Bill C-44 (Historical)

Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measures

Part 1 implements certain income tax measures proposed in the March 22, 2017 budget by
(a) eliminating the investment tax credit for child care spaces;
(b) eliminating the deduction for eligible home relocation loans;
(c) ensuring that amounts received on account of the caregiver recognition benefit under the Veterans Well-being Act are exempt from income tax;
(d) eliminating tax exemptions of allowances for members of legislative assemblies and certain municipal officers;
(e) eliminating the tax exemption for insurers of farming and fishing property;
(f) eliminating the additional deduction for gifts of medicine;
(g) replacing the existing caregiver credit, infirm dependant credit and family caregiver tax credit with the new Canada caregiver credit;
(h) eliminating the public transit tax credit;
(i) ensuring certain costs related to the use of reproductive technologies qualify for the medical expense tax credit;
(j) extending the list of medical practitioners that can certify eligibility for the disability tax credit to include nurse practitioners;
(k) extending eligibility for the tuition tax credit to fees paid for occupational skills courses at post-secondary institutions and taking into account such courses in determining whether an individual is a qualifying student under the Income Tax Act;
(l) extending, for one year, the mineral exploration tax credit for flow-through share investors;
(m) eliminating the tobacco manufacturers’ surtax;
(n) permitting employers to distribute T4 information slips electronically provided certain conditions are met; and
(o) delaying the repeal of the provisions related to the National Child Benefit supplement in the Income Tax Act.
Part 2 implements certain goods and services tax/harmonized sales tax (GST/HST) measures proposed in the March 22, 2017 budget by
(a) adding naloxone and its salts to the list of GST/HST zero-rated non-prescription drugs that are used to treat life-threatening conditions;
(b) amending the definition of “taxi business” to require, in certain circumstances, providers of ride-sharing services to register for the GST/HST and charge GST/HST in the same manner as taxi operators; and
(c) repealing the GST/HST rebate available to non-residents for the GST/HST that is payable in respect of the accommodation portion of eligible tour packages.
Part 3 implements certain excise measures proposed in the March 22, 2017 budget by
(a) adjusting excise duty rates on tobacco products to account for the elimination of the tobacco manufacturers’ surtax; and
(b) increasing the excise duty rates on alcohol products by 2% and automatically adjusting those rates annually by the Consumer Price Index starting in April 2018.
Part 4 enacts and amends several Acts in order to implement various measures.
Division 1 of Part 4 amends the Special Import Measures Act to provide for binding and appealable rulings as to whether a particular good falls within the scope of a trade remedy measure, authorities to investigate and address the circumvention of trade remedy measures, consideration of whether a particular market situation is rendering selling prices in an exporting country unreliable for the purposes of determining normal values and the termination of a trade remedy investigation in respect of an exporter found to have an insignificant margin of dumping or amount of subsidy.
Division 2 of Part 4 enacts the Borrowing Authority Act, which allows the Minister of Finance to borrow money on behalf of Her Majesty in right of Canada with the authorization of the Governor in Council and provides for the maximum amount of certain borrowings. The Division amends the Financial Administration Act and the Hibernia Development Project Act to provide that the applicable rate of currency exchange quoted by the Bank of Canada is its daily average rate. It also amends the Financial Administration Act to allow that Minister to choose a rate of currency exchange other than one quoted by the Bank of Canada. Finally, it makes a consequential amendment to the Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1.
Division 3 of Part 4 amends the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act and the Bank Act to
(a) specify that one of the objects of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation is to act as the resolution authority for its member institutions;
(b) require Canada’s domestic systemically important banks to develop, submit and maintain resolution plans to that Corporation; and
(c) provide the Superintendent of Financial Institutions greater flexibility in setting the requirement for domestic systemically important banks to maintain a minimum capacity to absorb losses.
Division 4 of Part 4 amends the Shared Services Canada Act in order to permit the Minister responsible for Shared Services Canada to do the following, subject to any terms and conditions that that Minister specifies:
(a) delegate certain powers given to that Minister under that Act to an “appropriate Minister”, as defined in section 2 of the Financial Administration Act; and
(b) authorize in exceptional circumstances a department to obtain a particular service other than from that Minister through Shared Services Canada, including by meeting its requirement for that service internally.
Division 5 of Part 4 authorizes a payment to be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund to the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research to support a pan-Canadian artificial intelligence strategy.
Division 6 of Part 4 amends the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act to expand eligibility for student financial assistance under that Act to include persons registered as Indians under the Indian Act, whether or not they are Canadian citizens, permanent residents or protected persons. It also amends the Canada Education Savings Act to permit the primary caregiver’s cohabiting spouse or common-law partner to designate a trust to which is to be paid a Canada Learning Bond or an additional amount of a Canada Education Savings grant and to apply to the Minister for the waiver of certain requirements of that Act or the regulations to avoid undue hardship. It also amends that Act to provide rules for the payment of an additional amount of a Canada Education Savings grant in situations where more than one trust has been designated.
Division 7 of Part 4 amends the Parliament of Canada Act to provide for the Parliamentary Budget Officer to report directly to Parliament and to be supported by an office that is separate from the Library of Parliament and to provide for the appointment and tenure of the Parliamentary Budget Officer to be that of an officer of Parliament. It expands the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s right of access to government information, clarifies the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s mandate with respect to the provision of research, analysis and costings and establishes a new mandate with respect to the costing of platform proposals during election periods. It also makes consequential amendments to certain Acts.
This Division also amends the Parliament of Canada Act to provide that the meetings of the Board of Internal Economy of the House of Commons are open, with certain exceptions, to the public.
Division 8 of Part 4 amends the Investment Canada Act to provide for an immediate increase to $1 billion of the review threshold amount for certain investments by WTO investors that are not state-owned enterprises. In addition, it requires that the report of the Director of Investments on the administration of that Act also include Part IV.‍1.
Division 9 of Part 4 provides funding to provinces for home care services and mental health services for the fiscal year 2017–2018.
Division 10 of Part 4 amends the Judges Act to implement the Response of the Government of Canada to the Report of the 2015 Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission. It provides for the continued statutory indexation of judicial salaries, an increase to the salaries of Federal Court prothonotaries to 80% of that of a Federal Court judge, an annual allowance for prothonotaries and reimbursement of legal costs incurred during their participation in the compensation review process. It also makes changes to the compensation of certain current and former chief justices to appropriately compensate them for their service and it makes technical amendments to ensure the correct division of annuities and enforcement of financial support orders, where necessary. Finally, it increases the number of judges of the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta and the Yukon Supreme Court and increases the number of judicial salaries that may be paid under paragraph 24(3)‍(a) of that Act from thirteen to sixteen and under paragraph 24(3)‍(b) from fifty to sixty-two.
Division 11 of Part 4 amends the Employment Insurance Act to, among other things, allow for the payment of parental benefits over a longer period at a lower benefit rate, allow maternity benefits to be paid as early as the 12th week before the expected week of birth, create a benefit for family members to care for a critically ill adult and allow for benefits to care for a critically ill child to be payable to family members.
This Division also amends the Canada Labour Code to, among other things, increase the maximum length of parental leave to 63 weeks, extend the period prior to the estimated date of birth when the maternity leave may begin to 13 weeks, create a leave for a family member to care for a critically ill adult and allow for the leave related to the critical illness of a child to be taken by a family member.
Division 12 of Part 4 amends the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act to, among other things,
(a) specify to whom career transition services may be provided under Part 1 of the Act and authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting those services;
(b) create a new education and training benefit that will provide a veteran with up to $80,000 for a course of study at an educational institution or for other education or training that is approved by the Minister of Veterans Affairs;
(c) end the family caregiver relief benefit and replace it with a caregiver recognition benefit that is payable to a person designated by a veteran;
(d) authorize the Minister of Veterans Affairs to waive the requirement for an application for compensation, services or assistance under the Act in certain cases;
(e) set out to whom any amount payable under the Act is to be paid if the person who is entitled to that amount dies before receiving it; and
(f) change the name of the Act.
The Division also amends the Pension Act and the Department of Veterans Affairs Act to remove references to hospitals under the jurisdiction of the Department of Veterans Affairs as there are no longer any such hospitals.
Finally, it makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Division 13 of Part 4 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to
(a) provide that a foreign national who is a member of a certain portion of the class of foreign nationals who are nominated by a province or territory for the purposes of that Act may be issued an invitation to make an application for permanent residence only in respect of that class;
(b) provide that a foreign national who declines an invitation to make an application in relation to an expression of interest remains eligible to be invited to make an application in relation to the same expression of interest;
(c) authorize the Minister to give a single ministerial instruction that sets out the rank, in respect of different classes, that an eligible foreign national must occupy to be invited to make an application;
(d) provide that a ministerial instruction respecting the criteria that a foreign national must meet to be eligible to be invited to make an application applies in respect of an expression of interest that is submitted before the day on which the instruction takes effect;
(e) authorize the Minister, for the purpose of facilitating the selection of a foreign national as a member of a class or a temporary resident, to disclose personal information in relation to the foreign national that is provided to the Minister by a third party or created by the Minister;
(f) set out the circumstances in which an officer under that Act may issue documents in respect of an application to foreign nationals who do not meet certain criteria or do not have the qualifications they had when they were issued an invitation to make an application; and
(g) provide that the Service Fees Act does not apply to fees for the acquisition of permanent residence status or to certain fees for services provided under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Division 14 of Part 4 amends the Employment Insurance Act to broaden the definition of “insured participant”, in Part II of that Act, as well as the support measures that may be established by the Canada Employment Insurance Commission. It also repeals certain provisions of that Act.
Division 15 of Part 4 amends the Aeronautics Act, the Navigation Protection Act, the Railway Safety Act and the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 to provide the Minister of Transport with the authority to enter into agreements respecting any matter for which a charge or fee could be prescribed under those Acts and to make related amendments.
Division 16 of Part 4 amends the Food and Drugs Act to give the Minister of Health the authority to fix user fees for services, use of facilities, regulatory processes and approvals, products, rights and privileges that are related to drugs, medical devices, food and cosmetics. It also gives that Minister the authority to remit those fees, to adjust them and to withhold or withdraw services for the non-payment of them. Finally, it exempts those fees from the Service Fees Act.
Division 17 of Part 4 amends the Canada Labour Code to, among other things,
(a) transfer to the Canada Industrial Relations Board the powers, duties and functions of appeals officers under Part II of that Act and of referees and adjudicators under Part III of that Act;
(b) provide a complaint mechanism under Part III of that Act for employer reprisals;
(c) permit the Minister of Labour to order an employer to determine, following an internal audit, whether it is in compliance with a provision of Part III of that Act and to provide the Minister with a corresponding report;
(d) permit inspectors to order an employer to cease the contravention of a provision of Part III of that Act;
(e) extend the period with respect to which a payment order to recover unpaid wages or other amounts may be issued;
(f) impose administrative fees on employers to whom payment orders are issued; and
(g) establish an administrative monetary penalty scheme to supplement existing enforcement measures under Parts II and III of that Act.
This Division also amends the Wage Earner Protection Program Act to transfer to the Canada Industrial Relations Board the powers, duties and functions of adjudicators under that Act and makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Division 18 of Part 4 enacts the Canada Infrastructure Bank Act, which establishes the Canada Infrastructure Bank as a Crown corporation. The Bank’s purpose is to invest in, and seek to attract private sector and institutional investment to, revenue-generating infrastructure projects. The Act also provides for, among other things, the powers and functions of the Bank, its governance framework and its financial management and control, allows for the appointment of a designated Minister, and provides that the Minister of Finance may pay to the Bank up to $35 billion and approve loan guarantees. Finally, this Division makes consequential amendments to the Access to Information Act, the Financial Administration Act and the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act.
Division 19 of Part 4 amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to, among other things, expand the list of disclosure recipients to include the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces and to include beneficial ownership information as “designated information” that can be disclosed by the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada. It also makes several technical amendments to ensure that the legislation functions as intended and to clarify certain provisions, including the definition of “client” and the application of that Act to trust companies.
Division 20 of Part 4 enacts the Invest in Canada Act. It also makes consequential and related amendments to other Acts.
Division 21 of Part 4 enacts the Service Fees Act. The Act requires responsible authorities, before certain fees are fixed, to develop fee proposals for consultation and to table them in Parliament. It also requires that performance standards be established in relation to certain fees and that responsible authorities remit those fees when the standards are not met. It adjusts certain fees on an annual basis in accordance with the Consumer Price Index. Furthermore, it requires responsible authorities and the President of the Treasury Board to report on fees. This Division also makes a related amendment to the Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1 and terminological amendments to other Acts and repeals the User Fees Act.

Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

moved that Bill C-44, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak today about the budget implementation act, Bill C-44.

By supporting this legislation, hon. members are supporting the next steps of our government's plan to strengthen Canada's middle class. Those steps were presented to this House on our second budget, titled “Building a Strong Middle Class”.

Over the past 18 months, the government has put in place a plan to grow the economy in a way that works for the middle class, and those working hard to join it.

As a starting point, the government raised taxes on the wealthiest 1%, so we could cut taxes for the middle class; introduced a new Canada child benefit that gives more money to 9 out of 10 Canadian families, and lifts hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty; and strengthened the Canada pension plan to help Canadians have the secure and dignified retirement they deserve.

I want to assure Canadians that we are not done. There is still work to do.

This year, we are celebrating the 150th anniversary of Confederation. If we look beyond 2017, there are many challenges to be met. I would like to draw your attention to what we are doing to support Canada’s greatest strength: its skilled, hard-working, creative, and diverse labour force.

Both young people in school and people whose career has spanned several decades are wondering what kind of education and training they need in order to get a good, well-paid job and to be properly equipped to succeed in this evolving economy.

Today, the changing nature of the workplace means that people are changing jobs several times over the course of their working lives. The emergence of artificial intelligence and automation, coupled with the transformation of entire industries, are realities that we cannot ignore.

In budget 2017, our government laid the groundwork for preparing Canadians to be ready for the economy of tomorrow, and to have more employment opportunities today.

Some of these measures are included in the bill we are considering today. Budget 2017 invests, first and foremost, in skills and training, so that middle-class Canadians, and all Canadians, in fact, can take advantage of the opportunities they need in order to succeed, now and in the future.

By supporting Bill C-44, we will help to ensure that Canadians are able to benefit from the opportunities for success afforded by the economy of tomorrow.

I would like to give the House an overview of the measures that this bill contains.

The Government is firmly committed to helping Canadians of all ages receive the training and skills they need to succeed in the economy of today and tomorrow.

The tuition tax credit plays an important role in this effort, and recognizes the cost of enrolling in post-secondary and occupational skills courses.

Currently, students who take occupational skills courses, such as learning a second language or basic literacy or numeracy training, at a college or university, are not entitled to the tuition tax credit, but those who take similar courses at a non-post-secondary institution are entitled to it.

To improve fairness, Bill C-44 will expand the range of courses eligible for this credit to include occupational skills courses that are undertaken at a post-secondary institution in Canada, and to allow the full amount of bursaries received for such courses to qualify for the scholarship exemption.

The government is also committed to helping working parents who need more flexibility to navigate the challenges that come with a growing family.

Bill C-44 would allow parents to choose to receive EI parental benefits over an extended period of up to 18 months at a lower benefit rate of 33% of average weekly earnings.

For people who want to keep the 12 months of parental leave, employment insurance parental benefits will continue to be available at the existing rate of 55% of earnings.

Bill C-44 proposes to allow pregnant working women greater flexibility. It proposes to allow working mothers to claim EI maternity benefits up to 12 weeks before their due date if they so choose, expanded from the current standard of eight weeks.

