative behaviours, and overwhelmingly benefits the top one per cent with largely no discernible economic benefit, save and except for a reasonable exception for the high-risk innovative tech sector, for which there could be a reasonable cap.

In conclusion, as proud, hard-working public servants, ACFO's members help deliver on this government's agenda of infrastructure investment, reconciliation with our indigenous people, pay equity, growing the middle class, and supporting sustainable economic growth. Bill C-29 helps establish a stronger and fairer tax regime that we can build on for securing the revenue needed to achieve these goals for Canadians without resorting to further austerity measures and privatization.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you very much.

I'll maybe give an explanation because it's quite unusual for us to have this many people on a panel. When we first looked at this panel and the deadline we're under on Bill C-29, we thought there might be votes today. Usually when there are votes, we end up cutting the last panel short.

I encourage members to take notes. We will go two rounds of questions, five minutes all the way around because I know there are a lot of panellists. Not everybody has to use their five minutes twice. It is so that people will not be rushed and can get enough questions in.

From the Association of Canadian Financial Officers, Mr. Chamberlain, go ahead.

[Brigitte Goulard, Deputy Commissionner, Financial Consumer Agency of Canada]

Good afternoon, and happy financial literacy month.

My name is Brigitte Goulard. I am the deputy commissioner of the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada, and my colleague Richard Bilodeau is the director of our supervision and promotion branch.

Thank you for the invitation. I look forward to providing you with our comments on Bill C-29.

The Financial Consumer Agency of Canada, or FCAC, is a federal government agency responsible for protecting consumers of financial products and services. The agency supervises the practices of banks, federal credit unions, and trust and loan companies. It also develops resources and organizes activities to strengthen the financial literacy of Canadian consumers. Lastly, the agency is mandated to monitor and evaluate trends and emerging issues that may have an impact on consumers of financial products and services.

We monitor external complaints bodies, or ombudsmen, if you will. Every bank and federal credit union must be a member of one of the two approved external complaints bodies.

Consumers who feel that their financial institutions haven't adequately handled a complaint about some banking activities can contact one of these bodies. The representative of one of the two approved bodies, namely, ADR Chambers—Banking Ombuds Office, also appeared before you today.

We also ensure that credit and debit card networks comply with certain business practice requirements to protect merchants. These networks include VISA, MasterCard, American Express and Interac.

FCAC welcomes the new financial consumer protection framework included in Bill C-29. If adopted, it will better protect financial consumers.

We are particularly pleased with the introduction of guiding principles that set out expectations to guide banks' conduct, and will help FCAC interpret and then enforce the legislation. Other enhanced consumer protection measures include improving access to basic banking services by allowing the use of a broader range of personal identification documents to open an account or to cash government cheques.

It also includes strengthening business practices' oversight by introducing a new prohibition on applying undue pressure and by adding cancellation periods to a wider range of products and services. It enhances disclosure of key information by expanding the use of summary boxes of information to all banking products and services. It also enhances transparency by requiring banks and external complaint bodies to report on the nature of complaints received. Finally, it will improve accountability by requiring the banks to report on how they are addressing the principles of the consumer framework and the challenges faced by vulnerable Canadians.

In anticipation of this new consumer framework, FCAC has spent the last year revising its own supervisory framework. I am pleased to announce that our new supervisory framework will be launched in spring 2017.

Three pillars underpin our new supervisory approach. The first pillar focuses on promotion, as FCAC believes that compliance is facilitated when obligations are clearly identified and accessible to regulated entities. Second, FCAC proactively monitors regulated entities to determine whether they are complying with their obligations. FCAC also gathers information on current and emerging issues that impact financial consumers. Finally, FCAC enforces the financial institutions' market conduct obligations. When a potential breach of a compliance obligation is identified, we investigate and take the appropriate action to respond to non-compliance and to deter any further non-compliance.

With this new supervisory framework, we will proactively identify issues in the marketplace and take a more risk-based approach in our supervision and enforcement activities. We believe this approach will better position us to implement the legislative changes proposed in Bill C-29.

To ensure the adoption of the new framework for consumers, FCAC will work closely with stakeholders, including consumers, federally regulated financial institutions and regulators in the provinces and territories. This collaborative approach is at the heart of FCAC's activities and guides all of its activities.

Thank you again for allowing me to meet with you. My colleague and I will be happy to answer your questions.

[Terry Campbell, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Bankers Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

We would like to thank the committee for inviting the Canadian Bankers Association to participate in the committees review of Bill C-29.

The CBA works on behalf of 59 domestic banks, foreign bank subsidiaries and foreign bank branches operating in Canada and their 280,000 employees.

Our opening remarks will address the provisions contained in division 5 of part 4 of the bill. These amendments to the Bank Act consolidate and streamline the consumer protection provisions that apply to banks under a federal financial consumer protection framework. My introductory comments are going to focus on the broader aspects of the amendments that will affect the banking industry and our customers.

Building and maintaining a strong client relationship is of fundamental importance to Canada's banks. Banks are an active and essential part of the daily lives of Canadians. Ninety-nine per cent of Canadians have an account with a financial institution, so many millions of Canadians turn to banks every day for products, services, and financial advice. We help Canadians safeguard their money, finance a home, manage their savings, plan their investments, and prepare for retirement.

Banks in Canada take very seriously their role in the lives of individual Canadians, and Canadians trust their banks and value the products and services they provide. In fact, Canada's banks have been recognized internationally for their commitment to providing a good consumer experience. Our banks have been ranked first out of 32 countries in the Capgemini “World Retail Banking Report” every year since 2012.

Bill C-29 consolidates the consumer protection provisions that exist in federal legislation as they have evolved over many years, including new measures, into a single financial consumer protection framework within the Bank Act. By creating a clear federal framework, Bill C-29 ensures that Canadian customers continue to benefit from consistent, safe, and high-quality banking products and services across the country.

Consolidating consumer protection and establishing a uniform set of standards under a single framework will improve the efficiency of financial services regulation, ensure consistent policy across the country, prevent consumer confusion, maximize product availability, and ensure the capacity of the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada to fulfill its regulatory mandate to inform and protect consumers.

We support the placing of the consumer protection framework under the oversight of a single regulator. The FCAC was created in 2001 to strengthen oversight of consumer regulation and expand consumer education. The industry has a long-standing and strong working relationship with the FCAC in many areas, particularly in the area of financial literacy.

We also support a framework of consumer protection principles that are not prescriptive and that can be adapted to change. Allowing and encouraging further innovation in the financial sector is essential, so that banks can continue to serve the needs of consumers by developing and enhancing financial products and services and the way they are delivered to our customers.

As leaders in financial technology, banks in Canada are constantly innovating, developing new products and services to meet the demands of their customers for greater convenience. Canadians can now bank at any time, from virtually anywhere, through online and/or mobile banking. Every year, more and more Canadians are adopting online and mobile as their preferred means of banking. Despite this trend, however, banks have maintained an extensive branch network across the country, because that is where relationships with their clients are often established and maintained.

More clarity about the implementation of the framework is going to be provided through the development of subsequent regulations, and we look forward to engaging in that process. Our aim would be to achieve a workable, efficient, and flexible approach for the benefit of Canadian consumers.

With the start of the global financial crisis now nearly a decade behind us, it's important to keep in mind that Canada's prudently managed banks, combined with an effective financial services regulatory and supervisory framework, were key reasons for the strength and the resilience of Canada's banking system. A key lesson of that crisis was the importance of a streamlined, coherent, and unified regulatory system, which we have in Canada, with a single regulator responsible for safety and soundness—the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions—and a single regulator for consumer protection, the FCAC.

The CBA and its members have long supported a strong federal regulatory framework for the benefit of consumers. Although Canadians already benefit from a strong protection system, we think the federal framework proposed in Bill C-29 is an important step in the direction of further improving that regime, with a clear, streamlined, and consistent set of regulations that are applied across the country.

Thank you again for inviting us to be here today, and we look forward to your questions.

Thank you.

[John Lawford, Executive Director and General Counsel, Public Interest Advocacy Centre]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Honourable members, my name is John Lawford, and I am executive director and general counsel at the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, on behalf of which I am appearing today. With me is Jacques St-Amant, who teaches consumer law at the Université du Québec à Montréal and acts as a consultant to PIAC regarding financial services.

We're focusing today exclusively on division 5, part 4 of the bill. Our main message is that the bill's financial consumer protection framework will not improve the protection of banks' customers and may, in fact, make things worse.

In his 2013 budget, the then Minister of Finance announced the government's intention “to develop a comprehensive financial consumer code to better protect consumers of financial products”. This was followed by further announcements on this topic in every single budget, including the 2016 budget, which promised “a comprehensive, consolidated framework and include targeted and more flexible consumer protection rules to better respond to Canadians’ changing needs.”

We were cautiously hopeful that needed change was coming.

The current rules are deeply unsatisfactory. The FCAC—or Financial Consumer Agency of Canada—website lists over 50 provisions of the Bank Act, 28 regulations under the act, six voluntary codes of conduct, and over a half a dozen public commitments claiming to protect consumers. Very few consumers know these rules or understand what they mean. Many of them are not strong enough and they are not legally enforceable by a consumer. Often there is no rule, beyond a general legal principle to protect the consumer.

What Bill C-29 does is moves around the existing rules between the act and regulations, making the framework more rigid at a time when swift market evolution would require a more flexible set of rules. It does add five new principles, the legal impact of which is unclear, and some small changes regarding other issues, but it adds provisions that are clearly also unhelpful to consumers.

Bill C-29 does not address the real problems, such as banks unilaterally changing provisions in their terms and conditions, or disclaiming in their terms and conditions any liability for mistakes or negligence. As an example, we provide in the annex to these remarks a provision from CIBC's current terms and conditions. There is nothing in the Bank Act, or in Bill C-29, that prohibits such provisions. Contrast that with the consumer protection code established by the Central Bank of Ireland, which requires banks to act with skill, care, and diligence in the best interests of their consumers, and which prohibits, in principle, exclusionary clauses, such as I referred to.

Complaint resolution is not addressed by BillC-29, even though the current regime allows a bank to choose its external ombudsman—an obvious conflict of interest. FCAC remains the watchdog under Bill C-29. However, it was given very limited powers in 2001, which have not been significantly increased over time, simply compared with the U.S.'s Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

This is a weak framework. It is full of gaps. We are therefore worried by Bill C-29's apparent attempt to confine the protection of banks' consumers to this regime, as we understand that the intent behind proposed new section 627.03 is to thwart the application of provincial consumer protection legislation in banking. This is not a good idea.

First, consumers of banks would then be less well protected in some provinces than if they did business with, say, a local credit union, which would be subject to provincial rules. In effect, Parliament would be creating a disincentive for consumers to do business with banks.

Second, consumers of all provinces may not be treated equally. It is settled law that federal legislation is not paramount to common law, so the absence of any provision regarding unfair transactions in the Bank Act may have no impact on, say, the application of common law unconscionability rules in nine provinces. In Quebec, where similar rules are legislated in the provincial civil code and the Consumer Protection Act, those provincial laws could be found to be inoperative under this constitutional theory propounded in the bill. More simply stated, Bill C-29 invites constitutional wrangling instead of promoting legal certainty, which will harm consumers and banks.

However, we have an even more fundamental issue with what the minister proposes. In effect, he is inviting Parliament to declare that in Canada the convenience of bankers is more important than the protection of consumers. We believe that is mistaken and will not be popular.

Financial service consumers would gain by the implementation of a strong, coherent, and comprehensive set of legally enforceable rules that would be consistent with the Canadian constitutional framework established through an open consultative process. This set of federal rules could act as a floor, and if the floor were built high enough, provinces likely would not feel the need to offer additional protection to their residents, which would further the goal of consistency. This is not, however, what Bill C-29 currently does.

In conclusion, we suggest that this committee recommend to the minister that he take stock of these issues, withdraw the division from the bill, and consult again in order to implement, in the context of the upcoming global review of the Bank Act, a truly effective financial consumer protection regime.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We'll call the meeting to order. Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, November 15, 2016, we are studying Bill C-29, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016, and other measures.

We have many witnesses to go through. All witnesses are related to their concerns about or praise for Bill C-29.

Mr. Liepert, you had a point you wanted to raise.

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

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

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

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

[Glenn Campbell, Director, Financial Institutions, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is a large part of the act, so I had a rather lengthy statement. I will cut it down in the interests of time.

I'm going to cover part 4, division 5 of Bill C-29, which includes proposed amendments to the Bank Act with respect to the federal financial consumer protection framework for banking, covering clauses 117 to 135 of the bill, on pages 179 to 226.

The proposed amendments modernize and enhance the consumer provisions of the Bank Act. These amendments fall into four main categories: first, consolidating and modernizing the framework under a single part or chapter of the act; second, introducing guiding principles to help banks and consumers interpret the legislation; third, implementing targeted enhancements to strengthen specific consumer provisions; and fourth and finally, affirming exclusive federal jurisdiction over consumer protection rules for banks and banking.

I will now quickly cover each of the four categories of the amendments.

The first category is consolidating and modernizing the act. The existing provisions are currently spread across the Bank Act and two dozen regulations. Existing legislative and regulatory requirements are consolidated into a new part of the act. The intent is to combine provisions together, make the rules easier to understand, and demonstrate the comprehensive nature of the framework.

This will also allow for more consistent treatment across various banking products and services. Modernizing the framework would also allow the provisions to be more flexible and better able to accommodate future changes in the sector, such as the shift to a digital economy. For example, the rules would cover disclosure through paper as well as verbal, electronic, and mobile channels to keep up with changing industry and consumer preferences.

The second category is the introduction of new guiding principles. Consumers and stakeholders have long signalled the need to make the provisions easier to follow and to communicate. The five code-like principles align or map to each of the five elements of the legislation as structured. They are as follows.

First, basic banking services should be accessible. Second, disclosure should enable an institution's customers and the public to make informed financial decisions. Third, a bank's customers and the public should be treated fairly. Fourth, complaints processes should be impartial, transparent, and responsive. Fifth, a bank should act responsibly, considering its customers and the public as well as the efficiency of its business operations.

The third category consists of specific amendments to strengthen consumer protection in banking. These elements are categorized along the lines of access, business practices, disclosure, complaints, and accountability. I will cover only the new specific revisions, in the interests of time.

The new enhancements strengthen the rules by allowing consumers to choose from a more flexible list of personal identification documents regarding opening of accounts. Two pieces of identification will be required to open an account or to cash a government cheque. The new provisions will make it easier for Canadians to open basic deposit accounts, cash cheques, and use more available identification documents.

There are existing rules around business practices. There are several that I won't go into at length, but the new enhancements strengthen these by, for example, expanding the provision to capture undue pressure; clearly prohibiting banks from applying such pressure or coercing a person for any purpose; specifying that advertisements must be accurate, clear, and not misleading; and adding new cancellation periods for a wider range of products and services.

For example, cancellation periods would now apply to all deposits in savings accounts and, with a few exceptions, credit products. By and large, if consumers obtained a product in person or through a website, they would have three business days to cancel free of charge. For products obtained via telephone or mail, that cancellation period is 14 business days now.

Regarding disclosure, the new enhancements make disclosure more flexible and more consistent across a range of products and services. For example, the use of summary information boxes, which consumers have found useful, will be broadened across more bank products and services, such as deposit and savings accounts. Summary information boxes highlight key information about a product for customers in language they can understand to help them make choices that are right for them.

Regarding complaints handling, the existing consumer provisions set out a dedicated complaints handling system that is timely, efficient, and free for customers. The new enhancements would strengthen this by requiring banks and external complaints bodies to report on the nature of consumer complaints.

Enhanced reporting on complaints would provide greater transparency to the public and policy makers on consumers' concerns, becoming more important as this complex industry evolves. In turn, banks would have an even stronger incentive to focus and address those areas that would generate complaints. Banks and external complaint bodies now have to report on the number of complaints, and in the future they will have to expand that to deal with the nature of complaints as well.

Regarding corporate governance and accountability, new enhancements are proposed in these areas. A board of directors would be required to oversee a bank's operational procedures, put in place by management, to comply with all consumer provisions of the act. Banks would also have to report on what they do to address the challenges faced by vulnerable Canadians: consumers facing accessibility, linguistic, or literacy challenges.

Fourth and finally, Mr. Chair, is the category of amendments. In the affirmation, the Bank Act sets out a comprehensive and exclusive regime in relation to banks' dealings with customers and the public. These amendments are proposed to clarify the scope of federal jurisdiction. Amendments to the preamble to the act are to ensure consistency with the new part, a new purpose clause states the objective of exclusive federal regulation, and a new paramountcy clause expresses the intent that the new part be paramount to provincial consumer protection laws and regulations.

Together these proposed amendments will provide that the Bank Act is the exclusive set of rules that protects consumers when they deal with their banks. This is intended for consumers to have clear, comprehensive, and uniform protections when dealing with their banks, no matter where they live, work, or travel in the country.

An exclusive federal regime would be intended to avoid the overlap of federal and provincial laws, which can be confusing and not in the consumer's interest. It would create clear rules that Canadians can follow and to which the government can hold banks accountable.

I'm done.

[The Clerk]

A suggestion might be be, “That the Standing Committee on Finance invite”—then insert the name of the committee—“to review...” specific clauses in Bill C-29 “and submit proposals for amendments to” those specific clauses, with a deadline to submit them prior to the clause-by-clause examination on the 28th, “and that those proposed amendments be deemed moved during the clause-by-clause study of the bill.”

[Trevor McGowan]

There were the general rules in the Income Tax Act that various taxpayers had to apply to their particular situations. None of those rules dealt specifically with emissions allowances, so prior to the introduction of the rules contained in Bill C-29, taxpayers applied the general tax principles as they thought most appropriate, because there was a real element of uncertainty.

One of the things we're hearing is that taxpayers want certainty in how these things are taxed. Of course, they were taxed. Some taxpayers took the position they were inventory; some took the position they were eligible capital property. There were issues with each. It is true that the general tax rules would apply prior to this, and this doesn't override that unless a taxpayer elects to do so.

You also mentioned carbon and the definition of emissions allowance applying to carbon. That's what I would call the paradigm example of something to which they would apply, but the definition itself, which is introduced in subsection 248(1), is broader than that. Emissions allowances can be used to satisfy—and I'm going from memory—an obligation with respect to emission of a controlled substance. Carbon, of course, is the classic example, but it's not limited to that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Committee, come to order, please.

Today we're dealing with the Budget Implementation Act 2016, Bill C-29, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures.

There are a couple of items before we get to departmental officials. First, we need a budget to hear from witnesses. That schedule is all laid out according to a previous motion of this committee, but a cost has been calculated for us to do the hearings on Bill C-29, which will all be in Ottawa. We need to request $10,100.

Does somebody want to move that? It is moved by Mr. Liepert.

Is there a seconder? It is seconded by Mr. Sorbara.

All those in favour?

We don't need a seconder. Sorry; I'm used to Robert's Rules of Order.

All those in favour?

(Motion agreed to)

You had a point you wanted to raise, Dan, before I go to witnesses.

Bill C-26—Time Allocation Motion

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

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

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

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

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Yes. Bill C-26 is Monday, and Bill C-29 is next Thursday, for amendments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

For Bill C-29 it is next Thursday. Bill C-26 is Monday.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you to one and all for your presentations. I do apologize for the confusion.

There is food at the back of the room, because we had ordered supper, so if witnesses and members want to indulge in that food, you're welcome to it. Don't let it go to waste.

For members, at tomorrow's meeting we will have departmental officials on Bill C-29, as you know. We will hear from departmental officials on each part of the bill, for each division in part 4, so members should prepare questions along the lines of each part of Bill C-29. It will be broken into parts.

Officials to begin with will provide a brief overview of each part, and the committee will then proceed with questions on that part of the bill before moving to the next part. I want people to know this so that they are prepared.

You will also receive the Library of Parliament briefing note tomorrow morning on Bill C-29.

Yes, Mr. Duval.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let us look at what the government presented.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-29, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures.

I would like to use this opportunity to address a number of concerns about this legislation. In particular, I would like to discuss the implications of the new infrastructure bank for rural ridings like Essex, and for the Canadian economy as a whole.

The potential privatization of our public infrastructure is extremely worrisome. When the government opens our country to private investors who control pools of capital worth trillions of dollars, it undermines the government's ability to provide effective infrastructure for Canadian communities. Private investors do not invest in Canada out of the goodness of their heart, but expect a return on their investment.

That return will come at a cost. For example, it could come at the cost of a working family's ability to put their children into hockey school. It could come at the cost of a senior's ability to pay for their already expensive prescription drugs. We need to ask ourselves if tolled highways and user fees are the best way to finance our infrastructure. What effect will privatized infrastructure projects have on the economies of smaller communities, small business owners, and the cost of living for hard-working Canadians?

The Liberals propose to raise public capital for this new infrastructure bank by selling off public assets. It then plans to raise private capital through privatizing the newly built bridges, roads, and trains. Higher fees for public transit lead directly to higher expenses for Canadians. Giving control of these new projects to private investors is outside the Liberal government's mandate. This grand plan has been termed “asset recycling”, but what it really is is “asset privatizing”.

The Liberal platform argued that the Canadian government's high credit rating would be leveraged to encourage municipalities and provinces to invest in infrastructure through low-cost financing, but this is not what the government has put forward. Instead, the Liberals want to sell off newly built infrastructure to private investors so they can finance the high rates of return for private investors.

What I am deeply concerned about is that at no time during the last election did the Liberal Party talk about introducing privatization of our infrastructure. Members may recall that the last election took place over several months, giving the Liberals ample opportunity to mention their plan. Their plan, which has now been revealed, exposes the real motive behind the proposed infrastructure bank, which is further privatization of our public infrastructure.

In my role as the member of Parliament for the people of Essex, I need to ask what this means for average working people in my community. It means tolls and user fees. Toll roads do not make life more affordable for Canadians. It means expensive bills every month.

The people in my community already know what headaches can come from private infrastructure projects. The Ambassador Bridge is privately owned and belongs to an 89-year-old billionaire who controls and holds this vital American-Canadian trade link hostage. The bridge is falling apart and is jeopardizing public safety. We desperately need the new Gordie Howe bridge to be built.

Every day, between 8,000 and 10,000 trucks cross our border. This bridge represents $700 billion in annual trade between our two nations. Last week, I met with representatives of a fish processing plant in Kingsville. They told me they were experiencing extreme backups when their delivery trucks return from Michigan. This is costing their plant time and money.

Tolls are not the way to go. As we saw with the building of Highway 407 in Toronto, one of the many failed public-private partnerships, tolls have increased so much that most people do not use the highway. How has this become a model to be replicated?

I was just speaking with my mom earlier today about this, and she said she never uses the 407 because it is so expensive. She simply cannot afford it. It costs my parents $30 for a one-way trip. They are seniors. This is an added expense that they simply cannot afford.

In my riding of Essex, small businesses create good local jobs and play an integral role in our communities. The Liberals' broken campaign pledge on the small business tax rate will cost business owners money and hurt their bottom lines. Instead of hiring that additional worker, they now have to set that money aside for taxes. Similarly, building highways that people will not be able to afford to use hurts rural communities and employers.

Employers in my riding are already struggling with attracting potential employees from the city to come to work in the county. We have no public transit, so people have to use their own vehicles to get around. I have spoken with many of these employers and they have told me about their struggles to maintain their workforces. Additional road tolls will hurt employers in rural ridings across Canada.

I am so proud of my community and its world-class production of wine. The Canadian wine industry provides an estimated annual economic benefit of $8 billion, which is a fraction of its potential value. Companies, such as Colio Estates, Cooper's Hawk, Mastronardi Estates, Oxley Estates, Colchester Ridge Estates, Muscedere, North 42 Degrees, Sprucewood Shores Estates, and Viewpointe Estates are only a few of the wineries in my region that operate incredible businesses and attract tourism dollars to our area. These wineries are local employers that look to the federal government to support their innovation. They need the government to present a budget that effectively directs public investment to high-growth industries, such as our agricultural sector. This budget does nothing for these small business owners.

Another infrastructure priority in my riding is broadband Internet. As an MP who represents rural communities across Essex, I welcome the government's commitment to improving access to broadband Internet. In my riding, we are expecting significant upgrades over the next year that will expand wireless coverage. This is welcome news.

However, if we are talking about support for farmers, the commitments in the budget fall short of the support farmers have asked for. The budget makes no provisions for promised compensation for farmers who will be hurt by trade deals like the TPP and CETA, even as the government continues to push to ratify these deals. Last week, the government finally announced a plan to compensate farmers, but it falls far short of compensating them for the losses they are expected to incur. These trade deals chip away at Canada's supply managed sectors at a time when we should be strengthening family farms and ensuring that they have the tools they need to remain viable.

There is a lot missing in the Liberals' budget. Where are the commitments to seniors who are struggling to make ends meet and plan for their retirement? Where are the commitments to invest in home care? Where are the commitments to make child care more affordable? In my constituency office, we have been helping people access the Canada child tax benefit. Just the other week, my office assisted a single mom who is struggling to access this benefit because of the onerous requirements to prove that she's estranged from her husband. We also hear regularly from parents who cannot find affordable child care, and the increased CCTB simply does not address these challenges.

We have also heard from people in my riding who have been impacted by the Phoenix pay system debacle. I have heard from students who were never properly paid this summer, and women coming back from maternity leave whose pay is interrupted. It is extremely stressful, given that most people live paycheque to paycheque and simply do not have the cash reserves to miss months of paycheques. These are the types of issues that matter to my constituents.

The Liberal Party ran on a platform of so-called real change. The budget would leave one questioning what real change means, or more ominously, who it benefits.

On October 20, we learned that the Liberals gave Credit Suisse, an investment firm specializing in privatization, the mandate to advise the Liberals on the benefits of privatizing Canadian airports. It seems like a foregone conclusion that Credit Suisse will recommend privatization. Along with concerns over increased fees for Canadians, the privatization of airports also raises concerns about security matters. There could be significant implications for travellers, and for public safety more broadly. What is next, the privatization of our border crossings?

I would like to speak more about some of my riding's infrastructure priorities. My riding of Essex is home to a short-line rail service called the Essex Terminal Railway. It is critical to the infrastructure necessary in my community. The short line rail industry made several requests of budget 2016, all of which fell on deaf ears. Clearly, investing in short-line rail would help create new opportunities to expand service and increase regional economic opportunities. We do not see that in this budget.

I urge the government to seriously rethink its infrastructure bank scheme. Privatization has many negative impacts and I am deeply concerned that this proposed bank will serve neither the interests of my constituents, nor the needs of my riding. For these reasons, I will be voting no to Bill C-29.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is a question I have been wanting to put to a government representative today. I know that the hon. member did not touch on it in his speech, but my question does directly relate to Bill C-29 in that we had a series of commitments from the Liberal government when it was campaigning in the election.

There is one piece, which I have to say I have been very disappointed has not been in budget 2016. I am not sure I have heard the finance minister commit to it for budget 2017.

The Liberal platform committed that all fossil fuel subsidies would be terminated, but budget 2016 includes fossil fuel subsidies for liquefied natural gas continuing until at least 2025. I do not want to put the hon. member on the spot, but perhaps he has some indication of whether that Liberal promise relating to fossil fuel subsidies will be brought in in 2017.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand in the House this evening to speak to Bill C-29. On behalf of the people of Niagara Centre, I rise today to speak about what this budget will mean for my community, our region, and the people and businesses that call Welland, Thorold, St. Catharines, Port Colborne, and all of the Niagara region home.

Since first being elected last year, I have participated in three federal budget consultations in my riding and throughout the Niagara region. The first was last January to ensure that the concerns and aspirations of my constituents were included in budget 2016. At this meeting, I met with over 15 social service groups, immigration groups, environmental groups, poverty groups, business associations, chambers of commerce, unions, and many other community leaders.

The second consultation last winter was with the parliamentary secretary for finance, the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain, who joined me and 12 mayors from the Niagara region, the Niagara regional chair, various council members, and a number of economic development officers from the area who were all looking to re-engage with the federal government.

At both of these meetings, the message was very clear. The citizens of Niagara Centre and Niagara wanted to ensure that the federal government was helping Canadians by doing what we promised to do: first, create a business-friendly environment that keeps us competitive in a changing global economy; second, provide support for Canadians to learn new skills and knowledge to succeed in a changing world; third, partner with our provinces and municipal governments to build the core infrastructure people and businesses need to be healthy and secure and that will provide a springboard for success in the years to come; and fourth, provide returns that meet the requirements of a triple bottom-line mindset, that being economic, environmental, and social.

Last week, the member for St. Catharines and I held a pre-budget consultation for budget 2017. Much of the conversation reflected on the successes of budget 2016 and the long-term vision of the programs put forward last March. The regional chair, the mayors, business groups, social service providers, Brock University and Niagara College, and other community leaders once again came forward with their desire to build on budget 2016 and to continue to build partnerships between the federal government and the people of my riding of Niagara Centre, and, equally important, the people of the entire Niagara region.

These three formal consultations allowed me, as well as members of our community, to meet in partnership with municipal governments, social service providers, business groups, and educational institutions to discuss in an open forum how to strengthen the partnerships between these groups and the federal government while meeting the needs of hundreds of residents in my riding, middle-class Canadians and those working hard to join the middle class.

What I have been hearing from the people of Niagara Centre is how budget 2016 helps them. In my riding we have created a seniors council, a group of passionate individuals within our seniors community who meet with me and my staff throughout the year to discuss how governments and service providers can help seniors live healthy, independent, full lives. The Niagara Centre Seniors' Council supports the Old Age Security Act, which ensures 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.

In my riding we have also created a youth council, a group of engaged and inspirational young people from high school, university, and college as well as young business owners. These are the leaders of today. When this group comes together throughout the year, I am excited about Niagara Centre and the Niagara region's future. The youth council is motivated by this government's increased investments in Canadian colleges and universities, such as Brock University and Niagara College, both of which are in my riding of Niagara Centre.

They are also very supportive of the increased support for middle-class families and those working hard to join the middle class.

By increasing the amount of federal support for college tuition, they are now moving forward with more support for mental health services. They are in fact prioritizing, on behalf of all Canadians, moving forward on enhanced mental health services.

In my riding, many families are working hard to provide for their children so their kids can be successful. The Canada child benefit does just that. In early September, when so many of us were getting our kids ready to go back to school, I heard from mothers and fathers in my riding about how helpful the Canada child benefit was to them. For example, a family with an income of $65,000 a year, with two school-aged children, received a $500 tax-free cheque in September, money that was used to help pay for back-to-school supplies, clothes, registration for sports teams, cultural and theatre registrations, and nutritious foods for lunches.

My constituency office in the city of Welland had many hard-working parents from Port Colborne, Thorold, Welland, and south St. Catharines and from outside the riding come in to learn about the CCB. I have had many conversations with parents who have stopped in to thank us and tell me how the CCB has been a great help to them. As a father myself, it was incredible to see the effect this particular program had on families who want to ensure that their children have every opportunity to be successful.

Budget 2016 is an example of how the federal government can create partnerships with municipal governments, social service providers, the business community, and, equally important, hard-working Canadians to help grow our economy, support our next generation of business and innovation, and ensure that Canadians have the support they need to succeed today as well as tomorrow.

Budget 2016 focuses on partnerships that build sound infrastructure while creating good jobs with a strong focus on supporting hard-working Canadians. After three budget consultations to date, several youth and senior advisory committee meetings, and consultations with business groups, universities, colleges, anti-poverty groups, immigration groups, and various other community organizations, this is what the people of Niagara Centre have asked of their government.

Once again, it is establishing triple bottom-line results, including economic, social, and environmental. The result is that hard-working Canadians, middle-class families in Niagara and beyond, see in budget 2016 that the Government of Canada is working with them and listening to their needs and concerns to bring success today while ensuring the success of future generations. It is responsive government and responsible government.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak in favour of Bill C-29, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures.

I will begin my remarks by speaking about my riding of Surrey—Newton, which is a community that will benefit directly from the measures outlined in the government's budget.

Much like the rest of Surrey, my riding of Surrey—Newton is experiencing the pressure of growth caused by the migration of 1,200 people moving into Surrey every month.

Surrey—Newton has a strong middle class, a range of different compositions of families with children and seniors. Because of the great interest from the residents regarding many of the budgetary issues and measures introduced last spring, I want to highlight a few of the items that will benefit my constituents the most.

The new Canada child benefit is a significant step forward in recognizing the financial pressures of the middle-class families with children. The new consolidated benefit is easier to account for, indexed according to income levels, and overall more generous than the previous system.

Today, families can receive up to $6,400 per year for each of their children under the age of six. For each child aged six to 17 years, families can receive up to $5,400 per year. This is significant because statistics show that nine out of 10 families have seen their benefits increase under the new plan that was rolled out as of July 1, 2016, with an average bump totalling approximately $2,300.

From the personal impacts I am hearing regarding such an increase, this is a windfall that is really extending the household budgets in Surrey—Newton.

Similarly, seniors are overwhelmingly appreciative of the changes to the Old Age Security Act, which returns the age of eligibility to 65, while at the same time increasing the amount of guaranteed income supplement up to $947.

Vulnerable seniors on fixed incomes are a group that every member of the House is encountering, given their respective constituencies. This budget would fulfill a promise to address those who are most at risk of financial uncertainty, both in terms of seniors as well as young families trying to get a foothold.

In fact, it is what classify as a people's first budget, meaning that this government is committed to improving the situations of middle-class families and seniors with tangible and targeted actions.

This does not mean, however, that it fails to recognize the broader picture when it comes to measures that will continue to build the nation's economic climate.

I want to touch on two specific areas of focus.

First is the number of changes that will allow for greater control over taxation. The budget does this by closing many of the loopholes and policies that allow for billions of dollars of unpaid tax dollars to escape scrutiny. This government believes that multinational corporations should never be able to accrue tax benefits that put them on a different level of consideration than the average, hard-working Canadian taxpayer.

By working with the G20 and the OECD, and ensuring that the provisions attached to both that addresses tax evasion are utilized, it disallows these mega business entities from operating in isolation within Canada.

There must be consequences for avoiding paying their fair share while operating in our country because the lost revenues that this government is currently encountering are dollars that can be invested in Canadian citizens.

Speaking of investment, this government is also looking at the infrastructure needs of the country and investing to build for our future.

For example, in the city of Surrey, residents and businesses alike are struggling with a public transit system that cannot keep up with the demand. As I mentioned earlier, 1,200 people are moving into Surrey every month. To deal with this demand, the Surrey LRT line is one of the most important and pressing projects in metro Vancouver at the moment. It is absolutely essential to keep up with the growth the city of Surrey is experiencing.

The fact is that with Canada having the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio of any G7 country, now is the time for Canada to build and invest for the future. These are not simply the opinions of the government, but one that is voiced by economists from across the country.

In fact, recently the Bank of Canada governor, Stephen Poloz, urged this government to spend more on infrastructure to boost sluggish and long-term growth. Let me provide a direct quote from Mr. Poloz. He said:

In the case of a targeted investment by government, which is identified in such a way that it will be growth enabling, is very likely to pay off very well, That is, it creates more economic growth for all those who use that infrastructure, and that of course creates tax revenues and the system keeps turning.

To address the fearmongering from the other side of the House, this is what Mr. Poloz said about the deficit. He said, “Canada is in a very good fiscal situation so we shouldn't be worrying about that at this time”.

This government is going to transform the empty announcements of the previous administration that often did not deliver on the funds. Instead it will make concrete investments that will energize our economy now and for decades to come by investing in Canadians who need consideration the most and for those whose spending serves as a spark for economic growth. By investing in infrastructure for our cities across the country, this government understands that a budget that does not deliver for people is a budget not worth delivering.

We recognize that impacting an individual or a family's daily life takes strong measures that clearly lay out a plan that is actionable and not just used for political purposes.

I am very proud to support this second budgetary implementation bill. I can see the difference being made in the lives of my constituents in Surrey—Newton and all Canadians. That is one of the most satisfying things I take away from being a member of Parliament and something I never take for granted.

[Michael Levitt, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on Bill C-29, an act to implement provisions of budget 2016.

I would like to focus on my riding of York Centre, the wonderful and diverse community I represent, and how measures in the budget implemented by this bill are helping the middle class in my riding.

I am a firm believer in engaging with constituents, not just at election time but between elections, and hearing about what matters to them so I can bring their priorities and concerns to this House and represent them fully. Just this past weekend, I held what I call “coffee with your MP” in my riding. The idea is that I sit in four coffee shops for an our each and invite members of the community to come and meet with me to talk about their concerns. It is a wonderful way to directly engage with my constituents and to also support local small businesses.

Each day I meet and talk to people from York Centre and beyond, and they tell me how positive they are feeling about this government's actions so far. I talk to parents of young children who now have the support they need to make ends meet. The Canada child benefit introduced in this budget, the benefits that would be indexed to inflation by this bill, is a revolutionary program to help the middle class and those working hard to join it.

I have met far too many families who constantly struggle to keep up with expenses. These are single mothers who face the challenge of supporting their children on a single income, and parents who face stagnant wages as the cost of raising their families increases. This is why the government introduced the new Canada child benefit. It is to give Canadian families more help with the high cost of raising children.

The Canada child benefit is simpler. Most families receive a single payment every month, tax free. Families do not have to pay taxes on payments. It is better targeted to those who need it most. Low and middle-income families get higher payments, and those with the highest incomes receive less than under the previous system.

It is also much more generous. Families benefiting will see an average increase of almost $2,300 in the 2016-17 benefit year. With the Canada child benefit, nine out of 10 Canadian families are receiving higher monthly benefits, and hundreds of thousands of children are being lifted out of poverty. To ensure that benefits match the cost of living, these benefits will be indexed. I cannot stress enough how important this investment is for the middle class of Canada and particularly for my riding of York Centre.

An incredible number of young families make York Centre their home and raise their children there, but as our community grows, our infrastructure has to grow and adapt with it. As I talk to my constituents, many of the concerns they raise relate to how their neighbourhoods are affected by aging infrastructure and how to adapt to growing density in their area. They are concerned about transit, about being able to get to work on time and about getting home at a reasonable hour.

It is unreasonable for someone who lives in York Centre and works in downtown Toronto to have a two-hour commute, when it should take less than 45 minutes. It is unreasonable to wait in traffic for an hour to move half a kilometre. This is not hyperbole. It is the daily reality faced by too many of my constituents.

On Dufferin Street at Finch Avenue, thoroughfares in York Centre, there is near constant gridlock. Residents in my riding waiting for a bus can wait for almost an hour to find one they can board. Residents suffer, businesses suffer, and our economy suffers because of these harsh realities. This intersection is also listed every year near the top in the annual CAA worst road for driving survey, another manifestation of our crumbling infrastructure.

There is a consensus that investing in infrastructure is the right thing to do, which is yet another reason I am proud of this government's investment in our country's infrastructure.

When we invest in our country and our communities, we are not just helping Canadians now but are investing in greater economic growth for the long term. The benefits will be felt by our children and by our children's children.

Budget 2016 is committed to doubling infrastructure investments over the next 10 years, including dedicated funding for public transit. We are working in partnership with all three levels of government to build rapid transit that will benefit communities for years to come.

What does this look like? In York Centre, we are seeing investments in transit across the board. The Spadina subway, which ends in my riding at Downsview, is being extended with federal funding, and we can expect it to open next year. This is just the beginning. The ambitious 10-year infrastructure investment presented by the government is a bold plan that will spur growth and help this country and York Centre get moving again.