People are at the heart of our plan. We want to provide the middle class, and those working hard to join it the opportunities they need to succeed. In order to ensure our continued prosperity well into the future, we must help Canadians prepare for the jobs of today and tomorrow, while ensuring Canadian employers have access to the kind of talent that can help companies innovate and grow, leading to more well-paying jobs for Canadians.

This means that we need a fair, secure, and targeted immigration policy. Long processing times for work permits is making it difficult for businesses to recruit top talent. Enter the government's global skills strategy, which sets an ambitious two-week standard for processing visas and work permits for global talent. The strategy would support high growth Canadian companies that need to access global talent in order to facilitate and accelerate investments that create jobs and growth, and global companies that are making large investments relocating to Canada, establishing new production or expanding production, and creating new Canadian jobs.

Canada is also planning to implement a targeted employment strategy for newcomers. This strategy would have three components: improved pre-arrival supports, so that newcomers can begin the formal credential recognition process before arriving in Canada; a loan program that would assist newcomers for the cost of having their foreign credentials recognized; and targeted measures to test innovative approaches to help skilled newcomers gain Canadian work experience in their profession.

The strategy would help reduce barriers, and support newcomers as they put their skills to work in the Canadian economy.

His Excellency the Right Honourable David Johnston has called upon all Canadians to join in the building of a nation that is both smart and caring. He said that a smart nation learns from the past, embraces the future, and looks to the world with confidence and respect, while a caring nation recognizes that the measure of any society’s success lies in its ability to help others, particularly the vulnerable and marginalized among us.

We are a better nation if we continue to care about one another so that we continue to be a Canada where we look after our own.

Three measures in Bill C-44 offer greater support for Canadians who need it.

The first measure is offering support to our veterans. Canada's women and men in uniform have served their country with bravery, honour, and dignity, putting their lives at risk to protect the values we cherish most. Our veterans deserve our greatest recognition and respect for their service. Bill C-44 would help veterans transition from military service to civilian life, and better support the families of ill and injured veterans, including caregivers.

In addition to providing more money for veterans to go back to school, Bill C-44 proposes to enhance the career transition services program. This measure would equip veterans, Canadian Armed Force members, survivors, and veterans' spouses and common-law partners with the tools they need to successfully navigate and transition to the civilian workforce.

Bill C-44 also proposes to provide a more generous benefit directly to caregivers to better recognize, and honour the vital role they play in supporting our ill and injured veterans.

The second proposed measure is the new Canada caregiver credit. The government is taking steps to help improve the current caregiver credit system that applies to Canadians who are caring for their loved ones. Bill C-44 would simplify the existing system by replacing the caregiver credit, infirm dependent credit, and family caregiver tax credit with a single new credit, the Canada caregiver credit. This new, non-refundable credit would provide better support to those who need it the most. The new credit would apply to caregivers whether or not they live with their family member and will help families with caregiving responsibilities.

The new Canada caregiver credit would provide tax relief on an amount of $6,883 in 2017, in respect of care of dependent relatives with infirmities, including persons with disabilities, parents, brothers, and sisters, adult children, and other specific relatives; $2,150 in 2017 in respect of care of a dependent spouse or common-law partner, or minor child with an infirmity, including those with a disability.

Families will be able to take advantage of the new Canada caregiver credit as soon as the 2017 tax year.

The third measure is improving health care services to meet the needs of Canadians. The demand for home care services is growing. Today, approximately 15% of hospital beds are still occupied by patients who could and would prefer to receive their care at home, or would be better off in a community-based setting.

In addition, a majority of those Canadians who have taken on the responsibility of caring for their loved ones are still in the workforce, and most are women. Scientific research has made great strides to improve our understanding of mental illness and its prevalence. Today, we know that an overwhelming number of Canadians will be affected, directly or indirectly, by mental illness at some point in their lives.

Science has also shown that it is essential for those struggling with mental illness to have access to timely and appropriate mental health services, and yet, in certain regions, wait times to see a mental health specialist are up to 18 months.

With the passage of Bill C-44, the government will provide funding for home care and mental health services in 2017-18 as an immediate down payment to provinces and territories that have accepted the federal offer of $11 billion over 10 years.

The bill before us has concrete measures that would deliver on the promises we made to Canadians to strengthen our middle class. I urge the members of this House to vote for this bill for the benefit of all Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the Minister of Finance, as always, for the quality of his French, but also for his speech.

The minister addressed certain things but forgot some others. We will have occasion to get back to the financial basis of things, but he forgot one of the most fundamental things, namely the very nature of this bill. It extends to over 300 pages and has some 20 divisions. It is clearly therefore an omnibus bill.

However, the Minister of Finance and his 180 colleagues sitting here in the House made the following commitment on page 32 of their electoral platform: “We will not resort to legislative tricks to avoid scrutiny.” The reference made there was to omnibus bills.

Why is the Minister of Finance tabling a budget implementation act containing measures that have nothing to do with the budget?

Why table an omnibus bill when he made a commitment not to do so in the election campaign?

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is very important for us to have a budget that is going to help our economy and Canadian families. It is important to take steps to improve our situation.

What I can say is that every measure in our budget is going to provide real assistance to our economy and Canadian families. Every measure in our bill stems from a measure in our budget. That was the spirit of our promise, and we still maintain the same position. It is very important for every budget implementation bill to in fact contain measures from the current budget.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to quote the Liberal Party's election platform:

Stephen Harper has also used omnibus bills to prevent Parliament from properly reviewing and debating his proposals. We will change the House of Commons Standing Orders to bring an end to this undemocratic practice.

Now we are seeing the opposite. My question for the Minister of Finance has to do with the creation of the infrastructure bank. Throughout the election campaign, the Liberal Party kept saying, and rightly so, that it was a good time to borrow money, because interest rates were low.

What the Liberals never told us, however, was that two-thirds of the money used to pay for our infrastructure would come from private investors, who would ask for rates of return from around 7% to 9%, even for public infrastructure.

Why did the minister change the Liberal Party's strategy? Why was it talking about borrowing money at the low interest rate of 2% if it now intends to fill its friends' pockets, on the backs of taxpayers, with rates of return from 7% to 9%?

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, from time to time, it is important to know the real facts. I will begin with our investments in infrastructure. We have explained that we would be investing $180 billion over the next 10 years. That is very important.

We have explained that we would be investing $15 billion of the $180 billion in the infrastructure bank. That is far less than 10%. The math is simple.

In addition, we believe that it is very important to do more with our investments. If interest rates are very low, then it is a good idea to include pension funds and institutional funds in our investments. We are sure to find an interest rate that is much lower than those cited by the hon. members. That will be our plan. We will use the $180 billion to make investments. With the $15 billion we will try to find even more money for more investments, so as to help Canadians all across the country.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, with respect to the parental leave adjustment, the same amount of benefit would be taken and spread over 18 months, which means that people would have to live on a third of their salaries. That really is not going to be very helpful.

I am the chair of the status of women committee. We have been hearing about what needs to happen to get more women into the workforce. We have seen models from places like Iceland, where parental leave actually encourages men and women to participate in taking leave and encourages more women into the workforce.

Would the minister consider amending the parental benefit to do something to actually get women into the workforce?

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is in fact exactly what we are doing. We are recognizing that families come in all different shapes and sizes. In some situations, families will want to have the mother or father take 12 months of parental leave, and that is entirely appropriate for that family. That is the situation that is possible within our current system.

We also recognize that some people might prefer to stretch that out for 18 months, because it might make it easier for them to manage the challenge of their particular family situation.

By creating that flexibility, we are allowing people to manage their situations so that they can actually stay attached to the workforce, even if they want to take more time off work. We believe that we are doing exactly what the member opposite is asking us to do. We know that this will help families better accommodate their individual situations and allow us to have a more effective workforce, because people will stay attached to it for the long term.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would just point out that in the last two election campaigns, in 2011 and 2015, the Liberals clearly promised to set a cap on how much can be claimed through the stock option deduction, but they backtracked on that promise once they were in power.

Why did the government decide to renege on its promise to eliminate the tax loophole associated with stock options for CEOs in budget 2017?

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, we believe that it is quite important that we have a tax system that is fair, efficient, and less complex than it is at present. That is why we looked at the system and made some important observations in this budget and also some plans for what we can continue to do.

We are working on dealing with tax expenditures that benefit a small proportion of Canadians at the expense of all others. The area where we believe there is the biggest opportunity is in some of the planning mechanisms that go on within private corporations. We saw that some people are actually turning regular income into capital gains income. We saw that some people are putting in passive income and are gaining advantage through that approach within a corporation. We saw that some people are sprinkling dividends among family members, which was not originally intended.

These private corporations have increased dramatically in number in our country, and we know that this is important to look at. We will be releasing a consultation paper in the near future to talk about how we might be able to address this, which will help us ensure that our tax system is fair for all Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, I just want to pay a compliment to the Minister of Finance on behalf of thousands of constituents of mine, whether recipients of the Canada child benefit program or the increase in our guaranteed income supplement. They have really improved the quality of life for many of my constituents. I wonder if the minister could provide some sort of assessment in terms of what impact that has had on our country.

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I could talk about this for a very long time, because the impacts are pretty huge. I want to take just two approaches. First is the impact on people. This year we will have 300,000 fewer children living in poverty. I think it is worth stopping on that. What we have also seen is that our economy is doing better. We have seen a reduction in unemployment, and we have seen forecasts from organizations like the Bank of Canada that our growth is going to be more than we thought it was going to be even just a few months ago.

The things we are doing are having an impact on the economy, and they are helping Canadians lead better lives.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a great pleasure and honour for me to participate in the debate on Bill C-44, implementing the principal measures of the budget that was tabled a few weeks ago by the Minister of Finance. Unfortunately, we must stand proud and state in no uncertain terms that it is a bad budget. We will have occasion to return to this in greater detail, but I also want to point out that Bill C-44 is an omnibus bill.

This means that, among the measures to implement the budget's financial program, the government has decided to insert, in not so subtle a fashion, measures which have literally nothing to do with the speech made by the finance minister here in the House at 4:15 p.m. on March 22. There was no mention in that speech of the infrastructure bank, Investment Canada or judges’ salaries, along with many other measures to be found in Bill C-44. We will have occasion to get back to this a little later.

To begin, I want to follow up on certain statements made by the minister in the speech he just made. He raised certain points, but forgot the most important ones.

First of all, let us address the much-talked-about tax changes. The government is always passing itself off as a Robin Hood that will take money away from the wealthiest 1% and give it back to the middle class, and so on and so forth.

Thanks to the initiative of Senator Larry Smith, we have managed to get to the facts with the help of the parliamentary budget officer. It appears that 65% of Canadians will see absolutely no change to their income tax, including those who earn $45,000 or less per year, who are the real middle class. Those earning $60,000 a year will get barely two dollars more per week, just enough to buy a weekly coffee at Tim Hortons.

However, those who will really benefit from these changes which will supposedly make Canada a fairer country and help the middle class will be those who earn between $140,000 and $200,000 a year. Are they the middle class? No, they are among the most well off in Canada, and this government, with its budget, prefers to give more to the wealthy rather than help those who earn $45,000 or less, that is, the least fortunate among us. That is what the minister forgot to say.

It is the same thing for the changes to family assistance. Earlier, in response to the question from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, who is always eager to say lots of things in the House and whom I salute and like very much, we were talking about the changes to family assistance. Let us remember that when those changes were introduced, over a year ago now, the Minister of Families forgot one little detail, which was to index those changes. If the government had not run the numbers again, once we pointed out this omission, taxpayers in 2020 would have had less money in their pockets. That was totally unacceptable.

Was that a minor error? Yes, of course. Any accountant in any business who forgets to index prices or the budgets he draws up would be fired on the spot, and yet this government is keeping on the very people responsible for this gross miscalculation. Certain estimates suggest that this could have cost the consolidated revenue fund $20 billion over the years ahead.

The minister began by saying how generous his government was with respect to pension funds. In truth, it was a mistake for the government to bring the age of retirement back to 65. That mistake is highlighted once again in the report on Canadian demographics tabled a little earlier today. According to this report, for the first time, there are going to be more seniors than people in the labour force. The courageous and urgent thing to do was to push the retirement age back to 67. In setting it at 65, the government is playing petty politics.

At another time, when the current finance minister was an accomplished businessman, one held in respect and esteem, he himself authored a book on the subject of retirement management.

What did the current finance minister say when he was free to speak before becoming a Liberal minister? He said that 67 as the retirement age was a good idea. What did he do once he got elected? He brought it back to 65. That was not the thing to do. The demographic data tabled this morning tells us that pushing back the age of retirement to 67 was the necessary and urgent thing to do; perhaps not the most politically expedient move, but ever so helpful for the future of the country.

How is the Canada pension plan going to be funded, then? It will be funded by increases in premiums. Every worker will have to pay $1,000 more, and every business will have to pay $1,000 more for each of its workers. That makes $1,000 on each side. The government will look for $2,000 more to balance the pension plan. Wonderful, terrific, because that will cost Canadians even more. It will mean that much less money in the pockets of taxpayers to keep the economy rolling.

These were the first points I wanted to raise following the speech by the finance minister, for whom, as I said earlier, I have much respect and esteem.

Now let us talk about the budget, which was tabled by the government on March 22 in the House of Commons.

This is a bad budget and the worst-case scenario for our young generation, the youth of Canada. We are talking about debt and deficit. Just this year, the government tabled a budget with a deficit of $28.5 billion. Let me remind members that based on the platform of the Liberal Party in the last election, page 64 talked about a “modest” deficit, a “small” deficit of around $10 billion a year, getting back to a zero deficit in 2019. It is like Alice in Wonderland.

What is the reality? The reality is that last year we had a deficit of $23 billion, to which we shall add the $6 billion cushion that the government had in the budget, which it used to reduce the deficit. Therefore, we are talking about a real deficit of $29 billion, and this year of $28.5 billion. This is what the government is giving the young generation, which is all wrong for the so-called millennials.

Worse than that, where is the plan to get back to a zero deficit? The Liberal Party platform talked about a zero deficit in 2019. Where is the zero deficit plan?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. I remind the hon. member that he is not to use documents. There is a difference between giving a quote and taking the document in hand.

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

Madam Speaker, I have trouble seeing what goes on without my glasses. That is why I rely on documents for a bit of help and bring them closer so I can read. It is my fault, Madam Speaker. Actually, I am just kidding; we have to be able to laugh a little.

Let us get back to the reality of the facts. The government was elected on a platform to get back to a zero deficit in 2019. There is no plan for a zero deficit, except the civil servants of the finance ministry in a document tabled on October 10, many months before. When did the government publish this document? On December 23, just before Christmas. The government was so proud of the document it tabled, and then published it just before Christmas. What does this document say? That the government will achieve a zero deficit by not 2019, not 2020, not 2030, not 2040, and not 2050, but by 2055. This is the reality of the government.

This is the gift that it will give to millennials, to the young generation: pay, pay, pay; deficit, deficit, deficit; debt, debt, debt. That is all wrong for Canada, that is all wrong for Canadians, and that is all wrong for young Canadians. That is why this is sincerely a bad budget. However, do we find something about that in Bill C-44? Not at all.

Worse than that, the government will create new taxes. We know what we are talking about. We talked about a pension plan a few months ago. Now it has created new taxes. I would call them the Friday and Saturday night taxes. They taxed alcohol, beer, and wine. That is great for hard-working Canadians, who see half of their salary going in taxes to the government. If they want to enjoy some Friday and Saturday evenings with good friends, they will now have to pay more in new taxes.

The current government proposes to abolish the tax credits our government tabled over the nine years we were in office. Thank God we were in office for nine years, because we gave Canadians, especially Canadian families, the help and tools they needed to help themselves.

We offered tax credits to help families and tax credits for help at school, for textbooks. They have been eliminated by the Liberal government. We created tax credits to help families who enrolled their children in sports activities. They have been eliminated by the Liberal government. We created tax credits for children’s arts activities. They have been eliminated by the Liberal government. Now, as hard as it is to believe, the government has eliminated a tax credit for public transit users. I did not see that one coming at all. Of the 250 or so tax credits that Canadian families may be eligible for, the Liberal government, that constantly boasts about its exploits and constantly preens itself for its lovely great ecological principles, has eliminated the tax credit for people who use public transit. Honestly, if someone had told me this two weeks before the budget was tabled, I would have laughed.

The Liberals decided to cancel and to abolish a tax credit for transit. This government is talking about bringing in policies. It is quite important to protect the heart of our world, and the government shall protect it.

I will remember all my life when the Prime Minister said two months ago that he was here for three great reasons, and then he named his children. He was here to protect and to give his children a better heart.

Look at the result. He cancelled the transit tax credit. It is all wrong, but so typical of the Liberals. They say something, then they reverse it.

What eliminating these tax credits and creating new taxes means, in our view, is that the government is not creating winning conditions for taxpayers to keep more money in their pockets, particularly with the money they have.

What I have shown is that, at the end of the day, the Liberals did a terrible job of administering the support system for families by forgetting to index the numbers, but they are very proud of giving $2 billion more than what we gave when we were in government. Need I point out that this money does not exist? We do not have it. If we had it, we would happily hand it out. The big difference between this government and ours, when it comes to helping families, is that during our last year, we did it with a zero deficit, with a balanced budget, and with a plan for tackling the debt. That was our plan. We were living within our means.

This government is borrowing and running up deficits, and it is no big deal. The deficit will be zero in 2055, life is beautiful, and they are handing out money they do not have. No head of household could manage their budget by using a credit card all the time and always asking the bank to lend them money. At some point, reality catches up. Reality is going to catch up with this government in October 2019; of that we can be sure.

Now I would like to talk about the omnibus nature of this bill. I said earlier that this 308-page-long bill includes not only budgetary measures, but also things that have absolutely nothing to do with the speech delivered by the Minister of Finance on March 22. Among other things, the bill sets out the new mandate of the parliamentary budget officer.

When I was at the National Assembly, I wanted Quebec to have a parliamentary budget officer. To my delight, we have one here in the House of Commons, in Ottawa, in the federal government. How wonderful. For 11 years, that person has been diligently keeping watch over the public purse independently from the House of Commons, from the government and parliamentarians. In this omnibus bill, the parliamentary budget officer is being given a new mandate that makes no sense. Henceforth, the Liberal government would have the parliamentary budget officer submit his game plan for the year. To whom? To you, Madam Speaker. Please do not feel singled out, as he will submit his plan to the Speaker of the House of Commons and the Speaker of the Senate as well. It is unheard of.

There are 17 countries that have a parliamentary budget officer and only one of them, Korea, works this way. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but if 16 countries believe one thing and only one believes another, perhaps the 16 are right. The government is following Korea's example and requiring the parliamentary budget officer to present its game plan to the House of Commons and the Senate. In our opinion, this does not make sense.

We are not the only ones to think so. In an interview with Le Devoir, among others, the parliamentary budget officer said that he fears that his job will be politicized:

I am more concerned about the Speaker of the Senate than the Speaker of the House of Commons, because the Speaker of the Senate is appointed by the Prime Minister's Office whereas the Speaker of the House is elected by his peers. Without wanting to seem too naive, he is technically neutral. One of them is more closely connected to the Prime Minister's Office than the other.

That was Jean-Denis Fréchette, the current parliamentary budget officer, who said that this is not the right move.

Therefore, let us be prudent, because he is not the only one saying so.

Kevin Page, the former parliamentary budget officer, said in an interview with Bill Curry of The Globe and Mail that the bill appears to take away the power of individual MPs to ask the PBO to provide cost estimates of various government initiatives. He said, “I would worry, under this legislation, based on all the interference we saw from various political actors and bureaucrats. This legislation creates the facade of independence...but on the other hand it completely takes it away.”

It is not a Conservative that said that. It is the former parliamentary budget officer. He said that this measure was just a facade and that it could politicize the work of the parliamentary budget officer or, at worst, make it so that the parliamentary budget officer is no longer able to undertake projects on his own initiative to undertake the analyses of his choice. He would have to set out his game plan and it would have to be approved by the Speaker of the House and the Speaker of the Senate. That is inappropriate. People all across the country are speaking out against the new approach proposed by the Liberals, which is completely unacceptable.

I would like to quote Manon Cornellier from Le Devoir, who is not known for being any more Conservative than the next person. She also used the words “facade of independence”. She said that the parliamentary budget officer “will no longer be able to undertake studies on his own initiative” and that “this marks the end of initiatives to address unforeseen circumstances”.

She went on to say, and I quote, that “the Liberals will only allow committees the right to make these requests, which is very convenient since a majority government controls those committees”.

She ended on a rather scathing note by saying:

Unfortunately, adopting these changes, which will diminish parliamentarians' ability to hold the government to account, is more or less a sure thing, since all budget bills are subject to party discipline.

Unless...[and I will look my colleagues opposite in the eye as I read this part] the Liberal members stand up and pressure their government to remove this reform from the bill and hand it over to parliamentarians. It would be in the Liberals' interest to do so. Otherwise, as soon as they return to the opposition benches [in 2019], it will not only be the PBO whose hands are tied, but theirs will be too.

This Liberal government proposal, within an omnibus bill, which aims to change how the parliamentary budget officer operates, is completely unacceptable. That is why we strongly oppose Bill C-44, a bill that is bad for Canada's economy and one that flies in the face of the Liberals' promise not to introduce omnibus bills, especially when some fundamental things are still missing from its 308 pages. That is why I am seeking the consent of the House to move the following motion, seconded by the member for Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: “this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-44, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017, and other measures, since the Bill, in addition to increasing taxes and making it more difficult for struggling families to make ends meet, is an omnibus bill that fails to address the government's promise not to use them.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The amendment is in order.

We will now go to questions and comments.

The hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle.

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

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent's speech, but maybe he needs better glasses. He said that the former government lived within its means. We know the Conservatives managed to balance the budget one time because they sold so many government assets that they were able to hide their deficit. The last time the Conservative government balanced a budget was over a century ago. I do not know where people get the idea that the Conservatives are good money managers. That is a total fantasy.

There are deficits in our communities and in society. Personally, I would rather have deficits in the budget than in our communities.

I have a question for my colleague. Why does he think communities are not important? Why should we care only about dollars, not about communities, cities, regions, and the Canadian people?

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

Madam Speaker, I will not talk about my glasses; I will talk about the facts.

Need I remind the member and everyone in the House that in 2008, 2009, and 2010, the entire planet was facing the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression of 1929?

Thank God we had a Conservative government under the Right Hon. Stephen Harper, who was very strong, very proud, and very straight in its administration. Thank God we had Jim Flaherty as minister of finance, and Joe Oliver, as well.

While the entire planet was in the whirlwind of the financial economic crisis, Canada, under the Conservatives, was the first G7 country to make it out of the crisis, with the best debt-to-GDP ratio, which is what allows the present government to go on this spending spree. That is unfortunate, because it is directly attacking our government's legacy.

Need I remind the member that we are not opposed to infrastructure investments? Need I point out that under the member for Lac-Saint-Jean, who was the Minister of Infrastructure, we introduced the most ambitious budget ever, a budget of $80 billion over 10 years?

Right away, people on the other side are saying that theirs is $180 billion. You, however, are creating a deficit, while we had a balanced budget—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. I would remind the member that he must address the chair and not the government members. The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie has the floor.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his excellent speech. We do not agree on everything, but we do share certain views. I would like to hear his comments on the long list of the Liberal government’s broken promises. It is a very long one, but I would like to focus on two of those promises that are not in the last budget, because I find their absence somewhat surprising.

First, the Liberals had promised to restore lifelong pensions for veterans wounded in combat. We do not see that anywhere. I would like to hear my colleague’s thoughts on the Liberal government’s respect for veterans.

Second, we agree that the biggest job creators are small and medium-sized businesses, whether outside the major urban areas or in metropolitan centres like Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver. The Liberals had promised tax relief to lend a hand to small businesses, who remain the lifeblood of our communities despite the hard times they are going through. There are no tax cuts for small businesses.

What does my colleague from Saint-Laurent think about this?

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

Madam Speaker, I like to hear from my colleague from Rosemont-La Petite-Patrie, not only because he is a former journalist, but also, most importantly, because he hits the nail on the head. I know what I am talking about, since I went up against him in ten debates on RDI during the last election campaign.

Let us recall the facts. The Liberal Party made a commitment to reducing the tax rate from 10.5% to 9% for small and medium-sized businesses. The rate is still the same. The government has not got the job done.

What is even worse is that while this government brought tears to a lot of people’s eyes when it said it wanted to increase our veterans’ pensions, unfortunately, the minister of defence has disgraced his office, his title, and his position. This is a deplorable situation. Yesterday, he did not even have the courage to go and see his brothers in arms to apologise. He prefers to apologise here, in the lobby of the House of Commons, by reading a statement prepared by the Prime Minister's Office, rather than meeting his counterparts, his friends, and his brothers in arms and looking them in the eye, as any honourable man would do, to apologize for his mistake.

That is what the Liberal government does. It does not honour its promises or veterans.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Madam Speaker, let us do a reality check. The Conservatives were in very good shape to withstand what happened in 2008-09, and members know where I am going on this, because they were left a pretty healthy balance sheet by successive surpluses. That is okay. In addition, the problem is that Mr. Harper had us in deficit before the crash. Not only did he plunge us into deficit, but he added $156 billion to the national debt. How did he do this? I will ask the member for reflections on this, but first, he defunded the government. Everybody loved those cuts in the GST, but that was $14 billion. It was difficult for him, then, to have the means to react, and instead, he put us back into a deeper deficit.

Does the member not agree that the whole issue of running up deficits represents where we are today because of some very poor strategy, not necessarily mismanagement, but very poor strategy? Does the member not agree that it would have been better to not defund the government when Mr. Harper chose to do so?

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

Madam Speaker, did the member announce today that in the next budget the GST will get back to 7%? Is that what the member wishes? I hope not.

Let us talk about the good old days. For sure, I am very proud as a Canadian of what the Right Hon. Paul Martin did when he was minister of finance. He was a great minister of finance; I recognize that. I am thankful that we had this man to challenge the economy with reality and to address the big challenges we had with a huge deficit. However, that is not the reality of today. Unfortunately, the successor to the Right Hon. Paul Martin tabled a deficit more than expected, three times what was expected. That is the reality, but are we surprised? Not really. Let me remind members of what the current Prime Minister actually said in Ontario a few months before the election.

He said that the budget balances itself.

Is that true? Do budgets balance themselves? What about the deficit? That is not the way to run personal finances, but the Prime Minister is doing that because he has no respect for the millions who will pay for the bad administration and the bad judgment of the current government.

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

Madam Speaker, I would just add that the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent is one of the greatest orators in this House. I think we are all stimulated and actually shocked by his projections, and not only his projections but those of the parliamentary budget officer, who said that we would be possibly out of a deficit position in 2055.

There is a question that begs for an answer. With the trajectory on which our government was going, having handed the Liberals a balanced budget with a slight surplus, where would we be in 2030 let alone 2055? I wonder if the member could answer that question.

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

Madam Speaker, speaking of Louis St. Laurent, let me remind members that he was the one who killed the deficit after World War II, so I am very proud to be the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

In response to the member's question, the civil servants at the finance department concluded that if the government does not change the target, we will reach a zero deficit in 2055. However, believe it or not, if nothing had changed under a Conservative government, thanks to the civil servants at the finance department who gave this answer, we would get back to a zero deficit in 2030. That is the main reality. That is a fact. It is not us who are saying that; it is the civil servants at the Department of Finance.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, Child Care; the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship; the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, Foreign Affairs.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-44, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to talk about the budget implementation bill even though on closer inspection there is very little to be pleased about. I will use my speaking time to talk about some of the issues that have progressives in this country, New Democrats in particular, concerned.

I will talk about the form and the substance. Unfortunately, there is bad news on both counts. I will start with the form by quoting some passages and statements made by people, near or far, often near, in the House. This will provide a bit of context for the form. The first quote is taken from the electoral platform of the Liberal Party of Canada:

Stephen Harper has also used omnibus bills to prevent Parliament from properly reviewing and debating his proposals. We will change the House of Commons Standing Orders to bring an end to this undemocratic practice.

On June 9, 2015, the current President of the Treasury Board stated this in the House:For years, the Conservatives have crossed the line in what is acceptable in a functioning democracy as a government in the of respect for Parliament. It is not only how they have now normalized the use of massive omnibus bills, they regularly shut down debate in the House...

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage said this:

For example, the government's use of omnibus legislation has degraded the committee review process and hidden important legal changes from public scrutiny.

For his part, the Liberal member for Bourassa said this:

I must tell my colleague that we are against omnibus bills. A few years ago the current government claimed that it was against these bills, which at the time might have had 20 or 30 pages. Now we have a bill with more than 175 pages.

Surprise. The government has come up with a bill that is not 175 pages, but 300 pages long. It amends 30 legislative measures, creates two new ones, and introduces, through the back door, a bill that has already been introduced in the House, namely, Bill C-43, An Act respecting a payment to be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund to support a pan-Canadian artificial intelligence strategy.

Can anyone tell me what that has to do with the budget? Why is this shell game being used to ram a bill that has already been introduced in the House through more quickly?

Bill C-44 has all of the characteristics of an omnibus bill, even though the Liberals promised that they would never, ever resort to the use of such legislation if they took office. It is rather mind-boggling. If no changes are made, the Standing Committee on Finance will be called upon to study not only the budgetary measures but also the creation of the infrastructure bank, the amendments to the rules governing the parliamentary budget officer, the amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the amendments to labour laws, the amendments regarding the appointment of judges, and the amendments regarding food safety. That does not make any sense.

This is just another promise that the Liberals have broken and another example of the Liberals' attitude of “Do as I say, not as I do.” The Liberals are using the same old undemocratic tactics to make a complete mockery of the rules of the House and the ability of parliamentarians to do their job properly, to properly represent and inform their constituents.

I will come back to the ability of parliamentarians to do their job properly when I get into the substance of Bill C-44. Right now, I am going to repeat what I just said. Those quote are so good that I cannot help but read them twice.

The quote reads:

Stephen Harper has also used omnibus bills to prevent Parliament from properly reviewing and debating his proposals. We will change the House of Commons Standing Orders to bring an end to this undemocratic practice.

Where was that written? It was on page 30 in the election platform of the Liberal Party of Canada.

For years, the Conservatives have crossed the line in what is acceptable in a functioning democracy as a government and the lack of respect for Parliament. It is not only how they have now normalized the use of massive omnibus bills, they regularly shut down debate in the House...

Who said that? It was the President of the Treasury Board on June 9, 2015.

The government's use of omnibus legislation has degraded the committee review process and hidden important legal changes from public scrutiny.

Who said that? It was the parliamentary secretary to the minister of Canadian heritage in June 2015.