It is not just transit. Community infrastructure and investments in affordable housing will help make our cities and communities more liveable and more affordable.

York Centre has an aging stock of affordable housing, and families are deeply affected by the lack of availability. There is a 97,000-family wait list for Toronto community housing. As our population ages, we are facing shortages of affordable housing that meets seniors' needs as well.

I hear these concerns nearly every day from constituents concerned about being able to afford retirement, both those looking to retire and those who are currently retired. They worry about being able to stay in their homes. That is why I am pleased that budget 2016 is investing $2.3 billion over two years to give Canadians greater access to more affordable housing.

Far more than just bricks and mortar, infrastructure is a key driver of any community's social development. That is why the government recognizes that investing in infrastructure is essential to equipping municipalities with the building blocks they need to support a high standard of living for all Canadians.

Investing in public infrastructure is about creating good, well-paying jobs. It is about protecting the environment and improving public health. It is about developing recreational and cultural centres where people can enrich their lives and strengthen community ties.

I was privileged to announce back in June funding for the Jewish community centre's new campus in York Centre. This investment will lead to an incredible number of community resources being made available to young families, students, and seniors: fitness and recreation programs and facilities, health and wellness programs, arts and culture, and early child education. Healthy, active, well-connected communities are happier communities, and this investment will make a real difference in the lives of those who live and work in York Centre and North Toronto.

On a personal note, when I first moved here from Scotland as a teenager, my mother and I frequented the Bathurst Jewish Community Centre where this expansion is taking place. It was an essential resource for us when we felt like strangers in a big city, a feeling I know is shared by so many new immigrants today, many of whom call York Centre home. I remember the fun I had taking drama classes and doing sports programs in the gym. My own kids shared that positive experience there as well.

As MPs, we know the significant needs that exist among young families, new immigrants, and seniors, to name just few of the groups that will immediately benefit from the investment in our community infrastructure.

I think I have made clear the benefits of this government's economic plan as laid out in budget 2016 that would be implemented by Bill C-29. I am proud of the investments we are making and will continue to make in strengthening and growing our economy.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to stand and speak on Bill C-29, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016, and other measures.

I am delighted to stand in this House and discuss a budget that provides much-needed help for the middle class and builds upon a strong economy. As we all know, when middle-class Canadians have more money to save, invest, and grow the economy, everyone in this country will benefit.

A strengthened middle class means that hard-working Canadians can look forward to a good standard of living and better prospects for their kids. When we have an economy that works for the middle class, we have a country that works for everyone.

We must do for our kids and grandkids what our parents and grandparents did for us. For example, we are giving Canadian families more help with the high cost of raising children. Our government has introduced a new Canada child benefit that is simpler, tax free, and more generous. The Canada child benefit will replace existing federal child benefits. With the CCB, nine out of 10 Canadian families will receive higher monthly benefits, and hundreds of thousands of children will be lifted out of poverty.

In my home province of Newfoundland and Labrador, families will receive, over a two-year investment, some $112 million under the the new CCB. This new investment will enable families and single parents to better provide for the day-to-day needs of their children.

After a decade of being abandoned by the former federal government and the administrative neglect of a provincial Conservative government, I am pleased to now work on behalf of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to deliver huge benefits for our province.

For example, we were able to assist Newfoundland and Labrador with a $31-million stabilization fund, $68.2 million for small craft harbours, almost $110 million to Memorial University, and an additional $2.9-billion loan guarantee for Muskrat Falls. This does not include over $235 million for municipal infrastructure projects, and a further $78 million of Parks Canada investment in Newfoundland and Labrador.

With the new co-operative approach between the federal and provincial government, we are delivering more solid investments to our province. In addition, we are also looking after those working Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and all working Canadians, to better prepare them now for a much more secure retirement in the future.

As such, I am delighted that as a government we are proposing strategic and innovative changes to the Canada pension plan. Some of the things we are doing that will provide a more secure and stable retirement for hard-working Canadians include: increasing the amount of retirement pension, and also, very important to me, increasing survivor and disability pensions, and the post-retirement benefit, subject to the amount of additional contributions made and the number of years over which those contributions are made; increasing the maximum level of pensionable earnings by 14% as of 2025; providing for the making of additional contributions beginning in 2019; providing for the creation of the additional Canada pension plan account, and the accounting of funds in relation to it; including the additional contributions and increasing benefits in the financial review provisions of the act; and authorizing the Governor in Council to make regulations in relation to those provisions.

I am very proud to be working on behalf of my constituents, in the great riding of Avalon and to be part of a government that believes every Canadian deserves a secure and dignified retirement after a lifetime of hard work. In addition, I am pleased to speak from a very personal perspective regarding the current benefits of the Canada pension plan.

In early 2000, I lost my wife after a lengthy and courageous battle with cancer. At the age of 40 years, I accepted the responsibility of raising my young son to ensure his well-being and provide for an education that would help secure his future. After sitting here and listening to some of the hon. members opposite, it perturbs me that they use information that distorts the unfounded negativities of the real and true benefits of the Canada pension plan.

We have heard members opposite negligently throw out numbers and facts and state that 20% of Canadians do not benefit from their investments in the Canada pension plan because there is no one left to receive the survivor benefit. I do not believe this represents the true facts, and I do not think it is useful to this debate.

Furthermore, members opposite have stated that individuals are investing hundreds of thousands of dollars in the Canada pension plan and receiving a mere $2,500 payout. Once again, these statements by members are unfortunate and do nothing to provide an informative and factual debate in the House. The Canada pension plan and retirement is important to so many Canadians and we need to make strategic decisions that will provide enhanced future benefits.

From my personal experience, while the benefit is not large, as my wife died at the young age of 37, I have been receiving survivor benefits since my wife's passing in 2000. In addition, my son was receiving a monthly contribution from Canada pension during his high school and post-secondary education. Unlike what members opposite would want us to believe, the benefit was certainly a financial help to my son and me.

We all know that today middle-class Canadians are working harder than ever, but many are worried that they will not have put enough money away for their retirement. Each year fewer and fewer Canadians have workplace pensions to fall back on. As a responsible government with a commitment to strengthen and grow the middle class, we made a commitment to Canadians to strengthen the CPP in order to help them achieve their goal for a strong, secure, and stable retirement. Now we are making meaningful changes to the CPP that will allow Canadians to retire with more money in their pockets.

Every Canadian deserves a secure and dignified retirement after a lifetime of hard work and we have taken a powerful step to make that happen. When our finance minister and his provincial counterparts first started to discuss the future of pensions, it was a real opportunity for them to seize on a renewed spirit of collaboration and to get things done. The deal would boost how much each Canadian will get from their pension from one-quarter of their earnings now to fully one-third. Simply put, there will be more money waiting for Canadians when they retire. To make sure these changes are affordable, we will phase them in slowly over seven years from 2019 to 2025, so that the impact is small and gradual. The revisions are designed to help Canadians in every step of their lives, our grandparents, parents, and children.

Retired Canadians deserve to enjoy their freedom. No retired Canadian should have to worry about selling their home or getting a part-time job. The increases to CPP contribution rates are being gradually phased in starting in 2019. This is the responsible thing to do to make sure business and workers have time to adjust to the additional contributions associated with the enhanced program. The Government of Canada will enhance the working income tax benefit to offset the incremental CPP contributions of eligible low-income workers and provide tax deductibility for the enhanced portion of employee CPP contributions.

As stated earlier, the government has already taken action to support families by introducing the Canada child benefit to help families with the high cost of raising their kids. We cut taxes for the middle class, and now we have expanded the retirement benefits through a strengthened CPP. We have also helped our seniors by increasing the guaranteed income supplement top-up benefit by up to $947 annually for the most vulnerable single seniors. We know this will improve the financial security of about 900,000 single seniors across Canada. We also restored the eligibility age for old age security and guaranteed income supplement benefits to age 65.

As I conclude my remarks on Bill C-29, I believe it is more important than ever that we be responsible to the needs of our constituents, that we do what we can to continue growing the middle class, enhance family benefits, and secure an enhanced retirement program for working Canadians.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, indeed it is always good to stand in this place, particularly after the bit of confusion that we just went through in the voting. I can say that with Bill C-29, the budget implementation act, there is no confusion; it is actually a train wreck. It should not be called an implementation bill. It maybe should be referred to as a renovation bill, because when something is as disastrously wrong in the economy of this country as it is now, it takes not only severe renovations but also a change of culture within a government.

The riding of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex is in southwestern Ontario, and is very much a rural riding made up of small and medium-sized businesses. Quite honestly, in the riding I do not have a large business. We are made up of hard-working, middle-income folks and families who get up every day and go to work. They are strong entrepreneurs who generate wealth and employment, something that is hard to find in this budget. These folks in my riding actually stimulate jobs. That is because they have endured some hard times but have been able to buckle down and survive, up until some of these proposals in this budget.

Something that rang strong in a riding like mine and those across this country was the talk in the campaign by the Liberals about what they were going to do. Actually, the Liberals did not talk about what they were going to do, but actually made promises.

We were in the riding last week during Legion Week as we celebrated and thanked our veterans across this great country of Canada. We thanked the veterans who are alive, but we also recognized with our hearts the work and the commitment of those who gave their lives so we could be in a place like this and be able to have free discussion about topics that are important to Canadians. We celebrated Legion Week and thanked those who gave their lives for us in this great country and the veterans who were there. We always comment on and commend those who are in uniform, who stand up for us not only in our great nation of Canada but also abroad in many countries.

However, when the government breaks that promise, as the current government has done in so many ways, it takes a bit of the heart out of people. The broken promises did not happen three or four years after the election; they happened within days and weeks of the government being sworn in. It takes away the credibility not only of the government but, quite honestly, of all of us who are elected people, because people say they just do not trust any elected people. That is very unfortunate. Let me just say a bit about what happened with the breaking of promises and why that was so detrimental to people in my riding and, I am sure, across the country.

In the election campaign, the current Prime Minister talked about a teeny-weeny modest deficit that the Liberal government was going to hand to Canadians. They said it would be a $10 billion deficit. We have heard that time and again. Not within a year but within weeks, the $10 billion escalated to $30 billion.

That is 300% or three times what the projection was. When we talk about billions of dollars, ordinary Canadians really do not wrap their heads around what a billion dollars is, but they can wrap their head around what it actually means.

Let me give a little example of what it means, because this is what happens when the Liberals do not do what they say they will do and expect ordinary Canadians to believe them and then understand that when they break the promise, it does not mean much. That is really what the Liberals want us to think.

A small business guy goes into the bank with a proposal and a business plan that goes with it. He tells the bank or the lending institution that this is his business plan, that he needs a million dollars, that this is how he will bring it forward and this is how he will pay it back. His business plan talks about the growth. He thought about it. In six weeks he went back to the bank and tells the banker that he still has the same business plan and the sort deficit projection that I just mentioned, so that he needs not $1 million, but $3 million now.

I do not know if anyone on that side has ever had a business. Maybe no one on that side has had to put together a business plan and then take it to a financial institution. However, if an individual from a small business did what I just described, and it could have been any business in my riding, the banker would show them the door.

The difference is that the banker cannot show the government the door today, because the taxpayers are the lenders. Maybe in four years they will be able to show them the door. The Liberals promised they would cut taxes for small business. No, they never want to lose a revenue source from a tax.

The other promise was to make the tax plan revenue neutral, with the Liberals taking from the top earning rich and giving it to the poor, the lower income group. That was supposed to be revenue neutral. It took about three weeks to discover it was not revenue neutral. It was actually about a $2 billion hit to the taxpayers of Canada.

My point is that the government right now has absolutely no credibility. It now has a debt that is escalating. The Liberals have no plan for how they will pay it back. When the Prime Minister was asked when he would balance the budget, as was the Minister of Finance in question period today, they actually did not know. The Prime Minister indicated earlier that he did not know what the deficit would be.

I say to Canadians and to small business people and their families that we have a serious concern. We have a growing deficit and a debt that has escalated to what some say will cost us another $5 billion a year in interest payments. Where I come from, when we are in a hole, it is best to quit digging

However, I get the sense that is not the culture of the Liberal Party. They are on a glorious trip of big deficits, thinking they will just spend their way out of debt. I do not know where that has worked. From a business perspective, it just does not work.

I see that I am at the end of my time and I will be more than glad to take questions, but I am just concerned that with this budget the Liberals have betrayed Canadians and have broken their promises to them. This budget implementation act, unfortunately, will not be supported by me or my party.

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

Second Reading

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak about Bill C-29, which implements a number of important elements of the 2016 budget. I proudly support this budget, because it represents the best that this country has to offer its citizens.

I have been following Canadian federal politics closely for more than 20 years, especially during the more than seven years that I worked as a constituency assistant, a parliamentary assistant and now as a member of Parliament. As a result, I have seen many budgets and changes, many attempts to try out new ideas, and numerous mistakes.

The bill before us is not just an annual budget intended to stay the course with policies that did not work before, in hopes that they will work this time. On the contrary, it is a budget that focuses on our future. It lays the groundwork for years of even better budgets, investments and innovations.

In the economic update presented a few weeks ago, new investments were announced. As the MP for a very rural riding, I am pleased to see a new $2-billion investment, as a first step, for rural infrastructure priorities.

We need to make up for the decades of negligence the regions have suffered. That money, along with $180 billion for infrastructure in many categories that are not specific to the regions, demonstrates the government's interest and its plans to deliver on that.

Where I come from, high-speed Internet access is a very important issue. As far as we are concerned, all socio-economic issues can be linked to high-speed Internet access. The government allocated $500 million for this in the budget. That money cannot come quickly enough. However, we are not so naive as to believe that this small amount is going to solve the problem of rural Internet access after 20 years of failures in digital communication. That money is merely a first step. I am very proud to finally see a forward-looking budget that focuses on long-term planning after 10 years of mismanagement.

I know the Conservatives will ask me how we can plan anything with such large deficits. It does not surprise me that they keep asking that question. For years, they looked at their own deficits and had no idea what to do about them or where they came from, even as they cut taxes and investment in our economy. They actually increased the national debt by more than $150 billion. Year after year, the Conservatives never stopped to think about how future generations would pay off the debt they accumulated.

The Conservatives eliminated government revenue sources and spent willy-nilly. They did not have an infrastructure plan to build the country and our future. They fixed potholes and built gazebos. They spent, but they did not invest, with the possible exception being economic action plan posters, which sprouted up all over the country like mushrooms.

During this debate, the Conservatives have repeatedly questioned whether paying taxes is the way to go. They do not believe that taxes are society's best tool for sharing common costs. They do not agree that it is the government's responsibility to manage that money and spend it in the country's best interest.

Clearly, our job is to improve the lives of all Canadians. However, I can assure the House that we are not going to change things just by listening to the Conservatives. It will take concrete action by the government, and that means spending money in almost every case.

As far as I am concerned, it is obvious that the government has an important role to play in the economy. As I said during yesterday's debate, taxes allow us to pool our resources in order to pay for the expenses shared by our society. The role of government is to improve citizens' lives and it does that by managing these pooled resources, in short, taxes.

We should be talking more about citizens rather than taxpayers. We often do not consider the goal of the institution we work for and the reason why we are here. When the Conservatives imply that the government has no useful role or function, or that taxes are nothing more than a burden for citizens and business, they have completely missed the point.

I find it amusing that the Conservatives are complaining about the government moving forward with enhancements to the Canada pension plan when they have a parliamentary pension plan. They complain about the fact that the government collects taxes and decides how to spend them to improve people's lives, but they do not turn down their own salaries, benefits, or their parliamentary budget.

They know that, as members of the government and members of Parliament, we have the vital role of managing common resources and expenditures and of debating the best ways to improve the lives of our fellow Canadians.

Accordingly, I believe that, eventually, we should consider the possibility of ensuring that all Canadians have a guaranteed minimum income. This idea has been debated in many countries by many generations and may have been around for as long as the debate on whether to annex Turks and Caicos, a measure that I am also not likely to oppose.

Because so many aspects of our society are becoming automated, one day, there may not be enough work for all Canadians. However, I may be wrong, but I believe that that day is still a long way off.

One of my favourite movies is The Gods Must be Crazy. The beginning of this South African and Botswanan movie from the 1980s explains how society becomes more modernized. We have created technology to simplify our lives, but the more simplified our lives become, the more complex the technology becomes. We need more education to understand our simplified lives, which are in fact becoming more complicated.

To come back to what I was saying, the Canada child benefit, which provides parents with up to $6,400 a year per child, is a type of guaranteed minimum income. We already have a guaranteed minimum income for seniors in the form of the guaranteed income supplement, which we increased by 10% in the budget for those who need it most. The idea is already present in our social structures because one of the shared commitments we made as a society was to take care of those who do not have the means or ability to take care of themselves.

Our budget therefore includes a number of components that focus on improving our future. Investments in infrastructure are essential, but we have to run a deficit to make those investments because our infrastructure is already in a deficit situation.

For example, Internet access in our regions is often so unreliable that it is having a significant harmful effect on our economy. Many of our roads are in disrepair. It is estimated that only 400,000 km of Canada's one million kilometres of roads are paved. The investment needs of indigenous communities are so great that I cannot even begin to describe them here. It costs money to make all of these changes and fix these long-standing problems. However, all these investments will improve the quality of life of Canadians in the short term and strengthen our economy in the long term.

Yes, we must go into debt to get there, but our society is already in debt, whether we are talking about our roads, our communities, or our basic infrastructure. By investing, we are simply quantifying this deficit.

With a stronger economy, improved infrastructure, and essential investments, government revenues will increase without hurting the economy and the deficits will start to go down. We have the record to prove it. There has not been a Liberal Prime Minister since confederation who has not managed to balance at least one budget. The only exception was when no budget was tabled. As for the Conservatives' record, the opposite is true.

The good news about infrastructure in the budget does not stop there. I initially had concerns about the idea of an infrastructure bank that the private sector would contribute to, as I consider myself more left-leaning. However, I now understand how we might benefit from it and I see the tremendous potential. I am by no means an expert on this, but if it is done correctly the possibilities are immense.

Private-public funding of infrastructure gives us the chance to finally address the issue of high-speed Internet access in the regions, seriously address the issue of affordable housing, and build other green, social, and traditional infrastructure where traditionally user-pay models are used, without giving up on the idea that infrastructure should belong to the public sector. It is quite interesting and I look forward to following this project.

I am proud of our budget, Bill C-29 and of our government's plans and I am not afraid to say so.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP opposes Bill C-29, the budget implementation bill, for a number of reasons. It has multiple flaws. The Liberals were very vocal in their criticism of the fact that the Conservatives introduced mammoth budget implementation bills known as omnibus bills.

Now the Liberals have introduced a bill with 146 clauses that amends 13 acts and is 234 pages long. It is quite an eclectic mix. The Liberals are also and undemocratically imposing time allocation, which is a tactic they themselves condemned back then. Imposing time allocation prevents us from debating our positions in depth. The Liberals want to rush this bill to committee, which means that our constituents will not have access to all of the information. This is moving too fast, and the Liberals are not honouring their democratic commitment to transparency.

Throughout the campaign and even to this day, for the past year, they have been talking about working for the middle class and reducing inequality. However, and I will talk about this in my speech, many of the proposals in Bill C-29, the budget implementation bill, are utterly incompatible with their stated aim of reducing inequality.

Let us start by talking about SMEs. During the election campaign, we heard time and again from the Liberals that they would reduce the small business tax from 11% to 9%. Now they are not moving ahead with that proposal, which is not in the budget. We know, as do the Liberals who keep saying this, that SMEs are the job creators in the regions. They create 80% of jobs and keep the economy running. Why then are the Liberals putting obstacles in their way?

Two independent grocers in my riding came to see me because they wanted to tell me that it makes no sense that our country has still not passed legislation to cap exorbitant credit card fees. One of these grocers told me that it costs him $141,000 a year just to be able to accept credit cards. Grocers make a net profit of only 1% or so a year. Credit card charges are between 1.5% and 2.5%.

What should we do to ensure that these independent grocers continue to invest in our community? Every time there are school or community projects, independent grocers are asked for their involvement and financial support. However, if they are constantly hobbled, how are they going to survive in order to create jobs, first of all, not to mention to be able to contribute to their communities and our society? Times are tough.

The Liberals also promised a tax credit for hiring youth. However, that is also missing from Bill C-29. Young people really are the forgotten ones in this bill. Just look at the lack of funding for youth organizations.

My riding has three youth consultation forums. One is in Vaudreuil-Soulanges, a second one is in Beauharnois-Salaberry, and the third is in Haut-Saint-Laurent. During the three meetings I had with over 100 youth organizations, everyone agreed that the Liberal budget does not include any investments for prevention.

The Conservatives made cuts, and then the Liberals came along and said they wanted to focus on youth and give them the tools they need to thrive. However, there is nothing for prevention, nothing for mental health, nothing to tackle crime and drug addiction. In my riding, Salaberry—Suroît, those three issues are related to a great many problems. When has this government ever talked about investing in youth programs and prevention? It never has, unfortunately.

Problems related to housing, homelessness, and youth suicide persist.

The NDP recently moved a motion calling on the government to reinvest in child services for first nations. This year alone, there is a shortfall of $155 million. In the end, the Liberals voted in favour of our motion after initially being opposed to it.

However, there is nothing in the budget to suggest that there will be a reinvestment. No announcement has been made on reinvesting in first nations youth. In January, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal found that by failing to provide recurring investment year after year, the Government of Canada was demonstrating systemic discrimination and racism toward first nations children. How can this still be happening in 2016? There are cases where 25 young people are crammed into a substandard home and have limited access to drinking water, education, and health care. The Jordan principle is not always applied. Still, the Liberals are patting themselves on the back and imposing time allocation. They see no problem. They think the bill should be sent to committee right quick so that we can study it there. It is unbelievable.

That is not the only measure affecting youth services. Young people were supposed to receive $105 million, as announced in budget 2016, to help them gain work and life experience while also supporting communities. However, those funds still have yet to be allocated, and there is nothing on that in this bill. Young people are important, but the federal government is not taking any meaningful action that reflects that.

On the subject of legalizing marijuana, no new funds have been announced for prevention. In my riding, organizations like Liberté de choisir work on preventing addiction. According to them, every time the Prime Minister talks about legalizing marijuana, young people think it means that they can use it, because he said it was legal. This demonstrates a lack of awareness and a lack of prevention. This government has not announced anything on that. The Prime Minister is putting young people at risk by saying these things without giving the organizations and groups that work with young users the tools they need.

In a French article entitled “Légalisation du cannabis: les intervenants jeunesse aux aguets”, which was published two days ago on November 13, 2016, Jean-Sébastien Fallu, a professor at the University of Montreal's École de psychoéducation, stated:

Unfortunately, very few investments are made in prevention. When it comes to drugs, nearly 90% of the funding is allocated to the court system or addiction treatments.

I could talk for a long time about youth, but I would like to move on to other things. The Liberals have been bragging about lowering taxes for the middle class. However, if we look at this measure even just a little more closely, we see that the Liberals are lowering taxes for those who earn $45,000 or more. Over half the population earns less than $45,000, and these people will not benefit from a lower tax rate. Is that what working for the middle class and reducing inequality in Canada looks like? Personally, I do not agree with that.

The Liberals are also saying that they are going to help lift seniors out of poverty. However, they are only focusing on seniors who live alone. Seniors living alone will be entitled to more guaranteed income supplement benefits. That is a step in the right direction. However, what about those who do not live alone? Do they not also have the right to live out of poverty? Can the government not also increase their guaranteed income supplement benefits and make sure that those benefits are paid out automatically?

Many of the people who come to my office have heard about this measure, but they do not know what to do. They do not have the tools they need. They do not have Internet access. Most of our seniors live in difficult circumstances.

I would like to wrap up with some comments on employment insurance, where there are still problems. Only four in 10 workers have access to employment insurance even though all workers pay premiums. Six out of 10 workers who need help are denied the benefits, never mind those with serious illnesses. The people who help these individuals are entitled to 26 weeks of employment insurance compassionate care benefits, but the individuals who are gravely ill are entitled to just 15 weeks of benefits. That makes absolutely no sense. There are still problems, and we still need to talk about them.

It makes no sense to impose closure.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, as it happens, we are debating this year's budget today, Bill C-29.

The budget is responding to a ticking time bomb of deferred liability in the form of deferred infrastructure maintenance and deferred investment in social structure in this country. Right now there is a tremendous amount that we can and should be doing, and that the budget is getting done.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise in support of Bill C-29, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures.

Members of Parliament know better than most the staggering importance of the federal budget. I am speaking not only about this budget in particular but federal budgets in general. The spending choices federal governments have made since confederation have in fact shaped the Canada we live in today.

We know that billions of dollars of investment, if spent wisely, can transform our nation for the better. Indeed, a good budget has the capacity to push Canada closer to our shared ideal, a country where every Canadian, especially those struggling or who have been historically neglected, has a chance to succeed and find happiness, to feel secure, included, cared for and valued by his or her government.

I believe the budget we are debating today is one of those budgets, a very good budget, one that leaves no Canadian behind, and one that I am proud to support.

I represent a very diverse riding as the largest metropolis in Atlantic Canada. The riding of Halifax is home to people from a wide range of backgrounds and experiences. It is part of what makes my city so great. However, as with any diverse urban core, there is a range between those who are doing well for themselves and their families, that is those who are financially secure, and those who struggle every day to put food on the table, to pay rent and to make basic ends meet.

This is a city that is on the leading edge of some truly amazing things, gripped by an excited, ambitious energy, a city on the rise, growing every day at an exceptional pace, second in Canada only to Vancouver. Now more than ever, we cannot afford to leave anyone behind.

Yet the hard truth is that some of our most vulnerable populations in Canada have been overlooked for too long. For 10 years, their potential was left unrealized, their interests put on the back burner, their most basic needs often ignored. Therefore, I want to focus my remarks today on some of the important provisions proposed in budget 2016, in particular investments that will support Canada's struggling vulnerable and otherwise neglected communities.

I would like to begin with our government's investments in indigenous communities, which seek to support a renewed nation-to-nation relationship with indigenous peoples. Members may know that I have the honour of serving as the chair of the House Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. It is a role that, for me, has put a sharp focus on the extraordinary challenges facing indigenous peoples in Canada, as well as the daunting work that lies ahead for our government to address the tragic state of affairs caused by years, centuries, of neglect.

This budget demonstrates our government's commitment to begin this important task to remove the obstacles faced by indigenous people through investments in on-reserve education, training, and infrastructure, to name just three.

All in all, the government seeks to invest $8.4 billion over five years “to improve the socio-economic conditions of Indigenous peoples and their communities and bring about transformational change.” That funding includes $40 million for a national inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women and girls; $3.6 billion for ensure all first nations children receive quality education, including building and repairing schools; $1.2 billion for housing, early learning and child care centres on reserve; $2.2 billion for water and waste water treatment on reserve; and $33 million to support first nations to build sustainable fishing enterprises.

Many members here will know that following the release of the budget, the Assembly of First Nations National Chief Perry Bellegarde called the $8.4 billion investment historic and a break against the status quo. However, this funding is only the beginning and there is still much work to be done on this matter. It is the start of transformational change that is long overdue, and it is one of the sections of the budget of which I am most proud.

The next set of investments I would like to speak to are those supporting Canada's seniors. Our government understands that many seniors in Canada are facing difficult financial times after retirement, in particular single seniors who are three times more likely to live with low income than seniors more broadly.

For this reason, our government has proposed to enhance seniors' pensions, including an increase in the guaranteed income supplement for single seniors by up to $947 per year, a measure that will improve the financial situation of 900,000 seniors across the country. Further, as promised, the budget returns the age of retirement from 67 to 65, giving seniors thousands of more dollars as they retire from the workforce.

Another matter addressed by the budget is housing for seniors. On the campaign trail, I spoke with many seniors living in conditions that were inappropriate or inaccessible or where their rent and associated costs would eat up a devastating share of their monthly earnings. To help address this problem, the budget would invest $200 million in the construction, repair, and adaptation of affordable housing for seniors. These investments would unburden struggling seniors across Canada, allowing them the secure and dignified retirement that we all want for our grandparents, our parents, and ultimately ourselves.

I would like now to speak about support for students.

My riding of Halifax is home to seven colleges and universities. I learned this summer from representatives of the Nova Scotia chapter of the Canadian Federation of Students that one in 10 Haligonians is a student. As their MP, the issue of student debt is very important to me. We must make post-secondary education affordable to everyone, without burdening our future workforce with an impossible debt burden on the day of their graduation. That is why I am proud to support this budget, which would increase the Canada student grants program by 50% for low and middle-income students and which increases the loan repayment threshold, which is the amount an individual must be making per year before being required to make a student loan payment, from $20,000 to $25,000 per year.

I am also happy to support a budget which would double the number of Canada summer jobs available to students. This is money that would go right into the pockets of Canadian students and would give them valuable work experience. In my riding, students benefited tremendously from the Canada summer jobs program this year, but so did the employers of students as many would otherwise not be able to hire student help. It is truly a win-win for our students and our community in Halifax, as it has been across the country.

The final item I would like to speak about is the budget's support for low-income families.

One of this government's flagship initiatives, and one I was proud to bring to the doorsteps of voters when I was running to be the Halifax MP, is the new Canada child benefit. It just did not make sense for the previous government to be sending cheques to millionaires to cover their child care costs. It sure did not make sense that it was sending the exact same amount to millionaires as it was sending to the low-income families. That was unfair and plain wrong, and yet the Conservatives and the New Democrats thought it was the proper approach. Canadians saw just how out of touch that scheme was and they voted for a plan that included an improved child benefit, the new Canada child benefit.

The CCB is a simple, tax-free, and more generous benefit tied to family income where those who need it most receive the most, and no more cheques to millionaires. Now, nine out of 10 families receive more in child benefits than before, with the average family seeing an increase of $2,300 per year, and 300,000 fewer children will live in poverty in Canada. Simply put, the CCB is a transformational tool for low and middle-income families and it is another part of the budget that makes me so proud to support it.

There is one other item that will improve the living conditions of low-income families, and that is affordable housing.

All Canadian families deserve safe and affordable housing. Without stable housing at a price they can afford, every other goal families seek to achieve becomes secondary. Without adequate shelter, families struggle to raise their children, to get educated, to find employment, and even to stay healthy. Therefore, I am very glad, as an MP and as a career city planner, that budget 2016 would invest $2.3 billion over the next two years in affordable housing investments, which would be a great help to many low-income families and would lay the groundwork for a healthy economy for all.

At the beginning of my remarks today, I spoke about how the federal budgets had shaped the Canada we know today. Budget 2016 would reshape Canada again, for the better, a Canada that would work for everyone, including our most vulnerable Canadians, those who are struggling to make ends meet and those who have been neglected for far too long. I support the vision this budget puts forward, and I will be voting for it. I implore my colleagues in this chamber to do the same.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today we are focusing on Bill C-29. The budget implementation bills does a number of important things, including strengthening our tax system, indexing the CCB to inflation, improving EI, and supporting seniors.

Our government has taken real action. It is a bill the Minister of Finance and the parliamentary secretary have consulted widely on, and it is working. I am hearing a lot of positive feedback in Brampton South.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise and speak on Bill C-29, the budget implementation bill.

As we all know, the Budget Implementation Act provides the legislative framework to implement the key campaign promises that were reiterated in budget 2016. In this bill, our key focus is to grow the economy by investing in people through tax cuts, as well as investing in the environment.

For the past 10 years, there has been no growth. The economy was lethargic, because the previous government did not take measures to invest in the economy. It made a lot of announcements and spent millions of dollars on advertising but not on people. Our government is more focused on investing in people and in helping to grow the middle class.

We know that middle-class Canadians are working harder than ever, but they are not getting ahead. We know that there is a growing consensus globally that governments need to invest in the economy, and that this investment has to be on a long-term basis and not short term. Therefore, to grow the economy, we need an ambitious agenda and an innovative agenda, which is the focus of our government. If we wish to move forward and not be stagnant, we need to think outside the box.

A strong economy starts with a strong middle class. When the middle class grows, so does the economy, because there is more purchasing power, and more money to save and invest. For example, in my riding of Don Valley East, our government's budget has had a great impact on the constituents. The riding is primarily a middle-class riding. Youth unemployment is above the national average. Our government's tax cuts have helped 90% of my constituents. This has put more money in their pockets. In my riding, I have seen a renewed sense of hope.

Families with children have also benefited from our government's Canada child benefit. This has alleviated the poverty level for nine out of 10 families in the riding. We know how expensive raising a child is. Families work hard to provide for their children. Our government's Canada child benefit program has been a welcomed impetus for these families.

As well, in the area of youth unemployment, we doubled our investment in the Canada summer jobs program. In my riding of Don Valley East, 66 businesses employed over 234 students. This was very important for these students, because it provided them with the skill sets and resources to help them through their university years.

While we are talking about employment and the area of creating jobs for the future, our government has been bold in not only taking steps to invest in infrastructure, but working with provinces and municipalities to help them address the issues of falling bridges, tracks, bicycle paths, walking trails, switches, etc. These were neglected by the former government, because it never participated or talked to the provinces or municipalities.

These are important first steps. In my riding, I have seen that there is an investment of over $125,000 in walking trails and paths. How does that benefit the residents? It benefits the citizens, because it is an area where people walk and build healthy lifestyles. As well, we help the environment.

Also in my riding are engines of growth, which have benefited from our government's innovation agenda. The companies in my riding have been able to create over 100 good-paying jobs for young professionals.

Confident, ambitious countries invest in their own future. They invest where the economy is growing. They do not shy away from progress. This type of progress is not easy. It takes smart investments in infrastructure, in technology, and most important, in the skills and creativity of its people.

Our government has taken that bold step. We have worked with provinces. We have worked with municipalities. We have invested where there are shovels in the ground, when municipalities have come as our partners, when provinces have come as our partners, and we are seeking to expand that pool as well.

Through our budget implementation bill, Bill C-29, that is what we are doing. We are moving forward. We are thinking outside the box. I would urge members opposite to participate in this bold, innovative agenda.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a great honour to rise in this place and speak on behalf of my constituents.

While in the riding this past weekend, I was fortunate to meet many citizens of Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola and hear first hand their concerns. To be candid, while many appreciate the new tone in Ottawa, they are increasingly losing confidence in the direction. Let me explain that.

Every member in this place knows full well that economic growth continues to be downgraded, much as we also know there are no promised net new jobs. Keep in mind that these facts are irrefutably true.

We also know the Liberal government has basically pulled an Evel Knievel and jumped over all the promises of modest $10 billion a year deficit budgets. The same Liberal government has pulled off a four horsemen magic performance and turned a promised $10 billion modest deficit budget into a $25 billion budget, with no end in sight for red ink. While turning that $10 billion promised deficit budget into a $25 billion deficit budget, the Liberals also made their promise of a return to a balanced budget in the 2019-20 fiscal year. That has magically vanished as well.

As citizens told me last week, they have not felt this betrayed since the Liberals originally promised, if elected, they would eliminate the GST in the 1990s. How did that Liberal red book promise turn out? We all know, but why does that matter?

If we look at the 2013-14 fiscal year, the federal government spent $28 billion servicing debt. Let us put that $28 billion into perspective. That is more than was spent on national defence that year, at $21.5 billion. In fact, that same year the federal government spent over $30 billion on the Canada health transfers to provinces. In other words, we are spending almost as much servicing debt as we are transferring to provinces to pay for their health care.

Let us be clear. The Liberal budget in Bill C-29 sets a series of deficit budgets that will exceed $113 billion by 2021. There is no path to a balanced budget despite Liberal election promises to the contrary.

We heard from people at finance committee during the pre-budget consultation process. For example, the Chamber of Commerce for Metropolitan Montreal said that it was a credibility issue for the government and for the finance minister. It said that a return to balance had to be a part of the budget.

When and exactly how does the Liberal government propose to reconcile the obvious? How do we return to balance? We all know the Liberals have no answer to this question. What we do know is that the Liberals like using buzz words. Debt is now called “investing”. Deficits, interestingly enough in Liberal speak, are also called “investing”. I suspect if the Liberals offered a VISA card instead of a credit limit, we would see an investment limit on our credit card bills. Canadians know there is interest on debt and so far we have yet to hear what the translation for interest on debt is in Liberal speak. Perhaps it could be called “a price on investing”.

Now the infrastructure bank is coming. Is this directly related to the bill? We do not know. The bill hints about all kinds of spending on infrastructure, yet $35 billion, about the same amount as annual health transfers to provinces, is being carved away from somewhere for this infrastructure bank.

P3 partnerships used to mean that the private sector would borrow money to finance public infrastructure in partnership with the government, all done with private capital. Now the Liberal government wants to borrow money it does not have to ensure private capital receives a generous rate of return to finance public infrastructure. What do we call that? The borrow low to pay high interest plan. This week the Liberal government is promoting a plan where, according to Liberals, for every $1 that the government puts in, borrowed, it hopes to attract $4 in private money in return.

Let us think about that for a moment. Where else on the planet does anyone borrow $1 and get $4 of private money lent to them in return? It seems the Liberal government has taken a page from the four horsemen. There is only one problem with turning $1 of borrowed money into $4 of private sector investment. Private sector investment requires a return. Not even the four horsemen can change that.

Exactly what level of return to private investors has the Liberals promised to their Bay Street friends? We do not know. So far, I have yet to see any rate of return being promised. However, we should make no mistake that it is the taxpayers who will be paying. When? We do not know. The Liberal budget implementation act enacts a cone of silence on returning to a balanced budget. The only thing we do know is that the billions of soon to be added debt will now be financed by Liberal friends with interest paid by Canadian taxpayers.

After one year, we already know the Liberal plan is failing. Economic growth has been downgraded. We just have to ask the Parliamentary Budget Office or the Governor of the Bank of Canada. There are no new net jobs. What is worse that the Liberal changes to mortgages will hurt the housing market.

We know from internal finance reports that the expanded Canada pension plan will be a drag on the Canadian economy and will particularly hurt jobs for the next 15 to 20 years.

Let us keep in mind that this is not just speculation by me. All of this is factually verifiable. The Liberal solution is to borrow more money and throw more money at this failed plan. I am not trying to sound partisan, however, that is really what is on the table and why I am opposing the budget implementation bill.

I would also pause for a moment to point out that it is easy to criticize, more so at the present time given that the PBO, major bank economists and Statistics Canada all provide data and reports that easily show this Liberal plan is failing, and failing badly.

What should the government do? First, members should raise their hands if they think an MP or anyone earning up to $199,000 a year should have a tax cut? The Liberals are wrong to do this. What should have been done instead? Instead of penalizing potential homebuyers in all of Canada for a problem that existed largely in the Liberal strongholds of Vancouver and Toronto, and keep in mind that recent B.C. government changes to foreign buyers was already cooling off the Vancouver housing market, the Liberal government should be implementing measures that would help to increase housing supply across the country.

Increasing housing supply will lower prices. It will get more Canadians into home ownership, which in turn opens more rentals to ease the demand for rental accommodations. More important, it also helps our Canadian economy. It will put more people to work and it will help the Canadian lumber market as well. That is very important considering the Liberals have made zero progress on the softwood lumber deal with the United States.

How could Ottawa help to catalyze housing supply? By increasing the threshold for the GST rebate on new housing, so new homeowners are not penalized by Ottawa for realizing their dream to own a home. The B.C. government is already doing this with the property purchase tax, and it is working. It is time that Ottawa stepped up and did the same.