Last but not least:

I must tell my colleague that we are against omnibus bills. A few years ago the current government claimed that it was against these bills, which at the time might have had 20 or 30 pages. Now we have a bill with more than 175 pages.

Who said that? It was the Liberal member for Bourassa.

Now, the Liberal government has presented a 300-page budget implementation bill. This Liberal MP was outraged when it was 175 pages from the Conservative government. This is exactly, “Don't listen to me because I'll do the opposite”, which is the trademark of the Liberal Party anyway.

The government has exactly what we call an omnibus bill, changing more than 30 different pieces of legislation; creating two new laws, one of them being the infrastructure bank; changing the rules of the parliamentary budget officer, which is quite incredible; and changing so many laws. There are 30 laws that will be studied by only one committee, the finance committee.

The changes to immigration and the Citizenship Act will be studied by the finance committee. The labour code changes will be studied by the finance committee. The nomination of judges will be studied by the finance committee, and food protection in the country will be studied by the finance committee. I really hope that the men and women who sit on the finance committee have a huge knowledge of a lot of things that are happening in the country, because it really makes no sense.

Now let us move on to the content. I would like to address a few topics, and I hope I will have the time to do so. First I would like to talk about certain changes concerning the parliamentary budget officer. Over the years, the PBO has become an essential and unavoidable component of the capacity to require accountability from the government. The Liberals promised to make the office more independent. However, on closer examination, they are doing the exact opposite.

Three or four changes deserve to be highlighted here. First of all, the parliamentary budget officer will have to submit an annual work plan. To whom must it be submitted? To the speaker of the House of Commons and the speaker of the Senate, both of whom are politicians, I will add. During the year, will the parliamentary budget officer have the latitude to initiate studies or reports prompted by current events, a new revelation or a scandal? That is still uncertain. Will the PBO be placed in a straitjacket by this annual work plan? We wonder and worry about that. Most of the countries that have a parliamentary budget officer do not have this annual work plan.

Second, the PBO’s reports will have to be sent to the speaker of the Senate and the speaker of the House of Commons one business day before their public release. Therefore, the speakers will have the information in hand and will be able to prepare a response before all parliamentarians and citizens have access to the PBO’s study. We find it hard to understand this measure.

What is very important is that all parliamentarians used to be free and able to request a study from the PBO, to raise a question and ask him or her to consider it. The Liberals want to get rid of that. They want to deprive parliamentarians of this right, so that in future any request to the parliamentary budget officer would have to be associated with a proposal, a bill, or a motion that a member has already tabled or that has already been debated here in the House. Under these rules, we would not have been able to ask the PBO to verify, as was done in the past, the costs of purchasing the F-35s, for example, or of the Liberals’ income tax reduction which, in the end, has benefited only the very wealthy. The freedom of action of the parliamentary budget officer is being restricted. The ability of members to request studies is being restricted. On the pretext of making the office independent, the PBO is at risk of being made inoperative and ineffective. We in the NDP are immensely concerned about this.

Basically, after speaking with the parliamentary budget officer, this Liberal bill, I would like to point out again, has nothing to do with budget implementation outside of studying the budget, and focuses on the wrong priorities. It contains some measures that will be detrimental for Canadians, for the more disadvantaged, and will not help our communities. Above all, certain decisions or certain choices are not included.

I would like to point out that by abolishing the public transit tax credit, the Liberal government will recover $225 million a year. The government has also chosen to retain the stock option loophole, which costs us $800 million a year. This loophole only benefits the wealthy in our society, or the richest 1% or 2%. It costs us $800 million. The Liberals promised to abolish it, but they are keeping it. We do not understand how they can claim to be progressive, go in that direction, and do the exact opposite of what they promised during the election campaign.

They are abolishing the public transit tax credit, which could really help people. Every month, some people buy bus tickets or a transit pass to go to work, their activities, university or school. The public transit tax credit does not help the rich, but those who do not have a car and who try to use the public services available to them.

Every year, my office hosts a tax clinic. People with low incomes sign up, and I work with volunteers filling out their tax returns. Most of the people who come to us are people on social assistance, people with disabilities, and seniors with low incomes. For people with disabilities and seniors who might pay a little tax, the public transit tax credit saved them between $150 and $200 per year. That made a huge difference to them. I do not see why a government that claims to be working for the middle class and those who want to join it would attack these people in its budget but do absolutely nothing about getting money from people who do not need it, such as those who use tax loopholes to avoid paying tax on their stock options. This is despicable, and the NDP will continue to speak out against it.

The NDP does not understand the logic of cutting the tax credit for public transit. Who has benefited from that? Seniors, students, poor workers, single moms who, at the end of the year, could save maybe $150, $200 in taxes.

At the same time, the Liberal government has chosen to keep the loophole for CEOs of big companies who can avoid some taxes, which represents $800 million a year. That is money we are losing. This is who the Liberal government is helping and it is hurting people who are trying to make ends meet, those who take the subway and the bus every day. The Liberals are attacking those people.

I do not understand the logic of the government. It repeats all day long that it is there for the middle class and those who are trying to get there, but it is not taking any action in the budget to help them for real.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

It's shameful.

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

The member is right, Madam Speaker. It is shameful. It is going to hurt poor people. I really do not get it. I will be quite glad to get back to my riding to tell that story to my constituents.

The Liberal government is also have in the BIA new legislation that will create the infrastructure investment bank. We are really worried about that move. Why?

During the election campaign, the Liberals were saying that we were experiencing a deficit in infrastructure in our country, and we agreed. They said that the interest rates were so low that this was time for the government to get some money from the market at 2% interest, which is a really low rate, and to take the opportunity to invest in our communities and build new infrastructure. It looks good and seems logical.

However, the big player in this bank will be the private sector, which is there to make profits, to make money, not to serve the public. Instead of borrowing at 2%, we will have private investors asking for profits of 7%, 8%, 9% per year. It will be the taxpayers who will pay for that. Infrastructure will cost more at the end. Also, during that time, we can expect a lot of new fees in order to drive on a highway, or to go to the airport, or to cross a bridge, if the airports are still public, which we are not quite sure of right now. The government will probably sell the airports to start its bank.

One aspect of this budget implementation bill that worries us is the creation of the infrastructure investment bank. During the election campaign, the Liberals talked about an infrastructure deficit and said that investments were needed. We agreed. Interest rates were low, so it was a good time to borrow and it would not be too costly for the government. It seemed logical, but surprise, the Liberals never told us that most of the investments in this bank would come from private investments, investment funds whose purpose would be to earn a return, to make a profit. Based on models we have seen in the provinces and other areas, the Liberals already knew that their investors would be asking for a rate of return of 7%, 8%, or 9% on their investment.

Why did they tell us that they were going to borrow at 2%, that it would be cheap, and now suddenly they have decided to take money from the private sector and they are going put between 7% and 9% back into their investors' pockets in profits? Our infrastructure is going to be more expensive, it will be privatized, and we will have to pay many new user fees for our highways, airports, and bridges.

For all these reasons, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House for the following motion: That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-44, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measures, be amended by removing the following clauses : (a) clauses 128 to 191, related to the parliamentary budget officer; (b) clauses 403 to 406, related to the Canada Infrastructure Bank Act; that the clauses mentioned in section (a) of this motion do compose Bill C-48; that Bill C-48 be deemed read a first time and printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates; that the clauses mentioned in section (b) of this motion do compose Bill C-49; that Bill C-49 be deemed read a first time and printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Finance; that Bill C-44 retain the status on the Order Paper that it had prior to the adoption of this order; that Bill C-44 be reprinted as amended; and that the law clerk and parliamentary counsel be authorized to make any technical changes or corrections as may be necessary to give effect to this motion.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

No.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-44, Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Pat Finnigan, Liberal, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Madam Speaker, in response to my NDP colleague's comments, I would simply like to say that everyone knows that we could have spent billions and billions of dollars more in the budget to help Canadians. However, no amount would ever be enough.

Can my colleague tell me how we would pay back the cost of those measures?

I would also like to ask him a question about the measures pertaining to the safety of seniors and the Canada child benefit that have been implemented to date. Those measures are very good for thousands of people in my riding, the people in his riding, and all Canadians.

Does he agree that the Minister of Finance announced good measures for the people in his riding, the people in my riding, and all Canadians?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

Obviously, some measures and some decisions have helped some people, particularly the guaranteed income supplement—even though the government could have done more—and the Canada child benefit.

However, the problem I have with the assistance offered to families with children is that the Liberal Party has been promising a national child care program since Jean Chrétien was in office in 1993, but we still do not have one. That would be the most effective way of helping families with children to reduce their child care costs. In some cities, like Toronto and Vancouver, child care can cost up to $70 or $80 a day per child.

Quebec's approach to child care clearly demonstrates that a national child care program is the best way to fight poverty, help families, and help women get back into the workforce.

If they want access to more revenue to pay for social programs and help our constituents, then the Liberals should have kept their promise to close the tax loophole for stock options worth $800 million. They could put an end to the bilateral agreements with tax havens, which cost us $5 billion to $8 billion annually. They could stop subsidizing the oil companies and giving tax credits and tax cuts to the big Canadian banks. These are things that could truly help Canada's middle class.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very fine speech.

Every day in the House the government says one thing but does another. The Liberals have broken many of their promises and this bill is just another example of that.

What changes would the hon. member like to see made to the bill?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. Many things in this bill could be changed.

I do not understand why the Investment Canada Act is being changed to provide for a study, a net benefit test when foreign interests take control of a Canadian company. The magic acquisition number used to be $600 million, but that number has increased to $1 billion. Now many Canadian companies could be bought by foreign investors and companies without the acquisition triggering a net benefit test for Canada.

The bill makes parental leave more flexible. This may seem like a good idea. Parents can now choose to take parental leave for 18 months instead of 12 months. However, the caveat is that instead of receiving 55% of their salary for 12 months, they will receive 33% of their salary for 18 months. Flexibility is nice, but who can afford to live on one-third of their salary? Only the wealthiest can. This type of measure does not help the middle class. It is smoke and mirrors. I would really like to know which constituents of Liberal ridings are able to live on one-third of their income. There is a lot that could be done. The Liberals could keep their promise of giving a pension for life to veterans wounded in combat. There are all kinds of things we could change in the bill.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage (Multiculturalism)]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague across the way for his comments and speech.

I have a question for him about the public transit tax credit.

What was mentioned in my colleague's comments was that there are people who are in need. That is accepted. What was mentioned in my colleague's comments was that he is serving those people who are in need with tax clinics in his riding. That is accepted. It is a great initiative. I do the same thing in Parkdale—High Park. What I think is missing, and I would like a response from my colleague, is that the tax credit for monthly transit passes was not a refundable credit. It was a claim that could only be made by those persons who were paying taxes. For the very low-income people he is trying to serve, I am trying to serve, and we are all trying to serve, that tax credit was actually inapplicable.

Does the member not think it is more important to actually invest $21 billion, as our government is doing, in transit around this country to increase the number of subways, streetcars, and buses, in places like Montreal, to serve those very low-income people who actually had no access whatsoever, particularly if they could not even afford a monthly pass but could only pay on a daily basis for transit?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very pertinent and legitimate question.

We should not believe everything the government says about the $11 billion for affordable housing or the $23 billion for public transit, because the majority of these investments will only be made after the 2019 and 2023 elections. It is very unlikely that people will see any investments in the short term. There will be many governments and many budgets before then.

I am well aware of the difference between refundable tax credits and non-refundable tax credits. I always prefer refundable tax credits, which are more progressive and help the disadvantaged most in terms of taxes.

In my experience, low-income seniors and workers who pay a little bit of tax could benefit from this tax credit even if it were non-refundable. Sometimes it is the only means they have to try to reduce their taxes every year. It was not perfect, but it really helped people in our communities. I do not understand why the Liberals are eliminating it.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for talking about affordable housing. We saw in this budget, and the government takes pride in saying it, that it has announced $11 billion for affordable housing. However, when we look at it closely, it would be $20 million in the first year and $300 million before the next election. The bulk of it would be after the next election. This is while we have a housing crisis in southwestern British Columbia, in the GTA, and across Canada. People cannot find a place to live. In my riding of Courtenay—Alberni, for example, the vacancy rate is less than 0.5%.

There is an organization called Dawn to Dusk. Its members are dealing with people on the street, homeless people, and they are saying that we are in a crisis situation. At the same time, the current government is protecting shareholder stock option loopholes that are costing us $800 million a year. The government is choosing CEO stock option loopholes over people who need a place to live. Maybe the member could talk a bit about what $800 million could do this year for people who need a roof over their heads.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question.

Indeed, being a politician is about making choices. Unfortunately, this Liberal budget contains bad choices, unrealistic choices. The Liberals claim to be doing things, but they will have no impact in the end.

The issue of social and affordable housing is an excellent example. The member put it very well. The Liberals can brag about investing $11 billion, but when you realize that this investment will be spread out over 11 years and that, this year, they will spend only 1% of the money promised in the budget, we soon realize that this will not make much difference in our communities. We could maybe build four or five small low-cost housing units in Canada, and then we would have to wait for next year, because the money will be gone.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage (Multiculturalism)]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg South.

It is a pleasure for me to rise today to speak to budget 2017. I want to address key parts of the budget that I know would have an important and lasting impact on my riding of Parkdale—High Park in Toronto.

Since October 2015, I have heard loud and clear from my constituents about the issues that matter to them most. I know that budget 2017 would help to address their concerns and the concerns of all Canadians.

One of the most important issues to residents in my riding is access to housing. Since being elected, I have met with the Canadian Housing and Renewal Association and the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada. I have also heard about this issue knocking on doors and in meetings with constituents and key stakeholders in my riding.

In Parkdale—High Park alone there are five co-op housing units that provide much-needed accommodation for low-income residents. The members of Dufferin Grove Housing Co-operative, Swansea Village Co-operative, 55 Howard Park Co-operative Homes, 91 Spencer Avenue Housing Co-operative, and John Bruce Village Co-operative have spoken to me and my staff about the critical need to ensure affordable housing stock in our cities. I am acutely aware of how urgent the housing crisis is, not only in Parkdale—High Park but right around the country.

I also know that housing is foundational. What I mean by that is that if we address people's housing needs, they will have better health outcomes, better educational outcomes, and better economic outcomes.

On March 29th I held a standing-room-only town hall in my riding on housing. I heard first-hand from the residents of Parkdale—High Park about just how important it is for our government to resolve the affordable housing issue and to work with local partners to make that happen. I am proud that budget 2017 would start to do just that.

Budget 2017 would make a historic $11-billion commitment to housing in this country. Combined with $4 billion in base funding, it would bring the total to $15 billion our government has committed in the first two years of our mandate to launch a much-needed national housing strategy. That would mean access to more affordable housing for residents in Parkdale—High Park.

The $15 billion in the aggregate would include the following investments. There would be $5 billion for a national housing fund to address critical housing issues and to prioritize support for vulnerable citizens. Who are they? They are seniors, indigenous people, survivors fleeing situations of domestic violence, people with disabilities, those dealing with mental health and addiction issues, and veterans.

There would be $3.2 billion for a renewed federal and provincial partnership on affordable housing. There would be $2.1 billion to expand and extend the homelessness partnering strategy beyond 2018-19.

As my second component, I would like to underscore families and child care. I am the husband and father of two young children. My boys are three and six. My riding of Parkdale—High Park is home to countless families just like mine. These families have reached out to me to talk about our government's first act, which was to cut taxes for the middle class. They have also welcomed the Canada child benefit, which targets tax-free benefits to those who need it most.

For those raising children in Parkdale—High Park and around the country, our first budget last year provided an initial $500 million for early learning and child care. Building on this, this budget would invest an additional $7 billion to support the creation of high-quality child care spaces across the country. This would mean up to 40,000 new subsidized child care spaces.

What this would mean for Parkdale—High Park and ridings around the country would be more options for parents who are literally fed up. It is from personal experience and from others in my riding that I know about people who sign on to countless child care waiting lists, literally the moment they conceive a child. Those people need a greater supply of much-needed day care spots, and they need options that will make it possible for them to return to work, including for women to return to work. That is something our government firmly believes in. This unprecedented investment would both address the supply of child care spaces and help drive down costs by boosting the number of subsidized spots.

Budget 2017 would do even more for families. We fulfilled our campaign commitment to introduce more flexibility and choice for parents on parental leave. These changes would allow parents to choose to receive their current benefits over an extended period of up to 18 months, rather than 12, and spend more time with their young children in those key early months.

On women and gender parity, the third subject I would like to discuss, this budget was a historic first. For the first time in Canadian history, in 150 years, a federal budget included a gender statement. The statement reflects the impact of programs, across government, on women and reflects our commitment as a government to ensuring that the goal of gender equality permeates every single thing we do as a federal government.

As an example, we believe that women deserve to feel safe, supported, and protected in communities, so on top of our historic child care investment, I was heartened to see $100.9 million allocated in the budget over the first five years, and $20 million thereafter, to establish a national strategy to address gender-based violence.

In the past, I have supported work on this issue in my riding of Parkdale--Hyde Park, particularly at The Redwood shelter, a shelter for women and children fleeing violence. I have seen the amazing work being done in my community at places like The Redwood, but I have also seen first-hand the critical need for investment and resources to end gender-based violence.

Budget 2017 would do more. It would address the critical need for funding for women abroad. I am proud that our government has endorsed what is known as the Dutch initiative and would be dedicating $650 million in international aid to the education of women and girls and to empower women to maintain control over their reproductive rights.

I am proud to serve in a government with Canada's first ever gender-equal cabinet and in a government that has introduced Bill C-25, which would improve gender diversity on corporate boards in the private sector.

We know that more needs to be done, but budget 2017 is an important step in the right direction toward achieving true gender equality across all government programs.

The fourth area is indigenous persons. In my role as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, I am committed to our goal of rebuilding and repairing our relationship with indigenous peoples and to supporting the preservation of indigenous languages and culture. The mandate letter of the Minister of Canadian Heritage has an express commitment to provide funding and to enact legislation to promote, preserve, and enhance indigenous languages. I am honoured that the hon. minister has asked me to assist her with this project.

Building on the significant investments in budget 2016, budget 2017 would continue the important work of true reconciliation with indigenous persons. We would establish a new fiscal relationship that would lift the 2% cap on annual funding increases and move towards sufficient and predictable funding for first nations communities.

Budget 2017 allocates $225 million to provide access to affordable and culturally appropriate housing for Indigenous peoples living off-reserve. It also provides $300 million for the construction of housing in Canada’s north, and support for territorial governments to improve housing conditions. These investments will help approximately 3,000 families find adequate, suitable, and affordable housing. Budget 2017 also provides $225 million for housing providers who serve Indigenous peoples not living on reserves

We would also dedicate $828 million to improving health for first nations and Inuit, including $305 million for the non-insured health benefits program.

We would target mental health for first nations and Inuit, with $204.2 million going toward improving mental health services. We would build on our commitment to home care by investing $184 million for palliative and home care for first nations and Inuit communities.

The fifth area is transit and infrastructure. In my riding of Parkdale-High Park, I have heard time and again about the need for infrastructure investments in Canada, particularly to get people moving to work and school. Budget 2017 would deliver on this important commitment.

In budget 2017 we have committed $20 billion over the next decade, in partnership with the provinces and territories, for public transit projects that will shorten commutes, decrease air pollution, and allow Canadians to spend more time at home with their families. What would that mean in Parkdale--High Park? It would mean more subways, more streetcars, and more buses. It would mean access to more transit and greener transit, because our budget commitment would also include $21.9 billion in greener infrastructure.

The last subject I want to talk about as I conclude is vulnerable Canadians. What would the budget do for vulnerable Canadians? There is a new health agreement. There is $5 billion for mental health around the country and $6 billion for long-term care.

For low-income families, a dedicated fund of $13 million would be established to provide affordable access to the Internet for low-income families.

What would it do for asylum seekers? There would be legal aid for refugee applicants. I hear time and time again in Parkdale—High Park that we want to establish an open and compassionate program, accessible to all. The money dedicated, $60 million over five years, to enhance people's access to the refugee system would do just that.

There would be money dedicated to those who are victimized by hatred. We would double the security infrastructure program.

There would be money dedicated to newcomers who have problems integrating because their foreign credentials are not being recognized. There would be $27 million dedicated to foreign credential recognition.

For the LGBTQ community, there would be $3.6 million to protect and promote equality for people of different sexual orientations.

This government reflects a commitment to progressive values, housing, indigenous persons, women, families, and our most vulnerable. I will be supporting this budget. I urge everyone in this House to do the same.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage will have five minutes for questions and comments the next time this issue is before the House.

The House resumed from May 3 consideration of the motion that Bill C-44, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

We are resuming debate. We have five minutes for questions and comments, following the speech of the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Multiculturalism.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is so much in this budget implementation bill that is bad for Canadians and for the future of the economy of Canada. There is so much that Canadians have to be concerned about. However, what is interesting, and a lot of Canadians are not noticing, are the changes to the power—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Is the audio not working?

The audio is now working, and the translation is working now. The hon. member may continue.

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

We will try that again, Mr. Speaker.

As I was saying, there is so much in this budget implementation bill that is not good for Canadians, especially for the economy, and not good in what it does for jobs. The so-called infrastructure bank is really bad for rural communities that are looking for infrastructure money. However, what I am concerned about at this point is the changes and the power that is being taken away from the parliamentary budget officer.

When we were in government, sometimes the parliamentary budget officer would talk about things with which he or his office disagreed. He would talk about things we were doing. That was what his job was. Now the government is taking away the power of the parliamentary budget officer to do that job. It is very concerning, especially for a government that is supposed to be open, that is supposed to be transparent, and that is supposed to be more available for scrutiny and for accountability.

I wonder if my hon. colleague could comment on where the benefit is to Canadians and to democracy by neutralizing and almost neutering the parliamentary budget officer.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage (Multiculturalism)]

Mr. Speaker, at the outset, I will provide two responses. In terms of what the government, through the budget, is doing for jobs and for infrastructure, it is making historic investments that are actually having results for Canadians right around the country.

Canadians elected us on a platform of investment in the economy, and that is exactly what we are doing. We are doing that, and the results are already starting to be shown in terms of the jobless rate, the unemployment rate in this country, which has gone from 7.1% to 6.7% under our watch, and that will continue to decline.

In terms of transparency and accountability, this is a very valid point raised by the member opposite. It is an important point. It is a point that our government believes in. That is why we have made efforts to render more accountability, both in this chamber and at committees, and for parliamentarians across the board.

In terms of the parliamentary budget officer, we believe in a robust role for that office, because that kind of accountability is exactly the kind of accountability that needs to be exercised over any government, whether it is this government or any other government of a different stripe.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague. He speaks about jobs and how there will be jobs in the budget. Does the member understand that the 2% excise tax that the government is putting on to wine in Canada will kill Canadian wineries, will kill Canadian wine jobs?

I have more than 18 wineries in my region. They are thriving. They have a complete supply chain, where they go from growing the product to retailing the product. They have tourism, they have restaurants, and they are providing jobs in many regions in our country.

Can the member speak to why his government has chosen to target wineries and Canadian wines, in particular because we have just signed the CETA trade agreement that will hurt them. Why are we costing jobs in our wine regions?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Essex for her question and for her advocacy in this chamber.

In terms of the winery economy, the vintners of Canada are an important aspect of our economy, as are all of our alcohol producers and alcohol distributers. The actual tax that is proposed in this budget will amount to a tax of what I understand to be 1¢ per bottle. That tax, while it may be significant, is not overall disproportionate to the amount of economic generation that will be created through that revenue generation, through that Excise Tax Act change.

Let us continue with the CTA. The efforts we are making with the Canada trade agreement to reduce interprovincial trade barriers will have an impact across the country, including on alcohol and wine distribution throughout the country.

With respect to the Excise Tax Act, I would actually underscore another change to be made to the Excise Tax Act, which I think benefits the exact same constituents who the member for Essex and I care about; for example, the people who are employed in the taxi industry. By changing the Excise Tax Act and how it considers ride-sharing services, such as Uber, what we are doing is levelling the playing field between Uber services and taxicab services so that all ride-sharing agreements are taxed in the same manner, which will again increase the equity that I think both of us agree should be pursued.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to participate in this debate on budget 2017. Canadians have now had the opportunity to review much of what is in the budget, and I believe there is a growing recognition that it will do a great deal to support gender equality and the economic advancement of women in this country.

Before looking at the budget itself, it is important to note that, as Canada marks the 150th anniversary of its founding this year, women are positioned for tremendous economic success this year and into the future. Women already represent nearly half of the workforce and continue to advance in many sectors of the Canadian economy. In the public, private, and non-profit sectors, women hold many leadership positions. The areas of the economy where women are under-represented are slowly becoming fewer. Our country has a significant pool of talented women with the skills and abilities needed for a range of economic opportunities, which is a clear competitive advantage. Canada ranks first out of 145 countries in female educational attainment, according to the World Economic Forum. Women now make up the majority of enrolments in college programs, and the proportion of women is even greater among graduates. Since the early 1990s, women have made up the majority of full-time students enrolled in undergraduate university programs.

However, we also know that our work to advance women into the economic opportunities they desire is far from done. One area where action is needed is in closing the gender wage gap. The fact is that women earn 87¢ for every dollar earned by men, largely as a result of wage inequality between women and men within occupations. In 2016, Canada ranked 35th overall in the global gender gap, a drop from 30th in 2015. We are going to change that.

While women are making inroads into all industries and occupations, they are still concentrated in lower-paying sectors, such as retail, health care, and social services. Women are overrepresented in part-time work and are less likely to reach more senior positions. In 2014, women held just 11.9% of construction jobs, 19.2% of forestry, fishing, mining, and oil and gas jobs, and 29.4% of agricultural jobs.

Let us not forget the most recent statistics from the Canadian Board Diversity Council's 2016 report card. It indicates that women hold just 21.5% of the FP 500 board seats, which is a competitive disadvantage for the corporate sector and the economy.

There are also some things we do not know yet about the gender wage gap. Many studies suggest that more than half of the gender wage gap is due to unexplained factors that we either have not yet learned how to measure or are the result of issues such as patriarchy and the systemic bias and discriminatory practices toward women in the workplace.

Given the challenge presented by the gender wage gap in Canada, the federal government is determined to play a leadership role in closing it. This includes a number of commitments made as part of budget 2017, which build on important steps taken in budget 2016 and additional actions by this government over the past year. Allow me to briefly describe some of these.

Budget 2017 includes a major commitment over the next 11 years for new investments of $7 billion in early learning and child care and over $11.2 billion in a national housing strategy. These investments in early learning and child care, in particular, will support access to child care and allow greater participation in work, education, or training, particularly by mothers.

A new employment insurance caregiving benefit will allow more caregivers, the majority of whom are women, to balance their work and family responsibilities. The government will create more flexible work arrangements for federally regulated employees, including flexible start and finish times, the ability to work from home, and new unpaid leaves to help manage family responsibilities. These actions, as part of budget 2017, represent tremendous opportunities to support women and girls reaching their full potential, and help close the gender wage gap in Canada.

We also cannot ignore the tremendous step forward that budget 2017 represents for openness and transparency by including a groundbreaking gender statement, not as an annex but as a full chapter in the budget itself. The gender statement raises the bar in our understanding of how public policies affect women and men differently.

Let me also remind Canadians about some of the measures announced prior to the budget that support economic opportunities for women and help us close the gender wage gap. These include advancing a national poverty reduction strategy; enhancing the use of gender-based analysis to ensure decisions about policies, programs, and legislation advance gender equality; introducing the new Canada child benefit; putting in place a new merit-based, open, and transparent approach in order to select high-quality candidates for some 4,000 governor in council and ministerial appointments with gender diversity as a key goal; and finally, introducing legislation to modernize Canada's federal corporate governance framework, which includes using the comply or explain approach to improve gender diversity on corporate boards, which is badly needed.

I am proud of the many actions being taken by the Government of Canada as part of budget 2017, along with the measures we have put in place beyond the budget itself to support women's economic success and help close the gender wage gap in this country. Not only will women and their families benefit greatly from these actions; all Canadians will benefit as we work together to build an inclusive, prosperous country that strengthens the middle class from coast to coast to coast.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things my colleague spoke about was pay equity, but unfortunately women are going to have to wait another year. I am not sure why the Liberals think women in Canada need to wait to have pay equity addressed. Why we cannot have legislation now is beyond me. Why this measure cannot be included now is beyond me.

I appreciate that the budget has a lens applied to it that speaks of women, but let us be clear: the six economic sectors that are priorities in this budget are male-dominated sectors.

While the budget does provide some aspirational language on where we need to go—and gender being addressed in any budget is a positive step, and I am pleased to see it in this budget— the funding for status of women remains dramatically low, the lowest of any other ministerial portfolio, the lowest it has been. It stays at an amount that has been called “budget dust” because it is 0.1%. In a budget with a gender focus, why was there no increase to the status of women ministry?

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, reflecting on the last 10 years, funding to Status of Women Canada was cut rather dramatically by the previous government, and we have restored funding to that ministry. We have opened regional offices. Winnipeg is now a centre for Status of Women Canada, admittedly on a part-time basis.

With reference to the member's question on pay equity, we made a solid commitment in our platform, and it has been referenced many times in the House. We will be bringing forward proactive pay equity legislation in 2018.

As my mother would say, “If something is worth doing, it is worth doing right”, and to do right by Canadian women, we will take the time to do it right.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have two comments for my hon. colleague, and hopefully I will get a response to the second.

I feel honour bound to say that when the Harper administration brought in the tax credit for the use of buses, the Green Party opposed it because it did not put a single additional bus on the road. It did give a tax credit to people who were taking public transit anyway and who were already in an income bracket that would allow them to benefit from a tax credit. The credit was valuable to many people, but it did not contribute toward reducing greenhouse gases. An analysis of that bus tax credit showed that the cost per tonne in the reduction of greenhouse gases was so inefficient that it cost $1,000 per tonne, so I cannot now attack the present Liberal administration for removing something that I criticized the previous government for bringing in, but the public transit issue does merit more examination in the budget.

My second point is that $20 billion has been promised for public transit, but only somewhat less than $1 billion of that will be available before 2019. I would ask my hon. colleague the parliamentary secretary why we are not taking the climate crisis more seriously and spending the money sooner to help people find it more convenient to take public transit.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend from Saanich—Gulf Islands for her advocacy on climate change. I know that as part of the Canadian delegation, she was an important part of the discussion in bringing the Paris climate agreement about.

I agree with her that the tax credit for transit ridership was ineffective. It did not reduce greenhouse gases and did not improve ridership.

I will also echo something the hon. member said. We are going to be investing, over the next 10 years, $28.7 billion in transit. That is a staggering amount of money after very little funding over the last 10 years. Again, we need the time to plan. In Winnipeg, for instance, the southwest transit corridor is being completed. It is in the planning stages now, and it will be ready for investment in 2018-2019.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise and participate in debate, and more so in this case. However, if I might be indulged for just a moment, I would like to share a little news with this place.