This policy would not only help our economy at a time of desperate need; it would also help the very middle-class Canadians who have become the Liberal government's second favourite talking point right behind debt—sorry, I mean investing. That is one idea that I would propose the Liberal government could do in the budget implementation bill to help.

I have one final thought. If more Canadians were homeowners and had home equity, the Liberals might realize that harming jobs and our economy through a bigger CPP is the wrong way to go. There is already an alternative that will help jobs and our economy through enhanced home ownership.

I have other proposals as well. We also know the Liberals have no interest in imposing internal trade on Canadian provinces. They would much rather impose a national carbon tax. On that note, I would simply point out that none of our major trading partners will be imposing such a tax. All those same trading partners have superior internal trading policies of their own, something we should all be thinking about if we are serious about growing the economy.

I am thankful for the opportunity to not just oppose this bill, but to make a few proposals on how I believe we can strengthen our economy and increase the unity of our country.

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am truly honoured and privileged to rise for the first time during debate here in the House of Commons on this traditional territory of the Algonquin peoples.

Allow me to begin by thanking the people of Scarborough North for continuing to put their faith and trust in me. It has been an incredible journey serving this community over the past 10 years, starting in 2006, when they first elected me as their public school board trustee. I am deeply humbled to now represent them in this House, where I will fight on their behalf each and every day.

The people of Scarborough North constitute a cultural mosaic in which visible minorities are the vast majority. More than 90% of the population are people of colour, which is the highest percentage of any riding in the country, and 70% of them were born outside of Canada. They have come from all corners of the world to make Scarborough North their home.

Indeed, this is the story of my parents, who emigrated from India to Canada over 40 years ago for a better life not only for themselves but for future generations. I would like to take this opportunity to thank them for their unconditional love and support. When I speak about the residents of Scarborough North, I am reminded of the hopes and dreams my parents brought with them to Canada.

My constituents are hard-working families. Many of them are new immigrants. They work long hours to pay rent or the mortgage, to put food on the table, and to provide a good life and education for their children. They are young Canadians who have studied hard, graduated, and are now looking for work. They are seniors who have worked hard their entire lives, contributed to society, and are now hoping to spend their retirement days in comfort.

Now more than ever, many people in Scarborough North, and across Canada, are finding it increasingly difficult to get ahead. That is why our government has focused our investing on our people to make their lives better and to build a country that works for everyone.

That is precisely why I stand today in support of Bill C-29, the budget implementation act, which would round out the measures our government introduced in the 2016 budget. This bill would help create a stronger economy by supporting the middle class and those working hard to join it. It would enable Canadian families to have more money in their pockets. It would create more opportunities for youth, give seniors a bit more assurance, and ensure tax fairness and a strong financial sector.

There is no better time than now to invest in Canadians. Interest rates are at historic lows, and Canada has the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio among the G7 nations.

At the heart of our country is the middle class. When the middle class has more money to save, invest, and grow the economy, all Canadians benefit.

One of the key measures our government introduced to help build the middle class is the Canada child benefit. As of last July, nine out 10 Canadian families with children have more money each month to spend on the things they need, like school supplies, groceries, and winter jackets. What is so great about the new Canada child benefit is that it is not only more generous than previous programs but is also better targeted to help the families that need it the most. This new tax-free benefit will lift 300,000 children out of poverty this year by providing an annual benefit of up to $6,400 per child under the age of six and $5,400 per child aged six through 17. It will mean that Canadian families with children will see an average increase of approximately $2,300 in child benefits this year.

This budget implementation bill would further help these families by ensuring that the Canada child benefit is indexed to inflation, starting in 2020. I know how important this is for Canadian families, having worked with many parents, children, and youth in my previous role as a school board trustee.

Our government is also working hard to set up young Canadians for success. This past summer, I witnessed first-hand how the 2016 budget is helping our youth gain valuable work experience, experience they need. In my riding of Scarborough North, close to 80 non-profit organizations, businesses, and faith groups received funding through the Canada summer jobs program to hire youth. All across Canada, twice as many young Canadians were employed this year through Canada summer youth jobs, earning income and experience that will help them land a good-paying job after graduation.

As caring and compassionate Canadians, it is important for us to empower the next generation but also for us to take care of older generations. That is why I am pleased to see that this budget implementation bill would help seniors by enabling them to retire more comfortably. Our elders have worked hard their entire lives. They deserve to be treated with the utmost respect and dignity.

In budget 2016, the government returned the age of eligibility for old age security and guaranteed income supplement benefits to 65 from 67, thereby putting thousands of dollars back in seniors’ pockets. Since last July, 900,000 single seniors across Canada have enjoyed improved financial security thanks to a guaranteed income supplement top-up benefit of as much as $947 per year.

It is the right thing to do because single seniors are especially vulnerable and have a much higher risk of living in poverty. This budget implementation bill would take it one step further by making benefits for seniors more flexible. For couples living apart due to extenuating circumstances, each senior would be entitled to the guaranteed income supplement and spousal allowance benefits based on their individual incomes. This measure, along with the changes our government has made to strengthen the Canada pension plan, will help our seniors live with dignity and respect. It is dignity and respect that they deserve.

This budget implement bill supports a plan to invest in Canadians not just for today but for the years and decades ahead. As we approach the 150th anniversary of Confederation, let us work together to build an even better Canada where all Canadians can flourish and find opportunities to achieve success.

Hope and hard work was not just the campaign slogan we ran on. Hope and hard work represent the values that have built this great nation, the true north strong and free. Let us create a climate of hope across this country, a land of opportunity, for every single person who works hard to make Canada a better place.

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

Mr. Speaker, let us imagine that I am a television game show host who has a multiple choice question for those who are following the debate on Bill C-29.

I will give a few numbers and they can tell me which political party those numbers make them think of. For example, I am thinking of a bill with 146 clauses. That is a fairly common occurrence. However, the bill I am thinking of also amends 13 laws. People may now be starting to get a better idea of which party I am talking about. Another hint is that the bill is 234 pages long and has to be examined at record speed. Also, as of just a few minutes ago, the bill became subject to a time allocation motion, or what is commonly known as a gag order. If people answered “the Conservative Party”, they are incorrect, but I understand their reasoning. What this clearly shows is that the Liberal Party does not seem to have brought real change. Once again, the government is using the same old strategies to ram through bills that should be debated more extensively in the House.

That is exactly the situation that we find ourselves in right now. Once again, when it comes time to debate a bill like Bill C-29, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures, we do not have enough time.

There are some aspects of this bill that I could get on board with. However, since I have only 10 short minutes to share my views on this bill, I will focus on the aspects that I find completely incomprehensible and even surprising.

The first example I would like to talk about is the infrastructure bank. There was no mention of this type of measure during the election campaign. It came as a total surprise, and God knows that not all surprises are good ones. We have to discuss this. For those who are watching, I would like to show just how harmful this approach will be.

Taxpayers like me, hon. members, and all citizens heard no mention of this before. During the election campaign, the Liberal Party told us that it was going to invest heavily in infrastructure by borrowing money, supposedly because interest rates are so low. That message struck a chord, 39% of Canadians thought it was a good idea, and now we have a Liberal government. No matter how low the interest rates are, we are going to have to pay back these billions of dollars one day. I see no way to pay back these low-interest loans other than through taxation. We might feel a bit better if there were a plan for paying back these loans, but it seems that issue has been left for another day. The modest $10-billion deficit is now hovering around $30 billion.

Worse yet, now we learn something that was never mentioned before, namely that the government wants to privatize a significant portion of our public infrastructure. I want to emphasize the word “public”. The Liberal strategy involves transferring $15 billion earmarked for infrastructure into a bank that will be used as a lever to attract private investors.

The first problem is that those $15 billion, which are actually in the infrastructure bank, are earmarked for infrastructure projects of $100 million or more. The result is that $15 billion is taken out of the public infrastructure budget for projects under $100 million. A town like Trois-Rivières and a region such as Mauricie have much infrastructure they would need to build or upgrade, and these projects seldom come in at more than $100 million. The Liberals have just taken $15 billion that could have been used to fund these projects, and there will be interest to pay.

Once the $15 billion is in the bank, the government wants to attract many more hundreds of millions of dollars from private investors: pension funds, retirement plans, major corporations, and private investors.

Government finances and personal finances are subject to the same main principles of sound management. If I invest $100, I am looking for the best return. I imagine that those who are going to invest billions in a public investment bank will also want a return well above the low interest rate on the loans that the government talks about making. We even heard Michael Sabia, of the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, say that he hopes for a rate of return of 7% to 9% on the investments made by the infrastructure bank.

Second, who will be paying these returns? The citizens, as always. I would remind members that they have already paid once by paying the interest on government loans. Now, they will be paying a second time by offering a return on the investments of private companies. If there is one thing we agree on, it is that Quebec and Canada have an infrastructure deficit. Our infrastructure is in bad shape and needs major investments. Many economists agree that we need about $500 billion. We could debate that amount, but let us just say that it is somewhere in that range. There is too much of a gap between $500 billion and $15 billion. They really need to do something else.

Too often, we forget to talk about how economists estimate that, over the past 10 years, as the corporate tax rate fell from 28% to 15%, the government missed out on $15 billion to $20 billion per year, money that it could not invest in updating our infrastructure. The government called its economic approach revolutionary. It said that corporations would inject the money they were able to save back into the economy, that they would create jobs, that everything would go gangbusters and be totally awesome, but in fact, that did not happen.

Even more unbelievable is the fact that the money corporations saved is now available to be invested in an infrastructure bank. Not only did taxpayers forgo the fair share that all members of society should pay, but also, if corporations take the money they were allowed to keep in the hope they would create jobs, and if they invest it in this bank, it will cost us to pay them a return on their private investments, which they expect to be between 7% and 9%, investments that they will make using money they saved at the expense of the public purse.

In other words, this is the third time that taxpayers, including me and my colleagues, have had to use their own money to pay for the very same public infrastructure, which will be private from now on. If we compare that to the $15-billion federal infrastructure fund and the hundreds of billions the government hopes to attract, it becomes clear very quickly that the government is going to become a minority in its own regime and that our public infrastructure will be increasingly privatized. Private infrastructure automatically means additional taxes, user fees, tolls, and so on. Imagine all the systems needed to ensure good returns.

I was hoping to address a number of other topics, including EI. We have some interesting ideas on that, such as coming up with a better definition for “suitable employment”, although it is not clearly defined in the act. However, nothing has been done so far regarding accessibility.

I also would have liked to talk about SMEs. We are still waiting for support measures for them. Instead, a promise to lower the tax rate from 11% to 9% has been broken. On top of that, nothing has been done to cap credit card rates and fees for our SMEs.

I will use the few minutes I have left to answer questions.

The House resumed from November 14 consideration of the motion that Bill C-29, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

Bill C-29--Time Allocation Motion

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

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

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

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

Consumer Protection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Second Reading

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I look forward to questions from my hon. colleagues.

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

Bill C-29—Notice of time allocation motion

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

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

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

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise this afternoon to speak to the bill. There has been a lot of talk during this debate about pipelines as it connects to the budget and to Bill C-29, the budget implementation act. I would like to continue this line of discussion.

I want to call the House's attention to a statement made by the Minister of Natural Resources recently in The Globe and Mail in which he said that the federal government would not require full, prior and informed consent from first nations when the government decided whether to allow Kinder Morgan to build a new crude oil pipeline through British Columbia. That is really important. For the minister to say that he does not require full, prior and informed consent from first nations is essentially breaking a pact and is going to lead to a lot of trouble.

The minister is adopting the same “ram it through reserves” approach that the Conservatives had in the last Parliament. This attitude threatens to undermine careful work undertaken by others to move ahead with other types of economic development in British Columbia through genuine co-management arrangements with first nations.

I am not sure if many folks in the Liberal Party are aware that across Canada, except for British Columbia, we have treaties with first nations and this has allowed different relationships to develop with first nations in other parts of the country. However, in British Columbia, most of the territory is not covered by treaties. This means we are unique in this sense and it is a very important distinction that is often lost on governments in this place.

When British Columbia was settled by Europeans, Governor Douglas started signing treaties for first nations but then abandoned this and essentially divided up first nations and territories and gave it to interested parties without consent. Those treaties were never developed, although we have had a couple in modern times. Still the vast majority of British Columbia is not covered by treaties and this is very important. Court case after court case, from the Supreme Court and lower courts, has said that in order to proceed with projects, there has to be full, prior and informed consent from first nations.

The Minister of Natural Resources seems to totally ignore this. Perhaps some people might forgive him because he is a rookie MP who is unfamiliar with British Columbia, but even the most basic research reveals the folly of his approach. The threat it is going to have not only to our communities but also the business communities that want to do other projects and the trust that we built with first nations through co-management is now under threat because of this “ram it through reserves” approach by the minister.

Court cases such as Delgamuukw and the Haida decisions, and other unanimous Supreme Court decisions, recognize and reinforce the inherent rights of first nations to determine what happens within their traditional territories. Again, the only way that these projects, or any project, can proceed in these territories is through informed consent.

The most fruitful way forward for resource development in British Columbia is through true co-management. It is weird for investment bankers to call an NDP member of Parliament, but that is exactly what has happened to me. They have read the comments from the natural resources minister and they want to know what is it up with the guy. They want to know whether he knows this will jeopardize the projects on which they are currently working.

Co-management moves beyond mere consent to full partnership, which requires a tremendous amount of trust and good faith government-to-government negotiations and bringing in mature private sector partners to make these deals work. We are seeing this in other projects in the province, but if the Minister of Natural Resources and his colleagues decide to ram through a pipeline and ignore the need for this consent, then they are looking for a pile of trouble.

The amateurism of the Minister of Natural Resources reminds me of when the newly elected B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell held an ill-advised and racist treaty negotiations referendum in 2002. In his arrogance, Premier Campbell clumsily attempted to use a populist measure to override inherent indigenous rights. This approach to resource development in British Columbia angered B.C. first nations. It was perhaps best captured by a flaming arrow landing in a canoe full of paper ballots. It deeply damaged indigenous and non-indigenous relations in our province.

Gordon Campbell was forced to do a humiliating policy pirouette, or a 360, when business leaders informed him his actions undermined their attempt to negotiate resource development agreements with first nations, and it increased business uncertainty and decreased their willingness to invest in mines, forestry, and energy projects.

At that point, Premier Campbell was also a rookie, just like the natural resources minister. He blundered through his first year or two in office and set back first nation indigenous-non-indigenous relations by years. Then the business community reeled the premier in and told him he had to change this.

Kinder Morgan is going to love it, but I think the government is going to get calls from other companies asking it what it is doing. They are going to tell it that it is making a huge mistake. For 50 jobs, which is what the job count will be in British Columbia, it will put in jeopardy all kinds of other projects, and that is a mistake.

Here we go again. The minister has decided he can push a pipeline through the territories of over 100 first nations, most of which do not have treaties with the Crown, and 15 reserves.

The minister has said that he does not need prior and informed consent to push a pipeline through 15 first nation reserves. What will that do to British Columbia? This is a massive problem and a massive mistake by the minister.

If the minister wants to get infrastructure built, this is not the way forward. In fact, he has to learn to treat British Columbia differently when it comes to dealing with indigenous people.

Here is how this project plays out in the minister's mind. Alberta gets its pipeline, Kinder Morgan gets approximately $5 million per day in revenues, and the minister gets to gloat in Ottawa that he is better than the Conservatives in ramming through pipelines. However, this is what the minister is overlooking. British Columbia gets a mere 50 permanent jobs, according to the company, from this new pipeline. As well, it will have the joy of having to police thousands of temporary foreign workers admitted by the company that is going to build this pipeline, using steel from China.

This is a really bad deal for British Columbia. The arrogance of the government trying to push it through first nation territories without their consent is going to hamper other resource development and other development projects in our province.

The other thing we get with this pipeline is a hugely increased risk of land and water-based bitumen spills, with little or no capacity to clean them up. What British Columbians would be well aware of, although those folks from the government may not be, is that we just had a small spill in Bella Bella, which has not been cleaned up. This so-called world-class marine spill cleanup, or whatever it is, is about two guys in a rowboat. This is not world class. This is Ottawa sacrificing British Columbia for the ego of a minister.

By making this speech, people may not believe that I am pro-resource development person. Members can laugh at me if they want, but if we talk to any company in British Columbia, they know a bad deal when they see one, and they know this is a bad deal for British Columbia.

Businesspeople know only to take good deals. This is a bad deal for British Columbia. Again, the Conservatives and the Liberals can laugh at me, but British Columbians know this is a bad deal. Anybody who has looked at this knows it is a bad deal. A company makes $5 million a day and British Columbia gets 50 jobs and has to clean up the spill is a bad deal. The worst part of it is that we are risking a very long process of building trust with first nations within in British Columbia.

Kinder Morgan gets its pipeline. We still have to develop resources. For a mining company that wants to deal with first nations and make a co-management agreement, this is going to be soured because the arrogant minister has said that the government does not need their consent to ram a pipeline through their reserves. It is idiocy. I am deeply ashamed to stand in the House and listen to the comments of the ministers.

The government really has to rethink this and ensure it treats British Columbia with the respect it deserves.

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-29 fails on a number of levels: the broken promise to small businesses of reducing taxes from 11% to 9%, nothing for daycare, nothing in terms of capping credit card fees. However, I want to talk specifically about privatization of infrastructure.

By definition, the private sector will expect a return on their investments, which will lead to fees for use of public infrastructure.

I would like to hear from the member. How does having fees on public infrastructure help middle-class families and those working to become middle class, and those families living in poverty?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague across the way for his presentation on Bill C-29, budget implementation act, 2016, no. 2.

I want to reference something that was mentioned by earlier speakers about the infrastructure bank that is part of the commitment of the budget, $15 billion, plus another $20 billion of debt the Liberals want to fund this bank, for a total of about $35 billion.

Today the Prime Minister is in Toronto meeting with lots of institutional investors, and he is trying to attract them to invest $180 billion in Canada's crumbling infrastructure.

I do not argue whether that money is needed. We do have lots of infrastructure that needs upgrading, but when we attract private money to the tune of $180 billion, those investors will want a premium of 7% to 8% on that money.

Currently our Canada savings bond rate is at 1%, 20-year municipal debentures can be had for 3%. Even if we increased our Canada savings bond rates up to 3%, the difference between 3% and what those institutional investors will want of 7% to 8% is 4% or 5% on $180 billion. That is between $7 billion and $9 billion that will cost Canadians extra every single year to fund these infrastructure projects, and that is not included in your budget.

What are Canadians supposed to think of that extra $7 billion or $9 billion price tag that you are putting on to this?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise today and speak on the importance of Bill C-29, which seeks to implement key provisions of budget 2016.

It was seven months ago to the day that I rose in this place to address hon. members about the important impact that our budget would have on Canadians. Today, I am grateful to use the opportunity as a mid-term checkup to look back at what has been accomplished, how our budget has benefited my riding of St. Catharines and in fact all of Canada, and how it will continue to bring Canadians the real change we promised just over a year ago.

As I noted in my remarks on April 14, the shifting world economy resulted in many jobs lost in much of our heavy local manufacturing industry. Plants closed, thousands lost their jobs, and many more were forced to find new employment at significantly lower wages. These were unfortunate years to which I do not wish to see a return.

I also noted that there was light at the end of the tunnel. Little did I know at the time that our progressive and forward-looking budget would have such a positive impact for my riding and, in fact, for Canada.

I will start by discussing the centrepiece of our plan: the Canada child benefit. I cannot understate the significance and drastic impact that this benefit has had on families in St. Catharines.

St. Catharines is a perfect example of a middle-class community with a lot of individuals who are struggling. When we talk about the stagnating growth of the middle class, my community is an example of that. With the loss of jobs, we now look forward to regrowth.

The Canada child benefit provides nine out of 10 families across the country—and I believe that number to be higher in Niagara—with significant and much-needed assistance. It is a story I have told in this House before.

The first time I had an opportunity to rise in this place, I mentioned that 25% of the children in my riding lived below the poverty line. I received a call later that day from a poverty advocate who thanked me for speaking on the issue of child poverty, and mentioned that this number was a very conservative figure and was probably closer to one-third. In such a wealthy country, to have one-third of the children in my community living below the poverty line is unimaginable.

The Canada child benefit seeks to lift 300,000 children out of poverty, and independent analysis shows that it will; that is a 40% reduction. This really hit home again in July when my wife and I welcomed our first child. I should mention his name for the record of Hansard, Ethan. It really put into perspective the type of community I want to see for Ethan. Becoming a father strengthened my resolve to ensure that we do everything we can, so that each child in Niagara and across Canada has the same opportunities as my son.

As I mentioned, we said that the CCB would raise 300,000 children out of poverty, and I think we are safe to say that we are well on our way to delivering on that commitment. Giving families the financial assistance they need to get by is important, but more important is the need to provide jobs so that these families can continue to thrive.

I am proud of the work we have accomplished so far. Our commitment to building an innovative and forward-looking economy is the root of the success. The Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development has been diligently working to ensure that we continue to invest in key sectors of our economy, so that we deliver on our promises made in budget 2016.

The previous government spent 10 years focusing on natural resources, despite the loss of manufacturing jobs in Ontario, especially in southern Ontario. The telltale signs were ominous, and the shift was occurring not only in Niagara but across Canada and throughout the world.

I am proud of the commitment this government has made. One of the first announcements my colleague from Niagara Centre and I were able to make was on the creation of a foreign trade zone in Niagara. This was followed shortly thereafter by an incredible announcement for Niagara, the construction of a new factory, which has not happened in quite some time.

General Electric announced plans to build a $260 million facility in Welland, Ontario, creating more than 220 jobs, plus all of the incredible construction jobs that will happen over the next two years. This is policy that has led to concrete action, which will lead to significant benefits across the Niagara region.

Beyond that, in focusing on an innovative economy, I am proud that the minister has also allocated funds to post-secondary institutions. The Niagara region and St. Catharines are home to Brock University and Niagara College. Both are renowned post-secondary institutions that draw students from across Canada and around the world.

Niagara College is seen as a leader in advanced manufacturing, boasting thousands of square feet in lab space to train students in a hands-on environment. These labs also provide services to local small and medium-sized enterprises, giving them access to research and development labs as well as allowing them to access the brightest minds of today and tomorrow. This gives students essential first-hand experience in the rapidly changing workforce and is a draw for business both in Canada and across the world.

Not far away and within sight of my house is Brock University, which boasts a world-class biomedical incubator. It houses research and lab space and places students and researchers on the cutting edge of innovation. Like Niagara College, Brock leverages these labs and its students to help businesses across Ontario and Canada solve the problems of tomorrow.

I was proud, with the member for Niagara Centre, to be with the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development to announce $22 million for these two institutions to continue forward on their plan for innovation. Also as part of that, we were excited to see improvements to Brock University's co-generation facility, which will reduce greenhouses gases; so this is not only investing in innovation at Brock University but investing in a greener future for residents of Niagara and Ontario. Though the federal government committed $22 million to this project, it is a $64 million project that will again get the skilled trades to work. It will get construction workers back to work in Niagara, which is so desperately needed.

Another incredible aspect of our commitment to Canadians is our $20 billion investment in public transit. Niagara is a great place to live, but there are 12 municipalities within the Niagara peninsula, plus a regional government. Within that, there are eight transit commissions. For students at Brock University or Niagara College, which I just mentioned, who are looking to get around from one community to another, it can be a difficult experience. It is very difficult, and I have spoken to student union presidents at Brock University and Niagara College who told me about the challenges of trying to negotiate with so many different transit authorities. We have to get better in Niagara, and I am proud that the government has committed $20 billion, so that we can come up with a plan to integrate our transit in Niagara. It is a key focus.

I have heard far too often from individuals trying to escape the cycle of poverty, wondering how they get to a job in Niagara Falls if they live in St. Catharines and the bus runs infrequently. How do they make it to a shift if the bus only runs at limited periods of time? We want to help people. Not only does improved public transit help make for a greener economy and a brighter future, but it helps individuals and will help them break that cycle of poverty, which is so important.

Furthermore, we have a government that deeply cares about our veterans and respects the service and sacrifice our active and former military personnel make. We have a government that is willing to invest in them, and we have seen that in the opening up of those nine Veterans Affairs offices that were closed by the previous government, showing our commitment for our sacred obligation.

This has been an incredible year and incredible opportunity, and I thank the people of St. Catharines for that opportunity. There is a lot of work that is left to be done to improve lives in St. Catharines and across the country, but this is an incredible start and I am looking forward to a brighter future.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to get the debate this afternoon back to the bill that we are supposed to be debating, the budget implementation act, Bill C-29.

This is about the third or fourth time now that I have had the opportunity to speak to the budget since it was introduced by the finance minister in the spring, and it does not get any better when I speak to it as we go forward. The financial situation just seems to be getting worse. In fact, we are debating a budget implementation bill that has already been effectively ripped apart by the minister's economic statement here a couple of weeks ago. It is a budget that fails to create the jobs and the growth promised by the government. The finance minister stood up in the House and said that the modest little deficit that was promised in the election campaign is going to bloom to some $30 billion and that the government is not going to give any indication as to when it can balance the budget again.

I will save the deputy government House leader from asking the question that he always asks when we make these relevant points, which is: Did the Conservatives not run a deficit at one point in time? The Conservative government did run a deficit because it was dealing with the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. However, the difference was that the Conservative government had a plan to get back to a balanced budget while the Liberal government has shown us it has no plan to get back to a balanced budget despite the fact that it was left with a balanced budget when it took office.

Lately, I have not heard the government saying that it did not have a surplus when it took over. I have not heard that lately from my colleague from Vaughan. All he has talked about this afternoon is the infrastructure bank that was in the Liberal's election platform. Not a word was mentioned in their election platform about the infrastructure bank. When those members stand up here and start talking about fulfilling their election promise, we all know that is not the case.

This budget has failed to address what it actually set out to do. It was set out to go deeply into debt so that jobs could be created. About two weeks ago the September-October Statistics Canada job numbers came out and the top line looked pretty good. It talked about 44,000 net jobs having been created, but then some Liberal math kicks in, because despite the fact 44,000 net new jobs were created, the country lost 23,000 full-time jobs while creating 67,000 part-time jobs. The group that was hit the most is who the government always talks about, the so-called middle class. Working men between the ages of 25 and 54 have suffered 63,000 lost positions since the Liberals took office a year ago. That is shameful. The government is not fulfilling its promise for why it is going into debt. There is no plan to get out of debt. There is no indication that going into debt is actually working.

We hear a lot about infrastructure. The budget was supposed to create infrastructure projects. I asked the Minister of Finance when he appeared before the finance committee about this, because a Bloomberg report said that out of some 860 projects that had been approved, only one has actually broken ground.

During our constituency break last week the infrastructure minister was running around the country spending other people's money. I saw he was in Edmonton announcing a $30 million flood mitigation program. I guess we will see how many jobs that flood mitigation program creates. It is ironic that it happened to be in Mill Woods, which, if we check, is the riding that this particular infrastructure minister represents. Not only is he spending taxpayers' money to redo his office, he is also spending taxpayer's money in his own back yard.

It reminds me a bit of the move that the immigration minister made, closing down the office in Vegreville, which happens to be, by the way, a Conservative-held riding and has been since the beginning of time. He moved it into a riding in the centre of Edmonton that a Liberal member happens to represent today. He will be a one-term member, because this is another effort by the Liberals to try to shore up their shaky ground in Alberta. Albertans are not going to be fooled again by this particular government.

Instead of the infrastructure minister running around the country handing out cheques that taxpayers are footing the bill for, he should be spending some time convincing his cabinet colleagues that there are other ways to create jobs in this country, indicated by one simple word: “pipelines”. The Minister of Infrastructure and Communities should convince his cabinet colleagues. All of the studies that have been done around Kinder Morgan, and everyone else, have recommended that the Kinder Morgan pipeline be approved, and yet his cabinet is sitting on that decision.

If cabinet said tomorrow that it would approve Kinder Morgan's pipeline, it would create thousands of jobs, not only on the construction of the pipeline but in Alberta for revitalization. Many of the full-time positions that the Liberals have lost over the last year are in Alberta in that particular industry. It could also get the process under way for the energy east pipeline. Despite some of the musings about our friends from Quebec, located next to us, who shake their heads and smile when my colleague from Calgary Shepard talks about jobs lost in the industry, energy east could save some of those jobs. That is a project that absolutely needs to go ahead and the process to get it approved has to move quickly.

Of course, now we are left with the much improved possibility of Keystone being approved by the new president-elect, once he takes office in the United States. I know the Liberals worship the outgoing president, whom we saw here in the House when he visited, but I think a lot of the things that the liberal president of the United States implemented in the last few years will be undone pretty quickly, although it is hard to come up with many accomplishments of his in the last eight years, whatever they were.

I will conclude my remarks with a couple of comments. As I said, the Conservative government left the Liberal government with a surplus. It is not even denying that any more. This is a budget that is out of date before it even passes the House. The finance minister acknowledged that in his economic update. The election campaign promise about modest deficits has now ballooned into a runaway budget deficit, and for that reason, I would like to move the following subamendment. I move:

That the amendment be amended by adding after the words “exemplified by” the following: “a stagnant economy”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We had agreed, as a subcommittee, on 10 witnesses on Bill C-29.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Guy, the clerk has suggested something to me. Are you talking about a meeting with just technical witnesses, or are you talking about witnesses on Bill C-29 and the regular witness process?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We had agreed on a number of witnesses on Bill C-29.

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

Thank you.

I have one last question about Bill C-29. I'd like to know whether the Liberals and Conservatives still have no plans to call any witnesses for the committee's study. On our side, we have witnesses we would like to invite.

I had suggested that the committee invite witnesses who could speak to the technical aspects, not those who would argue in favour of or against the bill. The focus would be on the more technical considerations, such as the changes to the Bank Act and with regard to the

common reporting standards.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as we know, this is the Canada pension plan. It has an effect on Bill C-29. The Canada pension plan provides payments to beneficiaries who are hard-working Canadians. With over $45 billion contributed last year, it will allow demand to increase. There is also a big impact on small businesses. Small businesses will grow, and if they grow, our economy will grow, so of course, it impacts our economy. If our economy is lavish, then Canadians' lives are also going to be lavish.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but ask whether the member who was speaking is going to be voting for Bill C-29, because that is actually what we are debating.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

It would always be good for the minister to appear in front of the committee, especially on the topic that is on the table now, Bill C-29. It's very important for both the committee and the minister to have that discussion. Hopefully the minister's time permits that. I think it would be a great idea to have that. I support it too.

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

I have a long shot here.

Obviously, the Minister of Finance will also be asked to appear on the estimates and even the supplementary estimates. The minister and public officials are appearing before the committee on the 17th on Bill C-29. If it were possible, that might be a good opportunity to discuss the supplementary estimates as well. We could hit two targets with one bullet. We could talk about the estimates, and we wouldn't have to ask the minister to come back.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I believe that we are on Bill C-29, not Bill C-26. The member is speaking on a bill that was before the House previously.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-29 and some of the budget provisions. I would like to put some things on the record and frame them in the context of what is happening in my riding.

Under Bill C-29 the child benefit will not be indexed. It is estimated that low-income families will lose roughly $5,500 by 2020. If we consider the rising cost of living, low-income families will lose roughly $500 in four years. It is sad that no one thought about the fact that the cost of living will continue to rise for families and that the child benefit was not indexed accordingly.

There are some things people fail to mention about the child benefit. For example, people keep saying the child benefit will help lift children out of poverty, but no one ever says that to be entitled to it we have to have an up-to-date tax file, as do our former spouse and our new spouse. If not, benefits will not be provided until the situation is rectified.

Some services are available only during tax season, which means that people can get help with their returns for the current year, but no help is available to them if they have not done their taxes for four years. Help is not available.

Every week, people come to my office to tell me that they have not received child benefit payments for months or years because they cannot get their Canada Revenue Agency file in order. They may be asked to produce documents proving that their child lives with them. In shared custody or access rights situations, among others, that can be extremely complicated. A parent with a two-year-old or a three-year-old who does not go to day care may have a hard time proving that the child actually lives with him or her. A friend has to declare that he or she knows the parent well and that the child lives with that parent.

Also, information provided by both parents has to match up. Is a former partner who does not receive the child benefit because he or she has access rights but not custody likely to get in touch with the Canada Revenue Agency in a hurry to sort things out? Sometimes the answer is no, and that can create very complex situations that result in some people being denied the child benefit for long periods of time.

My riding office has helped fix the situation for some people who have not been receiving any child benefits for years. They were sometimes owed $20,000 in unpaid benefits from the federal government alone. That money could have helped them when they needed it. However, this is difficult to do because the appropriate services are not in place. People do not always think to contact their MP.

In the past, there was a Canada Revenue Agency service counter in Rouyn-Noranda, in my riding, but it is now closed. The government no longer provides direct services to people. The counter is still there and the office is still open because there are still investigators who work there, but people can no longer go to the CRA office to get help. People are being left with no resources. Often it is those most in need and with a lower level of education who are unable to resolve their situation and get access to the money they are entitled to.

This bill does nothing about the tax system, which most people find extremely complicated. How many people are owed tax refunds each year but do not get them because they do not realize they are entitled to them? These people do not have the money to pay someone to file their tax return for them. They do their best to do it themselves.

Every year, some of the money that is earmarked to help poor people remains in the government coffers because people do not know that they are entitled to it. However, the government is not doing anything to fix that situation.

Child benefits can in fact help lift people out of poverty, but for that to happen, parents need to have access to those benefits and be able to receive that money. If CRA does not offer services that enable people to access their money, we go around in circles, because people are not getting help.

Consider the example of a family of four children where the eldest has a different father than the other three. More information will be needed on that child, because the statements from the two former spouses will not match. The child benefits will be frozen not only for the child in question, but for all four children, even though there is no problem with the other three children's benefits. We want to make sure that people can get their money if there is a problem regarding the amounts.

Also, the new calculation is done in July. This means that if any clarifications are needed, if there is a problem with the file, it will be frozen in July, right before kids go back to school, which is when parents need to spend a bunch of money on school supplies and clothes to make sure that their kids are ready for school. However, that is right when the family benefits would be frozen.

Often services are not accessible. A person tries calling and it may take three or four tries and three or four hours of waiting before they manage to get someone on the phone. People get discouraged. It takes months to correct the situation. For many people, the family allowance represents more than half their income.

I want to move on to something equally important and that is the infamous infrastructure bank, which is actually a privatization bank. The $15 billion that was earmarked for government-funded, public infrastructure projects is being put in a bank, and foreign investors are being sought to fund the infrastructure projects. Obviously, if we are getting foreign funding from private investors, they are going to want a return on their investment. What these private investors want is to get money back in exchange for their investment.

In other words, how do they get a return on their investment when we are talking about roads, bridges, and other infrastructure such as water systems? By charging surcharges, tolls, and user fees. The Liberals never mentioned during the election campaign that they were considering using these fees and privatizing our public infrastructure network to help rebuild what we need built.

What is more, these projects and programs are designed for big cities. What are the chances that I will be able to attract a foreign investor who is willing to invest in a bridge in a small town in northern Abitibi—Témiscamingue? They are very slim.

In reality, the small municipalities and rural regions will be the ones that suffer. They will be completely forgotten in the Liberal government's infrastructure plan. That is a surprise because the Liberals never spoke about privatization. Meanwhile, these municipalities will continue to struggle to try to find solutions to keep their heads above water.

In many cases, the needs are great because all the villages in Abitibi—Témiscamingue were settled around the same time. As a result, the infrastructure was all built around the same time and will all need to be replaced at the same time. That time is now. Some municipalities have five or six bridges in their villages that need to be replaced. They do not have the money to do that. It is impossible for them. What will the municipalities tell people? Will they have to buy people's houses from them and tell them to go live elsewhere because they do not have the money to pay for infrastructure and the government is privatizing infrastructure and investing in Canada's big cities? The government has completely forgotten that people live a few kilometres north of the St. Lawrence River.

That is not what we should have to tell people. Canadians who live in rural regions contribute greatly to Canada's economy. They make sure the large corporations in the big cities have the resources they need. If the government does not support Canada's rural regions, it will destroy our country's economy.

I look forward to my colleagues' questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I think probably procedurally the best way to proceed is we need basically an agreement to adopt the subcommittee report, and if there's anything we want to pull out of it and deal with differently we can do that. Perhaps I could finish quickly going through the report and then come back to those sections that people want to deal with separately.

The second section really deals with the procedure and how we would deal with Bill C-26, which is the amendments to the Canada Pension Plan, the schedule that we would set up. It's listed on the paper.

The third section lays out, on a motion from Steven MacKinnon, the procedure that would be followed relative to votes on Bill C-26.

The fourth section lays out the plan of the committee to deal with Bill C-29, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016, and other measures. That procedure on timing is laid out there.

The fifth section in the subcommittee report points out that we agreed to a motion by Steven MacKinnon that lays out how we would consider Bill C-29 and when the votes would have to take place.

The sixth section is laying out that in relation to the pre-budget consultations on the 2017 budget, if we can find the time, the committee would convene an in camera post-mortem meeting before the holiday break to discuss this year's progress and how we could do it differently.

The seventh section of the subcommittee report talks about how we would deal with Bill C-240, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (tax credit—first aid), which was referred to the committee on October 26, 2016, and that the committee consider this bill at the end of January or in February 2017, as the bill must be reported back to the House for March 23, 2017.

That's the subcommittee report. Have we got agreement on that?

You want to come back and deal with the first section, I gather? Okay.

Dan.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to start the debate today on Bill C-29.

Rather than getting into the technical tax elements of it, I would like to go on about my riding. People know from when I spoke about the budget previously how delighted I was at the number of things that were in it for the north. An unparalleled number of things were put in for my constituents. I could not even get to them all in a 10-minute speech and my colleagues were asking me what was left for their ridings. Nevertheless, I am very happy for everything that was received by my riding.

I will start with the huge increase to the northern allowance, from $16.50 a day to a maximum of $22 a day. This is a huge emphasis on the people of the north. We can see our northern strategy is based on helping the people of the north in a very high cost-of-living area, where poverty could easily occur. This is the type of support we need and it was wonderfully received, of course, by the people of the north.

Our two biggest sectors are mining and tourism. Mining is the biggest gross territorial product, basically, since the gold rush; and tourism is the biggest private sector employer.

In mining, we continued in the budget the mineral exploration tax credit and the flow-through share regime. These are very important, especially, for exploration companies. There may be only one or two hard rock mines operating, and they have a limited number of employees. Those mines have a product that they can get loans against and get financing against. Exploration companies really have no credit, they do not have buildings, they do not have product, and it is very hard for them to get financing.

The METC and the flow-through share regime are very important for them. I would certainly like to thank the Minister of Natural Resources for lobbying for this and the finance minister for putting it in place.

With respect to the tourism sector, my riding has the highest percentage of our gross territorial product related to tourism of any province or territory so that a cut to tourism marketing in Canada would hurt my riding more than anywhere else. That is why I am delighted with the $50-million increase to that this year.

With respect to infrastructure, once again, as everyone knows, the fact that the government planned to have the largest amount of infrastructure in history is music to the ears in our riding. First, we have kept the building Canada plan that was in place for 2014 to 2024, we have accelerated the approvals, and we added some categories such as recreation, which is very important to my communities. They really wanted to build recreation facilities out of that fund, and now they can.

At the same time, phase two of the new infrastructure funding is going on. We have already announced the entire amounts of money for projects for most of my communities for the next three years. A lot of them are based on water and waste-water improvements, which is very important infrastructure. The minister has done extensive consultation. When phase two starts, we will be able to get more money for our transit. We do have a transit system in Whitehorse and it has already received money.

The green infrastructure fund is very forward-thinking.

I have been saying for a couple of decades, and everyone I think now knows, that climate change is affecting the north more than anywhere else in the world. It was very perceptive to allow funds to be put in the budget for mitigation and for preparing infrastructure to withstand the effects of climate change, which can be seen in the foundations of our buildings, under melting permafrost, and on our highways. Those funds will be welcomed.

Another thing is the social infrastructure. I visited some of the day cares that would like to expand the number of spots. That money will be very welcomed.

Then there is affordable housing and the national housing plan. I have been on the anti-poverty coalition for years. We hope that the infrastructure bank will work; I will talk about that a bit later. The AIDEA bank in Alaska is very successful in an economy like ours.

Finally, I would like to talk about the recently announced $2 billion for rural and northern regions for roads and bridges, green infrastructure, and Internet connections. Earlier in the day today, the opposition brought up how important the regions are. This is a massive signal. It is the biggest amount of money for the region.

For all those reasons, I am very excited about the budget and its initiatives. However, I do not want to let the finance minister off that easily. I want to now morph into our wishes for the next budget, based on consultations I have had in the riding. Some of these things could already be funded under the various programs I have just mentioned.

First, homelessness and the national housing strategy is very important to the people who gave me input on the upcoming budget. Affordable housing for employers is very important. They hire people. They come to the north and cannot find affordable housing, so have to leave again.

There is the suggestion of the electrification of transport routes so electric vehicles can be used. Of course, in the cities they can plug in and recharge. Along the Alaska Highway, for instance, we could have that all electrified.

Another suggestion, which happens to also be eligible and already announced, is the retrofit of old buildings and higher standards for new buildings.

Renewable energy of course is something people in my riding want to invest in, and it is a big part of the government's plan. There is a way of storing energy in off-peak hours, so a storage mechanism is also important. Certainly, that is eligible, and there are keen proponents of that in my riding.

Also, local food production in the north, rather than shipping things thousands of miles, and funding for social enterprises are suggestions.

A redundant fibre is very important for us. The Yukon has one Internet line cable going in and every time a backhoe cuts a line it shuts everything down. We would like to make a loop through the Dempster Highway through Inuvik. In fact, part of Nunavut and the Northwest Territories also only access through our hub, or only have one route. This would put a redundancy in place for a lot of people in the north so they could have access similar to what we have. These would be eligible under these new infrastructure programs, and I hope their funding is included.

We have one area where a hydro line needs to be replaced. We could go to several mines that would otherwise use LNG, and they would then contribute to greenhouse gases.

The IT sector is flourishing in the north now, because we do not need to transport heavy things. It is all done over the lines. We certainly appreciate the support for that.

We want the mining supports that I talked about earlier to continue. We would like the tourism marketing supports to continue. We would like support for business incubators. Once businesses have started, in many ways they have a record and they can get financing. They have partners, but when they are first starting up the costs for mentoring and cheap infrastructure, just getting going, is a hard part in the life cycle of a small business. We would like to support that.

There is room to support IRAP. It has been an incredible program for the last three decades at least. It is very instrumental for innovation. We would like to continue with that.

I said about 20 years ago, we need research in the north, by the north, and for the north. We have great research up there. We would like that to continue.

Yukon College has a plan, with the other three northern colleges, to take adults who may not be literate and upgrade them to the next stage. It is about $56 billion for the three colleges that cover half of northern Canada. That would be a great project to fund in the new budget.

The House resumed from November 2 consideration of the motion that Bill C-29, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Business of the House

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

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

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

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

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

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

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2

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

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

Regarding budget implementation act, 2016, No. 2, the second budget implementation bill, and the economic update delivered yesterday in the House, I wondered if my colleague thought that the government was going down the wrong path with its current strategy.

The past year's economic results show no sign of improvement; they indicate no positive growth or job creation. Does the hon. member think that the government is doubling down on a strategy that does not seem to working?

Albert Einstein said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Does the hon. member agree with that quote and our opinion that the strategies are not working and that the government should consider changing tack in order to create jobs and grow our economy?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by telling the House how disappointed I am with Bill C-29 and the measures it contains, or rather the measures it does not contain. More specifically, there is a significant lack of practical measures for SMEs, families, the middle class, unemployed workers, and the most vulnerable members of our society.

I would also like to point out that this bill, which was introduced on Tuesday, October 25, contains 146 provisions and amends 13 laws, and we started debating it just three days later. We had only three days to grasp the scope of the changes that these 146 provisions make to 13 laws. Members will agree that that gave us very little time to conduct a full and comprehensive review of the bill and to properly understand all the details and the scope of its content. It is very easy to see what is missing from this bill, and that includes larger health care transfers for the provinces and many other things.

As a progressive MP who represents the people of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, I am opposed to this bill because it is sorely lacking in substantial measures for middle-class families, unemployed workers, and the most vulnerable members of society. This party promised to stand up for the middle class, but we are once again seeing that all of its fine promises were nothing more than empty rhetoric.

Yesterday, we got the government's economic update. It offered no compensation for dairy producers and nothing for Bombardier. Basically, all it contains is a privatization plan that will take $15 billion of the funding promised for infrastructure and invest it in a privatization bank designed not to meet the needs of communities but to meet the needs of companies and provide investment returns. It means that much less funding for municipalities in my riding, which will be disappointed.

My riding has massive infrastructure needs, including the Casavant Boulevard tunnel, the Saint-Pie and La Présentation community centres, and dire waste water treatment needs. These are just some of the major projects that are very important to my riding.

Municipalities and citizens were under the impression that money would be allocated to these projects because that is what they were told repeatedly. What the Liberals never told us was that their plan was to make investments by privatizing our infrastructure. In the 2016 budget, they brought up the possibility of asset recycling. That sounds pretty good, but what it really means is privatization.

Why did this government not promise privatization during the election campaign? Because it is not something that works. That is why we did not hear a peep about this during the election campaign. On the contrary, any time we talked about tolls or the Champlain Bridge, the Liberals kept saying that they would never ask the bridge users to pay a toll. That might be true, but what they failed to mention was that they would charge tolls everywhere else.

When did the Liberals tell Canadians that instead of the public infrastructure and public investments promised, Canadians would have to pay user fees and tolls, because their taxes would not be used for those things? They never said anything of the sort.

Bill C-29 does contain some positive measures that of course we support, but its contents do not even come close to fulfilling the Liberals' election promises or combatting inequality.

As my party's critic for families, children, and social development, I am still disappointed that the Liberals decided not to index the Canada child benefit to inflation. They could have fixed that yesterday, but no, they are going to wait four years.

The result of that political decision is that families back home in my riding, and all across Canada, are going to be out over $5,000. The Liberals keep repeating that that benefit is going to lift thousands of children out of poverty, but in reality, families are going to have $5,000 less over the next few years.

In the end, this benefit lifts families out of poverty for a month or two. To a family struggling to make ends meet every month, $5,000 is a lot. It boggles the mind to hear my Liberal colleagues brag about lifting children out of poverty, when in fact, families are losing thousands of dollars.

Families cannot afford to wait for the new Canada child benefit to be indexed to inflation in 2020. By 2020, low-income families will be getting only $6.50 more a month than they were from the Harper government. The difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals is $6.50 a month.

Giving an extra $6.50 a month is hardly anything to brag about. That is not even enough to buy a loaf of bread and some milk. When I talk about this with organizations in my riding that work with low-income families, they are shocked to learn how much families will really be getting at the end of the day. They are disappointed and I understand that. They know that families have felt the difference since July and are disappointed.

This decision will clearly hurt families, especially low-income families that are counting on this money. In the next four years, low-income families will receive about $500 less. Canadians are disappointed with all these broken promises.

That said, I applaud the measure that will prevent a multiplication of access to the small business deduction, and prevents tax avoidance to some extent. This will help the government recover $55 million to $60 million a year, but many other measures could have been introduced.

For some time, the NDP has been calling for measures that would provide tax relief to SMEs, which are the real drivers of job creation. We are disappointed that the Liberals have broken their promise to reduce the small business tax. They had promised to lower it to 9% by 2019. Job creators in our ridings were counting on this tax cut. It is disappointing that another promise has been broken. The Liberals, and the Conservatives before them, gave huge tax breaks to the most prosperous corporations in Canada. They have once again let down our SMEs.

I am so proud to represent a riding with SMEs that are constantly innovating. According to a Canadian Federation of Independent Business study, Saint-Hyacinthe is the sixth most entrepreneurial city in Quebec and the 20th in Canada. However, in order to ensure that these businesses survive, we need to give them a leg up. That is why the NDP cannot accept a bill like this one that does nothing for families, SMEs, or the middle class.

In short and in conclusion, I want to repeat that I am disappointed, as are the people of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, with these measures that do nothing to help our SMEs, the many dairy producers in my riding, Bombardier, located in the neighbouring riding of Valcourt, municipalities, families, unemployed workers, the most vulnerable members of our society, or the middle class.

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-29 aims to implement a series of budget measures and tax changes in budget 2016, which was tabled in Parliament on March 22 of this year. We have heard from the government over the course of this year how going into debt would help the economy and would create jobs. We also heard from the government how increasing taxes would help the economy and the middle class and create jobs. We heard from the government how the tax-free savings account was not for seniors and not for students and not for people trying to save and get ahead, and therefore, it could be cut in half and it really would not make any difference.

Then we heard from the Prime Minister on September 8, 2015, while he was being interviewed by Peter Mansbridge, “a large percentage of small businesses are actually just ways for wealthier Canadians to save on their taxes”. Now even though there are 1.14 million small businesses in Canada, employing 8.2 million people, plus another 2.3 million people employed in medium-sized businesses, those small businesses did not get the reduction in taxes as promised in the platform by the Liberal government and to be clear, the promise was to reduce the small business tax from 11% to 9%, to assist with job creation. However, that did not happen.

Instead, the Liberals increased the CPP contribution so that workers would have to pay more and see less of their paycheques, and employers will also have to pay more, which goes against the internal documents from Finance Canada. Those documents show that financial officials advised the minister that higher CPP premiums will reduce job growth until 2035. That advice was ignored.

The government decided to implement the so-called tax cut for the middle class and then announced to the general public it was going to be revenue neutral. The plan is not revenue neutral. A report from the parliamentary budget officer puts the cost at $1.7 billion, which is now added to the growing tax burden for Canadians.

However, it gets better. The Liberal government told taxpayers that for a tiny small deficit of $10 billion, infrastructure projects will grow the economy and create jobs. The Liberals burned through a $1-billion surplus and created a deficit that is over $30 billion, but it still gets better. With all these job-creating measures the government has come up with, one would think that jobs were really being created. This is not so. A report just released last week by the parliamentary budget officer states that job creation over the past year was half of what it was over the past five years and that there have been no net new full-time jobs.

The Liberal job creation plan is simply not working.

Let us just recap. We have a $30-plus billion deficit, $7.1 billion spent overseas, $2.9 billion committed to an Asian infrastructure bank, new housing rules that will cost the economy $6 billion by the end of 2018, a national carbon tax that will increase the cost of heating, groceries, and gas, and just announced yesterday by the Minister of Finance was that he has spent the $6-billion contingency fund and is borrowing another $32 billion. As well, $15 billion is being put into a newly created infrastructure bank and the $15 billion “will be sourced from the announced funding for public transit, green infrastructure, social...and rural and northern communities”.

We already have a structure in place with $1.3 billion available and it is called P3 Canada. It was specifically set up to leverage private sector dollars. Pension funds can invest anywhere they choose; they do not need an infrastructure bank. That was stated by the CEO of the largest pension fund in Canada.

Let us hear from the experts. Craig Alexander, chief economist at the Conference Board of Canada stated, “The part of the fiscal plan that hasn't shown up is the infrastructure spending”. Stephen Poloz, Bank of Canada governor, said that in the data “there are no signs yet” of a boost to grow. Benjamin Reitzes, senior economist from the Bank of Montreal, said, “It's certainly very fair to say that impacts were overestimated”. The TD Bank and the Bank of Montreal projected that the government spending plan would add less to growth in 2016 than the finance department or the Bank of Canada had estimated. They have now publicly called on the government to halt additional spending.

There is a way to stimulate the economy and create the environment for job growth and job creation. The Liberal way is just not that way. Governments do not create jobs. Governments create environments in which job creation either flourishes or it stagnates. Unfortunately, what we are seeing from the current government is stagnating the environment for job growth through out-of-control spending, deficits, higher taxes, red tape, and frankly, not knowing what job creation really means.

Creating the environment for job growth means low taxes, less red tape, working with all levels of government to create livable cities, transportation to move people and goods to market, and fiscal responsibility to pay down any debt and balance the budget. In the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, the Conservative government had the lowest taxes in 50 years, balanced the budget, completed over 7,500 infrastructure projects, and created the environment for 1.3 million new jobs. That is how it is done.

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to take a moment to say thanks to all the Olympic athletes and Paralympic athletes who were here today. It was quite an honour to see that. For 15 minutes, the whole House kept applauding. It was great to have had them represent us in Rio the way they did. I want to give a special shout-out to Olympic boxer Mandy Bujold and Paralympic swimmer Alexander Elliot, who live in my riding of Kitchener South—Hespeler.

During last year's election campaign, I spoke confidently to the residents of my riding of Kitchener South—Hespeler about our plan to grow the middle class and revitalize the Canadian economy by doing three things.

First, I talked about our plan to reduce income taxes on the middle class and those aspiring to join the middle class. Lowering taxes means leaving more money in the pockets of those who need it most and having more money to spend on goods and services in our economy.

Second, I explained our plan to implement a tax-free, means-tested Canada child benefit to replace the patchwork of existing programs. The Canada child benefit will assist families with the high cost of raising their children.

Third, I talked about our plan to borrow at current historically low interest rates to make very large investments in both physical and social infrastructure.

As I spoke to people, I stressed that these programs would not only help individual families that were struggling after years of stagnant growth but would grow our economy, generate economic activity, and create jobs by way of what economists call the multiplier effect.

As I spoke with people at the door, I did so with confidence, because I believed that our plan offered immediate help to those who needed it most. It set an ambitious long-term approach for growth by strengthening the heart of Canada's consumer-driven economy, the middle class.

A strong economy starts with a strong middle class. When middle-class Canadians have more money to save, invest, and grow the economy, everyone benefits. A strengthened middle class means that hard-working Canadians can look forward to a good standard of living and better prospects for their children. When we have an economy that works for the middle class, we have a country that works for everyone.

Judging from the reaction I got from people throughout my riding, the message I was delivering resonated with voters. The results of the election speak for themselves. Our message of hope caused voters across the country to raise us from a distant third place in this House to a majority government. On election night, Canadians saw the merit in our plan, and Canadians chose a plan to invest in our future for generations to come.

Our plan increased again, when legislation to reduce personal income tax rates, as promised, was introduced by this government last December as the second piece of legislation proposed in Bill C-2.

The hon. Minister of Finance tabled the government's budget in Parliament on March 22 this year. A budget is more than a mere forecast of expenditures and revenues. A budget is a financial strategy to fulfill what a government sets as its mission. A budget is a comprehensive plan of action designed to achieve the policy objectives of the government. A budget is a financial blueprint for action. A budget will remain only a blueprint unless there are the workers, materials, coordination, skills, and activities necessary to construct it.

Real change will remain only a vision unless there is legislation to implement the budget that flows from that vision. Following quickly on the heels of the budget, Bill C-15 was the first legislation introduced by the government in April. It was the first budget implementation bill. It turned the second major promise I made to the constituents of Kitchener South—Hespeler, as I went door to door during the election, into a reality.

Bill C-15 brought in the Canada child benefit. Simpler, tax-free, and more generous, the Canada child benefit replaced existing child benefits. Bill C-15 passed quickly through this House and the Senate and received royal assent in the third week of June.

Immediately afterwards, in July, the Canada child benefit payments started flowing to families to fulfill their financial responsibilities in raising the next generation of Canadians.

The Canada child benefit is a social program of unprecedented generosity. Since July 1 this year, families can receive up to $6,400 per year for each child under six and $5,400 for each child aged six to 17. Nine out of 10 families are better off. They are receiving higher monthly benefits, and hundreds of thousands of children will be raised out of poverty.

This government has taken a long-term approach to helping families, who will be able to count on extra help now and for years to come. When Canadians look towards the future and think about planning, they know that the Canada child benefit will be there to help fulfill their financial responsibilities.

Today before the House is Bill C-29. It is the second of two pieces of legislation intended to implement the budget tabled in the House in March. Bill C-29 is the second act to implement this year's budget. It contains a number of consequential housekeeping amendments to various acts, such as the Employment Insurance Act, the Canada Education Savings Act, and the Canada Disability Savings Act, to replace references to “child tax benefit”.

However, for most Canadian families, the most important part of Bill C-29 is the introduction, as promised, of indexation of the Canada child benefit. Bill C-29 would implement the budget by indexing to inflation the maximum benefit amounts and the phase-out threshold under the Canada child benefit, beginning in the 2021 benefit year. This means that the benefits will increase if prices increase, and thus the purchasing power of the benefit will remain the same after 2020.

I would now like to turn to a couple of articles.

The first article is from The Economist, which said, “Canada is in a better position than almost any other rich country to take advantage of low rates”.

With the historically low interest rates, this is the time to invest in Canadians, in our future, and in the young generation to take advantage of these low interest rates.

The second article I want to refer to is from CBC News:

The IMF head [Christine Lagarde] said economic growth has been “too slow for too long” and the IMF advocates a “three-pronged approach” from governments trying to kick-start the global economy.

She said the [Liberal] government is following that approach with monetary, financial and structural reforms that will mobilize the resources of the state to increase growth.

For those reasons, I would therefore encourage all members of this House to support Bill C-29.

The House resumed from November 1 consideration of the motion that Bill C-29, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on behalf of my constituents to talk about Bill C-29.

The first thing I note about Bill C-29, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament, is that it is an omnibus bill. In terms of size, it is 230 pages of omnibus legislation. I remember well when the member for Beauséjour was the House leader for the Liberals and they were the third party in the House, how he used to rail against bills of this size. It did not matter what was in them; it was the fact they were omnibus bills that created so much angst.

The member for Winnipeg North made a career in the last Parliament out of railing against omnibus legislation. It was said to be dastardly thing for a government to choose to implement its budget via a budget implementation act. That is what is happening today. We are talking about an omnibus budget bill. I guess the principles and policies the Liberals had when they used to sit in the third party seats change a little when they cross over to the government side. Now they are a big fan of omnibus bills. That was the first thing I wanted to mention.

This bill is supposed to be the plan to implement the budget. The government clearly has no plan when it comes to budgeting. During the election campaign, Liberals promised there would be a $10 billion deficit that would be paid back within the mandate of a majority government. How long did it take them to abandon that promise? Was it 10 minutes?

I remember Prime Minister Stephen Harper saying that the Liberals' position was that everyone should trust that it would be a modest, little deficit. How right he was. We are going to hear today at four o'clock just how much more than a $10 billion deficit the government has blown in less than a year. The fiscal update will show that the government is, by a magnitude of at least three times, past its initial deficit target. It misled Canadians during the election and has blown through it.

What do Liberals have to show for it? I would argue they have nothing to show for it. There is no increased growth and there are zero net new jobs. The parliamentary budget officer has confirmed that there are zero net new jobs as a result of $30 billion or so of borrowed money being spent. This was supposed to stimulate the economy and take us to untold heights. The Liberals have done nothing they promised and have blown through their deficit target, so they have no budget plan. The plan is just to borrow more money and spend it. Canadians know that debt has to be repaid, that borrowed money has to be paid back. If my generation does not repay it, it will be our children and grandchildren who get this bill, because eventually it will come due.

One of my constituents, a small businessman, has certainly seen that the Liberal government is no friend of his. He told me the government is like a teenager who has one parent who provides him with a credit card with no limit on it, and that parent is very popular, but the other parent who hands the credit card bill to the teenager and says it is his to pay back is the less popular parent. Right now, the Liberals are playing the role of the sugar daddy who hands out the cash, but what Canadians will soon realize is that the bill will be paid by them. That is clearly what is happening.

What have Liberals done in less than a year? They borrowed $30 billion, as I said, and they have also misled small businesses. All parties agreed that the small business tax rate would be lowered from 11% to 9%. How long did it take the Liberals to break that promise? It was broken in their first budget. They broke their promise to small businesses, and I think we know why.

During the election campaign, the Prime Minister made it clear that there were an awful lot of people who were using small businesses to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. That is what the Prime Minister said about the industry that creates the most jobs in this country. He said that small business was just a tax avoidance scheme. We found out during the election campaign that he has set up some of those companies himself to avoid paying a lot of taxes, so perhaps he knew what he spoke of. However, that is not what was promised to small businesses.

I spoke earlier this month in the House about Bill C-26, a bill dealing with CPP rates. Again, that would do nothing for seniors. It would do nothing for people approaching retirement. In fact, the finance minister has admitted that it would do nothing for anyone for more than 40 years. However, what it would do is reduce the incomes of Canadian families by up to $2,200. That $2,200 is taken from the paycheques of Canadians to go into a fund they likely will never be able to access. That is in addition to the $1,100 coming out of the pockets of small businesses who are paying their portion of that tax.

So they are increasing taxes on small businesses. They are also increasing taxes on Canadians through a carbon tax.

I was honoured to be given the role of critic for natural resources. Since the government has taken office, over 100,000 energy workers have lost their jobs. What do we see from the government? We see no jobs plan. We see no lifeline to families in the energy sector. Instead, we see them being thrown an anchor, the anchor of a carbon tax.

What would that do? The member for Oshawa talked about what it would do for manufacturing.

I will tell members what it would do for the energy sector. It would put an already crippled energy sector at an even greater disadvantage vis-à-vis the people we are trading with, the U.S., which has no intention of implementing a federal carbon tax any time soon. They are our major customer.

When we moved a motion at the natural resources committee to have the Liberal members tell us what analysis they have done to show what impact the carbon tax would have on the natural resource sector, they voted against it. We know why. It is because they have not done any economic analysis of that impact. They do not care. They do not care about those 100,000 family supporting jobs that have been lost. We have seen they do not care about that sector because they continue to layer regulatory burden after regulatory burden upon a sector that is already suffering. When there are pipelines to be approved, they do not allow for evidence-based scientific policy to take place. They layer on an extra political layer in which the minister will make the final decision, in which the cabinet will make the final decision, in which red tape is layered upon an already burdensome process. That would do nothing to protect public safety. It would simply add to the regulatory burden.

The government is fond of saying how it has cut the taxes of middle-class Canadians. It is just not true.

The average income of people in my riding is under $40,000 a year. Guess how much they receive from the income tax cuts from the Liberal Party? Zero. They receive nothing. The most vulnerable, low-income Canadians got nothing from the Liberal tax cuts, while people like members of Parliament, who make up to $150,000 a year, get the most benefit one could possibly get out of that tax cut. The Liberals have done nothing for an average family in Chilliwack—Hope with that tax cut, and anything they have done for some families, they are going to tax back with the extra carbon tax and additional payroll taxes. Canadians are not better off.

They also cancelled things like the child fitness tax credit, the child arts tax credit, and tax credits for textbooks. They said that is because they do not like to complicate the Income Tax Act. They do not like those boutique tax credits, they said, that help families, that help moms and dads put kids in sports and in dance lessons. However, what they do like are boutique tax credits for talk show hosts for Canadian shows, or for someone who needs to take a first aid course. They are all for those tax cuts. It does not seem to matter, as long its not a family, as long as it is not people supporting their children. We do not want to support people like that. However, if people are creators of content, then they need a tax break from the Government of Canada.

Their priorities are wrong. They are not looking after Canadian families. They are looking after special interests. We have certainly seen that over the last little while, with the revelations about their fundraising practices, in which they are meeting with the well-heeled insiders they regulate, who are giving them money for access. It is not the right way to go. This is not a budget plan, and we cannot support it.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the 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. Since that time, we can say that sunny ways have come and gone. Over the past 12 months, we have seen countless promises broken, a ballooning deficit, and a stagnant economy.

We are also watching as the federal government picks too many needless fights with the provinces. The separation of powers that is a fundamental part of Canada's Constitution appears to be an afterthought for the Prime Minister and his government.

The cornerstone for the government is to tax and spend and get more and more involved in the day-to-day lives of Canadians. There is no decision too small for the government to make, no area in which it should not intervene. A day does not go by in the Chamber that I do not hear the Liberals take pride in repeating some platitude like “what we promised to Canadians is to help them throughout their lives”. We know that for the Liberals, government knows best.

Unfortunately, big government costs a lot, and the money to pay for it all comes from Canadians paying taxes on their income and on most goods and services, and from mandatory fees. To these Liberals, government is not the last resort, it is the first call. The idea that government should serve as a safety net has outlived its usefulness. Instead, the government should be omnipresent and helping Canadians each and every day.

Right now, the resource sector in western Canada is struggling because of low commodity prices, but rather than focus on the underlying long-term issue, which is the discount Canadian energy products are sold at due to a lack of access to markets, the Liberal solution is to provide a temporary bump in employment insurance to folks who are out of work. This bears repeating. Rather than put in place the conditions needed to create real jobs and opportunities, the government's preferred course of action is to increase employment insurance. This exemplifies quite well what the Liberal vision is.

I also find the ideological elastic demonstrated by the government on the child care benefit astounding. It was not long ago that the Liberal Party's official position on allowing families to make their own decisions when it came to child care was that parents could not be trusted, that they would spend more on beer and popcorn than on their own children. Now we learn that the new Liberal program for child care is fraught with problems. Bill C-29 would index the Canada child benefit to inflation beginning in 2020. The parliamentary budget officer has estimated that this would cost $42.5 billion over the next five years. That is double what the Liberals budgeted when they originally introduced the program.

I have spoken to many young families who wonder where the money for this is going to come from, how much debt will be incurred, and how much their taxes are going to have to go up in the medium and long term to pay for it. They do not want to trade short-term gain, if there is any, for long-term pain. Then there are those families that are receiving much less than they did in 2015.

Furthermore, the budget has cut the child fitness tax credit, the children's art tax credit, and tax credits for post-secondary education and textbooks. To the Liberal member for Newmarket—Aurora, who stated on Friday that “tax credits do not work”, can he honestly tell the House that the post-secondary students in his riding did not utilize the tuition tax credit?

“Big government knows best” is a broken model. European countries that have tried to spend their way to long-term prosperity have more often than not failed. This debate is about whether we believe, as a country, that the individual financial choices Canadians make are better or worse than those made by government.

Last week I noted that according to the 2016 Index of Economic Freedom, government expenditures presently represent 40.7% of GDP here in Canada. Australia, by comparison, sits at 35.7% and the United States at 38.9%. Are we better off in Canada than in Australia, for example, because more of our economy flows through Ottawa? I do not think so.

Is Canada a better place to live because this bill will compel banks to publish a description of the consultations undertaken with the public on their existing products and the development of new products and services? That is right. One particular measure in the bill will require financial institutions to provide a description of the consultations they have done to identify trends and emerging issues that may have an impact on their customers or the public. This should not surprise us, given how much the Liberals love consultation. In other words, the government is asking banks to make publicly available consumer and societal trends that would normally be considered commercial proprietary data.

Furthermore, major banks will also have to provide to the regulator a description of their consultations on matters on which the bank has received complaints. Why the federal government needs a description of the consultations banks hold on each and every complaint they receive is beyond me. While these legislative requirements will apply only to Canada's largest banks for now, is the next step asking smaller institutions, like credit unions, which are owned by their members, to do the same thing? The compliance costs for smaller institutions could drive them out of business. This would have a devastating effect in small communities all across the Prairies.

Let us look at the ways the Liberals have increased the overall tax burden on Canadians. They have given Canadians a carbon tax that will cost approximately $1,200 per person, and they have not even bothered to figure out how interprovincial emissions will be regulated or priced. They have raised contributions to the CPP from 9.9% to 12%. As a consequence, Canadians will get 2% less on each of their paycheques. This CPP contribution increase will cost families more than if the government had raised the sales tax from 5% to 7%.

It goes on. The Liberals are freezing a planned tax cut for Canada's small businesses, a planned tax cut they campaigned on and that they supported while in opposition.

They are also imposing a myriad of new regulations that just drive up the cost of doing anything for Canadians. For example, the Minister of Transport just introduced new regulations on railways that will order them to provide detailed information on the emissions produced by every single one of their locomotives.

Rail is the most environmentally friendly means of moving goods. A gallon of diesel can move a tonne of goods over 800 kilometres. What is worse, the minister based these new regulations on data collected before 2010, which is now completely out of date.

As railways are working to move western Canada's harvest to market, they are being faced with added red tape and tougher emissions standards, on top of the new carbon tax on diesel. Ultimately it is the farmers trying to get their grain to market who will see their bottom line affected. These regulations will inevitably lead to increased costs that will be passed on to consumers. It is just another hidden tax.

At the end of the day, all Canadians, including the families the government likes to talk about, are being asked to pay up to finance the big Liberal society.

In conclusion, more and more Canadians are expressing not only their frustration but their deep concern about the direction the government is taking Canada. Governments should always act with great humility and modesty, as its actions impact all Canadians and cannot be reversed quickly and without disruption. In the eight years I have had the privilege of serving as a member of Parliament, my belief that Canadians, not government, know best how to manage their finances has only been strengthened. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister and his government's belief in big government permeates this budget, and that is why I will not be supporting the bill.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise to speak to Bill C-29, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016, and other measures.

I had spoken about this budget, initially, when it was tabled. At that time, I was very concerned with the numbers and the spending that I saw, but today I am even more concerned, especially when we have seen a lack of growth and a lack of support, with a number of groups jumping off the bandwagon, saying the Liberals are not doing what they said they would do.

When the bill was initially tabled, there was $113 billion that was being borrowed. TD economic services has now estimated that there is going to be an additional $16.5 billion in new expenditures.

Let us go back to what the government promised during the 2015 election. The 2015 election was just a year ago. We have seen so many changes in terms of what the government is delivering compared with what it provided in its platform.

I would like to go back to a debate that I had in the city of St. Thomas. It was one of our final debates. There were six candidates. I recall the Liberal candidate, at that time, saying that they would have shovels in the ground by December of 2015. Obviously, I am here and I am very grateful for that. However, she obviously heard that as part of the platform. She was being told by her leader and by the leaders of her party that they were going to have shovels in the ground doing great work for Canadians and building infrastructure. I think they actually believed it. I believe many of the members who are now sitting across on the government side believed when they came here that they were going to be doing some good work.

As I said, December 2015 was when they promised to have shovels in the ground. I can tell members I have not seen too many shovels in the ground. I have not seen these projects they were talking about and that they were going to be working on.

The infrastructure minister will come out and talk about the projects that have been proposed, the projects that the provincial governments have submitted, saying that, yes, they are going to support these projects, but that is only stage one of this process. That means there is only a finite number of people who are working on this infrastructure build. They may be the architects, the engineers, or the administrative people who are putting in these applications, but it is not the people with the hard hats and the workboots who are out there doing that work. We do not see that happening yet.

Of all of these communities and provinces that were promised more roads and better infrastructure in the 2015 campaign, where is it and where is the spending? We have seen spending from the government, but we have not seen any results.

I go back to when we go to the bank and we talk about good debt versus bad debt. It is simple. It is something I say to my children. A good debt is when you go and buy a washing machine because it's something that you need and that washing machine is going to stay with you, not just one day or two days, it's going to stay with you, hopefully, for 20 years, which is the way I like to buy my washing machines, at least. That is a good debt. That is when we are investing in our homes and in the things in our homes. Going out and buying a gourmet dinner that might cost $200 or $300, however, is good for one day, if that, or it might be good for three hours. There is a difference between good debt and bad debt. I am very concerned that the government does not know the difference between the two and that we are spending a lot of money for things that are hot topics, but we are not spending on long-time prosperity.

The Bank of Canada has actually lowered the forecast for the GDP down to 1.1%. That has not even been within a year. It was 1.4% that was forecast in January, prior to this budget, and unfortunately the Bank of Canada is seeing the light as well and seeing that it is going to be 1.1%.

When this budget was tabled, it was not just organizations like the C.D. Howe Institute or the Fraser Institute but also the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, along with the members of the Conservative Party, that were very concerned with what was in the budget.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, we are seeing more groups, more organizations, and more individuals jumping on board, saying that this budget is not delivering the stimulus that they thought it was going to, this is not what the Liberals promised, and this government is not doing what it promised. I think that is one thing people are saying. Yes, they cast their vote in 2015, and like I say, we talked about seven million compared with six million, some of those people, 39%, cast their vote for the Liberal Party and many of those people are sitting there with voter's remorse, saying that they are not getting what they thought they had voted for.

We now see the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, and the Business Council of Canada all being much more skeptical of the spending being done by the government.

However, there are also other groups. This is one thing I was really quite surprised about. We have a Prime Minister who talks about building relationships and one of the key relationships he is going to have is with first nations and aboriginal peoples.

Last week the Standing Committee on the Status of Women had the opportunity to listen to a lady by the name of Tracy O'Hearn. Tracy was representing the Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada. She talked about the work they had done regarding violence against women and a program that was done through phase one under the Conservative government.

Phase one of their program had some fantastic results, but they are ready to initiate phase two. In the last year, the current government, which is trying to build relationships with first nations people, has not been part of these negotiations and has not been at the table to communicate with them. We are not seeing a progression. We have seen some great things started, but they are now halted because the Liberal government has not acted.

This building of relationships with first nations is something Conservatives see as another broken promise. The NDP opposition has also had to put forward some of these concerns, because we have a government that is not listening. It is promising but not listening.

There was also confirmation by the parliamentary budget officer that the Conservative government left a $2.9-billion surplus in the 2015-16 fiscal year. The government proposed to spend its way to prosperity. If we just take the numbers out and do not look at what the Liberals were spending, we see that the Conservatives did very well as a government.

When this budget was proposed, a lot of economists said deficits can be good and in the previous session an NDP member asked my colleague if it was right to have a deficit. In 2008, 2009, and 2010 when Canada went through the worst economic downturn, Conservatives actually spent wisely. We had shovels in the ground and created retraining programs. We did everything we possibly could to get people back to work. That is why we were one of the first countries to recover from the economic downturn.

The current government is saying that it will spend its way to prosperity, something that seems to be okay because economists have said, yes, it could go into deficit as long as it spends money well, but we have not seen the money being spent well. The government is going into deficit and we are not seeing anything for it. Instead, people in Canada are floundering. The government is looking at employment insurance reform and things of that sort, rather than creating jobs.

One thing I am very proud of is being the critic for families, children, and social development, so in the last two minutes, I am going to touch on the changes to the Canada child benefit.

Once again, in the election campaign, it was all about nine out of 10 kids doing better under the Liberals' program. I have done the numbers and there is a lot more money being spent. I am not going to say there is not, but once again, the Liberal Party was selling something on which it had never put a pen to paper to see what the actual numbers were. There were not true estimates done.

As we debate Bill C-29, the CCB is being indexed. Back in July when these payments started, the first thing the media noticed was that the money was not being indexed and the programs by the Conservative government were actually better than the ones by the Liberal government today. With the indexing now, there is going to be double the spending on the Canada child benefit. A program that is already very large and questionably sustainable is going to be doubled in the next five years. That is absolutely poor fiscal management.

Yes, there are going to be hiccups and difficult things in the first year of taking over as government, Conservatives understand that, but there seems to be no focus. It is about spending and spending, but not creating prosperity or opportunities for Canadians. The government thinks if families have problems, it will give them more money, not opportunities to be educated or build new roads. The government is not going to do those things. It will just throw money at the problem, and that is not what is supposed to be done.

This government is in charge of the country and in charge of its finances, and I am very concerned that the promises the Liberals made in 2015 are extremely irresponsible. I am very concerned about where we will see our government and our country by the end of October of 2019.

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

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

I completely agree with him. We did not hear the term “infrastructure asset recycling” during the election campaign. It is not until the end of Bill C-29, on page 228, that there is mention of what the Minister of Finance may do for the sound management of the consolidated revenue fund on terms and conditions he considers appropriate. Perhaps this would allow the creation of an asset recycling system. I believe it is essential, for everyone's well-being, that infrastructure remain in the hands of the public. Management of our public sector should not be privatized.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-29. I have been listening to all the debate that has been taking place, and I note that we as members of Parliament seem to be debating lots of different things all at once, and not necessarily always Bill C-29, especially on a day such as today when we are eagerly awaiting the Minister of Finance's update.

Obviously today we are anticipating the fall update on the economy and the state of public finances. I look forward to that. Although I have the opportunity to deliver a speech now, I plan to take part in the lockup on the economic update.

We know that any minute now we will be getting additional financial information from the Minister of Finance, and some of the media reports that foreshadowed what we may see in that report have become part of this debate as if they were in Bill C-29. They are not, so we do not know much about what will be proposed. There are concerns, as many colleagues have raised, about what might be proposed around infrastructure, what might be proposed around specifics of an infrastructure bank. It is not in Bill C-29. We are also talking today about the budget document itself, and much of what is in the budget document is not in Bill C-29.

Let me just clarify for parliamentarians and those who may be watching us today across the country what Bill C-29 is.

I try to be as fair as possible in all circumstances, and I railed against the omnibus budget bills of the previous government such as the spring omnibus budget bill of 2012, Bill C-38, which changed more than 70 different laws and regulations and abolished important institutions of public policy such as the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. It did many things that were never referenced in the budget. It extended itself well beyond what a budget should usually do. This was the spring omnibus bill of 2012. The fall omnibus bill was Bill C-45, and it completely gutted the Navigable Waters Protection Act, while the spring omnibus bill gutted the Fisheries Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

I reflect on that just to say that there are different kinds of omnibus bills. There are illegitimate omnibus bills and there are bills that take into account many different measures but all flow from the budget. This is in the category of legitimate omnibus bills. There is nothing in here that is not required by what was in the budget document that we received last spring. Last spring's budget set out changes, particularly to the Canada child benefit. It set out changes to various aspects of the Income Tax Act. If Canadians were to pick up Bill C-29 and read it, I do not think I am making too much of a stretch to say that they would find nothing that would be alarming.

There are provisions to begin to understand how we measure carbon emissions in terms of emissions allowances, how taxpayers would account for that, and how Revenue Canada and the Department of Finance would account for that. There are certainly new rules for charities and extensions for what kinds of donations could be considered charitable donations. There are provisions that are purely to do with the tax code, as one would hope when one is looking at a budget bill.

It is not an illegitimate budget bill, but it does of course allow us to turn our attention to the budget and to reflect on what was there and what was not there in relation to the promises made in last year's campaign.

We are just about at the one-year mark for this new administration and it is fair to reflect at the one-year mark on policies related to budget matters today, so I will stay within the frame of budgetary matters in my presentation. However, I have to say, in providing commentary on Bill C-29, and I want to be honest with Canadians, there is nothing here that gets me worried or upset except for what is missing. I want to be clear about that.