First of all, about a year ago we had a vote in this place on whether or not the Supreme Court was the best body to hear a case out of New Brunswick, the Comeau case. Many might remember that it was the case of a man who bought both spirits and beer in Quebec and transported these items home to New Brunswick. He was fined for crossing a border with a Canadian-made product, and I and many people in this place have taken issue with these unfair and inequitable trade barriers.

I am happy to say today that the Supreme Court has announced that it will be hearing the Comeau case. I want to show appreciation for all the members who supported that motion and I do hope the Liberal government members will reconsider their opposition to it. I also hope they will argue for a restored section 121 of our charter, our free trade clause, because I believe it is a constitutional right. I believe we are one country, not just as a political unit but as an economic one, and I hope the Minister of Justice and associated ministers will take that position and argue for a liberalized opening of trade in Canada.

I am very happy to join the debate on this particular budget and the related implementation bill. Obviously, over on the opposition side of this place, there is an expectation that there will be some disagreement over measures proposed in a budget implementation bill. However, I also do not believe it is productive to re-fight an election, and likewise it is my view that it is counterproductive to oppose everything simply for the sake of opposing, as we often saw in the previous Parliament.

However, it is my intent today to raise a few issues that I have serious concerns with. For starters, let us all agree that this is, for all intents and purposes, an omnibus budget bill. From my own perspective, having sat on the government side of this place, I recognize that when a government is trying to implement a broad fiscal agenda, as much as it would be ideal to debate every measure on a stand-alone basis, that expectation is just not realistic, so I am willing to give some consideration for the Liberals to use an omnibus budget bill.

However, where I will call out the Liberals is on promising during the election to not use an omnibus bill, and yet here we are, debating an omnibus piece of legislation. This is exactly the type of hypocrisy that drives cynicism among Canadian voters in our political system, which ironically is yet another campaign theme the Prime Minister was all too happy to rally against during the election campaign but on which he now adds fuel to the fire.

Getting back to the budget, there is a very troubling aspect to this budget implementation bill, and that is the fact that this budget mentions items that are not actually budgeted for. Let me give a few examples.

The budget had a line item of “helping working adults upgrade their skills”. This sounds like something that most Canadians would support. However, how much actual money did the Liberals budget for in the 2017 budget? Zero. There is nothing in the 2017 budget to actually fund that item, nothing. There is only a promise to do so in the 2019 election year.

Another curious item in this budget is “investing in skills innovation”. Once again, it sounds like something most Canadians would support. Would anyone here like to take a guess at how much actual money the Liberals have budgeted to pay for this in the 2017 budget? How about zero? That is right: zero, as in nothing. Once again, there is a promise the Liberals might spend something in the 2019 election year, which I would say is no coincidence.

Another line item in this budget is “expanding the youth employment strategy”. Who would not support that, but wait—let us guess how much money the Liberals budgeted in 2017. Once again the answer is zero. There is not a dime. I cannot say, “Not a penny”, because of course there is no longer a penny, but let us guess what year the Liberals promised they might actually spend money on a youth employment strategy.

If members guessed the 2019 election year, they must have a crystal ball because, of course, that is the right answer.

Let just just think about that for a moment. Unemployed youth who need jobs today will have to wait until 2019, when the Liberals need to be re-elected. Let us seriously think about that. At the same time, we can ask why they even bother putting line items in a 2017 budget for measures not even budgeted within the 2017 budget. This is from a Liberal government that promised that better is always possible, just not until 2019, apparently, when it needs to be re-elected.

I recognize that this budget comes from the finance minister and not from the majority of members sitting on the government side of the House. I mention this because I believe that many would agree that fluffing up a budget with items not in the budget is not raising the bar in this place. Yes, we all know that a budget implementation bill will always be heavy on government messaging, but this budget takes it a step further by playing politics with the lives of Canadians.

I can cite many more examples of line items in this budget that are actually not budgeted for 2017. In those cases, surprise, surprise, there is money for those things, but guess when: 2019. Again, that adds to the cynicism.

Here is my other major criticism. As much as there are line items in this budget that we know are not actually budgeted for, guess what is missing from the budget. There is absolutely no time line, if ever, for the Liberal finance minister to return Canada to a balanced budget.

Let us recap. Here is a Liberal government that looked Canadians in the eye and said, “We will return to a balanced budget in 2019.” At some level, even the Liberals must realize why a balanced budget is a good thing to have. Otherwise, why did they bother to promise to deliver this to Canadians by 2019? No one ever forced the Liberals to make such a promise, yet they did. Here we are today, and I seriously challenge any member of this House, the government side included, to get the finance minister to even mention the words “balanced budget”, let alone in what decade he intends to honour the Liberal promise to deliver one to Canadians.

Here is what we do know. Back in October last year, the finance minister's own department projected that not until 2051 would Canada return to balance. What did the finance minister do? He intentionally withheld that information from Canadians until December 23 of last year. What kind of finance minister does that? Why has “balanced budget” become a dirty word to this finance minister? These are all troubling questions.

It is not unlike the fact that this budget proposes to run a deficit in 2017 that is almost three times larger than what the Liberals originally promised to get elected. Though I have sat on the government side of the House, it was never under a government that made so many promises to Canadians it clearly had no intention of keeping.

I can tell members that in my riding, even many who voted Liberal are seriously disappointed. They feel duped, betrayed, and beyond that. I am not going to use any unparliamentary language.

There are a few points I will mention about this budget. It is well known that the Liberal government has eliminated some of the targeted tax incentives enacted by the previous government. Let us call them what they are often called: boutique tax credits. Curiously, the Liberal government eliminated a tax credit that helped families with kids in fitness activities. It killed the tax credit that helped make public transit more affordable, and then it turned around and introduced a tax credit that helps teachers pay for school supplies.

It would be one thing to eliminate all targeted tax credits equally, but essentially, what the Liberal government is doing is sending a message that targeted tax credits are wrong if enacted by a Conservative government but okay if enacted by a Liberal one. That is just partisan politics at its worst.

Before I leave the topic, let me just say this. I have heard from some teachers, particularly those who teach at the elementary level, that this tax credit will help them, and that is a good thing. However, I have also heard from families and from those who are disabled that eliminating the children's fitness credit and the public transit tax credit will hurt them, and these are not good things. Some are actually shocked that the Liberals would cancel a tax credit designed to support public transit solely because of Liberal ideology, because we all know that increasing public transit use helps to decrease our carbon footprint. Of course, when it comes to doing that, we know that the present Liberal government only supports tax increases on carbon to make life less affordable for the same middle-class families it professes to want to help.

Another point I would like to raise is about the so-called infrastructure bank. This one, I will be frank, scares the heck out of me. I will explain why. We are hearing that the mandate for the infrastructure bank would be to fund only projects with a price tag of $100 million or more. There is not a single city in my riding, and I would submit, in the ridings of a large number of members in this place, that has the population base to support any project even close to that magnitude. About the only major cities in Canada that can support these types of projects just happen to be the ones that elected the most Liberals, and how convenient that is. The problem is that the small and smaller rural communities in ridings such as mine would have to help pay for them, and they are strongly opposed to that.

The Canadian Press reported that the finance minister admitted that global investors will only invest in large transformational projects that produce enough revenue from which they can earn a high rate of return on their investments. In other words, the Liberal government would be borrowing money it does not have, at reduced rates, so that Canadian taxpayers could finance and subsidize high rates of return for private international investors.

What is more disappointing about this scheme is that taxpayers in rural, smaller, and even mid-sized communities would be taking on this debt. They would be helping to pay the high interest to pay these private investors, and they would not even be eligible or able to afford the projects in question because of the pricey $100 million minimum price tag. Worse is that the Liberals would borrow roughly $32 billion to use as seed money for the creation of the investment bank. It is money that will not be spent on building infrastructure today in the very same municipalities that will not be able to participate in this expensive program.

The infrastructure bank, in my view, would be detrimental not just to my region but to many regions across this great country, and the person in charge of it is a finance minister who refuses to even say the words “balanced budget”. What could go wrong? Article after article I have read has come out opposed to the scheme. Comments range from it being not needed to being a disaster waiting to happen, but of course, the Liberals' attitude of “we know best” prevails.

I would be very curious to know how many Liberal MPs from smaller rural areas think the infrastructure bank is a great idea, because the citizens they represent would pay for it but would not benefit from it. As one senior citizen in my riding pointed out, the federal government used to sell Canada savings bonds to raise capital for things like building infrastructure and paid the interest to Canadians, so those returns stayed in Canada, but not anymore. Now the lucrative interest financed by Canadian taxpayers would instead be paid to big-league international players. I suppose that is helpful when one is a celebrity Prime Minister throwing taxpayer-financed parties in Davos with global elites. I will leave it to the Liberal members in this place to explain why they think that is a great idea.

There are other areas of concern I have with this budget implementation act. Yesterday morning, the parliamentary budget office issued its latest report. We know that the Liberal government is not happy with the PBO, who caught and exposed the Liberals for trying to hide the fact that they did indeed inherit a balanced budget from the previous government. Let us not forget that it was also a recent PBO report that revealed that the Liberals' promised infrastructure spending to date has largely been smoke and mirrors. What are the Liberals doing? In the words of the PBO, the Liberals are limiting “the PBO's ability to initiate reports and members' ability to request cost estimates of certain proposals”. Basically, the current so-called transparent Liberal government is going to restrict what the PBO can and cannot investigate.

It is no secret that the PBO has been a thorn in the side of government since the Conservatives created this critically important office. The former government had battles with the PBO, but unlike the current government, it never changed the rules to muzzle it.

A government is free to disagree with the PBO as much as the former government did, and it was justifiably scrutinized and held to account for doing so. However, we know that the Liberals realize that the optics of battling the PBO are not sunny enough. They are not sunny ways. The Liberals are, instead, muzzling him and limiting the scope of what can be scrutinized and who can authorize said scrutinizing.

The Liberal government has, increasingly, become known for saying one thing, typically in flowery language, but quietly doing the opposite. It is a sad state of affairs to see the Liberals being so sensitive to criticism and scrutiny that they resort to muzzling and manipulation.

It was quite something to recently see a former leader of the opposition point out that the former prime minister gave answers to questions without using platitudes and non-answers, as the current Prime Minister does. The muzzling of the PBO will only further destroy transparency and credibility, again fuelling the cynicism people have about our political system, something the government had promised to do differently.

It is important to recognize when we are actually becoming part of the problem. I understand that politicians will try to present in the best light, but they should, in presenting in the best light, actually shine on substance and then let the people decide.

The bottom line is that this Liberal budget implementation act is sending Canada in the wrong direction. We have massive amounts of new Liberal-created debt on the way, with no plan whatsoever for how and when it can be paid for. At the end of the day, all this newly created Liberal debt is going to have to be repaid, and it will be our kids and grandkids stuck with those bills, all at a time when we know that our demographics in Canada are changing. This was revealed yesterday. There are more older people than younger people in Canada, and we all know that many people are expecting to be supported by their government as they age. We are adding more debt for the very same people we are going to be asking to help those individuals as they age.

This is not something that just showed up. This is something we cannot put a positive spin on. We have this problem. The Japanese are ahead of us on this. We have to ask ourselves if we can continue to push our economy in a direction where we cannot pay the bills and will be pushing them onto fewer and fewer people.

The fact is that the fastest-growing segment in our society is those aged 65 and over. We know that in Canada, the ratio of those still in the workforce versus those who are retiring is changing and that 20 years from now, the number of those working is going to be much smaller than the number of those who are retired. That is why all expert evidence says that Canada needs to raise the age of eligibility for old age security, precisely as the previous government did, yet this so-called evidence-based decision-making Liberal government overturned that.

Briefly, I am looking for answers. I like accountability, but if the Liberals do not like the ideas of the previous government, they should put forward something, not just platitudes. That is why I support the Supreme Court case going ahead. It may be a chance for us to become not just a political unit but an economic one. It will help us offset these challenges as we age.

This is a great country, and it needs to stay great. It needs to stay great by remembering the founding principles of the Fathers of Confederation. They said that this country is built on hard work and sacrifice. Sacrifice should not be political sacrifice, where a good policy is eliminated just to get elected. Sure, all parties will dance close to that edge, but as a group, we need to start taking responsibility for where our country will be and what country our kids and grandkids will inherit.

I will be part of the solution, but I also need other members of Parliament to work with us to propose those solutions.

I will not simply oppose. There is lots to oppose in here. There are also some good things. However, we are going to have to do it in a way that, at the end of the day, gives us that solid footing to move forward. The government has yet to show it wants to take that step. In many ways it has taken us back.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, in British Columbia, for his intervention. He is a friend who used to sit with me on the finance committee. Let us dissect what he said.

He belongs to a party that was in government for nine years, one that inherited a positive financial situation from the previous government, Mr. Martin's government. His party inherited a budget surplus and a situation where we were paying down Canada's debt, and it immediately turned that into a deficit, even before the financial crisis. The Conservatives ran a deficit for years and years.

Let us assume that the member and his party now want to promise Canadians a budget surplus. We on this side of the House believe that we were elected with a mandate to renew our country, to cut taxes for the middle class and, since my colleague talked about sacrifices, to raise taxes for the wealthiest 1% of Canadians.

What the member failed to do was clearly and accurately list all the tax hikes and budget cuts his party would impose in order to eliminate the deficit if it were to return to power.

I wonder if my colleague could clarify that.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is important to differentiate two things. First, when our government decided to go into deficit, we were very transparent on it. The G20 was involved. There was a commitment in 2011 that we would return back to balance. We did that by initiating a deficit reduction action plan. We looked at the things we were doing and how we could improve upon them in a way that did not harm Canadians. Unlike the Liberals in the 1990s who cut health care and provincial transfers, we maintained those while bringing ourselves back into balance.

When we made the commitment in 2011 that we would return back to balance, we did it. That is something the current government cannot say. It is embarking on large deficit spending without giving any clear certainty to anyone. The member was there for the pre-budget consultations. We heard that the finance minister needed to show that it was a credible budget, and was asked if he could show a return to balance. So far, we cannot even get him to say the words “balanced budget”.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, again, it is a bit rich of the Liberals to introduce an omnibus bill after criticizing the Conservatives for doing the same. During the election campaign, the Liberals promised that they would not introduce omnibus bills, but here we are with a nearly 300-page bill that amends 30 laws.

The agriculture sector is essential to the Canadian economy. It represents one in eight jobs. In my riding, Salaberry—Suroît, the sector accounts for $100 million in annual revenue, which sustains more than 350 family farms. However, the budget does not include any of the compensation that was promised to dairy farmers.

In the current context, with Mr. Trump denouncing Canada's dairy farmers and threatening to renegotiate NAFTA, we fail to see why the Liberals have not decided to make offsetting investments. The compensation that the Conservatives promised was 10 times greater than what the Liberals promised. Now we find absolutely nothing to protect and compensate our dairy farmers and to show them that they are important to us.

What does my colleague think of that?

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

Mr. Speaker, yes, the previous government had faults. All governments have faults. No one is perfect. A government is made up of people. I would also say that the people in the previous government made commitments to the people and followed through on them. What is creating more cynicism than anything else is when a government promises it is going to do things differently and continually breaks its word.

Why make promises at all if the government is not going to keep them? That is a big contrast between the Liberals and the Conservatives. The New Democrats have always been very good at opposing and calling things out, and I hope they will continue to do that.