What is missing is that the Liberal platform last year committed to getting rid of subsidies to fossil fuels. There were really only three bullet points under the Liberal platform commitment to climate action.

One bullet point was that they would attend at Paris and negotiate. The Liberals did that and they did it superbly. The second was that they would put in place a national carbon price, and that is a work in progress. I bemoan the fact that the starting price is $10 a tonne but the architecture of it is fair and will only top up those provinces that have failed to define how they want to price their emissions.

This missing piece really deserves much more attention.

The commitment was clear that subsidies for fossil fuels would come to an end. The 2016 budget on page 221 commits until the end of the period in which the previous government had already committed subsidies for a new class of subsidies for liquefied natural gas in 2015. Some may say that LNG, liquefied natural gas, is a fairly clean burning fossil fuel but when it comes from fracked gas, which the LNG industry in British Columbia is projected to come from, it has the same carbon footprint as coal. Seeing a provision in the legislation that would continue this well into the future is a concern. That should come to an end much sooner.

We also were promised a lot of spending on infrastructure but when we look at the actual budget figures, only one-tenth of what is promised on infrastructure will occur before the next election. I really am keen to hear what our finance minister is about to announce later today. If we are trying to stimulate the economy through investments in infrastructure, then we really have to make those investments in infrastructure and we have to do it sooner rather than later. We have only one chance of the money flowing to things like public transit, which we urgently need.

There is reference in the budget to a small amount of money over a two-year period for examining what we need to improve Canada's east-west electricity grid. We need that urgently. Canada is a big country and we tend to have far too many interprovincial barriers. We are familiar with talking about interprovincial barriers to trade but we do not think so much about the interprovincial barriers to electricity. Why is it that provinces struggling to go off coal are having trouble buying renewable energy from the province next door? We really do need to invest in what is a real nation building project. It would create jobs and the fastest root to de-carbonizing our electricity grid is to improve access across provincial boundaries.

We can look at the absurdity right now of what is going on in Newfoundland with respect to Muskrat Falls. Nalcor is building Muskrat Falls, and CEO Stan Marshall has already referred to Muskrat Falls as a boondoggle that should never have been built. Newfoundland will be coming cap in hand to the federal treasury to look for money to bail out that project but it will find that it is throwing good money after bad. Nova Scotia says it cannot shut down coal until it gets an underwater cable all the way from Muskrat Falls.

Hydro-Québec sits right next to the Atlantic provinces. Hydro-Québec's electricity could get exactly as far as Moncton, turn a switch, open up the electricity grid, and work out the financing. Part of the problem may be that Manitoba Hydro and Hydro-Québec prefer to sell south to the United States because sales to the U.S. do not affect their equalization payments. If we start thinking like a country, we might figure out how to maximize the benefit from electricity generated in one province and ease access in another.

Going off fossil fuels as quickly as possible should be a national goal, while at the same time ensuring that the fossil fuels we use in Canada are the ones manufactured and refined in Canada. We have the beginning of a made-in-Canada solution for our energy, for our workers, for the Alberta economy, if we are willing to invest in refineries instead of pipelines and take away the subsidies to fossil fuels as was promised.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the quick answer is yes. They should be consulting, but not for $1,500 a ticket.

What we need to do is have a real, meaningful consultation process. These are the lines we always hear. This has been done. We know that this process, the consultation that has taken place, and the things that have been rolled out now indicate to us that we do have an investment bank scheme. However, what kind of consultation has taken place? It is nice for me to tell the House what I think should happen. It is a little late. The member should read his Bill C-29.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the members who have taken part in the debate so far on Bill C-29, the second part of the Liberals' plan to implement and then break many of their election promises.

I will jump right in, though. The first thing I want to talk about is the indexation of the Canada child benefit. That is nice to see, because during the budget debate, I asked this question of almost every single Liberal government caucus member I could possibly ask. It was on page 240, annex 1 of the budget. The numbers are right there. They actually go down, starting in 2017-18, so it is nice to see that the government will be indexing this. It was something I was asking about repeatedly. Obviously the Liberals figured out that they had forgotten to index it to inflation. It is nice to see them listen sometimes, although I do note that the thresholds will only begin to be adjusted in 2020-21, so there will actually be a gap year for many families, who will lose access to the child benefit program.

As I said, it was a question I asked repeatedly. None of the members provided me with a cogent response to what I was trying to find out, but it is good to know that the Liberals are paying attention in the House and occasionally do change their policies.

Many government members today have lauded the government for their so-called middle-class tax cuts, but of course we know that the biggest bang for the buck, the most tax reduction, will be for those earning $199,000 and above. They will get the biggest tax credit out of this. It is nice to see that the Liberals are taking care of the people who probably can donate $1,500 for those special fundraisers they are occasionally hosting with lobbyists.

Those earning $199,000 and more are receiving the greatest tax cut. There is nothing in the budget for those earning under $45,000. Actually there is something for them, and it is a carbon tax, courtesy of this Liberal government. These are the people who are not getting a single tax credit. What they are getting instead is a brand new carbon tax, and according to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, it will cost the average household $2,569 by 2022. All of the tax credits for their kids that many of these families were taking advantage of will be gone. They are getting little in return, and are actually giving the government more of their after-tax pay. Then we have the CPP increases as well that will further reduce their ability to save and to pay for the day-to-day goods they need.

There is almost nothing in this budget on infrastructure, especially for Alberta. It is a pittance. When I hear the numbers for what the Liberals have actually spent on infrastructure in Alberta, it amounts to almost nothing. It reminds me that from fiscal years 1994-95 to 2005-06, the Liberals only delivered $351 million in aggregate to Albertans.

If we compare that to the Conservative government's record on infrastructure from 2005-06 to 2014-15, they delivered $3.4 billion in aggregate. When it comes to what Albertans need in public infrastructure spending in order to grow their economy locally, they know that the Conservatives have their best interests in mind. Here I am thinking in particular of the ring road that was built in Calgary and the ring road completed in Edmonton as well,

The past record of Liberal governments has been in very sharp contrast to what the Conservatives were able to do while in power, so what I am expecting over the next four years for Albertans from the government is pretty much nothing. Come election time, the Liberals will have to account for it. They will have to explain why they did so little for a province that right now is going through probably one of the sharpest recessions it has had in 35 years.

It started as what I would call a commodity downturn. Oil and gas is not so much a boom and bust business, but the prices do go up and they do go down. Maybe some are used to this. Albertans are used to this. This is not our first time going through a downturn. What is happening for the first time is that we have two levels of government that are intent on prolonging the pain, prolonging the recession.

I will just mention that 45% of organizations are now saying they will not hire more people. They will actually keep things the same. That is the lowest level this index, started by the Human Resources Institute of Alberta in 2014, has reached. It used to be under 20%. Most companies and organizations used to be growing all across the province, trying to hire more people. That is not happening today. Thankfully, 45% are saying they will keep the people they have, but many of them are still letting people go.

As a result of a policy decision by the Notley government provincially, it is making things worse and causing the downturn to turn into a full-blown recession.

I want to speak more about the Alberta HR trends report published this fall by the Human Resources Institute of Alberta. It has an interesting statistic, that the most common reason for leaving a workplace used to be termination without cause. That actually accounted for a significant proportion.

Two years ago, most Albertans were switching between jobs. There was so much opportunity out there that many people were switching jobs just for a few thousand dollars more in salary. The opportunities were there. If people wanted to work for a smaller company, they could do that. If they wanted to change the sectors they were working in, they could that. If they wanted to move their family to a different city, they could do that.

What can they do today? Not much of that anymore. They cannot do any of those things because of government decisions, the lack of pipeline approvals and the lack of negotiations on free trade agreements with countries where our commodities need to go. What the government is really doing is following through on what the previous Conservative government left for them to accomplish. There is nothing new going on.

Albertans need every single pipeline to be approved in order to get construction jobs from that, and so that oil and gas companies, the energy companies, have an opportunity to plan for the future, knowing whether or not they can move the commodity through a pipeline. Moving it by rail is extremely expensive. It cuts into the margins. They cannot have as many people working for them, and they cannot grow the companies.

Another interesting statistic is the temporary layoffs. This commonly happens in organizations as they try to adjust in a recession, which Alberta is going through again. Temporary layoffs are at an all-time high. That index, started by the Human Resources Institute of Alberta two years ago, is at at 25% now. The number of companies making temporary layoffs has grown. A quarter of all organizations in Alberta are now making temporary layoffs, laying off someone for three or six months, and then maybe, possibly getting them back.

When StatsCan reports this type of data, many people are being captured as employed but are actually not being paid. They do not have any earnings. They still have a job, nominally, to go back to, but that might be six months or a year down the line. They are not earning anything. They are just waiting and hoping that the economy will get better. However, that will not happen if these policy decisions by the federal government, as well as the provincial government, continue and do not improve.

Just looking at some of the indices that we have provincially, the year-to-year totals show the number of active drilling rigs is down by 50% in Alberta, down to 126; and the number of wells drilled, 163, is down 50% from last year. Another good indicator of manufacturing strength and the strength of the energy industry in Alberta is electricity generation, which is down 10% year over year. That is a drop in demand, not so much a drop in supply. The electricity generation stations are still there; they have not gone anywhere. The coal-powered plants are still there; they have not gone anywhere.

Another statistic I want to talk about is the number of employment insurance recipients. It is up 62% year over year. That 62.4% is a whopping number for Alberta. I do not see any activity from the government. If this were the arms trade, and I remember the debate on that, member after member would be getting up and speaking about how important the arms manufacturing industry was, the tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of good-paying, middle-class jobs at stake. What about good-paying, middle-class oil and gas energy worker jobs? Where is the concern on that side? What is in the budget for them?

I do not see anything that will help end the recession in Alberta and turn things around. All I see is continued constraint on pipelines for Alberta workers and Alberta companies. The unemployment rate is now 8.5%, up almost 2 percentage points year over year. In Calgary, it is almost 10%, or one in 10. In my area, I would say it is probably one in eight people I meet in my constituency office who are unemployed.

Half of the geo-scientists, geo-physicists, in the province are unemployed. That is who is unemployed today. Let us think about the next generation, the younger workers who are exiting university at this point. They have no jobs waiting for them. Their choice is to leave the country. We spent a generation building up our labour capacity, our HR capital, the ability and the knowledge of our workers, of our youth to take on these jobs and to work in these industries.

Now, we are going to lose them to other places. They are going to leave the province, possibly leave the country, and many will not return. We have spent a generation trying to build up that capacity, and now we are going to lose it because of the policy decisions of the government.

Even though 2.3 million Albertans are still employed, that is down 2%. If we think of large aggregate numbers, it is huge.

In this budget, I do not see much for Alberta workers. I do not see anything in this budget for the 122,000 Alberta energy workers who are unemployed and those in the indirect industries who support them, such as the people who fix and pay for uniforms.

I will be voting against this budget implementation bill. There is simply nothing in it for Alberta.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very honoured to rise and represent the people of Timmins—James Bay in discussing Bill C-29, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016.

It is fascinating, with the new Prime Minister. Besides his love of selfies, there are the words “middle class”. I do not think the Prime Minister ever gets up without saying “the middle class”. The Liberals have an interesting caveat: “and those wanting to join the middle class”. The whole government is supposedly about the middle class. I guess we have a different view, the Prime Minister and I, on what is the middle class.

I look at the implementation of the bill, and we see that the plan is to privatize public assets and sell off infrastructure. The Liberals did not run on that, but that somehow is going to help the middle class. It is failing to help small businesses, which most of us in Canada would agree is the backbone of the middle class.

When I look at the Liberals' original budget, when they brought in their middle-class tax break, if people earned $23 a hour or less, they got zero. If they made $50 to $100 an hour, they got the maximum bang for their buck. That discrepancy in value is the Prime Minister's notion of the middle class. I guess he and I just come from different places.

My family joined the middle class when my father was 42 years old. He was a miner's son, and my mother was a miner's daughter. In those days, the idea of going to university or college just was not on. My mom quit school at age 15 and went to work. My dad was working when he was 17, but when he was 40, he had enough money to go back to school. He became an economics professor.

That was the middle class: the belief that people could rise up. If they saved money and got an education, there would be something for them. What did the middle class look like for our family? It was seven people, three generations, living in a little townhouse in Scarborough, with a used car, but it was the middle class. It meant that my mom sometimes worked five days a week and sometimes Sunday to make sure that the bills were paid, but that was the middle class, because the middle class was about having the weekend, about having a pension, about being able to retire. It was a promise my father made that any one of his children could go to university without being burdened with debt.

I look at what this young generation is facing and at the erosion of the middle class, and I think something has significantly changed. Maybe the Prime Minister is not quite as in tune with that. Certainly his finance minister is not in tune with that, as he tells this young generation to suck it up and get used to the fact that they are not going to have pensions, that they are not going to have permanent work, and that they can live in the Uber economy. We have different views on the middle class.

We certainly have different views on the issue of small businesses. My wife and I ran a small business for 10 years. We paid the rent. We paid people who worked for us. There was never any money left over, but it was a good life, but it was hard.

The Prime Minister's notion of small business in the last election was that it was a tax dodge for millionaires. I was really shocked at how someone could be so out of touch on small business. He was talking about how millionaires set up front companies to avoid paying taxes. He would certainly know, as he set up three of these companies to his benefit: 90562 Canada Inc., which held his securities and investments; 7664699 Canada Inc., which was his personal holding company that listed $958,000 in short-term investments and $255,000 in cash; and JPJT Canada Inc., which brought in about $1.3 million over that period.

There is nothing wrong with making money. Certainly people should be able to make money, should be able to invest, but when his notion of a small business is a front that allowed him to get a break on taxes, it is very much out of touch with mom and pop operations. They work 50 and 60 hours a week, and their kids work there too. That is the disconnect. He promised that he was going to give a break to small business, but he did not.

The other area he promised a big break on in the election, when he was still running on the progressive platform, and we all remember that, was the closing of the corporate tax loopholes on stock options. Most Canadians do not have to deal with that, because most Canadians will never benefit from that. In fact, only about 8,000 insiders benefit. They benefit to the tune of $750 million a year in corporate tax breaks. The Prime Minister promised that he would close that, but of course, the finance minister, as soon as he was elected, told his pals and buddies on Bay Street that their interests were protected.

I think of that because I see a government that tells us that it cannot find $155 million to cover the shortfall in child welfare for children who are literally dying from a lack of mental health services and who are living in a broken foster care system. It cannot find $155 million for the 163,000 children who cannot get homes. However, it can find $750 million for 8,000 friends, probably many of whom know the finance minister.

While we are talking about tax breaks and the Liberals turning their backs on small businesses, a deep concern is their refusal to go after international tax havens.

One of the benefits in this bill, I notice, is that they will implement the multilateral competent authority agreement on reporting requirements for very large corporations. However, corporations only have to meet these kinds of reporting provisions if they are making over $750 million a year, which means that about 85% to 90% of the world's corporations will still slip under the radar. That is deeply concerning, because we see tax avoidance by the super-rich as one of the fundamental problems undermining the development of a progressive society, not just in Canada but around the world. We need to get serious about this, because more of these costs are being downloaded onto people who cannot escape the tax burden, people who, as the Prime Minister said, are part of that group that wants to be part of the middle class. If the Prime Minister were deeply serious about his commitment to the middle class, we would see him taking action to make sure that those who should be paying their share are paying their share and that those who are already paying too much of their share would get a break. However, that does not seem to be how this is working.

The Prime Minister promised a record amount of spending. This was going to be the Liberals' progressive vision. It was going to spend, spend, spend, but everyone has to pay for it someday, and they never explained how people would pay for it.

Now we have learned that the Liberal buzzword is “asset recycling”. I have the dictionary of weasel words, and I looked it up. “Asset recycling” is not in the dictionary of weasel words. It is a new weasel word that has come forward that the current government has embraced. It learned the weasel word from the expert on it, Kathleen Wynne, who ran on being a progressive and then started the sell-off of Ontario Hydro, which will be a hugely destructive process. We are actually seeing in our northern and rural regions of Ontario that people cannot pay for their hydro. However, that will not be a problem for insiders who have friends who will be buying into this.

I am deeply concerned about the Liberal government not being honest with Canadians. The Prime Minister never told Canadians that he would be looking at the implementation of toll roads, selling off bridges, and selling off airports. Who would the government be selling them to? It could be friends, perhaps, or foreign nations, who could be buying port authorities. Is this the idea of a progressive government? We saw this in Ontario with Highway 407, which has turned into such a huge boondoggle that we will be paying for it for the next 100 years, and it is making enormous profits year after year. In 2014, it made $887.6 million in revenue off Canadians who drive along a highway that could have been paid for with public spending and repaid to the taxpayer.

We need to have an honest discussion about what the government's plans are for the privatization of assets, because it will impact the bottom line for Canadians. It will impact services.

The fact that the Prime Minister was not honest with Canadians and did not explain how he would cover those costs is deeply troubling. We are seeing the first wave of that asset recycling.

I urge people in the rest of the country to pay attention to what happened with the Wynne government. Not only was there the sell-off of public resources; it was also doing cash for access to ministers. If we look at the front bench, they are a regular slot machine for industry types who go to private meetings and pay $1,500 to meet with them as the government is talking about contracts and is looking at the serious sell-off of assets. Who has their ear? It is not Mr. and Mrs. Ordinary on the streets of Canada. No, this is being done in corporate boardrooms.

Of all the outrageous things I saw with the previous government, it never tried to pull something like that, except once, with Bev Oda, but she gave the money back. However, these guys are carrying on, and that is not in the interest of the middle class.

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

Madam Speaker, I am always happy to take part in the discussions of the House.

I had the opportunity to spend a good part of yesterday afternoon here, and I heard the speeches on all sides. I remain a little perplexed at what the Liberals are saying.

For my part, I am here in the House to present a timeline of the evolution of the Liberal plan.

At the beginning of the election campaign, in August 2015, they were talking about a modest deficit that would allow the government of Canada to create employment, and enable the Canadian economy to prosper and develop some infrastructure projects. Later in that same election campaign, we were hearing that the deficit would be quite small, only $10 billion. Last March, we were hearing that all the services the government wanted to offer Canadians would cost taxpayers $30 billion. We are not counting the same things: this is not what Canadians had been promised.

Recently, we heard that the deficit might be $35 billion or even higher. I wonder if our prime minister is going to wake up one day. The deficit may be even higher because he doesn’t really know how to count. He is spending our money, taxpayers’ money, my money, my daughters’ money and my grandson’s money. He is spending extravagantly. There is very little left for Canadians. Now who is going to have to pay this bill? I am going to pay part of it, but the biggest share will be paid by future generations, those who come after us, my grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

To listen to the Liberals, there seems to be no problem: look, they want a beautiful Canada for our children! According to the Liberals, it’s nothing serious if they don’t have any money later — they will see to that later on. I don’t know what they are smoking, but in any case, we are stronger on this side of the House.

We should have seen economic growth in the wake of the Liberals’ spending. We should have seen a difference. Given all the money they have waved under our nose, we should have seen that difference. But instead, what we are seeing at this time is job losses across the country and infrastructure investments with nothing concrete accomplished. They promised a lot of money for infrastructure. No one on either side of the House has seen the first ground-breaking ceremony. If someone has, please tell me, because in my riding I can say that nothing has been done.

They have talked about programs which, according to the Liberals, are helping nine Canadians out of ten, programs that will be paid for by their new carbon tax. They had promised us job creation. But job creation is stagnant. We have just learned, from the finance minister himself, that future jobs, the jobs of our children and those to come after, will once again be unstable jobs, seasonal jobs. We are well paid, here in the House, as we represent our fellow citizens, but there is nothing concrete for those who will come after.

Where are the Liberals’ fine promises? They have hoodwinked us. They think that, when they get up, the good lord goes to bed. They think they are the best, but the best at what? They are the best at putting us in the red, that much is true. They are the best at taking pretty pictures with people. All very pleasant, but it doesn’t provide anything to eat or anything for our children.

The mismanagement of public funds does not stop there, under the Liberals. In Bill C-29, the Liberals are going to index the Canada child benefit to inflation starting in January 2020. The parliamentary budget officer has estimated that this indexing would cost $42.5 billion over the next five years. Where are the Liberals going to find that money? In the pockets of my daughters, whose jobs are already unstable? In the pockets of Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Smith who are working for a pittance? Where will they find that money? Growing on trees? The environment is very nice, but if they have a tree that grows money, I would like to have one in my yard. That is not the way things work. What will we have to do to pay for the Liberals’ extravagance? Stop eating? Will we tell people not to pay their electricity bill because the carbon tax is costing them a bundle? We shall see next month: we shall see how the budget will be balanced. Is this what Canada’s Liberals stand for?

Meanwhile, the cost of living is not stagnant. There are fewer jobs and the cost of living is going up. It’s a simple calculation: Canadians will no longer have the same quality of life. The previous government, on the other hand, believed in the ability of Canadians. It believed that Canadians could think for themselves and spend their money as they saw fit. Their money stayed in their pockets instead of in government coffers.

The Liberals talk a lot about the middle class. For them, the middle class is made up of those who earn $90,000 or more per year. We are part of the middle class. I can tell you that, in my riding, the middle class is quite a bit poorer than we are. The middle class does not have the means to go to $1500-a-plate fundraising parties just to meet the pretty little MP who smiles and takes nice photos. I would not engage in that sort of thing either, because I have far more integrity than the Liberals.

With the Liberals’ budget, we ought to have rules introduced to guarantee the long-term stability of the real estate market. Well, we shall see. The Liberals have also said that increasing contributions to the Canada pension plan will be good for the economic health of Canadians in the long term, that is, in 40 years. My 86-year-old mother is presently ill and hospitalized. She could use that money now. I don’t think she will still be here in 40 years. I don’t think she will be able to benefit from this. I think that this is more hoodwinking of Canadians coming from the government opposite.

I find it deplorable that the government members across the aisle are holding Canadians hostage with their lip service, their big smiles, and their sunny ways. Sooner or later we are going to hit a wall, and average Canadians will be left to pay for everything, even though they are not millionaires and have no money left despite how hard they work just to earn a living. I believe in Canadians' capacity to think for themselves. I am tired of centralist governments that think that if things are going well, they are responsible.

We have to be realistic and stop being partisan. We have to look at the facts: this government is putting us in the red. I want to repeat what I said last week; my father often used to say that heaven is blue and hell is red. I really have no desire to be in the red because of this government.

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

Madam Speaker, one of the issues that is covered in Bill C-29 is the indexing of the Canadian child benefit beginning in January 2020, which is four years from now. The parliamentary budget officer has estimated that this could cost an additional $42 billion over the next five years. In fact, it would double the original amount budgeted, yet the parliamentary secretary said the Liberals are going to go ahead with this measure regardless of what it is going to cost.

Where will the Liberal government find the money to pay for this inflated cost? Will it be through increased taxes, taxing our jobs and small businesses out of existence, or will it simply be to add to the budget deficit that is already ballooning and is currently at $30 billion? It is estimated that over the next 10 years, the interest costs alone on that deficit would increase by $10 billion. Where will the Liberals find the money to fund this promise?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, today I am speaking about C-29, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016, and other measures.

We are putting into action our promise to Canadians to help build a stronger and more prosperous middle class. This is what we have done over the past year, and it is what we will continue to do, not only over the next year but for the long term.

The government has an ambitious plan to better the middle class, and with that, the entire country. We have received support around the world on the steps we have taken, from the Financial Times, The Wall Street Journal, the OECD, and the IMF managing director, Ms. Lagarde, who cites Canada as a role model for its ability to mobilize all possible levers to generate growth.

This is possible because our government has taken measure of the situation by listening to Canadians in tough economic times. We have not hesitated to take action either. Since July 1, Canadians families can receive up to $6,400 per year for a child under six, and $5,400 per year for a child aged six to 17. Nine out of 10 families have seen their benefits increase by $2,300, on average.

That is why I am proud to return to Surrey and speak with my friends, neighbours, and colleagues about how budget 2016 will positively affect their lives. Surrey Centre is home to young families who are keen on making their homes and lives in Surrey, and as a national government we have a duty and responsibility to support them when and where we can. The new Canada child benefit is our government's response to this. We are putting forward a more generous, simpler, and income-tested benefit that benefits more Canadian families than ever before.

It is with a vision to the long term for our country that this second budget implementation bill would amend the Old Age Security Act. It would restore to 65 the age of eligibility for old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. In this way, Canadians would have thousands of dollars more when they retire at the age of 65. Better yet, the 2016 budget would increase the amount to the guaranteed income supplement, which targets the most vulnerable seniors, providing up to $947 more per year.

With this second budget 2016 implementation bill before us today, we are delivering on the promise, set out in budget 2016, to support senior couples who must live apart for reasons beyond their control. If one member is located in a long-term care centre and find themselves suddenly faced with new and unexpected expenses, we are putting forward a proposal that ensures that they receive high benefits, based on the individual incomes of each individual. Again, the government is true to its promise of fairness to seniors and allowing them to retire with the dignity that they so deserve.

Our plan stimulates growth by giving more financial leeway to those who need it: middle-class families and seniors. Canadians also need to feel supported and protected as consumers. The federal government is showing leadership with the bill, as it would strengthen the framework that protects consumers who use financial products and services. We want to ensure that Canada's financial sector is capable of adapting to an aging population in an age of globalization, while still innovating and using the emerging technologies that challenge existing business models.

These new measures would include: first, improving access to basic banking services; second, imposing limits with respect to certain commercial practices; and third, finally improving disclosure of information to help consumers make better and more informed decisions.

Canadians also expect that financial institutions in this country have the means and resources to ensure that the integrity of our tax system is maintained. It is to ensure that everyone pays their fair share of taxes, and when I say everyone, I also include multinationals that operate in many jurisdictions. That is why our government is committing to working with our G20 partners to develop and implement an international plan to fight tax evasion and tax avoidance. It is a plan that will enhance our current measures and adopt new ones.

One of the key instruments behind our government's plan on cracking down on tax evasion is to help support the G20 and OECD declarations on tax evasion. This is an instrument that will force major companies to report on their activities in each jurisdiction in which they operate as well as the nature of these activities. This will also allow Revenue Canada to have a global view of these large multinational corporations. This is the first in the fight on tax evasion.

I should also add that the 2016 budget provides another important measure to counter tax evasion, allowing Canada to be part of the global standard for the automatic exchange of information, which was developed by the OECD. When this law is passed and these new measures are applied, Canadian financial institutions can and will identify accounts held by non-residents and will have to report these accounts to Revenue Canada.

Meanwhile, foreign financial institutions will collect more information on accounts held by foreigners, including Canadians. There are more than 100 countries and jurisdictions, including the Cook Islands, which just last week became the 106th jurisdiction to join the most powerful international instrument against offshore tax evasion and avoidance.

This government is putting forward a plan that is based on fairness. It would provide Canadians with an optimistic view of the future. We are working to ensure that Canada continues to move forward and lead the international community, particularly with the implementation of our bold economic policies that put a focus on growing the middle class to ensure the prosperity of our country.

I encourage all members to vote for the bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to debate Bill C-29, budget implementation act, 2016, No. 2, the Liberal government's first budget, which was much criticized and the source of much disappointment.

This budget implementation bill addresses many issues. Given that it is more than 250 pages long, I will focus on just a few of its elements, such as the OECD country-by-country reporting implementation announced in budget 2016. A number of other countries are participating in this project, which will fight tax evasion, a crucial issue.

I will also speak a little about the Canada child benefit, which was changed a bit in the budget implementation bill in response to some harsh criticism. Finally, I will try to speak to the principle of asset recycling, which was announced in the budget. This term is synonymous with Canadian infrastructure privatization.

Let us talk about country-by-country reporting. As I said, the idea comes from the OECD and has to do with multinationals that do business around the world, of course, through numerous subsidiaries. Unfortunately, some unscrupulous accountants and tax experts strive to make a living from getting around tax rules and finding the best way for multinationals to avoid paying their fair share of taxes in countries where they nonetheless benefit from public services and infrastructure, such as highways and airports. They also benefit from the money of taxpayers and employees who live in those countries. They do not pay their fair share of taxes and manage to evade the tax system.

Country-by-country reporting ensures that the subsidiaries of a same multinational whose annual revenues are 750 million euros or more are subject to new rules. Some experts criticized this threshold saying it was too high. Seven hundred and fifty million euros annually is a substantial amount. It is estimated that between 10% and 15% of multinational companies around the world meet this criteria. In other words, 85% of businesses will not be subject to these new rules since their revenues do not reach this 750-million euro threshold.

That being said, the companies concerned will have to report information in the countries where they are located. Again, there are a number of ways to avoid that. There are companies with “non-resident” status for tax purposes. Tax experts already have the means to get around the rules. Nonetheless, this reporting will ensure that these multinationals declare their revenues and how many employees they have in every country. This will help the Canadian government and other governments find disparities in the numbers.

Take for example a company that does very little business in a given country but reports all of its profits there. I will not name a country, but let us say that it is a Caribbean country with a small population where there is not a lot of business activity. In that case, country-by-country reporting would show us how much profit that company is making.

That would allow the world governments to identify discrepancies in tax returns and determine which companies could be committing tax evasion or abusing the transfer pricing principle, that is, when many subsidiaries of the same multinational corporation exchange services or bill each other for royalties or patent rights and then report their profits in countries with much lower tax rates.

This measure is still a step in the right direction. Although many other measures were presented to the OECD, this one was discussed and it is relatively good, aside from the threshold of 750 million euros. That was strongly criticized.

Some people mentioned that this amount could be lowered to $60 million. Take for example the Association of Canadian Financial Officers, which recommended lowering that threshold to $60 million a year and requiring the multinationals in question to provide the Canada Revenue Agency with more detailed information on their activities in every country.

I would like to mention that the Canada Revenue Agency should also publish this information so that Canadians can see the fiscal arrangements of these multinationals that they do business with on a daily basis. It might be interesting for consumers to have the option of looking at the tax practices of the stores they shop in at the mall.

I said I was going to talk about the Canada child benefit in my speech. I want to criticize the fact that this benefit was not indexed. When it was announced, there was no plan to index this benefit, and that was strongly criticized by experts, obviously.

Fortunately, after hearing these criticisms, the Liberals incorporated indexing into the budget implementation bill, indexing that will not take effect until 2020, unsurprisingly. They admitted their mistake, saying that it was not a good idea, that they had forgotten about indexing, and that they were not going to include it until 2020. What a huge oversight!

This will certainly have a major impact on families in Sherbrooke who receive this benefit. They will see a decrease in the real value of their benefits, which will remain at the same level until 2020. The cost of living is rising in Sherbrooke, as is the cost of groceries. People regularly tell me that their grocery bills are climbing, and that their incomes are unchanged. Their purchasing power is shrinking, and this mistake will not help the situation in Sherbrooke.

We hope that this will be corrected once again, and that the Liberals will listen to reason on this issue, just as they listened to reason in the case of very clear, concise arguments about the lack of indexing. So I do not see why they would not listen to reason on the idea that indexing should be introduced earlier, or even immediately.

On another note, I also wanted to talk about the issue of asset recycling, an expression used by the government in the 2016 budget document tabled in the House to announce the government’s plans for the following year. A number of people have wondered about the expression “asset recycling”. What does “asset recycling” really mean?

We have also heard rumours about the Canada Infrastructure Bank, which the Liberals talked about during the election campaign. They had previously alluded to this project to establish a Canada Infrastructure Bank. Perhaps we will hear more about this in today’s economic statement.

However, the government is considering the idea of privatizing existing infrastructure, which is known as asset recycling. Privatizing government assets or putting them back in private hands generates revenue for the government. How do you generate revenue from infrastructure? By introducing a fee system. That is how you can successfully bring in revenue.

The same principle would be applied to the Canada Infrastructure Bank, so that it could continue to grow and we could continue to invest. Obviously, private investors will demand a good return on their investment. To get a return on infrastructure, you put in pay stations so that users have to pay to use the infrastructure, which should be public and accessible to everyone.

As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, every person should pay his or her fair share of tax. If we pay income taxes, it is for the purpose of getting services from the government, and we should not have to pay a second time when the government provides services to us.

I hope the government will listen to reason on this issue as well.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to further explore the hon. member's comment that Bill C-29 would ensure that Canadians are protected financially, and that this is an ideal time for Canada to invest in its future.

Is the member concerned at all that Bill C-29 speaks to the Liberals' infrastructure bank as a scheme that would use private and public financing? The issue of privatization inherent to terminology like “asset recycling” is of great concern. Could the member speak to that issue and how it conflicts with the financial security of Canadians?

[Raj Grewal, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-29, an act to amend certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016.

I was elected to the House just over a year ago with all of my colleagues with the purpose of speaking up and advocating for the priorities of our local constituents. For me, they happen to be the wonderful people of Brampton East. My constituents are varied, ranging from young families trying to join or stay in the middle class to students and young Canadians entering the workforce, parents whose kids are growing up and leaving home, people planning for retirement, and seniors who too often worry about their finances.

In the last year we have taken monumental steps toward real change for all of these groups. We have cut taxes for close to nine million Canadians, introduced the Canada child benefit, increased student grants for low and middle-income families, and increased monthly payments for seniors. We are ensuring that Canadians today and tomorrow will be able to live comfortably and confidently. We need to build on this momentum.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Finance, I have had the opportunity to go through two pre-budget consultations. The first was in February, which gathered 92 witnesses in Ottawa, whom we heard from for over four days. These witnesses included individuals, NGOs, first nations advocates, and other valued groups. We also received 172 submissions online from individuals and groups. The responses we received varied in topic. The committee concluded its work with a report that offered 56 recommendations, many of which were included in the budget and this second implementation act.

We were elected one year ago on an ambitious new plan for a strong middle class and promised that we would do all that we could to help every Canadian succeed. Budget 2016 is an important part of fulfilling that promise. It offers immediate help to those who need it and it lays out the groundwork for sustained and inclusive economic growth that will benefit Canada's middle class and those working hard to join it.

Over the summer I knocked on doors every Tuesday throughout August with a team of volunteers. This allowed me to check in with the wonderful residents of Brampton East about their priorities for their families, their community, and future generations. This legislation would help those very same people we meet each day at the door, at our office, and at local events.

This second budget implementation act proposes items that would complete the implementation of outstanding measures from the Government of Canada's first budget, “Growing the Middle Class”. This legislation contains significant changes for seniors, improvements to protect Canadian consumers, tax fairness for Canadians, and last but not least, help for low and middle-income families with children.

The Canadian Association of Retired Persons estimates that roughly 600,000 seniors are living in poverty in Canada. This is far too many. Canadians would be shocked by that number. These seniors are our parents, our neighbours, our relatives, and our friends. For this reason, the government has made significant new investments to support seniors in their retirement years. Increased benefits will ensure that Canadian seniors have a dignified, comfortable, and secure retirement.

In Bill C-29 we are ensuring that Canadians would be protected financially by strengthening and modernizing the financial consumer protection framework in our country. Canadian families weathered the 2008 financial crisis fairly well because of our strong financial sector. We will build on this strength by ensuring that our financial structure is able to adapt to new trends, incorporate emerging financial innovations and technologies, and challenge existing business models, and more.

The bill would also modernize the financial consumer protection framework by clarifying and enhancing consumer protection. It would do so through amendments to the Bank Act to enhance consumer protection in the areas of access to banking services, business practices, disclosures, complaints handling, as well as corporate governance and accountability.

Of great importance to me is that this legislation is about fairness, one of Canada's fundamental values.

The bill ensures that the government has a plan to combat international tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance through new measures, while building on efforts that are currently being made both here in Canada and abroad. This work will help protect all Canadians and ensure that everyone pays their fair share. Canada has the lowest debt to GDP ratio of any G7 country and interest rates are at historic lows. Now is the ideal time for Canada to invest in its future.

Last but not least, the bill ensures that Canadian families will have a little more help with the high cost of raising children through the new Canada child benefit. Simpler, tax-free, and more generous than the existing federal child benefits it will replace, the Canada child benefit will give nine out of 10 Canadian families higher monthly payments and will lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty. This benefit will be indexed starting in 2020. We listened to the passionate advocates who said that the CCB must be indexed to inflation. As a result, supporting this budget implementation bill will help ensure that the Canada child benefit will be indexed to inflation so that families can count on the extra assistance, not just today but for years to come.

To conclude, the bill continues to deliver on this government's plan to ensure that Canadians are well served and that more Canadians will be able to join the middle class. With these investments and inspired by a sense of fairness, we are ensuring that Canada's best days lie ahead. I look forward to supporting the bill and I urge all my hon. colleagues to do the same.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I feel it is important for me to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-29, which implements the measures announced in the budget presented back in March.

This budget was supposed to have a deficit of about $10 billion, but that figure is not even close to reality. The Liberal government is therefore not keeping the promises it made during the election, because it said that it would run deficits of about $10 billion a year for three years. In just the first year, it will run a deficit of $30 billion or more. The amount will probably be announced this afternoon in the government's economic statement. Not only is the government adding to the Canadian debt and placing the burden on future generations, but it is also failing to meet its commitments. More importantly, the desired results are not being achieved. Economic growth is weak at this time. Job creation targets are not being met. We have heard that the shortfall in terms of the job creation target and the actual number of jobs created is 50,000.

The economy has ground to a halt, despite the government's budgetary measures. The government spent and then spent some more. The Bank of Canada, economists at the IMF, and the OECD have all downgraded their economic forecasts for Canada for the next two years.

The current unemployment rate is 7% and has remained unchanged since the Liberals came to power. The parliamentary budget officer's report entitled “Labour Market Assessment 2016” indicates that 6,000 net jobs were lost over the past year. The government projected that 43,000 jobs would be created during that same period. That is a shortfall of 50,000 jobs, which is just terrible because we are here to create jobs. The government is spending money with no job creation to show for it.

The government should have immediately realized and admitted that it was and is going down the wrong path and changed tack. There is nothing wrong with recognizing one's mistakes and correcting them. There has been no indication so far that the government is going to fix its mistakes.

The government thought it could authorize the deficit with the stroke of a pen, but it has to answer to the opposition. The economic situation speaks for itself. It seems like the government cannot balance the budget. What I said yesterday during my three-minute speech is that the government thinks that budgets balance themselves. Anyone who manages a budget, whether it is a family budget or a business budget, knows full well that budgets do not balance themselves. There needs to be a plan to return to balanced budgets. Yesterday, not a single member was able to project a balanced budget in any way. The government seems to think that wishful thinking will balance the budget, but that is just not so.

I am still an entrepreneur. I am the co-owner of a business that employs 25 people. One thing I know for sure is that the government plans to impose new taxes. It has said as much. It also broke its promise to lower the small business tax rate from 11% to 9%. This would have helped businesses innovate and invest in new equipment to improve productivity.

I understand very well what that means because in the last few years that the Conservative government was in power, there were many tax cuts. This made it possible for us to continue to invest more and to create jobs. That is the complete opposite of what the government said it would do and, unfortunately, it did not follow through. In fact, it made an election promise to lower the small business tax rate from 11% to 9%, which it has broken.

That is making things difficult for businesses and it is really detrimental to job creation. The government increases taxes and does not lower the business tax. In a sense, that is tantamount to double taxation.

Then there is the carbon tax. This tax will be devastating for job creation not just for me, as an entrepreneur, but for all Canadians. On top of that, we have the mandatory increase in CPP contributions to look forward to.