The government says that better is always possible. I agree, and in many of these cases, particularly what the member has said, better is possible. The government needs to consider how to do that.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that the member is quite right in saying that everyone makes mistakes. They made a big one this time.

I would like to come back to the omnibus bill that my colleague from Salaberry—Suroît mentioned. Under this omnibus bill, there is a parliamentary budget officer, but he or she will report to the Speaker and will, obviously, be under the influence of the Liberal government. That is pretty shameful. It is worrisome that the person in that position will find that this is very different from what the government promised. I have here a copy of the Liberal Party platform. On page 15, in the paragraph on the Canada infrastructure bank, it reads:

We will establish the Canadian Infrastructure Bank to provide low-cost financing for new infrastructure projects.

The federal government can use its strong credit rating and lending authority to make it easier and more affordable for municipalities to build the projects their communities need.

That is really quite unbelievable, when we now know full well that the government will have to guarantee all mutual funds and other investors a major return.

My colleague alluded to a mistake, so here is my question. Does he not believe that it was quite a big mistake to have done away with the public transit tax credit? Back home in Longueuil, the elimination of that tax credit means a loss of $250 for most people who use public transit. For ordinary Canadians, $250 a year is a lot of money. Considering how good the Liberals are at communicating, did they simply make a mistake by letting this measure go through or did they purposely commit this shameful act that will hurt public transit users?

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

Mr. Speaker, many of the small areas where I am from do not have the large infrastructure projects that would be able to take advantage of the infrastructure bank as it is written. Oftentimes the only support they get, beyond maybe a grant for an addition of a new line of transit, because most of it is bus, is that they would get some money back for using that system. Again, that publicly funded system needs to have users.

The interesting thing is that the Liberals are cancelling that, as well as taking more of those tax dollars from rural areas and basically transferring them to the large projects in the urban areas. Some people might say that is just way things are, that the big people take advantage of the small people, but it is worse than that. The ones who are going to be charging prohibitively high interest rates so that they can get the return are going to be these high finance international financiers.

Again, we all lose in that kind of scenario. That is something government members really need to consider, and they need to speak to the Minister of Finance about these concerns.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola particularly for his advocacy on behalf of those with agricultural operations, farmers who happen to grow grapes or hops. There is the local growth in wineries and craft breweries. They are now being hit by a 2% excise tax that is set with a built-in escalator to continue to grow over time. It poses a real threat to those businesses.

I do want to make a quick parenthetical comment that the previous administration under Stephen Harper broke plenty of promises. Stephen Harper's 2006 campaign platform included a pledge to shorten wait times in our health care system and never to tax income trusts. I could go on. It is a very difficult thing to have a good memory and remember another one of Mr. Harper's famous promises, that Canada would never ship bitumen to countries with lower environmental standards for refining. He forgot about that when he starting pushing the exports to China.

That said, comments on the excise tax would be great.

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to comment on a few things.

As members know, in 2006, there was obviously a period of minority governments, so no one party in here could make promises and then follow through with everything. In 2011, we were elected with a majority mandate. There were about 108 different promises, and I think the final tally was over 104 were consistently done.

I am a big believer in things like income trusts. If a party gets elected under a certain knowledge, comes into power, and says that it needs to revisit things, it needs to explain itself. Mr. Flaherty and Mr. Harper did explain for the government, and there was a political price for that, but that is how our system works. That is important.

I would also point out that one of the disturbing parts about the escalator is that it never has to come back to this place. It will just go up 2% a year, regardless of whether there is inflation or not. Worse than that, because it is ad valorem, it depends on what the value is, but it is also subject to GST, so there will be a tax on a tax. Remember, the higher the price, the less will be consumed. Canadians do consume a lot of wine, but seven out of every 10 bottles of wine in this country are not Canadian wines. When we do this, we actually harm an industry that has the potential to grow.

What the government should be considering is how to unleash the industry. For example, with respect to microbreweries, I was told by one owner in Nova Scotia that back in 2006 there were 60 to 80 microbreweries across the country and now there are over 800. Why? The reason is the excise changes that took place in 2007. That shows leadership. That shows that governments can get out of the way and allow private industry to become something greater. That is something we need to think more about in this place considering our demographics.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Alfred-Pellan.

It is such a pleasure to rise in the House to speak on behalf of the residents of my riding of Davenport on budget 2017, which was released on March 22. It is a good budget and a lot of positive benefit is in it for the people in my riding.

It is not a big spend budget like 2016, but it is a responsible budget and a targeted budget. It is the next step in the government's ambitious plan to make smart investments that will create jobs, grow our economy, and provide more support for the middle class and those working hard to join it.

I will be targeting my comments very specifically to a few key areas, which are jobs and economy, transit, affordable housing and health care. These are the key areas that are of great interest to the people of Davenport.

I have been blessed over the last couple of months to hold a number of community pop-up offices around the riding. I have heard very loud and clear from the residents of Davenport that their top issue is jobs and economy.

People are worried about being able to afford a decent living, both today and moving forward. Some have part-time work and want full-time work, some have full-time work but some changes are happening within their industry and they might be losing their jobs, and some are on contract. However, all of them are worried about their jobs. They want better paying jobs and they want more predictable pay.

I was very pleased to see a a focus on innovation and skills in budget 2017. The reason I am so excited is that this will help better prepare Canadians for the workforce of today and tomorrow.

A number of initiatives will help people to upgrade their skills: more co-op and work-integrated learning; more support for adult workers who are trying to go back to school or to upgrade their skills while supporting their families; and more support for families that are caregivers, that are trying to take care of their children. Then there is also a huge section around trying to help new immigrants, new Canadians, newcomers who have wonderful foreign credentials, to get them into the workforce a lot quicker.

I will go through a list of key initiatives that I think are important, which I have pointed out to the residents of Davenport, and will be beneficial not only to those in Davenport but also to all Canadians. I will go through all the numbers. Whenever we talk about numbers, $2.7 billion here and $132 million there, people's eyes get a little bit glassy, so I will just go through certain key initiatives.

We are providing quite a bit of money for skills training and employment supports for unemployed and underemployed Canadians under the Labour Market Transfer Agreement. We are giving about $3 billion for that, and this is super important. I just had a conversation with someone a couple of days ago. He told me he had three jobs and he would really like to have one. I told him I had good news, that we had put some money into budget 2017 that would help him improve his skills so he could hopefully have one job that would support his life.

We are putting a substantial amount of money into making the EI program more flexible to enable the unemployed to pursue self-funded training, while remaining eligible for EI benefits. This has always been a puzzle to me, the fact that those who were on EI looking for jobs and wanted to self-improve would have lost their benefits if they did their own training. I am glad we have fixed that.

We have also put a substantial amount of money, almost half a billion dollars, to extend eligibility for student financial assistance for both part-time students and students with dependent children. We want to make it easier for adult learners to qualify for student financial assistance.

So many people tell me they have to support their families and wonder how they can improve their skills while they do that. This will help to support them to do that. It helps them to access financial support to go back to schools on a part-time basis, upgrade their skills and move into a profession that either pays more or a profession that gives them more happiness.

There are also a number of supports we provide that will help families to take care of their families. We have a new EI caregiving benefit that will provide a substantial amount of money for adult and child care.

We have also made adjustments to provide EI parental benefits for up to 18 months. We have also put some money to allow expectant mothers to claim EI for up to 12 weeks prior to their due date. The last thing is that we have also put a substantial amount of money, $7 billion, to create a number of spaces for high-quality affordable child care.

I will mention one last thing.

A wonderful woman talked to me last Saturday at my last pop-up. She is a young doctor from Mexico City and has just come here. She told me she would love to be a doctor in Canada. She had married a Canadian and was now a permanent resident. She wanted to know how she could use her skills to serve the Canadian population. Our government has put $30 million over five years in the budget to help those with foreign credentials, like doctors, get recognized, to help them get Canadian experience, and to help them to start working and contributing to the Canadian economy as soon as possible.

We have put a tremendous amount of money into transit. I represent a downtown west riding, an urban riding in Toronto. One of the biggest irritants for the residents of my riding is transit. They want to have reliable transit. They want it to be accessible and affordable. They are also very big supporters of active transportation such as bicycling. They can cut across traffic, go through bike paths and lanes, and Ontario Hydro routes, so they can cross the city in a more expedited way. As an environmentalist, I love the idea of more dollars being put into transit, because there would be less pollution, less CO₂ emissions, and there would be a huge economic benefit. It moves both people and goods around seamlessly.

Budget 2017 has announced $20.1 billion over 11 years to team up with the provinces and territories to build new urban transit networks and service extensions. I hope that will translate into a downtown relief line in Toronto. We desperately need additional ways to move people across the downtown core. This money will also help to finish up the work around the Eglinton LRT. In addition to this $20 billion investment, our government is also putting an additional $5 billion into transit from Canada's infrastructure bank.

That is an additional $25 billion in addition to the $3.4 billion announced last year in the 2016 budget to improve and expand our public transit networks to get people around, to ensure they are accessible, reliable, and affordable, which is a key issue for the residents of Davenport. These investments will transform the way Canadians move, work, and live.

Another key area I am really proud of in our investments in budget 2017 is affordable housing. People in Davenport say they not only need affordable housing but they also need to be able to afford to live in Toronto, because it has become so expensive. I am delighted the federal government is stepping up to the plate. I want to give huge kudos to our Minister of Families, Children and Social Development for his leadership on this. We started last year with $2.2 billion over two years to give Canadians more access to affordable housing, to give more loans and financing tools so we could develop more affordable rental units. That also allowed for the renewing of co-op agreements of which I have two or three in my riding. They were very happy to see that money coming from the federal government.

Budget 2017 announces a historic $11 billion over 10 years. That is historic because it is 10-year funding. This is wonderful news because it will allow cities to plan ahead. It will also provide a lot of stability. The agreements are being negotiated now with municipalities across the country. ln Toronto, this will translate into a number of new affordable housing units. It will renovate existing units, provide more rent subsidies, and provide more affordable housing spaces.

Also, there are $11 billion in additional money for mental health and home care over 10 years. In Ontario, this will translate to $4.2 billion over the next decade, $2.3 billion for home care and $1.9 billion for mental health supports. It is extraordinarily important. These additional dollars have been a long time coming in terms of an additional focus on mental health. I am looking for more dollars to support ethnic communities to help them get the support and the resources they need for home care. More people want to be taken care of at home. I am delighted with this investment at the national level.

Budget 2017 is a good budget for Canadians. It is a good budget for residents of Davenport.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is certainly looking for the good in this omnibus bill, bringing to light some of the things she sees as benefits. One of the things that has been swept under the carpet in this bill, though, is the elephant in the room, and that is the infrastructure bank that would be created by this budget. The Liberals certainly did not campaign on this and they really are not speaking about in the House, although it would change and have a serious impact on the lives of Canadians.

The member spoke about affordability and the importance of working people and families to get a break, to be able to afford and make their lives better for themselves. Bill C-44 would establish the Canada infrastructure bank. Could the member explain to us what Canadians would have to gain from this bank, other than the privatization of infrastructure they paid for with their taxes and potentially the new user fees they would pay?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, I do not agree with the premise that this budget bill is an omnibus bill. I do not believe that to be so. Everything in the budget is about the budget. I personally do not support omnibus bills, so I do not agree that this is the case.

Second, with respect to the infrastructure bank, I believe we are now up to about $180 billion over 12 years in investment in infrastructure. We are trying to invest not only in public transit but also to build up the infrastructure that will allow us to have the backbone for a strong economy, both today and in the future.

Therefore, the infrastructure bank is all tapping into some private sector dollars to help us further leverage the $180 billion we are putting into infrastructure investment.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to bring up some of the factors we are facing in Alberta. We are in the midst of a jobs crisis there. Despite what the government is saying, it is not getting any better. Hundreds of thousands of people are out of jobs still. Then infrastructure minister keeps making announcement after announcement in my hometown of Edmonton. For example, he made one announcement on a project that does not even start construction until 2023. The Liberals can promise anything under that auspice.

The budget also goes through a number of different promises on the infrastructure side of things. I am curious as to what the member thinks. Why would we not start the construction now as opposed to waiting 10 or sometimes 15 years down the road?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a bit of a confession to make. A number of people In my riding of Davenport are not big supporters of pipeline approval. I have explained to them that I fully support the approval of pipelines. We have to support the economy of Canada. We are a resource-based economy. Therefore, it is our responsibility always to think about the best interest of Canadians. Two new pipelines are bringing resources to tidewater already. Those will create thousands of new jobs both today and tomorrow and that will benefit not only Alberta but B.C. and a number of other provinces.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Davenport has just said something that I am sure she believes to be true, but is she aware that the National Energy Board refused to hear evidence from Unifor that building the Kinder Morgan pipeline would cost Canadian jobs by shipping out raw product, likely leading to the closing of the Chevron refinery in Burnaby?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know all the details of all the pipelines that have been approved. I know two have been approved. They are very positive in bringing our resources to tidewater, bringing in trade jobs, and being helpful to the overall economy.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. This is about the relevance of the answers both to the previous speaker's question and to this question. The issue was the budget implementation bill, and the question that was being addressed had to do with infrastructure. Now we are talking about something that is completely off topic, and I would ask that the members be brought to order.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I thank the hon. member for Calgary Rocky Ridge for his intervention. Indeed the issue of relevance does come up, as is often compelled by the exchange during the period for questions and comments. Admittedly, the particular issue that was posed by the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands may not have a direct link to the issue that is before the House in a direct sense; however, when these items come up in the course of an exchange under questions and comments, and a topic has been touched upon, we normally allow other commentary on that particular issue if it has been raised either in the speech of the hon. member or during questions and comments.

This often tips us into a different area. We watch closely, but usually in a section on questions and comments we do allow a fair bit of liberty, unless that continues in a string for an exceedingly long time. Then we will try to get back on subject.

However, the hon. member is certainly correct and right to bring notice to this House.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the reason I am talking about pipelines is that budget 2017 is very much about growing our economy, providing more opportunities for the middle class and for workers across this country, both today and tomorrow.

In answer to the original question from the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, I have comfort in the fact that we have put a new process in place that takes both environmental and economic concerns into account. I have a lot of confidence in that process. It is a thoughtful process, and I think it is one that will actually help us to make the best decisions for Canada moving forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to wish my wife, Rana, a happy wedding anniversary.

I am pleased and proud today to speak to budget 2017, which is the logical follow-up to last year's budget. It includes targeted measures to help the middle class deal with everyday challenges, to lighten the tax burden for those who need more money in their pockets, to create good jobs, to allow young people to have the career of their dreams without being stopped by the financial stress, and to allow families to take care of a sick family member. This budget meets the needs of communities such as Laval, whether it is the needs of entrepreneurs, or the need for public transit, infrastructure, or social housing.

I will begin by talking about the challenges of the middle class struggling with the famous work-life balance. In general, what do we want out of life? We want to have a good job or to start a business; we want to be able to pay our rent, hydro bill, and other bills, and hope that there will be a little left over that we can save for retirement or our children's education; and we also want to look after our elderly parents. In short we want quality of life.

For the Prime Minister, my colleagues, and I, our constituent's quality of life is very important. Consequently, we cut taxes for the middle class and increased them for the wealthiest 1% in order to create a more just society and a fairer tax system. We created the tax-free Canada child benefit, which is income-tested. This means that families can benefit fully from the money they receive. We lowered the retirement age to 65 and increased Canada pension plan benefits to ensure that more seniors who have worked all their lives and contributed to our economy can retire with dignity, which they deserve.