This will have a negative impact on SME start-ups like mine. Actually, my business is not all that new. It is 25 years old. That being said, all of Canada's SMEs will have to pay higher CPP premiums for all of their workers and they will feel the effects. For me, this measure will mean that I will have to pay $1,000 a year per employee, for a total of about $25,000 a year. That represents most of one of my employee's salary. It is perhaps a little less but it is around there. That means that I might have to cut jobs. Given that SMEs are the backbone of the Canadian economy, imagine what will happen if they are all in the same situation as me.

I may be unable to absorb the cost of the CPP hike from my business profits, and I might eventually have to cut jobs. If all of Canada's SMEs have the same reaction, there are going to be job losses. Some economists already think that at least a hundred thousand jobs will be lost. What is worse is that the benefits of the CPP hike will not even be felt for 30 or 40 years.

This is a major problem for SMEs, and businesses are very concerned to see all these taxes adding up.

I would like to come back to the carbon tax. Businesses will not be the only ones affected. All Canadians will be. The cost of the carbon tax that companies have to pay will inevitably be passed on to consumers. The price of all consumer goods, including gas, will go up so that businesses can continue to offer the same products.

Many of the measures that the Liberals have put in place are contradictory, and unfortunately, Canadians will be the ones who pay the price.

The House resumed from October 31 consideration of the motion that Bill C-29, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to get up. It is really difficult, following that last speaker.

I congratulate the hon. member on being welcomed to the House, but I have to say I think he needs a bit of a history lesson. While listening to the hon. member talk about all the wonderful things the Conservatives did, I tried to reflect back, off the top of my head, on what that was.

What sticks out most to me was the “65 to 67”, talking about seniors' pensions and changing the age of eligibility from 65 to 67. To me, that signifies what the Conservatives were about for the whole 10 years. Things like that are very significant moves. To them, it meant very little. The Conservatives did not think people needed to get their pension at 65, that it just was wasted money, and that they could hold off until they were 67. They clearly did not speak to the people in my riding or in many other ridings, and I suspect that was the case in the member's riding. We could talk about struggling and poverty, and all of the other issues around that.

We will possibly have an opportunity to talk about other issues to do with budgets in the upcoming weeks. However, I am here tonight to talk in favour of Bill C-29 for two key reasons. First, the budget places my priorities, and my community's priorities, up front. Families, children, seniors, students, and small business-owners are all at the heart of our national financial plan. They are all the focus of this budget and this government's work.

As promised, the government's priority is the middle class and those working hard to join it. Unlike the twisted priorities of the Harper government that we heard about earlier, Liberals know that true economic success must be felt in only one place, around the kitchen table, when people are talking about how well they are doing or how poorly they are doing. It is not just about boardroom tables. Bill C-29 attempts to redirect the focus from the boardroom table to the kitchen table.

Now, just like any budget implementation bill, Bill C-29 is somewhat complex, but at its heart there are some important measures that directly impact middle-income families in my riding of Humber River—Black Creek. For example:

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.

We have often heard of elderly couples, and how when one of them has to go to a nursing home, they are separated, which of course affects the pension at the end of the day. This would correct that. This would mean seniors would not be financially punished for medical realities faced as a consequence of something as simple as their age. This would put money back into the hands of seniors at a time when they need it the most.

Similarly, there is a focus on the middle class:

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....

Bill C-29 would also restructure the way the benefit is calculated by adding an eligibility formula based on income and the number of children. This may seem minor, but I assure members that the change is quite substantial for low- and middle-income families. We will hear a lot from those families as a year or two or three of our government passes, because it is going to substantially help the very people we want to join the middle class.

Again, the Liberals are proposing measures that put more money into the hands of young families working hard to put food on that table I referred to, to pay the rent, and to give their kids the opportunity for a great future.

I understand the complexity of these measures, but the impact on Canadians is anything but hard to understand. It has been just over a year since the Liberals were elected, but I can say that it has made a huge difference throughout Canada. No matter where we go, people are optimistic and they are hopeful. Our commitments are being implemented one at a time, every day.

I say this because Liberals understand that a strong economy starts with a strong middle class. When middle-class Canadians have more money to save, to invest, and to grow the economy, everyone benefits. That is what Bill C-29 is all about.

Many middle-class Canadians are working harder than ever, but simply not getting ahead. For nearly a decade, the previous government ignored the middle class and directed all recovery efforts toward big business. Its philosophy was one of reducing taxes for businesses and that these businesses would somehow reinvest that money into employing more people. It did not happen, no matter how much it wished that it would. This strategy had limited success on Bay Street, but ignored everyone living on Main Street.

Today, there is a growing consensus in Canada and around the world that governments need to invest not only to boost economic growth in the short term but to set the stage for long-term growth as well. Canada has the lowest debt to GDP ratio of any G7 country, and interest rates are at a historic low. Now is the ideal time for Canada to invest in future successes for our country.

As I have already mentioned, a strong economy starts with a strong middle class. People are not afraid to work hard, but hard work needs to hold the promise of an improved standard of living. This is the place for government now to really lend a hand. A strengthened middle class means that hard-working Canadians can look forward to a good standard of living and better prospects for their kids. This is not a terribly complex concept. Our changes to the CPP are one example of looking forward to being able to ensure that our children and grandchildren will have a better future.

When we have an economy that works for the middle class, we have a country that clearly will work for everyone. Now, more than ever, it is important that post-secondary education remains affordable and accessible. Young Canadians must have access to meaningful work at the beginning of their careers and not be burdened by increasing student debt. Budget 2016 makes post-secondary education more affordable for students from low and middle-income families and would make it easier for them to repay their student debt. Budget 2016 would also help young Canadians gain experience and extra income and find good jobs after their education.

Canada's employment insurance program provides economic security to Canadians when they need it most. Whatever their circumstances, no Canadian should struggle to get the assistance they need. To make sure that Canadians get the help they need when they need it, several changes are proposed to the current El system. Changes to eligibility rules would make it easier for new workers and those re-entering the workforce to claim benefits. To ease the burden, the Government of Canada would extend employment insurance benefits in regions affected by localized challenges. The waiting period would also be reduced from two weeks to one week. This would provide unemployed workers with hundreds of dollars more, at the time they need it most.

However, the goals of budget 2016 are not restricted to just seniors, students, or the unemployed. Budget 2016 is about shifting to a new way of looking at national fiscal success. We want to give Canadian families more help with the high cost of raising children. This is why the government promised the new Canada child benefit. We want to give Canadians a simpler, tax-free, and more generous benefit. This is why we replaced an ineffective boutique tax system with the tax-free Canada child benefit. As just one example, under the new Canada child benefit, nine out of 10 Canadian families will receive higher monthly benefits, and hundreds of thousands of children will be lifted out of poverty.

This past weekend, I hosted a public consultation with families in my riding. We talked about the issues that mattered most to them. In a nutshell, they are not asking for wealth or for fancy programming. The families, students, seniors, and new Canadians living in my riding are simply asking for a fair chance and a hand up. They need a partner to help them when times are difficult. This is precisely what Bill C-29 is attempting to do.

I am pleased to be part of a government that clearly recognizes the challenges that Canadians are facing, one that is determined to make the investments that are possible so people can move forward in a positive way and our young people are encouraged that there will be very good jobs out there for them and a chance to get a good quality education.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, today I join my voice to that of my colleagues as we continue our dutiful work of adequately informing Canadians on Bill C-29, which seeks to implement the series of budgetary measures and tax changes announced in budget 2016, tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016. In so doing, we want to present Canadian taxpayers with the real, alarming, and absolutely catastrophic economic situation the Liberal government has willingly and irresponsibly put us Canadians in.

It is unbelievable that after being in power one year, this government has spent the Conservative government's surplus, which was $2.9 billion in March 2016. The Liberals lied to all voters of this beautiful country when it told them that, if they voted for the Liberal Party of Canada, they would be choosing a government that would run a slight deficit of $10 billion in the first year and that in four years it would balance the budget. Today, October 31, 2016, that is a lie. According to its budget for year one, the government expects to end the fiscal year in March with a deficit that is not the same, not double, but triple the deficit forecast in the March 2016 budget. That is huge — about $30 billion. The experts who I trust much more than this government are forecasting a deficit of between $34 billion and $40 billion.

Our Prime Minister said that he has no idea of just how big the deficit is going to be. He is the prime minister of one of the most beautiful countries in the world, Canada, and he does not know when the wasteful spending will stop. I hope members will realize that that is irresponsible.

Tomorrow is All Saints' Day and All Souls' Day, and the Minister of Finance is going to unveil his economic update. Will he resurrect valiant Canadians of generations past, the ones that built our beautiful country? Will he tell them that the Liberal government is destroying Canada, this beautiful country that our dearly departed built by the sweat of their brow? Stay tuned.

For several months this government has been boasting of having put in place the largest infrastructure program to help our businesses create jobs. Today, we have a 7% unemployment rate. Let us ask them the question. What was the unemployment rate last year when the Conservatives were in power? It was 7%. What is the supposed benefit of the astronomical cost of the infrastructure program? There is none. It is unacceptable to make people believe that they are creating jobs.

The Liberals doubled the size of the summer jobs program last summer. They poured twice as much money into the program. They have plenty of money; they print the stuff. What happened? The unemployment rate is the same as last year. If they had not doubled the budget for the summer jobs program, what would have happened? Quite simply, unemployment would have gone up. I am not an economist, a tax expert, or a numbers expert, but I am a common sense expert, which is why my constituents voted for me.

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

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I did use the Prime Minister's name, and I apologize. I got a little carried away in my fervour, but I will not let that happen again.

Still, I can talk about former prime ministers, including former Liberal prime minister Paul Martin. Internationally, he was seen as indecisive, but he found ways to pass more legislation as he tried to keep his struggling minority government afloat. During his first nine months in government, 36 bills became law.

How about another one? During Liberal prime minister Jean Chrétien's first nine months in office, 34 bills received royal assent in 1994, and 38 more were passed after the 1997 election. The current Prime Minister has managed to pass a mere 10 bills.

It is with that in mind that we begin our study of Bill C-29. This being a budget implementation bill, one would expect to find the government's promises in it. It should include massive infrastructure investments, a modest deficit, tax cuts for small businesses, home mail delivery, an agreement on diafiltered milk, a softwood lumber agreement, and plenty more. Unfortunately, none of those things are in Bill C-29.

No one could tell me where those promises came from. From the beginning, the opposition has been reminding everyone and repeating the same thing. I took the time to confirm everything and went back a year in time to see exactly what these infamous Liberal promises were. I found a lot. I do not understand why they have not introduced more legislation, considering all the promises the Liberal Party made during the last election campaign.

First of all, let us talk about modest deficits. On page 11 of the Liberal plan, or what I call the Liberal void, it states:

We will invest now in the projects our country needs and the people who can build them.

They do say “now”, and not in 10 years or five years. Page 12 continues:

We will run modest short-term deficits of less than $10 billion in each of the next two fiscal years to fund historic investments in infrastructure and our middle class.

After the next two fiscal years, the deficit will decline and our investment plan will return Canada to a balanced budget in 2019.

That is one promise the Liberal government has broken. There was another promise about modest deficits. It is worth reading. Page 73 states:

We will be honest about the government of Canada’s fiscal position, and base our projections on the recent report by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, instead of April’s outdated budget figures.

If the parliamentary budget officer is so important to the Liberals, why did they refuse, about 50 times, to allow the parliamentary budget officer's reports to be tabled right here, before parliamentarians?

Once again, they say one thing, but then do the exact opposite once they are in power. There is another interesting promise on the same page:

We will run modest deficits for three years so that we can invest in growth for the middle class and credibly offer a plan to balance the budget in 2019.

That is just one more promise the Liberals have broken.

To sum up deficits, I will quote someone who is not an opposition member. A TD Bank representative said:

The federal government’s deficit this fiscal year will be about $5 billion higher than Ottawa predicted in its March budget...

That is what the TD Bank is predicting. It blames the sluggish economy. According to TD Bank:

Over a five-year span, the cumulative deficit is likely to be $16.5 billion higher than forecasted in the last budget.

The forecast in the last budget was not $10 billion. It was not a modest deficit of $10 billion annually, but $30 billion annually. TD Bank tells us it will be even higher:

The higher-than-expected deficit will soak up the $6-billion annual cushion and then some that the government built in to its finances to protect against unforeseen events.

This could go beyond that even. The Liberals promised modest deficits, but I have to say that they did not keep their word.

As such, when it comes to budget implementation, the opposition parties feel quite reticent about trusting the other measures contained in Bill C-29.

Nonetheless, let us move on because there were other promises in the Liberal plan, or the “Liberal void” I should say. The plan says, “As we reduce the small business tax rate to 9 percent from 11 percent...”. Not only did the government not reduce the small business tax rate to 9%, but it imposed a tax on carbon which will greatly hinder small and medium sized businesses in Canada. That is another broken promise.

With regard to agricultural producers, we find this little sentence on page 16: “We will help Canada’s agriculture sector be more innovative, safer, and stronger.” How will they help the agricultural sector be stronger? They will “defend Canadian interests during trade negotiations, including supply management.”

The diafiltered milk problem was an urgent issue and a solution had to be found. The solution was simple, but it lay in the hands of ministers. Unfortunately, despite the numerous promises of the Liberal government and the fact that producers from all over Quebec and Canada came right here, to Ottawa, to practically beg for action on diafiltered milk, there is not even a single measure in the budget on this subject. There we have another broken promise of the Liberal government.

In the softwood lumber file, a file that directly impacts every region of Canada that has trees, those magnificent works of nature that grow and enable us to develop our economy, we were supposed to conclude an agreement. We had one year to try to reach an agreement with the Americans. Unfortunately, Bill C-29 contains absolutely nothing on the possible implementation of a new softwood lumber agreement.

However, the Liberal platform says, “Canada’s economic success relies on strong trade relationships with our closest neighbours: the United States and Mexico.”

Furthermore, the next sentence is really worth quoting: “Unlike the Conservatives’ short-sighted approach, our focus on rebuilding relationships will build a solid foundation for greater trade, stronger growth, and more job creation.”

Here is one last little sentence: “To underscore the importance of the United States to Canada, we will also create a Cabinet committee to oversee and manage our relationship.”

We have no results on the two issues that concern the Americans, softwood lumber and diafiltered milk. Where is this committee? What is it doing? Does it exist? Unfortunately, I must once again say that this is another unkept promise by the Liberals.

I still have many pages of broken promises to mention. Let’s talk a bit about Canada Post. On page 34 of the “Liberal void”, we read: “By ending door-to-door mail delivery, Stephen Harper is asking Canadians to pay more for less service. That is unacceptable.”

One year later, absolutely nothing has changed on mail delivery. The decisions that were made by the Canada Post Corporation, an independent organization, are still the same, and home mail delivery has nowhere been restored. Once again, these are false pretexts and another promise not kept.

This is what they had to say about Iraq: “We will end Canada's combat mission in Iraq.” They withdrew our CF-18s and sent our soldiers to the front, where they are in even greater danger. We had decided to send our jets to protect Canadian soldiers. However, they decided to withdraw our planes, for strictly ideological reasons, and to send our soldiers to the front lines instead, to help the fighters there do their part. Yes, Canada must be involved, but could we have the facts? Could we be told exactly what we are doing in Iraq? This is another promise that was broken by the Liberal government.

Last week, here, in the House, I witnessed some things that impressed me. Some Liberal members introduced very interesting bills that were given the nod by cabinet.

The bill to provide a tax credit for first aid courses was of interest to me. Cabinet members voted against the bill introduced by one of their own members even though we find the following on page 30 of the Liberal platform:

We will make free votes in the House of Commons standard practice.

We will give Canadians a stronger voice in the House of Commons by limiting the circumstances in which Liberal Members of Parliament will be required to vote with Cabinet.

I am convinced that cabinet members did not read these lines because they voted against the bill of one of their own colleagues. It did not happen once or twice, but three times. It is important to mention that the promise to have free votes is, once again, a broken promise.

The Canada child benefit will not give rise to any new administrative costs. It replaces and is based on the structure and success of the Canada child tax benefit.

In Bill C-29, the Liberals confirmed that they are going to index the Canada child benefit to inflation as of January 2020. The parliamentary budget officer estimates that indexing the Canada child benefit will cost $42.5 billion over the next five years. The parliamentary secretary said that they are going to move forward with the measure despite the financial pressure it puts on the public purse. The government did not provide for this indexing in the budget. The parliamentary budget officer showed that it will cost billions of dollars more than predicted per year. Where will the Liberals find that money? The Liberals have shown us where they will get it from the outset. They will find it in Canadians' pockets.

When the Minister of Finance introduced Bill C-29, he spoke about the future. He said that the purpose of the bill was to help Canadians. He spoke about a long-term plan and how things will be tough in the short term. In fact, this is going to cost Canadians a lot of money in the short term.

Let us talk a little bit about the vision of the Minister of Finance. I was shocked to read his comments in the Edmonton Sun this weekend. The article spoke about the Minister of Finance and talked about what young people and not-so-young people would do with all the time they will save as a result of technology. As everyone knows, today's technology allows us to do a lot more than before in much less time. Back in the day, we thought that would give young people more leisure time. However, the reality is quite the opposite. The Minister of Finance was asked some questions. I will read a brief excerpt from what he said, but before I do, I would like to say that I think that all young people should take the time to read this article.

The other day, Finance Minister...told Millennials, the generation most-addicted to high technology and social media, that they had best get used to a series of dead-end jobs and continuous retraining, coupled with bouts of unemployment, and a life where job security is a pipe dream.

That is unbelievable. What kind of message is the government sending our young people?

He called it “job churn,” as in never-ending job losses and job searches, resume rejections, and living day-to-day....

The Liberal plan for youth is to teach them to get fired, get a new job, get fired, get a new job, and so on. Is that the Liberal job-creation plan? Every new hire-and-fire will count as a new job. That creates zero jobs and puts us no further ahead.

The article quoted the Minister of Finance. Is that supposed to make young people feel hopeful?

The Minister of Finance said this:

“We need to think about, How do we train and retrain people as they move from job to job to job?”.... “Because it’s going to happen. We have to accept that.”

No, we do not have to accept that. Our young people have the right to stable jobs. Our young people have the right to work. Like us, they have the right to have a career, to succeed, and to hope for something better than going from job to job to job. The Liberal hire-and-fire plan is not good enough for us.

The economic forecasts are dismal despite the Liberal government's fine promises. The Bank of Canada, the Bank of Montreal, and TD Bank all say that the economic situation has not improved under the Liberals despite their fine promises.

I will vote against Bill C-29, and I hope that parliamentarians will vote in favour of the amendment proposed by our finance critic, the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent. His amendment amends the motion considerably, making it significantly more acceptable to Canadian taxpayers.

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

Madam Speaker, I would first like to thank my colleague opposite for mentioning the sometimes non-partisan work done by both sides of the House. The opposition's role is to acknowledge the government when it does something right. Unfortunately, the opportunity does not present itself very often. However, the government gives us ample opportunity to criticize it for not doing things right. Our job is to make Canadians aware of the government's mistakes, oversights and broken election promises.

We will always gladly collaborate at committee or through parliamentary associations to move issues forward, but sometimes, and people need to understand this, the role of the opposition is to look for things that might be wrong. This role is easier to play when the government gives us a lot of material, like the current Liberal government. Still, I wanted to acknowledge my colleague and his presentation, in which he mentioned the non-partisan work we do in this House.

I would also like to thank our new finance critic, the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent, who has done a great job since his appointment. To be put in charge of a file like a budget implementation bill and have to study it and give a speech on it with only a few days notice is no easy task.

Bill C-29 implements the Liberal government's first budget. Honestly, I think our colleague has done a great job pointing out the inconsistencies in Bill C-29 and, therefore, the inconsistencies in the Liberal government's first budget.

Usually, we expect a bill to implement a newly elected government's first budget to include the new government's plan, the plan promised by the Liberals to Canadians during the last election campaign. After careful consideration of the budget and Bill C-29 which we are discussing today, I find that, instead, Parliament is faced with a glaring example of Liberal void.

I would like to go back in time a little bit. Since the Liberals came into power, the legislative agenda is the lightest it has been in two decades. I can quote one of my colleagues who did some research with the help of the Library of Parliament:

The first few months of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's government have been the least productive of any government in over two decades...

I am not making this up. The Library of Parliament looked into the matter.

Ten bills have been passed by Parliament during the first nine months of Mr. Trudeau's tenure. By comparison, the Conservatives passed 18 pieces of legislation, nine of which were passed in their first 23 days. These statistics, which were provided by the hon. member for Durham, speak volumes.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Mount Royal.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to two aspects of budget implementation act, 2016, No. 2. This bill makes significant amendments to the Canada Disability Savings Act and the old age security program.

At first glance, these two programs seem to be different. However, they have the same goal, namely to ensure that the most vulnerable Canadians enjoy a good quality of life and live with the dignity they deserve.

First of all, I would like to remind the House that the Canada Disability Savings Act governs how the grants and bonds provided by the government are paid into registered disability savings plans, or RDSPs.

RDSPs were created in 2008 in order to help people with disabilities and their families save in order to provide long-term financial security. Canadian residents who are entitled to the disability tax credit can open a RDSP until the end of the year in which the recipient turns 59. Parents or guardians can open an RDSP on behalf of a minor. There is no annual contribution limit, but the lifetime limit is $200,000.

The gains accumulated are tax free until withdrawn from the RDSP. The government contributes to the RDSPs of eligible recipients by providing grants or bonds, or both, up to a maximum amount.

The bill being debated today would amend the Canada Disability Savings Act. These changes are required because the act refers to the Canada child tax benefit. As all members know, that benefit was replaced by the new Canada child benefit last June. Every year, the amount of the grant or bond that the recipient is entitled to is calculated on the basis of adjusted family income.

With regard to RDSP benefits for youth under the age of 18, this adjusted income, the amount used to determine the government's contribution in the form of a grant or bond, was also used by the government to calculate the amount of the Canada child tax benefit. Since that benefit no longer exists, we need to amend the provisions of the Canada Disability Savings Act that mention that benefit. We also need to amend the provisions that mention “phase-out income”.

As members know, the amount of the bonds decrease for those with higher incomes. The threshold at which the bonds start to decrease is called the “phase-out income”. It is important to understand this concept because the formula used to calculate the phase-out income includes the Canada child tax benefit.

As a result, the following three consequential amendments will be made to the Canada Disability Savings Act. First, the references to the Canada child tax benefit in five provisions of the Canada Disability Savings Act will be replaced by references to the new Canada child benefit. Second, the definition of “phase-out income” will be changed to include the Canada child benefit income threshold in the formula. Third, the definition of “child tax benefit” in the definitions section of the Canada Disability Savings Act will be removed since it will no longer be necessary.

Thanks to these amendments, the income thresholds for eligibility for the Canada child benefit and the Canada disability savings bond will be harmonized. The increase in the income threshold will produce a slight increase in total payments made for the bond in the RDSP of persons with disabilities. Persons with disabilities are not the only group that needs additional government assistance. The income security of our country’s seniors is another government priority.

That is why we will be formulating provisions to help Canada’s seniors enjoy a good quality of life. Seniors are important members of our society, who contribute actively to the well-being of their families and of our community, as well as to the growth of our economy. We have one of the lowest rates of senior poverty in the world.

In 2013-14, the most recent year for which data were collected, the Government of Canada paid Canadians over $79 billion under the Canada pension plan and old age security. These programs have contributed greatly to reducing the low-income rate for seniors over the last 30 years. However there still remains a great deal of work to do.

In 2014, the most recent year for which data were collected, 3.9% of the country’s seniors were living below the low-income cut-off established by Statistics Canada, representing some 200,000 people. Nearly 80% of these low-income seniors, or the vast majority, are single, and most of them are women.

That is why we have also increased by $947 per year the amount paid as the guaranteed income supplement to low-income single seniors. This measure will support the most vulnerable seniors who depend almost exclusively on their old age security pension and guaranteed income supplement, and who are thus at risk of experiencing financial difficulties.

Similarly, this measure will improve the financial security of some 900,000 seniors all across Canada, and we estimate that it will help lift nearly 13,000 of the most vulnerable seniors in Canada out of poverty.

We already support senior couples, in cases where the two members of the couple are receiving the guaranteed income supplement, have high living expenses, and are at high risk of poverty due to the necessity of living apart, for example, when one of the spouses is forced to live in a nursing home.

In some senior couples, one partner receives the guaranteed income supplement and the other the spousal allowance, but they have to live apart for reasons beyond their control, such as one of them needing long-term care. We are in the process of amending the Old Age Security Act to ensure that such couples receive higher benefits based on each individual's income.

I would like to point out that the allowance is paid to people 60 to 64 years of age with low income whose spouse or common-law partner receives the guaranteed income supplement.

Our government also reversed the decision to increase the age of eligibility for old age security from 65 to 67, which should come into effect in 2023. That change will give low-income seniors up to $17,000 per year. With these key measures, we will provide essential support to the most vulnerable Canadians.

The Government of Canada cares about seniors. Canadians work tirelessly their whole lives. We should all have a chance to live into old age without worrying about making ends meet. That is why our minister was given a mandate to improve income security for low-income seniors. These measures are how we are keeping that promise.

We promised to help more Canadians escape poverty. To me it is unimaginable that in a country like Canada there are still people who are unable to meet their basic needs. This is unacceptable and we doing something tangible to correct this situation.

I believe we all agree that no one should grow old in poverty or isolation. I cannot emphasize enough how important this issue is to our government.

I would also like to take a moment to discuss the Canada pension plan, another important pillar in our retirement income system. Retirement income security has to start with solid and stable public retirement plans such as the Canada pension plan.

We are also working with the provinces and territories to strengthen the plan. Earlier in October, we introduced a bill to amend the plan in order to help middle-class Canadians achieve their goal of living a dignified life in retirement with guaranteed income security.

We are making a considerable investment in the well-being of seniors. Canadians who work hard contribute to our society throughout their lives and our government believes that every Canadian deserves to grow old with respect and dignity.

Laurentides-Labelle has more of an aging population than most other ridings. The 2011 census found that the average age in the riding was 49.5. I look forward to the results of the 2016 census, but I would be surprised if the average age had not risen considerably.

Seniors' issues are crucial; we must improve their quality of life without delay. We can always do more, but I think we are on the right track with this bill and with this budget. Canada has always been a leader when it comes to delivering services to seniors. Our retirement income system is considered one of the best in the world.

I strongly urge my colleagues to help make sure it stays that way by supporting this bill.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is my honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-29, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures. I am also pleased to rise today so I can express my complete disappointment with how the bill has been introduced and the structure of the bill.

Bill C-29 is 234 pages, has 146 clauses, and would amend 13 pieces of legislation. How is this bill supposed to get proper review, study, and consideration? It simply will not, and the government know that and it is counting on that.

This kind of behaviour comes from a government that either has something to hide or does not want the public to know what it is up to. I suspect that a government which has not lived up to its promises on so many fronts, such as electoral reform, on the relationship with first nations, on meaningful reform to the Canada pension plan, and on its commitment to help the workers and former workers at U.S. Steel Canada is now finding it is necessary to hide its real intentions, and that is to fudge the facts, invent new and meaningless buzz words, and obscure the truth.

I need to take a moment to speak about what is to me an unfolding example of the government's desire to mask its real intentions behind a wall of rhetoric and doublespeak. I refer to the government's plan to privatize public infrastructure by selling off public assets and creating a new infrastructure bank to monetize future infrastructure projects.

As a former city councillor, I know about the dire state of our local infrastructure. I know about the lack of assistance for municipalities to help fund vital infrastructure rehabilitation. I have also seen the effects of both the federal and provincial governments downloading the costs for infrastructure projects onto the municipalities. This has helped create a staggering crisis.

No one should be fooled by the government's plan for infrastructure. The Liberals plan to privatize. No one should be fooled about what this means. It means user fees. It means toll roads and toll bridges. It means downloading the costs onto me, other members and all our constituents.

The finance minister's advisory panel on economic growth issued a report, and we expect some of its recommendations in the minister's economic statement tomorrow. Among those recommendations were the following: first, develop a focused federal infrastructure strategy which is in line with the government's economic growth agenda; second, create a Canadian infrastructure development bank to leverage institutional capital and deliver over $200 million with the projects over 10 years; and, third, create a flywheel for investment by catalyzing the participation of the institutional capital in existing assets.

We all know and agree that there needs to be new investment in infrastructure. Canadians from coast to coast have been calling on the federal government to take meaningful and substantial action for years. However, we are concerned by reports of the Liberal plan to privatize our infrastructure.

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities has expressed some serious concern that the government will take money that has been promised for housing and local projects and instead put it into its new infrastructure bank. That would mean less money for local priorities. That would mean less money for communities that were counting on addressing urgent infrastructure needs.

There are also reports that suggest the Liberals are moving ahead with plans for selling off existing public infrastructure, like airports and bridges. Having failed to sell their privatization schemes by calling them asset recycling, they have now invented the new term, “flywheel for reinvestment”. Do not be fooled. This is just a new word for privatization. Why do the Liberals want to sell off the valuable infrastructure that hard-earned dollars of Canadians have built? To pay for their budget shortfalls. This is just another example of the government trying to keep its promises from and then trying to use sleight of hand to fool Canadians into thinking otherwise.

The bill before us today is just another example of how the government is trying to pull the wool over our eyes. The bill is far too big and far too complex, and the time allotted for debate is far too short to allow for the in-depth consideration and discussion that a budget should receive.

We have discovered, however, that the bill does contain some positive measures that the NDP has fought for, but it comes nowhere near what the Liberals have been promising, and nowhere near what is necessary to strengthen our economy and to combat inequality.

We are disappointed that the Liberals have decided to let the value of the new child benefit erode over the next four years, taking the equivalent of $500 away from families. We wanted to see more aggressive action to ensure tax fairness, including more to combat tax evasion by multinational corporations, and to close the stock option loophole for wealthy CEOs. It is also unacceptable that the Liberals are making adjustments to eligibility for small business taxes without restoring the promised tax cuts for small businesses.

Canadians were hoping for better from the current government. Many people have been left shaking their heads wondering why the government, which promised change, is acting like the Conservative government.

I can tell members that people in my community are shaking their heads, especially the 25,000 workers and retirees of U.S. Steel Canada, who thought that the current government would stand up for them through the bitter corporate restructuring currently taking place. Instead, we have seen a government and a Prime Minister turning their backs on the people of my community. This is a Prime Minister who, during the election, promised to do everything he could to help, but has left our pensioners and workers out in the cold.

One year after the election there has been not a word from the government or the Prime Minister about providing any help at all. It is shameful, and the people of Hamilton are not soon to forget. People in my community expected better, but like all Canadians, they have been left shaking their heads.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by saying that I greatly appreciated listening to my colleague, who managed to present a clear and concise argument that made it easy to understand why he is against Bill C-29, a bill to implement the Liberal government's latest budget.

I have a simple question for my colleague. Does he know any expressions to describe what the Liberal government did, in other words promise one thing and do another?

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

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

Madam Speaker, when my finance critic colleague asked me whether I wanted to speak today to the government's budgetary measures in Bill C-29, I jumped at the opportunity. I would even say that I am pleased to speak to this bill today.

Those familiar with my political career know that before being elected to the House of Commons, this grand institution, I tried my hand at provincial politics and was the mayor of Victoriaville. They know why I am in politics and what my motivations are. Those have not changed since 2003, when I first considered entering politics. They are also shared by many Canadians.

One of the reasons I got into politics was my concern over how the government is managing public finances and the debt burden it is placing on future generations, our children and our grandchildren. I see every level of government taking the easy route and spending money, which always leads to Canadians paying more taxes, even if those taxes are sometimes used to fund investments.

The other very important reason I got into politics is the cynicism that people have about politicians. I will elaborate on that a little later in my speech. When I asked people what they thought about my going into politics, they told me that politicians never keep their promises. That seems to be true of those across the way, the Liberal government having failed to deliver on a number of its promises. I will name a few, but first I want to talk about federal public finances.

How many times have the Minister of Finance and his colleagues refused to accept here in the House a report from the parliamentary budget officer in which he confirms what we in the official opposition have been saying, specifically, that we left the House in order when we were voted out of office in the last election? Canada had sound public finances and was in the black.

Despite all that, at every possible opportunity and in every forum, the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister kept saying that we left the country in disarray and in massive debt. I invite those listening to consult the archives or even simply Google “Minister of Finance” and they will see the minister was in denial.

When he appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance on October 24, 2016, the parliamentary budget officer confirmed that the Conservative government left a surplus of $2.9 billion in the 2014-15 budget. For those who may not know this, the parliamentary budget officer is neutral. He is neither Liberal, Conservative, NDP, nor a member of the Green Party. He works independently to analyze Canada's public finances.

One of the government's first promises, which set it apart from the second official opposition party, was that it would only run up a small deficit of $10 billion. On the contrary. Today, as we can see, the deficit stands at more than $30 billion and it is spiralling out of control. It is not the official opposition pointing this out. The economists at Canada's major financial institutions have been telling the government for weeks to stop spending. TD Bank and the Bank of Montreal have told the government that enough is enough, and that it has lost control of its finances.

We are not against borrowing to stimulate the economy. There are times when we must. Everyone agrees with that. The problem with the Liberal government is that it does not have a repayment plan. I will use an analogy for the people watching at home. If a person wants to buy a house, goes to the bank, and applies for a loan to purchase a house worth about $200,000, what does the banker do? He evaluates the borrower and looks at his income to determine whether he can make the payments. Then with the help of a spreadsheet, the banker calculates the number of monthly payments it will take to pay the mortgage, which is the loan that makes it possible to create wealth, be a homeowner, and have access to a home for his family and children.

The government is borrowing money. The problem is that it does not have a plan to pay that money back. It is like me going to the bank and saying that I need $200,000 to buy a house but that, unfortunately, I do not have enough money to make monthly payments to pay back the loan and I have no plan to do so. I would have to ask the bank to wait four or five years before we revisit the issue and figure out how I will pay the money back. What would happen if I did that? They would send me packing and ask that I do my homework next time and present them with a realistic proposal. It makes me tear my hair out to watch this government continue to lie to Canadians by not giving them the real numbers, by telling them lies about the situation, and by not being straight with them.

When they voted for this government a year ago, Canadians had very high expectations. Today, no one knows how the government is going to pay back this out-of-control deficit.

We might ask ourselves what options the Liberal government has for repaying that money. It so happens its recent announcements shed some light on the matter. The Liberals intend to tax and tax some more. What is more, they are offering no constructive measures to stimulate the economy.

They claim to have provided tax relief to families. I am sorry, but the people that I talk to who want their children to be active or to get involved in cultural activities had their tax credit cut.

They even had the audacity to reduce the amount of savings that a father or mother can set aside and watch grow tax-free, money they can use one day when they need to purchase something, thereby keeping our economy going.

The Liberals are implementing a system that will make Canadian families pay more for the Canada pension plan. I think that once Canadians realize this, they might revolt and demand that the government not change the CPP, because everything the government touches seems to turn into a deficit later on.

What we need is not a government that runs deficits, but rather a government that creates wealth. Spending more and taxing Canadians is not the way to create wealth. Instead, we need to help businesses by lowering corporate taxes and introducing job creation and R and D programs.

When we look at the situation, we see that major institutions like the IMF, the OECD, and the Bank of Canada have downgraded their forecasts for Canada. It has become very clear that this government's approach is not working.

Today I ask this government to do its homework. I ask this government to stop taking more taxes and more taxes and more taxes from Canadians, and to listen to leading economists who are urging the government to stop spending in order to stimulate the economy. There are other ways to achieve that.

This brings me to my closing remarks. The Prime Minister broke his promises immediately upon taking office. He broke his promise of running a modest deficit by borrowing three times more than he said he would. He broke his promise to lower the small business tax rate from 11% to 9%.

He broke his promise to offer a revenue-neutral fiscal plan. He even said that family benefits would be cost neutral, but that did not happen, either.

I am pleased to have had the opportunity to speak to this issue.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to share my time this afternoon with the member for Richmond—Arthabaska.

It gives me great pleasure to speak to bill C-29, the budget implementation act. Seven months after tabling the budget, Canadians are beginning to recognize the consequences, and the picture is not pretty. Being as it is Halloween, it is appropriate that we refer to the budget as downright scary. It is like a vampire sucking the blood out of most Canadians. The Liberals love spinning the budget into a huge spiderweb to catch people. Small businesses are upset, thinking it is Frankenstein who has come back from the dead.

Even with the low Canadian dollar, the Liberals have generated 20,000 fewer manufacturing jobs in our country. I thought for a moment it was Houdini, because these jobs just vanished. My province of Saskatchewan has lost 4,000 jobs in August over the same period from last year. The trend continued in September with 6,000 fewer people working during the same period as the year before. We have 42,000 unemployed in Saskatchewan currently.

Doug Elliott, the publisher of Sask Trends Monitor, says that going back to 1986 this is the highest number of unemployment in the month of August. Saskatchewan could very well see its first year of negative job growth since the year 2001, and that is scary. We have not seen unemployment levels like this in over two decades. Small business owners do not want the trick or treat, they want an opportunity. They know how best to grow the economy. The Liberals promised a reduction in their tax from 11% to 9%, and we have yet to see that.

Then we have Dracula with his fangs out ready to suck more out of the economy with the proposed carbon tax. This dark cloud hanging over this haunted house will not help with job creation in our country. It is hard to suck blood out of a stone, but the Liberal government seems determined to try. The carbon tax was never mentioned a year ago during the election, and now we know it always was behind one of its trap doors.

To quote Marilyn Braun-Pollon of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the state of business health in our country has deteriorated. Hiring plans remain very weak, with only 10% of business owners looking to hire full time, while at the same time 17% are foreseeing layoffs. This is deeply concerning as we head into the holiday season where generally more opportunity exists, mainly though for part-time employment. Retail spending is effectively flat in our province this year, a broad category that includes everything from automobiles, to clothing, to furniture and food. When we adjust for inflation, that means the total sales volumes in the province have declined by more than 2% over last year at this time.

Even thefinance minister was quoted as saying that Canadians should get used to the so-called job churn. No wonder our youth were upset last week at the Prime Minister during a briefing. Our youth right now are experiencing record unemployment, and it is not what was promised to these millennials by the Liberals a year ago. It was all about sunny ways. Now we find out the clouds have rolled in and the government has no answers.

The full moon though has returned. The Liberals have gone back to their old ways of pay to play. Have they not heard from their previous skeletons in the closet? There are more ghosts and goblins as the Bank of Canada has determined more bad news for this economy, downgrading the country's growth outlook yet once again.

Ted Mallett, who is the CFIB's chief economist, says that employment is a big area of concern. While employment plans tend to experience, as we all know, seasonal fluctuation, this October's downward turn was sharper than we have ever seen it in the past. Investment plans have also dropped to a post-recession low.

Nearly 50% of Saskatchewan's small businesses plan to freeze or even cut salaries. We have not factored in the cost of a CPP increase or the much talked about carbon tax. This is more evidence that now is not the time for this carbon tax. I guess it is like CETA. The Liberals played a disappearing act and now they want to be Casper the Friendly Ghost, but I want to remind the House that it was the Conservative government that did all of the heavy lifting for this CETA agreement.

While the Liberals promised a modest deficit of $10 billion to stimulate the economy, it looks like they were dead wrong. They continue to throw more deficit dollars at this problem. Let us remember that a year ago, the Liberals promised they could simply spend their way into prosperity. By most measures, I would say Canadian families are worse off than they were a year ago. Good jobs are in short supply and the vast majority of these new jobs created under the current government are really part time, which explains why weekly earnings for the average worker in this country are lower.

On the weekend, I was home in my riding of Saskatoon—Grasswood and had an opportunity to talk to several young people. Many said they had two and three part-time jobs just to make ends meet. Saskatchewan people, as many know, have always had a work ethic, but there comes a time when they see no light at the end of the tunnel.

Instead of growing the middle class, the government is breaking the middle class. Just last week, the Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed that our Conservative budget would have resulted in a $2.9 billion surplus for the year 2015-16, but we all know that a surplus is not in the Liberals' vocabulary. They continue to run massive debts. Where it will stop, no one knows. When will this circus stop?

The child care benefit will not be indexed until the year 2020. The PBO has estimated that indexing, in fact enriching, the CCB would cost over $42 million over the next five years. Where, then, will the Liberals get this money? This program would cost more than double the original amount budgeted if indexed over this five-year period.

The current government reminds me of the show a way back called The Munsters. It was televised back then in black and white. I ask the current government to step out of the dark ages and realize it is spending our children's and grandchildren's money, with no hope of ever balancing the budget.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Edmonton-Centre for sharing his time with me.

As always, it is an honour and a privilege to represent the citizens of Gatineau in the House. It is a great honour for any parliamentarian to represent the views and perspectives of their fellow citizens.

It is my great pleasure to add my support to Bill C-29, a second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures.

Last spring, our government tabled its first budget. On the whole, this is a budget that respects and keeps our election commitments. Furthermore, it is based on judicious investments to make our economy grow, to better help our middle class, and to ensure that our communities and our country continue to grow. Bill C-29 is also a follow-up to the plan of my hon. colleague the Minister of Finance, the plan for economic growth and fairness in Canada.

This bill provides measures that will help families, provide seniors with greater flexibility, protect consumers, and improve the fairness and integrity of the tax system.

When working-class and middle-class Canadians have more money to save, invest, and grow the economy, everyone benefits. That is why, in budget 2016, the government decided to invest in the Canadian economy to set the stage for long-term growth. Canada has the lowest debt to GDP ratio of any G7 country and interest rates are at historic lows. Now is the ideal time for Canada to invest in its future success: in our young people, in our communities, and in ourselves. When we have an economy that works for the middle class, we have a country that works for everyone.

My colleagues opposite spoke of the pressure on families. We all have in our ridings families looking for more flexibility, for help making ends meet every moth, and for ways for their children to have an equal opportunity to succeed in life, go to university and take part in sports, art programs, recreational activities and so forth.

Speaking of investments, we on this side of the House put in place what is probably the most important social innovation of the past 10 or 20 years in Canada: the Canada child benefit. On July 20, families in Gatineau received their first Canada child benefit cheque, as announced in budget 2016. In the riding of Gatineau alone, the Canada child benefit is helping 10,600 families and 18,480 children.

The average monthly payment in Gatineau is around $520. That is $520 every month, tax-free, that can be used for food, skates, clothes, child care expenses, school supplies and more. That is $520 every month that goes back into the local and national economies.

On this side of the House, we are extremely proud of this social innovation, this benefit for the middle class, the parents in my community and all across Canada. It is the most important public policy in decades.

Moreover, under Bill C-29, the Canada child benefit will be fully indexed to inflation starting in 2020. This will ensure not only that this important measure will be sustainable, but also that benefits will rise every year starting in 2020.

The budget implementation act also supports our seniors by helping them to retire in more comfort and with dignity. In budget 2016, we repealed the provision in the Old Age Security Act that increased the age of eligibility for old age security and guaranteed income supplement benefits from 65 to 67, and allowance benefits from 60 to 62, over the 2023 to 2029 period. Budget 2016, also increased the guaranteed income supplement top-up benefit by up to $947 annually for the most vulnerable single seniors, starting in July 2016.

I do not know if it is the same for my colleagues, but I get asked by seniors what it means to have $80 more than expected at the end of the month. They ask me what that means for seniors on a fixed income and for their quality of life. Well, it helps them pay the rent and buy groceries, and it may even give them the means to take part in sports and other recreational activities, for example. That is very important at their age. I get comments like this a lot, as do all my colleagues in the House, I am sure.

This measure represents an investment of over $670 million per year, and will improve the financial security of about 900,000 single seniors across Canada.

That is not all. In this second budget implementation bill, we are delivering on the solemn promise we made in budget 2016 to support senior couples who face higher costs of living and are at an increased risk of poverty because they must live apart. We are all aware of cases where, unfortunately, because of health concerns or for other reasons, spouses are separated from one another because one of them has to be institutionalized.

When couples who are receiving the guaranteed income supplement and the spouse's allowance have to live apart for reasons beyond their control, each of them will receive benefits based on their individual income.

For seniors in such a situation, it will mean an average increase to household income of $3,500 per year. That is very important for our most vulnerable seniors, who will be treated more fairly and receive more help from the government through the guaranteed income supplement. These new measures enable the government to treat seniors with greater fairness and allow them to live with dignity in retirement.

Canadians deserve financial consumer protection that keeps pace with their needs. We have seen this debate all over the world in the wake of the financial crisis. Bill C-29 would amend the Bank Act in order to strengthen and modernize the financial consumer protection framework. The financial sector plays an important role in supporting economic growth. Canada's financial sector weathered the 2008 financial crisis well because it was built on solid foundations. The government is seeking to build on this strength.

Bill C-29 amends the Bank Act to consolidate and streamline provisions that apply to a bank or an authorized foreign bank in relation to the protection of customers and the public. This was another consumer protection commitment our government made in budget 2016 that will contribute to the financial security of Canadians.

The federal government is showing leadership by adopting targeted measures to better protect consumers of financial products. Regarding the tax system, our government committed to implementing an action plan to combat international tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance.

All these measures contained in Bill C-29 or in the budget deliver on our commitment to get Canada's middle class back on its feet and make it once again a priority for the Government of Canada.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to share my time with the member for Gatineau.

It is with immense pleasure and pride that I rise to speak in favour of Bill C-29, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures.

Our government knows that many Canadians are struggling to get ahead. These struggles are very real in my home province of Alberta, where people are continuing to face an economic downturn brought on by the extended low price of natural resource products.

The people of Edmonton Centre, and Albertans at large, asked for a partner in the federal government, and our government has responded with historic investments. It did so and will continue to do so because it knows that Alberta helped the Canadian economy for years. It is committed to helping Alberta in its time of need. It also did so and will continue to do so because it makes good economic sense at this time.

What exactly has the federal government done? It has provided $250 million to the Government of Alberta as a fiscal stabilization fund; $750 million to the EDC to assist with companies that are looking to export and provide financial services to SMEs in the oil and gas sector; $500 million from the Business Development Corporation for loan guarantees and services to SMEs directly in the oil and gas sector; and recently, another $0.5 billion from the BDC, matched by the Alberta Treasury Branch Financial corporation, to help with stressed businesses.

In addition to that, there was $307 million through the disaster financial assistance arrangement, through the Government of Canada to the Province of Alberta, to help Fort McMurray recover. That was the first time in history that the Government of Canada has moved so quickly to respond to a natural disaster in partnership with a provincial government.

There is a growing consensus in Canada and around the world that governments need to invest, not only to boost short-term economic growth, but to set the stage for long-term and sustainable growth as well. In fact, Christine Lagarde, president and CEO of the International Monetary Fund, has said that Canada's investment strategy needs to let loose, needs to go viral around the world, because our policies are smart economic policies for the long term.

Canada has the lowest debt to GDP ratio of any G7 country, and interest rates are at historic lows. Now is the ideal time for Canada to invest in its future success. That is why Canadians elected us on a platform to make historic investments in public transit, green infrastructure, and social infrastructure.

These investments mean good, well-paying jobs for tradespeople, engineers, architects, labourers, and suppliers. Each of these jobs has a family behind it, and each of these jobs mean that those families have income to support other businesses. Such investments are not only important, they are vital for Canadians and Albertans during these tough times.

That is why our government, working with the Government of Alberta, is investing $1.08 billion in public transit, water maintenance, in Alberta. That multiplier effect will mean over $3 billion in real projects taking place on the ground in Alberta. It is why we have worked with the Government of Alberta to invest $130 million more into affordable housing. It is why we have made the historic down payment on the Fort McMurray rebuilding program.

This is only phase one. This government is there for Alberta now, and will continue to be a partner in growth for all Albertans. We understand, as well, that a strong economy starts with a strong middle class. When middle-class Canadians have more money to save, invest, and grow the economy, everyone benefits. A strengthened middle class means that hard-working Canadians can look forward to a good standard of living and better prospects for their children.

Too many middle-class families are having trouble making ends meet with the tough times in Alberta. Our government stepped up to the plate and implemented the Canada child benefit, a coherent, common sense policy that will help nearly nine million Canadians every year. The time has come for the Government of Canada to help the families who need it most and give them the money they need to be able to afford to raise their children.

It is why our government created the new Canada child benefit, or CCB, which will directly help middle-class families with the costs of raising their children. I have heard it in my own riding. Time and time again, people have come up to me and said, “Thank you. I am receiving the monthly cheques. I no longer have to make the choice between food for my children or clothes on their backs. I no longer have to make the decision between school fees or paying my rent.”

Edmonton families are using the support from the CCB to invest directly in our community in a variety of ways, from enrolling their children in after school care, sports programs, music lessons, leadership activities, and even saving for their own post-secondary education. It is startling to think that some of the most vulnerable families in our community have trouble even putting food on the table.

In this country, too many children are still living in poverty.

As members already know, on July 20, eligible Canadian families started receiving their CCB payments. These replace previous benefits and provide more support to nine out 10 families in this country.

We ended the damaging legacy of the previous government's poorly thought out taxable benefit that left thousands of families with a surprise tax bill at the end of the year. I heard this at the door, that people were surprised and not happy. They were disappointed by that mis-thought-out policy.

The Canada child benefit is simple. It is tax free, and it targets the families who need it most.

Our Canada child benefit is improving the well-being of families across the country, and we are giving them an opportunity to succeed. In Alberta alone, it is raising 46,000 children out of poverty and giving each one of them the opportunity for a better life.

Now more than ever, it is important that post-secondary education remains affordable and accessible. I have four remarkable post-secondary institutions in my riding: NorQuest College; the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology, otherwise known as NAIT; the MacEwan University; and the Enterprise Square campus of my alma mater, the University of Alberta. I am so proud to represent these campuses and the tens of thousands of students who attend them.

Students must have access to meaningful work at the beginning of their careers and not be burdened by increasing student debt. In this regard, budget 2016 makes post-secondary education more affordable for students from low and middle-income families and will make it easier to repay student debt. This is enabling the economy of tomorrow. I know, because I had the opportunity to access student loans and debt forgiveness. I paid my loans back, but that made all the difference in being able to pursue my own education when my family was not able to support my tuition or living costs. That is exactly what we are doing now to make post-secondary education more affordable for more Canadian students.

We also need to ensure that we are supporting Canadians who need support right now. Therefore, Canada's employment insurance program provides economic security to Canadians when they need it most. Whatever the circumstance, no Canadian should struggle to get the assistance they need.

To make sure these systems are in place, we have proposed several changes to the EI system. Changes to eligibility rules will make it easier for new workers and those re-entering the workforce to claim benefits. To ease the burden, our government has also extended employment insurance benefits in all regions in Alberta. The waiting period will also be reduced from two weeks to one week, which will provide unemployed workers with hundreds of more dollars at the time they need it the most.

Our budget has made significant new investments to support seniors in their retirement years. Increased benefits will ensure that Canadian seniors have a dignified, comfortable, and secure retirement so that my mom and all of our parents and grandparents are supported as they age.

As a matter of fairness for all taxpayers, Bill C-29 will prevent underground economic activity and tax evasion and will combat tax loopholes. We will take action to prevent tax evasion both at home and abroad. The government will invest in effective administration and enforcement of tax laws and will propose actions to improve the integrity of Canada's system.

Hard-working small business owners who create jobs and benefit the economy are the ones who need, and should be benefiting from, tax measures. Our efforts will improve the fairness and integrity of the tax system and contribute to fiscal sustainability. That is exactly what Albertans expect from us.

Finally, Canada's financial sector is world renowned and remained stable through the 2008 financial crisis and its aftermath. We have the last Liberal government to thank for putting the fundamentals in place for the most robust financial system in the G20. To keep Canada's financial sectors strong, the government will strengthen the framework that regulates financial institutions, and we will balance the need for stability and competition with the needs of consumers and businesses.

Bill C-29 also makes it clear that the shareholders and creditors of Canada's largest banks are responsible for their risks, not taxpayers. In this way, Canadians will not be stuck with the tab in the event of an economic shock.

The measures set out in this budget are essential to the proper development and well-being of all Canadians, including those who need it most, and that is why I am asking all of my colleagues in the House to vote in favour of Bill C-29.

Again, our budget is delivering on the needs of Albertans and Canadians. We were elected on a promise to increase prosperity for all Canadians, and that is a promise we are proudly delivering on.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, during the election campaign the Liberals promised to reduce the small business tax from 11% to 9%. This is not found in Bill C-29, which is a budget implementation bill.

When will this measure be introduced, and why is it not in Bill C-29?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the question from my hon. member, who is an individual I have interacted with greatly in the House.

After the financial crisis in 2008, the world moved to common reporting standards for financial institutions globally across the board. What we are adopting in Bill C-29 are common reporting standards that all OECD countries have incorporated. If there are situations that present themselves where there is an anomaly, then those situations may be worth looking into. However, at the same time we need to ensure we have strong, stable financial systems and institutions that Canadians can have faith in, and that can lend to borrowers, to creditors, and to people wanting to buy a home while remaining sound.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise to speak to the second part of the government's budget implementation bill, Bill C-29. This second budget bill contains the technical legislative amendments that would make budget 2016 law.

I could get into great detail about these technical amendments. It is an area that has been of particular interest to me as a trained economist, someone who sat on the Canadian Accounting Standards Board's user advisory council for many years and someone who understands the importance of a strong banking system with relevant proper oversight.

Prior to being elected to Parliament, I had more than two decades of experience in the global financial markets, first in New York City working for J.P. Morgan for nearly a decade in corporate finance; then in Canada where I was employed by Dominion Bond Rating Service with the responsibility of coverage of the global auto sector; and then as a corporate debt analyst for Scotiabank, with coverage of over 100 companies and where the market value of the Canadian corporate debt market stands today at $418 billion.

I can speak to specific technical elements of the bill that deal with changes of the Income Tax Act, which exclude derivatives from the application of inventory evaluation rules or ensures that the return on linked notes retains the same character, whether it is earned at maturity or reflected in a secondary market sale. I can also talk at great length about the amendments to the Bank Act to consolidate and streamline provisions that apply to a bank or to an authorized foreign bank in relation to the protection of customers in the public. However, as much as these concerns are of great interest to me and as important as they are, I know I would put many people here potentially to sleep.

While the items contained in the legislation may not be the most exciting things, I cannot stress enough the importance of getting the fundamental economic variables correct. This means ensuring that all the technical elements are there and that all the regulations and legislation are in place to help move the Canadian economy and the country forward. I am very proud of our government's commitment to Canada's economic and fiscal strength, to tax fairness, and a strong financial sector. Perhaps most of all, I am proud of our commitment to helping the middle class and those working hard to join it.

I know that a strong economy starts with a strong middle class. While Canadians have more money to save, invest, and grow the economy, everyone benefits. Strengthening the middle class means that hard-working Canadians can look forward to a good standard of living and better prospects for their kids.

However, for too long, many Canadians have been working harder than ever without getting further ahead. I am proud that our government has recognized this and is taking concrete steps to address this. Certainly the measures contained in budget 2016 were designed to set the stage for future growth.

There is a growing consensus, both in Canada and around the globe, that governments need to invest, not only to boost short-term economic growth but to set the stage for long-term growth as well. We know that when we have historically low interest rates and when the debt to GDP ratio is the lowest of any G7 country, we have the fiscal capacity and it is the perfect time to invest in infrastructure.

When talking about infrastructure, I am not talking simply about roads and bridges, which are very important. I am also talking about our social, health, and education infrastructure. Investing in infrastructure will boost Canada's productivity, strengthening our economic foundation, and put us on a higher growth path trajectory. As commented recently by Bank of Canada governor, Stephen Poloz:

In the case of a targeted investment by government which is identified in such a way that it will be growth enabling, it's very likely to pay off very well...That is, it creates more economic growth for all those that use that infrastructure and that, of course, creates tax revenues and the system keeps turning.

Those are not my words. Those are the Bank of Canada governor's words.

In my constituency of Vaughan—Woodbridge, which incidentally the city of Vaughan is celebrating its 25th anniversary this year, we have experienced unprecedented levels of growth. Vaughan is the largest employment centre in York region, accounting for 38% of jobs. With over 10,000 businesses employing more than 194,000 people, the city of Vaughan is ranked the second best place in Ontario to do business and among the top 25-best places to live in Canada. While our community has grown, much of the federal infrastructure has not kept pace.

Since our government took over, we have seen real substantial investment in Canada's physical, green, and social infrastructure. We have doubled funding for Canada student jobs, increased funding for new horizons seniors' grants, and boosted FedDev assistance to several businesses in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge, including Cutler Forest Products. Just a few weeks ago, in my riding at the Kortright Centre, I, along with my colleague from Hamilton, announced a $4.3 million dollar FedDev grant to Mohawk College for the development of new green energy solutions, a very real and tangible example of our government's commitment to clean innovative technology.

We have a lot of young families in my constituency, which is one of the many realities that attracted my wife and I to Vaughan. We are fortunate to have two wonderful daughters and both successful careers. However, like most parents, I want to ensure that my children have brighter prospects and are afforded even greater opportunities for success than I have had.

I am proud to be part of a government that believes we must do for our kids and grandkids what our parents and grandparents did for us to give us the promise of a better future. Toward that end, budget 2016 has invested in Canadian families through the transformational program like the new Canada child benefit that provides help to those families that need it the most with the high cost of raising children.

The child benefit system we inherited from the previous Conservative government was complicated, consisting of a taxable income-tested Canada child tax benefit with two components: the base benefits and the national child benefit supplement. It was a taxable universal child care benefit received by all families, regardless of income, even millionaires. It was system that was both inadequate in that it did not provide families with the support they needed as well as insufficiently targeted for those who needed it the most.

Under the Conservative government, for example, families with very high incomes were still receiving benefit. That is not a Canadian value. Our government's new CCB is simpler. Families will receive a single payment every month. It is tax free, so families will not have to pay back part of that amount received when they file their tax returns.

As well, the new CCB is better targeted to those who need it the most, specifically low and middle-income Canadian families. In addition, it is a far more generous program than the one it replaces. Nine out of ten Canadians will receive higher monthly benefits, and it is estimated that the new Canada child benefit will lift approximately 300,000 children out of poverty. Further, as contained in Bill C-29, in 2020, the Canada child benefit will be indexed to keep pace with rising costs.

Let me emphasize this point on how transformational Canada child benefit is in reducing income inequality. It is estimated that the CCB will allow for a reduction in the poverty rate for children in Canada from approximately 11.2% to 6.7%, or the Canada child benefit will lift approximately 40% of those children who currently find themselves living in the very tragic situation of poverty.

I was very fortunate to go to university, something that was not a possibility for my parents who immigrated to Canada through Pier 21 from Italy in the 1950s. My parents are ingenuous and hard-working people who benefited from having union jobs with decent pay and benefits. My parents helped as much as they could. Personally, I worked summers to pay for university at a pulp mill, a grain elevator and a fish cannery, and after school, including part-time jobs at McDonald's and Zellers, to help save and ultimately pay my way through two university degrees.

The costs for post-secondary education were significantly less than they are today. Now more than ever, in this highly-skilled global economy, it is of paramount importance that post-secondary education remains affordable and accessible to Canadians. To compete in today's knowledge economy requires an educated and highly-skilled workforce and more years of training. The cost of education, particularly professional training, has been increasing exponentially and a greater financial worry has been placed on the shoulders of students and their families.

We, as legislators, need to work to ensure that young Canadians have access to meaningful work at the beginning of their careers, which means paying for more education and training so as not to be burdened by an enormous debt load. That is why our government has put measures in budget 2016 that make post-secondary education more affordable for students from low and middle-income families, and provides provisions that make it easier for students to repay student loans once they enter the workforce. Budget 2016 also includes measures to help young Canadians gain experience, earn extra income and find good jobs after graduation.

This government knows that the road map to a better future lies in recognizing the needs of all Canadians, to our children, families, workers and our most vulnerable populations, including our seniors.

Our seniors built our country. I believe very strongly that we have a responsibility to assist those in their golden years live with dignity and a secure retirement, and treat them as valued members of our national community. It is another reason I am proud of our government's initiatives in budget 2016. By rolling back the retirement age from 67 to 65, which placed $13,000 into the hands of new retirees over that two-year period, increasing benefits to the guaranteed income supplement by nearly $1 billion, which will help nearly one million seniors, including three-quarters of whom are women, improving in the GIS for single seniors, and making significant new investments to support seniors, budget 2016 is helping to ensure our seniors have a dignified, comfortable, and secure retirement.

Bill C-29 proposes to amend the Old Age Security Act to provide that in the case of of low-income couples that have to live apart for reasons not attributable to either of them, such as illness, and, for example, one spouse being in a nursing home and the other staying at their primary residence, the amount of the allowance is to be based on the income of the allowance recipient only. This proposed amendment ensures seniors are not unfairly penalized due to a situation they have no control over.

Making our most vulnerable populations a priority shows this government's vision in working toward a smart, ethically responsible, and fair society.

However, fair-mindedness has always guided our government. As a matter of fairness, our government is looking to crack down on tax evasion and underground economic activity, aiming to close corporate loopholes which threaten hard-working Canadians. I am proud to say that budget 2016 has invested approximately $444 million over five years for the CRA to enhance its efforts to crack down on tax evasion and combat tax avoidance.

In fact, I am proud to state that I introduced the motion to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance, calling for an investigation into offshore tax havens. I am very pleased with timely and decisive actions taken by our government to present tax evasions and aggressive tax avoidance, both at home and abroad.

The Government of Canada will continue to address unintended tax advantages, including limiting the ability of wealthy individuals to use private corporations to inappropriately reduce or defer tax.

Bill C-29 would amend the anti-avoidance rules in the Income Tax Act that prevents a multiplication of access to the small business deduction and the avoidance of the business limit and the taxable capital limit. In addition, through Bill C-29, to improve transparency and adhere to international standards, we will implement the country-by-country reporting standards, as recommended by the OECD, for corporations with operations in various geographies. In addition, we will introduce rules to prevent the avoidance of withholding tax or rents, royalties, and similar payments, using back-to-back arrangements.

There is still work to be done, but our initial efforts have improved the fairness and integrity of Canada's tax system, as well will contribute to fiscal sustainability.

We continue to work in the best interests of all Canadians to ensure they have confidence in our tax system, that no one unfairly subsidizes our tax system.

Having worked on Wall Street and in the Canadian banking sector, I can say first-hand that Canada has world-renowned and one of the most stable financial banking sectors. We were one of the only nations whose banks were left intact and came out unscathed from the 2008 global financial crisis.

However, our financial sector did not become world-renowned by accident, and it will not stay that way without continued maintenance and oversight by Canada's regulatory institutions, primarily, through the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions.

I had a first-hand view of the global financial crisis. The regulations that govern our financial institutions, including strong lending practices and solid levels of tier 1 capital held by the banks, along with the role of CMHC and OSFI, allowed Canada to exit the global financial crisis in a stellar manner. Part 4 of Bill C-29 would strengthen the framework regulating financial institutions, while balancing the need for stability and competition with the needs of consumers and businesses.

Our government makes it clear that the shareholders and creditors of Canada's largest banks are responsible for their bank's risk, not taxpayers, not depositors. Canadians will not be stuck with the tab in the event of an economic shock. The changes proposed in the Bank Act reflect enhancements in the areas of corporate governance, access to basic banking services, disclosure of information, business practices, and public reporting.

The same section would amend 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 sound and efficient management of federal funds in the operational crown corporations.

It would amend the Financial Administration Act to allow the minister to 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 purposes of managing risks relating to the financial position of the Government of Canada.

Also contained in part 4 are amendments to the Bank of Canada Act that would allow the Minister of Finance to delegate to the bank the management of the lending of money to agent corporations. Again, Bill C-29, the second part of the budget implementation bill, puts in place measures that would safeguard and strengthen Canada's world renowned financial institutions. The Government of Canada will balance the need for stability and competition with the needs of consumers and businesses.

Budget 2016 would not only strengthen the financial institutions, it would strengthen our social institutions and our country's social safety net. Canada's employment insurance program provides economic security to Canadians when they need it most. That is why Bill C-29 contains several changes to the current employment insurance system. These changes to the eligibility rules would make it easier for new workers and those re-entering the workforce to claim benefits.

In addition to the changes in eligibility rules, the waiting period to receive unemployment insurance would also be reduced from two weeks to one week. These measures would provide unemployed workers with hundreds of dollars more, when they need it most.

I am proud of our government's efforts to extend employment insurance benefits in regions that have been severely impacted by the collapse in the price of oil and other commodities. In budget 2016, we promised those impacted by the cyclical downturn in commodity prices assistance. We will deliver with approximately $2.5 billion investment in employment insurance over the next two fiscal years.

Make no mistake, we all want Canadians working. We all want Canadians earning a good living, with decent wages and good benefits, but in those times when Canadians are laid off, the Government of Canada will be standing there with them to make sure that they are able to stand on their own two feet and get back to work as soon as possible.

Division 6 of part 4 of the act, which amends the Royal Canadian Mint Act, would remove the requirement that the directors of the mint have experience in respect of metal fabrication or production, industrial relations, or a related field. This amendment to the Royal Canadian Mint Act would allow the government to draw on a greater pool of candidates with diverse experiences.

As I wind down my comments I would like to say a few words about a very important group of our society, our veterans. In November, we wear poppies as a symbol to remember the sacrifices made by Canadian veterans. The Government of Canada has a social covenant with all veterans and their families, a sacred obligation we must meet with respect and gratitude. In the past, all too often that covenant has unfortunately been breached.

Canada's veterans have dedicated their lives to the defence of this nation and they deserve our unwavering support. Bill C-29 would give back to veterans who have given so much in the service to all Canadians, by restoring critical access to services and ensuring the long-term financial security that disabled veterans so deserve. Provisions in this bill would mean that Canada's veterans would receive more local, in-person government services, as well as better access to case managers.

In closing, I would like to say how privileged I am, and what an honour it is to represent and serve the residents of the riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge, and how happy I am to have been able to speak on second reading on Bill C-29, the budget implementation act.

The House resumed from October 28 consideration of the motion that Bill C-29, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak to the budget implementation act, 2016, No. 2.

For people who might be watching or listening, a brief summary of the process may be helpful in terms of why we are here and what we are debating.

In the spring, the Liberals presented their first budget. The actual implementation comes in two phases. There was Bill C-15, the Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1, which of course was passed last spring. Now we are implementing the next phase of the budget. It is known as the budget implementation act, 2016, No. 2. These are the technical measures to move the budget into law.

The Liberals always used to talk about the Conservatives and the omnibus nature of our legislation. I am not going to call this omnibus, although we can see that it has many different features. It is necessary, sometimes, to move a budget into law that impacts lots of different pieces of legislation. The Liberals called it omnibus. I just call it good governance and how a budget is actually put into action.

Part 1 is a number of income tax measures. Part 2 focuses on the goods and services tax, the harmonized sales tax, and some commitments made there. Part 3 focuses on the excise tax. Part 4 has a number of different pieces, including the Employment Insurance Act, the Old Age Security Act, the Canada Education Savings Act, the Canada Disability Savings Act, the Financial Consumer Protection Framework, the Royal Canadian Mint Act, and funds management, etcetera. What we can see is a broad piece of legislation impacting many acts of Parliament. It is not called omnibus. It really is just a government doing its business.

Before I talk about my concerns about this particular budget and the budget implementation bill, not all is bad. There are perhaps one or two features that I actually think are reasonable.

We all know of lower-income senior citizen couples who are perhaps separated. Perhaps one needs additional care and has to go into a home. Their benefits are still calculated as a couple. I think it is reasonable to say that if a couple is separated and someone has to go into a home, they now have double the living expenses, so the calculation of the GIS and OAS will not be impacted.

I want to note that there are one or two pieces that I think are reasonable.

More importantly, I think the budget is a disaster for Canada and overall is totally unsupportable.

I remember very fondly when I had the privilege of serving on the finance committee when Canada entered the global recession. The late hon. Jim Flaherty was our finance minister. He was also named the best finance minister in Canada.

It was a global crisis at the time. It was a catastrophe. We were very concerned. Leaders across of the world had many sleepless nights because of the global recession. I can remember that the hon. Jim Flaherty came up with a plan. He articulated that plan to Canadians. He said what he was going to do over a number of years. Not only did he articulate the plan, he executed the plan, and he executed the plan in almost exactly the way he said he would when he first announced that we were going to have to take extraordinary measures to deal with the global recession.

It is important to say that it was a plan. It was articulated to Canadians, it was executed, and the results speak for themselves.

Up to about 2008-09, things were moving along very well. About $30 million or $40 million was paid back on the debt, then we were struck by the global recession.

The plan at the time was a number of years of deficit spending. The reason I am going over this is to contrast the current plan of the Liberals with the plan we had back then. It was deficit spending to deal with an extraordinary situation, but it was declining deficit spending, starting at approximately $55 billion, and over five years getting back to surplus. That was the plan. It was seen as short term. We needed an infusion to get the wheels going when the systems were failing around us.

Canada can be incredibly proud of having the stimulus. I would say to the Liberals that it was truly infrastructure stimulus. It got out the door fast. It was something that actually gave a jolt to the economy. We did not make mistakes and create deficits because of calculation errors.

Jim Flaherty also knew that once we opened the taps of government spending, it becomes incredibly difficult to turn those taps off. Any of us who lived through the 1990s, when we were in an absolutely horrendous position, realize that turning off those taps is very painful. It was very painful for the provinces. They saw health care transfers come down. There was a lot of pain and effort to get our finances back into a reasonable condition. That was a lesson we recognized.

The late hon. Jim Flaherty would have been incredibly proud to know that he achieved his plan. He did not live long enough to see the results. There are some lessons the Liberal government needs to take from that exercise.

It is also important to note that for 2015-16, the parliamentary budget officer recently confirmed that had it not been for the Liberal spending spree once it took office in October and November, we would have had a $2.9 billion surplus.

Different times require different remedies. Canada came through the global recession. None of our banks failed. We had a short-term stimulus for the economy, we had the best job creation record in the G7, and we moved into a bit of a steady state.

Yes, we have slow growth, but we are not in a recession. That is critical to remember. Slow growth is not a recession, and a different remedy is required economically. The Liberals seem to feel that it needs the kind of jolt we had during the global recession. We need a different remedy to deal with the slow-growth situation we are in, as opposed to the catastrophe we faced with the global recession.

I want to talk about how the Liberals believe they need to craft a budget. In the last year we heard that the budget would balance itself and the economy would grow from the heart out. Nothing could be further from the truth. The budget will not balance itself, and the economy is not going to grow from the heart out. It takes a lot of work and a lot of specific policies to ensure that the government does its part in creating an environment for the economy to grow, and balancing a budget requires some spending discipline. That is something we have not been seeing.

I talked about how we had a plan and that it was not a structural deficit but stimulus spending. It was roads and bridges and different investments that created short-term jobs.

What we are creating with the policies of this new government is a structural deficit that is growing and growing and is going to be more concerning as time goes on.

First, on the middle-class tax cut the Liberals so proudly talk about, they miscalculated by a couple of billion dollars. It was going to be revenue neutral. What the rich pay, the middle-class was going to benefit from, but they missed by a billion or two in the structural deficit.

It was a difficult decision to move the age of eligibility for old age security from 65 to 67. Canadians are living longer, and that is what a lot of other countries are doing. A number of countries in the world have moved the eligibility age for old age security from 65 to 67, because times are different. People are living a lot longer. This was something that would create a sustainable structure for old age security. The Liberals have obliterated that. It is now back to age 65. They have not taken into account the huge structural deficit that will be created with that.

The Liberals talk very proudly about their child care benefit. However, they did not index it. They have learned from the parliamentary budget officer that in a few years it will not be as good as the program we had in place. Therefore, they are indexing it through this budget implementation act. However, the cost of indexing it is $4.2 billion over five years. We have not heard what they are doing to create that revenue, so that will also become part of this structural deficit.

During the election, the Liberals claimed they had to run a small deficit of $10 billion because we had a sluggish economy. It was $30 billion, give or take, when they presented the budget. We will see what the minister has to say next week about this whole economic forecast. I hope I can be optimistic, but I am worried about that $30 billion deficit increasing. What we have is a deficit that continues to grow. There is no plan to create a fiscal anchor to bring it back to balance. They speak of the debt-to-GDP ratio, but have no anchor. Rather, they have a horrific spending problem.

At the same time, the middle class appears to be the touchstone word that we hear from the Liberals. To be frank, instead of growing the middle class, the Liberals are breaking it. They are creating an environment that is very difficult for businesses to thrive in.

Another broken promise is with respect to small business, which is the foundation of our economy. It is critical for employment and the revenues that come into government. The Liberals made a promise, reversed it, and now the small business tax has gone up.

During the election, every party committed to a low small business tax, because we recognized that what the government did not take in, the businesses would put into growing their business and increasing their payroll. Therefore, we felt that supporting small business with low taxes would be fundamentally important for the economy. The Liberals backtracked on that promise.

The next thing the Liberals did to small business owners was cook up a deal with respect to the Canada pension plan. Not only has small business had its tax raised, but it will cost an additional $2,000 a year for every employee: $1,000 paid by the employer and $1,000 by the employee. That might not sound like a lot, but for a new business with 20 employees that is struggling to make payroll, $20,000 can make a huge difference as to what it does and how it deals with its business. A number of these measures are creating some significant issues for the middle class.

I need to make a quick comment with respect to rural communities. Again, rural communities are incredibly important. We do not have a softwood lumber agreement signed. We are concerned about these good-paying, middle-class jobs, which keep the fabric of our rural communities alive. It will be an especially important issue for British Columbia. There does not seem to be any concern at all for rural communities.

Today, our colleague who represents Vegreville, which is a small community of 1,000 people, made reference to the fact that 200 immigration jobs would be moved to Edmonton. That will potentially destroy that community. It will have a huge impact.

The minister justified that by suggesting there were economies of scale. It does not take much to recognize that the commercial rates in Edmonton are going to be a whole lot different from the commercial rates in a small town. I really doubt that the business model is going to have that much impact. In the meanwhile, what they are doing is destroying a small town, and those who choose to move to Edmonton, all of a sudden, are going to face huge challenges because housing prices are extremely different.

We have talked about the middle class. I really do not think the middle class is benefiting from this particular budget. We certainly know that our small businesses are not benefiting from the budget. We certainly know the additional complications that are being created around environmental assessment processes, which are really causing pause. I heard from an investor from Korea who was looking at making significant investments in our country, but who is now backing away. He was saying there's now no certainty, that they do not know what the environmental assessment process will look like and how the carbon tax will fit in. People are looking at Canada and saying that maybe their money would be better spent in another place.

What the government does not realize is that money is mobile and for people to invest in Canada, they need to have confidence in Canada, but the changing landscape with government processes is really creating some challenges. They need to have certainty. They need to know what the process is. They need to know how long the process is.

Yesterday, we had a pretty powerful discussion about the indigenous child welfare system. The fact was brought up that during the first 100 days in office, the Prime Minister committed to spending billions of dollars in other countries. I am not sure those billions are really creating a positive impact in Canada. I do agree that we need to do our part to help address some of the challenges facing other countries. However, when we have in Canada some aboriginal communities facing underfunding of their child welfare services, that is a problem.

In conclusion, the government has time to take pause. It is not too late. But please, before you create this structural deficit, those the government says it is helping, the children, are the ones who are going to have pay it back.

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

Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise today to comment on this budget implementation act.

Canada is a country built upon optimism, often in the face of seemingly insurmountable challenges. However, this promise of a better life has been eroding in recent decades. The reality is that many middle-class Canadians have had their confidence shaken. While our economy continues to grow, middle-class Canadians are struggling. Many Canadians are working harder and longer as the cost of living continues to rise. Middle-class Canadians just do not feel as though they are getting ahead.

It is time to recapture the hope and optimism for the future that existed in previous generations. We must embrace the spirit of those early founders and build upon their legacy by providing the same opportunities for advancement and mobility they once unlocked. We already possess the keys to this future.

Canadians are among the most highly educated people in the world, ranking among the top of all members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. More than half of Canadians have a post-secondary degree. We are world-renowned for scientific research and discovery, and can often be found on the cutting edge of the clean technologies emerging right now on the world stage. We have abundant natural resources, outmatched only by the resourcefulness and diversity of our people.

With interest rates at record lows, now is the time to make the investments that will invigorate the heart of our Canadian economy, our middle class and those working hard to join it.

This is no small undertaking. The challenges this budget identified cannot be solved in one year, but we can and must take the next steps that will focus on growing the economy for the long term, in ways that will benefit every Canadian. The legislation we are debating today, budget implementation act, 2016, No. 2 will complete the measures we introduced in budget 2016.

This is a budget that offers a fresh boost to the core of Canada's economy, Canada's middle class. The bill we are debating today will build a strong economy for Canada, and it will give the middle class and those working hard to join it more money in their pockets to save, invest, and grow the economy.

This bill includes measures that build on Canada's economic and fiscal strength. It offers help for the middle class. It includes measures that protect consumers. It ensures tax fairness and integrity.

I would also like to discuss Canada's economic and fiscal strength. As I mentioned, many middle class and other Canadians are working harder but not getting ahead. There is a growing consensus in Canada and globally that governments need to invest, not only to boost economic growth in the short term but also to set the stage for long-term growth as well.

Canada has the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio of any G7 country, and interest rates are at historic lows. Now is the ideal time for Canada to invest in its future success.

I also want to talk about what this budget does to help the middle class. Obviously we can all agree, I would hope, that a strong economy starts with a strong middle class. When middle-class Canadians have more money to save, to invest, and to spend, everyone benefits. A strengthened middle class means that hard-working Canadians can look forward to a good standard of living and better prospects for their kids and grandchildren. When we have an economy that works for the middle class, we have a country that works for everyone. We must do for our kids and grandkids what our parents and grandparents did for us.

Also important when it comes to growing the middle class is making sure that we help young Canadians succeed. Budget 2016 makes post-secondary education more affordable for students from low and middle-income families and will make it easier for students to repay student debt. It will also help young Canadians gain the much-needed experience and income they need, and to be in a position to find good jobs after graduation.

Now more than ever, it is important that post-secondary education remains affordable and accessible. Young Canadians must have access to meaningful work at the beginning of their careers and must not be burdened by increasing student debt. Budget 2016 will address these concerns.

Budget 2016 also improves the employment insurance regime. Canada's employment insurance program provides economic security to Canadians when they need it most. Whatever the circumstances, no Canadian should struggle to get the assistance they need. To make sure that Canadians get the help when they need it, several changes are being proposed to the EI system. Changes to eligibility rules will make it easier for new workers and those re-entering the workforce to claim benefits. The waiting period will also be reduced from two weeks to one week, providing unemployed workers with hundreds of dollars more at the time they need it most.

Budget 2016 will also improve the quality of life of seniors. The government, through budget 2016, will make significant new investments to support seniors in their retirement years. Increased benefits will ensure that Canadian seniors have a dignified, comfortable, and secure retirement.

Budget 2016 also has measures to support Canada's veterans. The Government of Canada has a social covenant with veterans and their families. It is a sacred obligation that we must meet with respect and gratitude. Our veterans have dedicated their lives to the defence of our country and they deserve our unwavering support, as I am sure all members of the House agree.

The government will give back to veterans who have given so much in service to all Canadians. Canada will restore critical access to services for veterans and ensure 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. Our veterans deserve nothing less.

Budget 2016 also includes many measures to help protect consumers. Canadians deserve financial consumer protection in banking that keeps pace with their needs. In line with this, budget 2016 contains plans to strengthen and modernize the financial consumer protection framework, by proposing to amend the Bank Act.

Canada's financial sector was resilient enough to weather the 2008 financial crisis, and we are seeking to build on this strength. We want to make sure that the financial sector is able to adapt to new trends, including emerging financial innovation and technologies. What this legislation proposes to do is consolidate and streamline existing consumer provisions into one new chapter of the Bank Act, and to introduce amendments to the Bank Act to enhance consumer protection in the areas of access to basic banking services, business practices, disclosure, complaint handling, as well as corporate governance and complaints and accountability.

The federal government is exercising leadership by taking targeted steps to strengthen financial consumer protection. This includes measures to improve access to basic banking services, impose certain limits on business practices, and enhance disclosure to facilitate and inform the decisions being made by consumers. These reforms reaffirm our government's intent to have a system of exclusive rules for consumer protection to ensure an efficient national banking system from coast to coast to coast.

The budget also does much to ensure tax fairness and integrity. A fundamental Canadian value is one of fairness. This is why the Government of Canada is committed to a plan of action to combat international tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance that strengthens existing efforts at home and abroad and includes new measures.

Under the common reporting standard, Canadian financial institutions will be expected to have procedures in place to identify accounts held by non-residents, and to report information on those accounts to the Canada Revenue Agency. Tax administration in foreign jurisdictions will likewise collect information from their financial institutions about accounts held by residents of other countries, including Canada. The CRA will formalize exchange arrangements with foreign jurisdictions, having verified that each jurisdiction has the appropriate capacity and safeguards in place. Then the financial account information will begin to be exchanged on a reciprocal bilateral basis. The introduction of the common reporting standard is an important global development, which will help to enhance tax compliance and eliminate the opportunities for tax evasion.

In addition to this new legislative tool, budget 2016 also announced $444 million in new resources for the Canada Revenue Agency to address tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance.

Going forward, Canada will continue to work with the international community to ensure a coherent and consistent response to tax avoidance.

Budget 2016 and the budget implementation legislation are an important step, not only in the life of this government, but in growing Canada's economy, preparing the Canadian economy for the future. To do this, Canadians know that our government must invest in infrastructure and innovation, but, most importantly, invest in Canadians.

During the campaign, all of us were successful in being elected. Our success was due in part to listening to the voters in our own ridings; otherwise none of us, whatever side of the aisle we happen to be on, would be in the chamber today. We listened to Canadians. I certainly did.

In my riding of Newmarket—Aurora there was concern with what was happening. There was concern about whether or not people's children and grandchildren would have the same opportunities that we had. The budget clearly addresses many of those concerns.

Let us look for a minute at the Canada child benefit, which is an important social policy and also an important economic policy. There are nine out of ten Canadian families who are now receiving more through this child benefit than they were receiving previously. The effect that this has, among other things, is that 300,000 young Canadians will be lifted out of poverty. That is 300,000 young people with more hope for the future. That is 300,000 young people who can participate more fully in the lives of their communities. That is 300,000 more people who can participate in the opportunity that Canada offers to all of our young people. This is important, and it should not be overlooked.

There are people in my riding to this day who stop me and thank me for our government having taken this measure. I am fortunate to live in a riding that is relatively affluent, but, even among that affluence, there are pockets of need and pockets of want.

A few weeks ago, I was honoured to attend the opening of the Newmarket Food Pantry in my riding, and I was speaking with the executives and the great volunteers of that organization. They told me that even though it is located in the community of Newmarket, which has so much wealth and prosperity, more people use the Newmarket Food Pantry every month. The need continues to grow. None of us want that trend to continue. This is just one example of where some Canadians were feeling left out and left behind.

I was fortunate at that Newmarket Food Pantry to be asked to say a few words. I was a little overwhelmed by many of the clients at the food pantry. These are hard-working Canadians. These are Canadians who struggle. Many of them are single parents, many are single moms. I do not think anyone would not sympathize with people in this situation. The Canada child benefit helps the exact people that it is intended to help.

As I said, someone asked me to say a few words. I said that I would love to be around on the day that instead of celebrating the opening of the new expanded food pantry, we are celebrating the closing of the doors of the food pantry, not only in Newmarket, but in all of our communities, all food banks. Until that time, it is great to have volunteers and the great people who run these facilities. However, it would be much better to not need these facilities at all. I know everyone in the House agrees with that sentiment.

That is why the Canada child benefit is so important. It helps people who need it most. I can think of nothing more Canadian than that, and that is one facet of the budget that I am very proud of. We see it every day. However, the budget is just the first step in our plan. Of course, there is much more work to be done.

The other facet I am very eager about is the investment in infrastructure. The municipalities in my riding are growing very quickly, and they cannot keep up with the population surge. There is a gap in infrastructure needs, not only highways and sewers and waste water, but even things such as broadband. We have many small and medium enterprises, but even though we are half an hour or 45 minutes north of Toronto, we have issues with connectivity. That needs to be addressed, in all regions of the country. If we want to be part of the technological economy of the future, we have to make sure we invest now. There is also the infrastructure such as highways, transportation, sewage, and waste water, or any of these great infrastructure investments. Budget 2016 realizes that. There is much work to be done.

In the few minutes I have left, I want to discuss why this is a good time to invest. As I mentioned earlier, interest rates are at an all-time low. This is the time to borrow money, but it is not a time to spend recklessly. The borrowed money must be invested prudently, and it must be invested with the view to a return on that investment.

Many Canadians borrow money. Most Canadians borrow money to buy a house, a car. These are necessities. Therefore, taking on debt for important investments and expenses and the fundamental essentials of life is a prudent way of running one's household finances. The same applies to government.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with borrowing money to invest in important projects that are needed by Canadians and that are needed by the Canadian economy, especially when those investments will yield a return in the future. That is what a responsible government ought to do, and I am proud to be part of a government that is going to do just that. Investing now to build future prosperity for Canadians is something we should all be very proud of, and I know I certainly am.

Budget 2016 represents a strong first step in our plan to put people first and to deliver the help they need now while investing for the years and decades to come. With these investments, and inspired by a sense of fairness, we are ensuring that Canada's best days lie ahead. I therefore encourage all members in the House to support the bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-29. I do in fact want to talk about this, because it is a budget implementation bill that follows a budget that we believe is deficient in many ways.

What I find most deplorable is that the bill, which is over 200 pages long and amends over 130 sections, was introduced Tuesday morning. The technical briefing to members of Parliament was Tuesday evening.

Here we are three days later, on a Friday, beginning to debate a bill that has not been read by 95% of the members in this House, I guarantee, and may never be read. Still, it is a very important bill, because it implements several budget provisions and leaves out many other elements that should have been in the bill.

I found it funny earlier when the parliamentary secretary talked about everything the government had done. Regarding the Canada child benefit, which is being indexed through this budget bill, I asked why the government was refusing to admit it had forgotten to index this key measure. The parliamentary secretary replied that it was not true, that the Minister of Finance had mentioned indexation before. Well, I did a bit or research. The Minister of Finance did not mention indexation at all before the parliamentary budget officer tabled a report pointing out this serious flaw. The PBO stated that if it was not indexed, the Canada child benefit would be worth less by the year 2025 than the Conservatives' former program.

Answers like this from the government regarding such important measures are really insulting. Liberals are far from perfect; however, to hear them talk, it sounds like they are the most progressive and innovative government in recent years, which is absolutely not the case.

The bill does contain elements that we cannot argue with. For example, we certainly cannot be against indexing the Canada child benefit. If it is not indexed, its value will decline over time and it will help fewer and fewer people. The bill also contains provisions to help put a price on carbon at some point in time. On this side of the House, this is something we cannot disagree with.

However, many things were left out of the bill. The Liberals promised—like we did and like the Conservatives did—to reduce the small business tax rate. Of course, the NDP was the first party to propose reducing the small business tax rate from 11% to 9%, in 2008. The Liberals maintained the first reduction to 10.5%, which had already been made, but broke their promise.

In terms of tax evasion, the bill contains provisions aimed at meeting OECD standards. Again, we cannot disagree with that, even if, frankly, the efficiency of these standards should be challenged and analyzed because it is becoming more and more apparent that they are lacking in that regard.

My colleague from Joliette had introduced a bill that questioned the tax agreement signed with Barbados. I asked some questions about that today. The Liberals opposed it, except for a single member.

These tax agreements, which are supposed to be treaties to prevent double taxation, actually make it possible to avoid paying Canadian taxes altogether. This is costing Canada billions of dollars. It is not illegal. It is legal, because Canada made it legal by signing the treaty.

When I hear the meaningless answers given by the Minister of National Revenue who does not seem to know what we are talking about when we talk about these tax agreements that are not working or these treaties that are being signed to share tax information with certain countries and that, ultimately, provide us with no information, it soon becomes quite clear that this government likes to look good, but really, it has no intention of making any changes whatsoever to the structure of our Canadian economy.

I will stop there in terms of my comments on Bill C-29 because many other members from all parties want to debate this bill.

I wish to draw the attention of the House to one issue in particular, namely the government's intention to move towards the privatization of our infrastructure. This is not a conspiracy theory. It is clearly written in black and white, and it was expressed when the budget was presented in March 2016. At that time, in March 2016, the government included the following:

New institutions could provide Canada an opportunity to improve infrastructure management across the country by working with our partners to:

Where it is in the public interest, engage public pension plans and other innovative sources of funding—such as demand management initiatives and asset recycling—to increase the long-term affordability and sustainability of infrastructure in Canada;

That was written in black and white in the federal government's budget 2016.

What do we mean by asset recycling? Asset recycling is another way of saying privatizing assets. It is basically taking money and trying to convince provinces, municipalities and the federal government to privatize the infrastructure that belongs to them. However, when we have to deal with provinces and municipalities, we entice them to privatize their assets so they can raise money to invest in other infrastructure. This is called privatization. It is black and white in budget 2016.

What do we see these days? Last week, we heard that the federal government asked Credit Suisse to study the benefit of privatizing airports. Credit Suisse has an interest in this. It is buying airports. It will advise the government on the benefit of the government privatizing public infrastructure. This is what is called asset recycling. This is one part of the infrastructure that the government intends to privatize. We are not going to ask a bank, which is in the business of buying airports, if we should or should not privatize our airports. It wants to buy them. The money the government might get will actually be part of the money it intends to put into this Canadian infrastructure bank.

Yesterday morning we heard from Mr. Martin, who is the head of the advisory council on economic growth. We learned that it was the intention of the government to find $40 billion to put in that bank, which would attract private assets, private retirement funds, which could be a caisse de dépôt et de placement, or CPP board, or whatever other funds, but also private equity firms such as BlackRock could put money into it. We they will not do that out of the goodness of their hearts. They will want a return on this.

How do they get a return on infrastructure that is being used by Canadians? There are not a thousand ways to do it. There are two ways. Either we give them infrastructure to manage, so privatizing the asset itself, or we privatize a stream of revenue, basically saying the government will keep the asset, the infrastructure. The property will still belong to the federal government, but we will have tolls, or fees, or whatever that people will pay for the use of it. That income stream will go to those private investors because they will want a return.

Michael Sabia, who, if I am not mistaken, used to be the head of Bell and is now the CEO of the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, has clearly indicated that he is looking for new places to invest in order to get better returns for the Caisse than it is currently getting, since, in some cases, it is getting negative returns. He is therefore looking to make these investments profitable.

We are talking here about pension funds. Some may say that this is not a bad thing because, if those funds get better returns, it will give people more financial security. However, it is not just pension funds. If we open this door, this will also apply to private investment funds and large private investment firms, such as BlackRock.

Do we want to put the ownership of all of our infrastructure—our bridges, our roads and our transit infrastructure—in the hands of investment or pension funds, so that those funds can make money from them by charging users additional fees? The Liberals never mentioned this approach during the election campaign.

On the contrary, the only time we heard anything about tolls during the election campaign was when the Liberals, following our example, claimed to be opposed to a toll on the new Champlain Bridge. For the rest, there was no mention of privatization, no mention of this infrastructure bank that could generate private investments of up to 80%. I cannot find the words to express how shocked I am at the cynicism of a government that is going in this direction, when it claimed it wanted to help the middle class and keep its promises, but failed to tell Canadians about this plan during the election campaign.

The privatization of airports to get money to allow us to privatize other infrastructure strikes me as a significant restructuring of the Canadian economy, and as such it should have been a major part of the Liberals' election platform, but it was not.

This is not a conspiracy theory. I can back everything I am saying with accounts from Dominic Barton or by citing budget 2016. I would like to say a few words about three of the members of the Advisory Council on Economic Growth that the Prime Minister was talking about.

Dominic Barton, who was appointed chair of the advisory council, has spent his life with the McKinsey group identifying ways to mobilize private capital in exchange for public capital investments. He has spent the better part of the past 10 years promoting the privatization of infrastructure. For his part, Michael Sabia, from Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, clearly wants to diversify his income and investments through Canadian infrastructure. Mark Wiseman, formerly of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, is now at BlackRock, one of the largest private investment firms in the world, and he too is on this advisory council.

There is no doubt that these people are going to recommend privatization.

It is very obvious. They will recommend that we create this Canadian infrastructure bank and provide $40 billion, and we do not know if it is going to be out of the $60 billion promised to cities or if it will be from the privatization of those other assets, in the hope of getting $150 billion or $160 billion of private investments. For those people who have an interest in doing this, like Credit Suisse, which has an interest in airports being privatized, I would be very surprised if their recommendation is otherwise. Dominic Barton was very clear on that yesterday morning. He does not see any problem with this.

We can hold a debate on privatization and we know what side the Conservatives will take. They are generally in favour of it. In fact, their finance critic already projected that in his response. We also already know what side we are going to take: a public asset should never be handed over for the purposes of privatization.

Recent studies by the OECD, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank clearly show that the privatization of public infrastructure assets did not produce positive results, not for the users, nor for the infrastructure itself.

The Conservatives' position is clear and so is ours. It is the Liberals' position that I do not understand. During the election campaign, they never mentioned that this infrastructure bank that was set up would be used largely for privatization. When Canadians heard the Liberals talk about their infrastructure plan, they expected the money would come from the government. They expected the infrastructure plan to be paid for out of the Liberals' deficit, which was supposed to be $10 billion and is now $35 billion, but that is a topic for another debate. It was never a question of privatizing our Canadian infrastructure.

We are at a crossroads. That is not the purpose of Bill C-29, which is one component of the Liberal government's economic agenda. It is one of the things that will come out ahead of the Minister of Finance's economic and fiscal update.

Will there be anything in the update about privatization, asset recycling and the Canada infrastructure bank? That is what we are going to find out on November 1.

I am wondering what will take place during this economic and fiscal update. Will he be talking about privatization? Will the minister be talking about asset recycling? Will he be talking about the Canadian infrastructure bank? We will see.

However, we also know that on November 14, there will be a meeting in Toronto with retirement fund and private equity investors who will actually be very happy. Obviously, Mr. Barton will be there, as well as other members of that advisory council on economic growth.

What do members think they will be talking about?

They will be talking about what we can do to improve infrastructure. Obviously, the fact that the government has neglected this for so long, the fact that we have reduced the fiscal capacity of the government to fix these projects, to improve them, to enlarge them, will not be part of it. We are not going to be talking about the $10 billion to $20 billion annually that we have lost through the reduction of the corporate income tax, since 2000, and the GST, as well. That money reduced, eliminated, the fiscal capacity of the government to invest in infrastructure over the last 15 years.

Now we are at the point where there is an infrastructure deficit in the country. It is largely due to the fact that the government has decided to shackle itself, has refused to invest in that infrastructure, preferring, instead, corporate income tax reductions that were supposed to promote private investment and promote real investment.

I can tell members we lost all that capacity to invest in our infrastructure without bringing a spurt of growth in real investment. For whatever reason, the private sector is still shy to invest all that money it received from the federal government in tax reductions.

There is no mention of how the federal governments, Liberal and Conservative, which have succeeded each other for the last 15 years, are responsible for the current situation we are in. We have the reputation, in the NDP, of not knowing how to manage money. We are over $650 billion in debt, without a single year of the NDP governing in this country. If we look at the record of the NDP provincially, in terms of fiscal management, it is very good.

However, we cannot say that the NDP has caused the problems that we have right now. We cannot say that the NDP is responsible for the infrastructure deficit that this country is experiencing. We cannot say that the NDP is responsible for the lack of ability of the federal government to invest in the needed infrastructure, and we certainly cannot say that the NDP is responsible for the fact that the Liberals, right now, are looking at the possibility of privatizing our public assets without having said a word to that effect to Canadians.

Members can be sure that we will be watching. Members can be sure that we will be making certain that Canadians know what is going on here. We will be watching very carefully what happens with the fiscal and economic update, because the direction the Liberals want to take us to fix the infrastructure problem is a solution that will be unacceptable to the majority of Canadians. We will ensure the NDP will be there with them to fight it.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased and honoured, but also humbled, to speak on behalf of all my official opposition colleagues and on behalf of all Canadians who were literally duped by the Liberal Party a year ago.

The Liberal Party promised heaven and earth, but it is breaking its promises. Worse yet, we see that the billions of dollars invested, supposedly in development, is not working. The Liberal plan is not working and we can prove it.

We are gathered this morning to talk about Bill C-29 which, in a way, is the second budget implementation bill. The people watching us this morning need to understand that the budget was tabled, voted on, and passed. However, two bills are being enacted to implement the budget.

What we are seeing is that all the government's budget measures are not working. When we left office a year ago, we left the House in order. This week, the parliamentary budget officer confirmed what we knew, and what Canadians suspected, namely that we left a $2.9-billion surplus. That was a good thing. In fact, a $2.9-billion surplus is responsible, realistic, conservative, and Canadian. We will come back to the current situation later.

We left Canadians the lowest tax burden in 50 years. Canadians had never before paid so little in taxes as under the Conservative government one year ago. That was the mindset that we left Canadians. That was the economic situation that we left Canadians. The major difference is that we believe that Canadian entrepreneurs and businesses, not government, create jobs. Our Conservative policies created 200,000 jobs during our last term of office. A $2.9-billion surplus, the lowest tax burden in 50 years, and 200,000 jobs created by private enterprise, all made possible by Conservative policies. That was the situation one year ago.

Where are we one year later? The Bank of Canada, the parliamentary budget officer, the International Monetary Fund, and the OECD confirm that the Liberal government's economic forecasts must be downgraded. Although we had excellent momentum a year ago, today all economic observers agree that the Liberal plan is not working and that the economic forecasts must be downgraded.

Everyone can see that the employment statistics are worrisome. The Liberal government's measures were supposed to create hundreds of thousands of jobs, but we have not seen any results. Not only is the unemployment rate stable at 7%, but now we are learning that tens of thousands of jobs are being lost, and the Minister of Finance, pleased as Punch, is telling Canadians that they will have to get used to part-time work How inspiring. Way to encourage people to do more and promote job creation. It is not inspiring at all and it is so typical of the Liberals.

Let us now look at the backbone of government management: deficits and surpluses. Need I remind members that our government left a $2.9-billion surplus? This is not the first time I have said it, and I can tell my colleagues right now that this is not the last time they will hear me say it either.

Today, we have a deficit of tens of billions of dollars. I would remind members that, on page 76 of the Liberal election platform, it reads:

...the federal government will have a modest...deficit of...$10 billion...

The deficit will shrink, and after four years, it will magically be transformed into a surplus. That is the Liberal promise. The reality is that the Liberal Party brought in a budget that spells out a $30-billion deficit. In fact, two weeks ago, TD Canada Trust said that the deficit could be as much as $34 billion. On October 19, to celebrate his first year in power, the Prime Minister of Canada was interviewed on TVA, and he said that he did not know how the whole deficit thing was going to turn out. Great. Just great.

Should such an amateurish response come as any surprise? Is this not the same member for Papineau, Prime Minister, and Liberal Party leader who, in an interview two years ago, said that budgets balance themselves? Right. If, according to his economic theory, budgets balance themselves, then he can promise a $10-billion deficit that is really a $30-billion deficit, or how about a $34-billion deficit or who knows how many billions exactly.

That is classic Liberal Party, and it is totally unacceptable. The Liberal government keeps talking about how wonderful everything is because it has the most ambitious infrastructure plan in Canadian history. On our watch, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean, as Minister of Economic Development, headed a department managing an $80-billion infrastructure investment program. At the time, that was the most ambitious program in Canadian history. The difference is that we did it by creating a budget surplus, not a Liberal-style deficit.

The Liberals promised billions. They said that a growing deficit is not a problem and it is all good. It is not all good. Such a huge deficit is irresponsible because it is deferred taxation; we are forcing our children and grandchildren to pay the bill.

Let us look at what I like to call the this government's grand gestures. As I said earlier, this government is not creating jobs; private enterprise is what is creating them. We therefore need to give businesses the tools they need to create jobs. We in the Conservative Party believe that the real job creators, the real backbone of the Canadian economy, are small and medium-sized businesses. They are the real wealth creators, and yet, these Liberal measures work against them.

Was the Liberal carbon tax included in their platform? No. Also, we have not seen the corporate tax cuts those folks over there promised.

The following is written on page 80: “As we reduce the small business tax rate to 9 percent from 11 percent...” That is not true; they are not doing that. They are keeping taxes high and even increasing CPP contributions. This is going to cost Canadian workers $1,000 more per year, and cost businesses $1,000 more per employee every year. That is $2,000 less for the economy and $2,000 more in government coffers for the pension plan. It is unacceptable.

Let us now take a look at exactly how this government is managing its much-touted program to help children, the Canada child benefit.

They said they were going to abolish the three programs our government put in place to really help families, namely the universal child care benefit, the Canada child tax benefit, and the national child benefit supplement. We had fashioned three programs to meet the needs of all Canadian families. However, in its boundless wisdom, the government said those programs needed to go. It says it is going to reinvent the wheel and that it is going to come up with the best program that Canada has ever seen. That is pretty much what it said.

However, the reality is that this government promised to make changes at no cost, but that was a mistake. This is going to put us $3.4 billion in the hole. It is wishful thinking by the Liberals: give people money, help them, and stimulate the economy. That is nice, but it is wishful thinking. Someone has to pay for all this at some point. Those people were elected on a promise to implement a program at no cost. It has not worked out that way. We are $3.4 billion in the hole.

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

Madam Speaker, it has been just over a year since the previous federal election, and I think we would all agree it has been a tremendous year for all of us in this House. Twelve months ago, many felt the momentum building throughout the country. We were confident in our vision for Canada, and, as it turns out, so were Canadians.

In this past year, especially as a first-time MP, I have been thrilled to be working on behalf of Canadians, helping to impact their lives for the better. It is a pleasure for me to rise in this chamber and speak about the investments that the Government of Canada will be making to keep Canada and its people strong and growing for the long term.

Canada is one of the first countries in the world to put into practice the idea that when you have an economy that works for the middle class, you have a country that works for everyone.

In the last year we took some important steps towards helping families regain the confidence they will need to drive our economy forward. We cut taxes for close to nine million Canadians, and we introduced the Canada child benefit, which puts more money in the pockets of nine out of ten families with children.

We increased Canada student grants for students from low- and middle-income families and for part-time students. We increased monthly payments for the most vulnerable seniors. We signed an agreement with the provinces to enhance the Canada pension plan to provide young people and future generations of workers with a stable, dignified retirement.

We have also begun making unprecedented investments that will help the middle class grow and prosper today, while delivering economic growth for years to come.

We will continue to build on this momentum.

This second budget implementation act proposes items that will complete the implementation of outstanding measures from the Government of Canada's first budget, growing the middle class.

As a government, we are particularly proud of our first budget. This is a budget that puts people and family first. It introduces investments that take an essential step to growing the middle class. It is the first step of a long-term plan to restore hope and revitalize the economy for the benefit of all Canadians. This is a budget and a plan that is not only resonating with Canadians, but is gathering international praise around the world as well.

The Financial Times called Canada's approach a glimmer of light. The Wall Street Journal called our finance minister “the poster child” for the International Monetary Fund's global growth strategy. Christine Lagarde, head of the International Monetary Fund, praised our approach as well. At the recent IMF annual meetings, Madame Lagarde said, “Look at Canada.... They're using all possible levers to move the needle towards positive and more growth”. That is what all countries can do.”

Our budget earned these endorsements. I firmly believe that we as a government are focused on exactly the right things: on people, and on growing the economy for the long term in a way that will benefit all Canadians.

The bill before us today, budget implementation act, 2016, No. 2, completes the implementation of the measures we introduced in budget 2016. It provides additional assistance to the people who are the heart of our economy, Canada's middle class.

The bill we are debating today will help foster a strong Canadian economy and will enable Canadians in the middle class and those working hard to join it to keep more of their money to save, invest, and ensure economic growth.

This bill includes measures that will help families, give seniors a little more flexibility, protect consumers, and improve the quality and integrity of our country's tax system.

One of the cornerstones of our plan to strengthen the middle class is also a cornerstone of our first budget. In budget 2016, we introduced the new Canada child benefit. This benefit will help parents better support what is most precious to them, their children.

The Canada child benefit is simpler and more generous than the benefits it is replacing. It is also tax free and better targeted to help those who need it most in our society.

The Canada child benefit will lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty in Canada. That is because since the benefit was first rolled out in July, nine out of ten families are now receiving more money than they did under the previous system.

Whether that extra money is being used to buy school supplies, groceries, or warm coats for the winter, the Canada child benefit will help parents cover the growing cost of raising their children.

Let me explain how this benefit will help Canadian families. Parents of children under 18 will receive a maximum annual benefit of $6,400 per child under six and $5,400 per child aged six through 17.

Supporting this budget implementation bill will help ensure that the Canada child benefit will be indexed to inflation, so that families can count on this extra assistance today and for years to come.

This budget implementation act would also support seniors by helping them to retire in more comfort and with dignity. Canada's retirement income system has been successful in reducing the incidence of poverty among Canadian seniors. However, some seniors continue to be at heightened risk of living with low income. In particular, single seniors are nearly three times more likely to live with low incomes than seniors generally. Budget 2016 would help seniors retire comfortably and with dignity by making significant new investments that support them in their retirement years.

In budget 2016, we repealed the provision of the Old Age Security Act that increased the age of eligibility for old age security and guaranteed income supplement benefits from 65 to 67 years of age and allowance benefits from 60 to 62 over the 2023 to 2029 period. Restoring the eligibility age for old age security and guaranteed income supplement benefits to 65 will put thousands of dollars back into the pockets of Canadians as they become seniors and look to retire. That is the right thing to do.

Budget 2016 also increased the guaranteed income supplement top-up benefit by up to $947 annually for the most vulnerable single seniors, starting in July 2016. This is helping those seniors who rely almost exclusively on old age security and guaranteed income supplement benefits, and may therefore be at risk of experiencing financial difficulties.

These enhancements more than double the current maximum guaranteed income supplement top-up benefit and represent a 10% increase in the total maximum guaranteed income supplement benefits available to the lowest income single seniors in our country. This measure represents an investment of over $670 million per year and will improve the financial security of about 900,000 single seniors across our nation.

In this second budget implementation bill, we are delivering on the promise we made in budget 2016 to support senior couples who face higher costs of living and are at an increased risk of poverty because they must live apart.

This second budget implementation bill amends the Old Age Security Act in order to make the program more flexible. When couples who are receiving the guaranteed income supplement and the spouse's allowance have to live apart for reasons beyond their control, each of them will receive benefits based on their individual income.

By extending this treatment to couples receiving the guaranteed income supplement and spouse's allowance, the government is improving fairness for seniors and helping them live with the dignity they deserve and need in retirement.

Canadians deserve financial consumer protection that keeps pace with people's needs. In line with this, budget 2016 contains plans to strengthen and modernize the financial consumer protection framework.

Budget implementation act, 2016, No. 2 would amend the Bank Act in order to strengthen and modernize the financial consumer protection framework in our country. The financial sector plays an important role in supporting economic growth in this nation. Each day, the nation's financial institutions support the financial needs of consumers and large and small businesses, and enable payments and transactions. They form the infrastructure of our market system.

Canada's financial sector weathered the 2008 financial crisis well. We are seeking to build on this strength. We want to make sure that the financial sector is able to adapt to new trends, including emerging financial innovation and technologies that will challenge existing business models, evolving consumer preferences and customer relationships, changing demographics, and continuing globalization.

Budget 2016 proposes to modernize the financial consumer protection framework by clarifying and enhancing consumer protection in the Bank Act, and working with stakeholders to support the implementation of the framework. This legislation proposes to consolidate and streamline existing consumer provisions into one chapter of the Bank Act, and introduce amendments to the Bank Act to enhance consumer protection in the areas of access to basic banking services' business practices, disclosure, complaints handling, as well as corporate governance and accountability.

The federal government is showing leadership by implementing targeted measures to better protect consumers of financial products and services in Canada. These measures include improving access to basic banking services, setting limits on certain business practices, and improving disclosure of information to make it easier for consumers to make informed choices. These reforms reiterate the federal government's intent to have a system of exclusive consumer protection rules to ensure an efficient national banking system across the country.

Fairness is one of Canadians' fundamental values. That is why the government of Canada committed to implement an action plan to combat international tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance that contains new measures and builds on the efforts that are currently being made both here in Canada and abroad. This work will help protect the tax base and boost Canadians' confidence in the fairness of a system that ensures that everyone pays their fair share of the tax burden.

As part of an international effort to combat tax evasion, budget 2016 confirms the government's intention to implement the common reporting standard developed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD. Under the common reporting standard, Canadian financial institutions will be expected to have procedures in place to identify accounts held by non-residents and to report information on those accounts to the Canada Revenue Agency.

Tax administrations in foreign jurisdictions will likewise collect information from their financial institutions about accounts held by residents of other countries, including Canada. The CRA will formalize exchange arrangements with foreign jurisdictions, having verified that each jurisdiction has appropriate capacity and safeguards in place. Then the financial account information will begin to be exchanged on a reciprocal bilateral basis.

The introduction of the common reporting standard is an important global development, which will help enhance tax compliance and eliminate opportunities for tax evasion in our country. Canada intends to implement the standard consistent with our commitment to the G-20 and similar commitments by more than 100 other jurisdictions.

The budget also announced plans to implement a new requirement for country-by-country reporting. This is an initiative agreed to under the G20/0ECD project to address tax avoidance by multinational enterprises through base erosion and profit shifting.

Under these new rules, large multinational enterprises will be required to file information with tax authorities providing a high-level profile of their activities in each jurisdiction in which they operate. These reports will enhance transparency and assist tax administrations in performing effective risk assessments.

Going forward, Canada will continue to work with the international community to ensure a coherent and consistent response to tax avoidance. In addition to these new legislative tools, budget 2016 also announced $444 million in new resources for the Canada Revenue Agency to address offshore tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance.

In conclusion, budget 2016 represents a giant step forward in our plan to put people first and to deliver the help they need now while investing for the years and decades to come. With these investments, and inspired by a sense of fairness, we are ensuring that Canada's best days lie ahead. Our plan is about creating the necessary conditions to ensure that hope and hard work will not be wasted but will be rewarded in this country where our children and our grandchildren can flourish.

The Government of Canada is focused on the larger picture of ensuring prosperity for Canadians well beyond its 150th birthday. I therefore encourage all members in the House to support the bill. This is right for Canada. This is right for families. This is right for the middle class.

[Marie-Claude Bibeau, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

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

[Martha Durdin, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Credit Union Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, committee members.

I'm here with my colleague, Rob Martin, representing Canada's credit unions.

Credit unions, as you know, are member-owned, full-service banking institutions that serve over 5.6 million Canadians. We contribute $6.5 billion to our country's GDP and help create over 58,000 jobs. We support small and medium-sized business with 11.5% market share, and that market share is close to 50% in some markets out west. In a recent CFIB study, credit unions are far ahead of the banks when it comes to serving small and medium-sized business in Canada.

This year, for the 12th year in a row, we ranked first in customer service, well ahead of the banks. We do this from what is largely a traditional banking model: taking deposits, making loans. However, the current environment is challenging for us, with low interest rates, federal tax changes, increased regulatory burden, and new mortgage lending rules, which are all making it more difficult to serve our markets, mostly middle-class Canadians.

My remarks today will focus on two key priorities: allowing for a regulatory pause to assess the full impact of recent mortgage change rules before any new risk-sharing measures are considered, and implementation of a risk-based approach to the common reporting standard.

Our first and most pressing recommendation is that the government implement a regulatory pause to assess the impact of recent mortgage rule changes before proceeding with new risk-based measures. As you know, the government recently announced two changes to mortgage insurance parameters. The first change implements a stress test for high-ratio insured mortgages. These borrowers have less than a 20% down payment. The second change will implement, as of November 30, new qualifying requirements to obtain low-ratio mortgage insurance. This is when a borrower has 20% or more as a down payment.

In our view, and the view of others, the recent measures will dampen mortgage markets across Canada and will make it more difficult for those aspiring to the middle-class goal of home ownership. To elaborate, in the October monetary policy report, the Bank of Canada recognized the impact that these measures will have, and projected a slowdown in the housing market through 2016 and 2017. In fact, the bank projects that in 2017, rather than being a net contributor to GDP growth, the housing sector will become a drag on the Canadian economy.

The bank also projects a significant dampening of resale activity across Canada. According to Genworth Financial, a little over one-third of insured mortgages, predominantly for first-time homebuyers, will have difficulty qualifying for mortgage insurance. Genworth has also estimated that approximately 50% to 55% of its total portfolio of new insurance written would no longer be eligible for mortgage insurance under the new low-ratio mortgage insurance requirements. Preliminary credit union analysis suggests that, in some instances, up to half of low-ratio mortgages would no longer qualify for low-ratio insurance. This could have a significant impact on funding opportunities for credit unions and our ability to raise capital, and would increase prices for members and our customers.

On top of these measures, the government released a consultation paper on mortgage insurance risk sharing just last week. Two of the proposed models would require lenders to accept more losses if loans default. A third model would establish premiums that lenders would pay that would be based on loan losses in a specific period. In our view, implementation of any of these proposed models during a period before other mortgage measures have taken hold would be unwise. Mortgage activity would face a further slowdown, credit costs would rise, resale activities would decline, and mortgage credit would be harder to come by.

As the market tightens, aspiring homeowners across Canada would find it more difficult to obtain a first mortgage or get home financing in economically challenged regions. It is especially concerning, because many of these regions have not experienced the housing sector upswings, as in the Toronto and Vancouver markets. Credit unions are particularly concerned about the impact these measures would have on the 380 small communities where they are the sole bricks-and-mortar financial institution.

Once again, I'd like to emphasize the need for a regulatory pause before the government moves toward implementation of a new risk-sharing framework.

Our second recommendation is to incorporate a risk-based approach to the common reporting standard. As you know, in Bill C-29, the government included an amendment that will bring a common reporting standard into force in Canada. The standard is intended to help curb cross-border tax evasion by facilitating the automatic exchange of financial account information between tax jurisdictions, except, of course, the U.S.

Bill C-29 does not propose a risk-based approach to compliance. Instead, the standard is being implemented on a one-size-fits-all basis to require all financial institutions, even those that are at low risk for being used for this type of tax evasion, to begin reporting on all accounts held by non-residents, this despite the fact that the CCUA survey found that the median number of non-U.S. non-residents served by Canada's credit unions is three—just three. This means that every credit union will have to dedicate additional resources for account screening, review, analysis, monitoring, reporting, and record-keeping. Banking system changes will need to be made and additional staff training undertaken, all to report to CRA annually on a handful of foreign-held accounts.

In our view, regulatory compliance based on risk assessments makes more sense. To this end, CCUA urges the federal government to apply a risk-based approach wherein institutions qualifying under an annually applied test would be exempt from CRS obligations. This is similar to the approach that we applied under FATCA, the current bilateral tax agreement with the U.S., and it makes sense to apply it for the common reporting standard.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. We look forward to your questions.

Business of the House

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

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

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

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

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

Last, next Thursday shall be an allotted day.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay. With that, I thank all of the witnesses for their presentations and the committee members for a fairly long afternoon with our second panel of the day.

I remind members that we have the budget implementation act, Bill C-29, to be reviewed.

With that, thank you all.

This meeting is adjourned.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

moved that Bill C-29, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures be read the first time and printed.

(Motion deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Hannah Dawson-Murphy, As an Individual]

Hi, everyone.

Thank you for taking the time to consult us on this matter. It's extremely important in my opinion and in the opinion of a lot of other Canadians. Terrorism is evolving and we've seen that it's picked up speed in the last 20 years and continues to threaten our everyday lives with new developments and new technologies.

As a student, I have focused my research and my studies on this topic. I've tried in the last couple of years to grasp this whole concept of terrorism, but I've also tried to grasp how a government can protect its people from this ever-evolving threat.

The measures outlined in Bill C-51 in my opinion are the right balance between protecting our rights as Canadians while also protecting Canadians' lives. We must keep in mind that Canada is not immune to terrorist attacks and home-grown radicalization. We currently have around 180 Canadians who are suspected of engaging in terrorist activities abroad, and we also have around 60 extremists who have returned to Canada after travelling overseas.

These rising numbers don't even include the people who are here now who are radicalized and haven't left, and who can take action at any moment. We've had two of our own military members lose their lives to terrorism-related activities, and I believe that if we'd had the measures imposed by Bill C-51 two years ago they might still be alive today. I hope as a committee you will work to ensure that our national security framework protects Canadians from this ever-changing threat, and I hope you will take my advice in this matter.

That's all I have to say.

[Ewa Infeld, As an Individual]

Hi. I'm a research fellow in mathematics and information security.

You guys have been doing this for a while, so I'm sure you've heard a lot of very eloquent arguments about why Bill C-51 should be repealed. I would like to tell you that this is not enough, because of international information sharing. As long as Canada is a member of the Five Eyes alliance, Canadian agencies can still use information obtained by GCHQ, with virtually no limitations from Canadian citizens. We can talk here all day, but it's kind of irrelevant you know.

The other side of this problem is that if you are a member of the Five Eyes alliance in the age of dragnet surveillance, you become complicit with NSA, GCHQ, and other agencies in breaking the rights of Canadians, which seems like a sovereignty problem. You also become complicit with said agencies breaking the rights of everyone else around the world.

I'll mention a little bit of a professional note for me. The CSE has been very vocal lately in saying that they don't mean to weaken systems. They want to build secure systems for everyone as opposed to backdoor technology. That sounds great. Let's put that in legislation. Let's not have backdoor systems.

Thank you.