In this budget, we put in place something dear to my heart. We helped the caregivers by establishing a unique and simpler tax credit for those who take care of loved ones suffering from a serious illness. I have been a caregiver for my mother for several years. I know the level of commitment and compassion it requires. Having to deal with different sorts of tax credits to fit with our specific situation can be confusing and stressful. In a time when we want to put all our efforts into caring and loving a person who needs us, we should not be stressed about our financial situation. The caregivers deserve a break, and the help we propose will do exactly that. The new Canada caregiver credit will simplify and improve the existing system. It will apply to caregivers whether or not they live with the family member, and ti will raise the income threshold for eligibility.

We also created a new EI caregiving benefit. It will give up to 15 weeks of EI to a person who has to be away from work to support and care for an ill loved one.

In addition to helping caregivers, we continue to help families through measures supporting children. Parents have many concerns when it comes to their children, but finding day care they trust and paying for their children's education are two of the biggest ones. Our government believes it is critical that all Canadians have access to quality affordable child care spaces. Quebec is a model, of course, but the shortage of subsidized spaces is a common problem for people in my riding.

That is why Quebec's share of the Canada social transfer will be $79 million higher than last year's amount. A total of $3 billion will be transferred to Quebec to support post-secondary education, social assistance, and child care.

We also improved the Canada student loans and grant programs to make them more accessible. Plans were also made regarding certain amounts and specific programs to address students' various needs. Quebec will be given the planned amounts to invest in its own loans and scholarships system.

I want to talk about transport. Since I am a member of the committee on transport and infrastructure, I am interested in the investments done in transport. It is a challenge to have an efficient, safe, and green transportation system. It also has to support trade. This is why we put in place a national trade corridor fund to build stronger, more efficient transportation corridors to international markets. It will help our businesses compete, grow, and create more jobs. The fund will target investments for congestion and inefficiencies at marine ports, such as Montreal, which is critical to the success of Canada's trade agreement with the European Union.

I would now like to focus on the region that I represent, Alfred-Pellan, in Laval, a diverse, vibrant, and innovative city. I am proud to be one of this city's representatives and just as proud of the fact that the measures announced pertaining to innovation will help Laval continue to be a leader in the technology, digital, agrifood, and science sectors.

I am very proud to announce recent investments of more than $8 million in Collège Montmorency de Laval for the construction of a new building devoted to research and technology transfers. This is a tangible measure in support of science and technology.

Workers in Laval are also going to benefit from our initiatives. We will support as many as 10,000 workplace learning opportunities per year so that businesses can train the workforce of the future. Businesspeople in Alfred-Pellan have often expressed this need.

Laval could take part in the smart cities challenge to get the money to fund its new technology initiatives, such as the projects of the Société de transport de Laval, one of the country's most innovative transit corporations, by using applications that enhance the efficiency of their transportation system as well as client services.

Speaking of public transit, we will support the next phase of public transit projects with a $20-billion investment to improve service and create more efficient, greener transportation networks. I am committed to supporting our transit corporation to help it achieve its goals.

In addition to money for public transit, we are investing in infrastructure. Our programs have already helped Laval improve its drinking water. Laval will continue to have access to the funds allocated for its infrastructure projects.

There is also a great need for social housing in Alfred-Pellan. That is why we are going to develop a national affordable housing strategy and invest $11 billion so that more single mothers, people living alone, and seniors can access safe, affordable housing. This will help Laval provide housing to the families that need it most.

I will conclude by reiterating my support for the people of Alfred-Pellan and Laval, local elected officials, businesses, and, most importantly, the people. My job gives me the opportunity to meet people from all walks of life, to talk to them about issues that matter to them, to celebrate their successes, and to support them in their endeavours. They are the reason my government and I are working on targeted measures for families, innovation, efficiency, and infrastructure. By making major investments now while interest rates are low, we can build a solid foundation for a prosperous, green future full of possibilities.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, and I would also like to wish him a happy anniversary.

I listened carefully to his remarks. He said that he was a member of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, which leads me to raise a problem that we have in my riding of Jonquière regarding the Bagotville airport. It is a small airport, but it allows us to attract tourists from Europe.

We have a lot of infrastructure to develop, for example, in Monts-Valin, in order to expand our tourism market. We applied to have our fjord designated as a UNESCO world heritage site. We are hopeful that the Saguenay will be recognized by UNESCO. That would give us great pride.

However, this airport will require specific restructuring and a lot of renovations. The government is always extolling the virtues of its infrastructure bank, but this bank, which will be created through a private partnership, will not deal in small airports. I would like to know what the government intends to do about that.

Will the government implement a real plan to help these small airports in my community, like the one in Bagotville, so that they can be open to the world?

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

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

Our government presented a budget that builds on last year's budget. Our measures will improve the quality of life of middle-class Canadians and put more money in their pockets by creating jobs and a a fairer tax system through measures linked to innovation and training. Furthermore, we are stimulating the economy with our ambitious infrastructure plan and targeted spending on health, child care services, affordable housing, help for families, and much more.

Consequently, that is definitely something that will be considered in due course. Once the infrastructure bank is finally set up, there may be something for small airports. Many improvements have been made in terms of infrastructure and there will surely be many more.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague said that there have been a number of investments in technology in his riding. I am happy for him. I wish that were my riding because I would like to see my constituents benefit from that much investment.

In their budget, the Liberals talk about wanting to help the middle class prosper. We have been hearing a lot about high-speed Internet lately. It is now considered a basic need for working, going to school, staying in touch with people, and paying the bills. The connect to innovate program was available until April, but there is no more money for it. The program's 2016 budget was not renewed this year.

We know that some rural and remote ridings, like mine, do not have high-speed Internet. In Soulanges, the Coop CSUR, a social economy organization, wants to get its municipalities connected, but that has turned out to be a herculean task. For months, the organization has dedicated one person to filling out the 16 forms. The forms are never-ending.

Moreover, many municipalities are not even included in last mile infrastructure projects. This is very complex. High-speed Internet should be a basic service, but the is no more money going into it.

How can it be that there are still people living in rural communities in Canada in 2017 who do not have high-speed Internet access?

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

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

Our infrastructure program is very ambitious and modern. We have created programs for public transit, rural and northern communities, social infrastructure, and many other things. Our program also targets infrastructure relating to trade and transportation, a very important issue for Canada and for the regions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Abbotsford. He will remain in our thoughts and prayers as he continues to recover and face other medical interventions in the coming weeks and months. We pray for his full recovery.

We are here to debate the budget, and I have looked carefully at the budget. The reality is that Canadians are waking up to a nightmare of out-of-control spending and no accountability. The government knows what to say, but what it says and what it does are two totally different things.

The media have critiqued the budget. John Ivison said:

Much in the budget appears to be bureaucratic tinkering. A number of Canada's innovation programs are to be “streamlined” into a super-sounding Strategic Innovation Fund, but simply merging the automobile and aerospace funds and giving them a new name is not the cutting edge of innovation.

It is just tinkering.

Andrew Coyne said, “No money, no ideas, but a wealth of bafflegab and buzzwords from the Liberals”.

He went on to say: “But of course it isn’t just that they’ve run out of money: they’ve run out of ideas. Or at least, good ideas.”

Canadians have woken up to the nightmare that the Liberal government, halfway through its term, has not kept its promises and has created a huge mess for Canadians. I am going to focus on the mess the Liberals have created for Canadian seniors.

In the previous Parliament, we had a minister for seniors. I, and in fact the experts, the seniors advocates in our country, the NGOs, have all told the government that people are aging and that we need to prepared for that. Right now in Canada, one in six Canadians is a senior. A year ago we reached the point that there were more seniors in Canada than there were youth.

There is a major shift in the Canadian population. There are more and more Canadian seniors. People are aging, and we need to prepare for that, so we asked the government to please appoint a minister for seniors and begin work on a national seniors strategy. To this point, halfway through its term, there has been nothing. The Liberals have actually refused to appoint a minister for seniors, so it is not surprising to see a budget that continues to ignore seniors. No one is standing up and speaking out within the Liberal cabinet to say, “Wait a minute; we are not properly taking care of seniors.”

What happened in the budget was, again, a little bafflegab, and every once in a while it would mention the word “senior”, but there is nothing new for seniors—well, that is not quite correct: there are a lot of seniors on fixed incomes who ride on public transit, and there had been an arrangement whereby they would pay for 12 months and get two months' credit, so it only cost them 10 months; the Liberal government has now taken that away, and the cost for seniors now in Canada has gone up dramatically, because they have lost that bus pass tax credit.

Why is the government refusing to appoint a minister for seniors? Why is it refusing to listen to seniors and their unique needs? Why is it refusing to prepare for the aging population?

It was a year and a half ago that I introduced at HUMA committee a call for a study on a national seniors strategy. The committee, under the direction of the Prime Minister, refused to do that. He controls everything. We were told we could not study that now.

Conservatives in the committee, along with our NDP colleagues and friends, have continued to ask for a study on a national seniors strategy so that we can get ready to take care of the aging population. Right now, one in six Canadians is a senior. In five and a half years, it will be one in five Canadians, and in 12 years it will be one in four. That is in 12 years. We are not ready for that and we need to get ready for it. Again, the Liberals are totally ignoring their responsibilities in taking care of Canadian seniors.

I had a very good meeting with the Greater Langley Chamber of Commerce last week. The president of the chamber, a lawyer, brought to my attention another major problem with this budget. In fact, he wrote a letter to the Canadian Bar Association about it, and I will read it to the House.

He talks about WIP, work in progress. It is one of those little poison pills the Liberals have snuck into this budget, and most Canadians are not aware that the government has done this.

If someone is in a serious car accident and is injured, it may be a number of years before the person gets a settlement for the injuries he or she sustained. The tradition is that the individual would retain a lawyer over the two-year, three-year, five-year process of getting compensation for the injuries. The lawyer would say that he or she would not need to be provided a retainer and would take one-third of the settlement. That is the norm.

The Liberal hungry-for-tax-increases government would tax the work in progress. It would tax the legal firm for every hour that it spends helping the person. The legal office would pay the money up front for MRIs, physiotherapy, or any tests to help the individual and would get paid nothing until the settlement, which may be three, four, or five years down the road. It would be taxed by the Liberal government for WIP, work in progress.

Scott Johnston wrote:

The elimination of the election for billed-based accounting and implementing taxation of work-in-progress will have a deleterious effect on all of our firm's contingency files for personal injury and estate litigation claims. Forcing the payment of tax before a bill is issued and the funds are actually received by the firm causes a colossal cash-flow debacle. Most of our contingency files carry on for years before settlement or judgment meaning that the firm will have to self-finance tax payments on hours recorded for clients over frequently an extended period of duration without actual receipt of the cash to remit such tax payments.

Legal firms across this country are going to have to fund the Liberal government's tax grab.

The letter continues:

This may cause lawyers working under contingency fee agreements generally in the profession to “cherry-pick” cases to select only “quick settlement” files,

—and this is the most important point—

therefore denying access to justice for impecunious litigants with more challenging and protracted matters.

The irony is that the Liberal government has mandated this study on poverty reduction in the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, which it is studying and working on right now. At the same time, the government is saying that people who need the help of lawyers to help them in their impoverished and difficult situations, particularly in state litigations or vehicle crashes, with this change, lawyers will likely not be able to help them, denying justice to the impoverished.

What the Liberal government says on one hand and what it does on the other are totally different. I hope the government will listen to Canadians and reverse this hard-headed, stubborn plan to tax our poor and desperate people.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it somewhat ironic the member would talk about defending Canada's poor and low-income earners, in particular, our seniors. One of the examples he uses is the bus tax credit. In order to claim the bus tax credit, people have to have a certain income. For most low-income seniors and non-seniors, taking the bus often means putting in some change. It often means using a daily pass that is provided. Not all low-income seniors benefited. I would suggest that a minority would have actually benefited by that. Nor did that tax credit put additional buses on our roads or assist in providing the necessary infrastructure to expand our public transit system.

We have seen a government that has recognized it is better to spend the billions and has assigned billions of dollars going forward into improving our public transit system and looking at changing the way in which we can support some of the seniors and low-income earners the member across the way talks about. For example, there is the increase in Canada's GIS. The member across the way from the Conservative Party voted against that increase. The member made reference to poverty. The Canada child benefit program was substantially increased, and the member across the way voted against that.

I wonder how he would reconcile the statements he made with what I just said.

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

Mr. Speaker, I made notes of what the member said. He said “I would suggest that” or “maybe that”, which are all hypothetical comments.

In fact, the Liberal government has hurt Canadian seniors. The Liberals have ignored Canadians in poverty. They are taking away tax breaks for Canadians. They are increasing taxes on Canadians in any way they can imagine. It is hurting Canadians. Canadians are waking up to the nightmare they now find themselves in. It has to stop. The Liberal government has to stop saying one thing and doing something totally different. When the Liberals say what the right thing to do is, and they know what the right thing is to do, then why would they do the wrong thing? They need to stop that.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member and I are on the all-party caucus on seniors care, and I appreciate his work on that.

I have done over 11 town halls across my riding, specifically on seniors issues. I have heard devastating stories from seniors who are very concerned about the impacts of aging and very concerned about the cost of medication. They really support the idea of having a national seniors strategy that would start to address these issues so that they could feel comforted that they will have a positive future, one where they are not at risk of losing their homes, where they are not making decisions between housing and medication.

I would like to hear the member's thoughts on how we would not only do the socially right thing, but the economically right thing, by creating a national seniors strategy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my NDP colleague for her commitment to seniors. It is an honour to work with her. It is an honour to work within the Conservative Party, which actually had a minister for seniors. If we do not have someone leading the discussion on meeting those needs, it will not happen. If we do not have a target to hit, we will not hit it. I appreciate her encouragement.

There is another major problem that Canadian seniors, and in fact all Canadians, are facing. It is not a misspeak; it is a falsehood when the Prime Minister would say the carbon tax is revenue neutral federally. We now know that is not the case. In fact, there is a report from the Library of Parliament which shows that millions of new dollars are coming out of the pockets of Canadian seniors, of Canadian families, of the middle class, those who are struggling, because the government is going to charge a tax, GST, on top of that mandated price on carbon.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Langley—Aldergrove for his good work. He and I served on the city council together in Abbotsford. He knows budgets, and I am so pleased that he pointed out the gaping holes in the Liberals' 2017 budget.

As the member of Parliament for Abbotsford, I have made it my priority to bring the concerns of my constituents to Ottawa and to hold the Liberal government accountable for its actions.

Since the election of the Liberal government in 2015, our Conservative caucus has fought hard to maintain balanced budgets, avoid deficits, lower taxes for Canadians, and support our small businesses. These are the bedrock of a strong and growing economy. Sadly, the recent budget does none of these things. In fact, the Liberals have thoroughly disappointed Canadians by littering their path with reckless spending and broken promise after broken promise.

For the second year in a row, the Liberals have blown past their pledge to limit the deficit to $10 billion per year, running huge deficits of $30 billion, and driving our country further and further into debt. Who has to repay that debt? It is our children and our grandchildren. Effectively, what we are doing is spending recklessly on ourselves today and letting future generations pick up the tab.

As for balanced budgets, good luck with that promise. Remember the Prime Minister promising to balance the budget by 2019? Now the Department of Finance predicts that we will not see balanced budgets until, wait for it, the year 2055. There will be no balanced budgets for 40 years. That is a disgraceful performance.

Let us not forget that our Conservative government under Stephen Harper left the Liberals with a balanced budget in 2015, having carefully shepherded Canada's economy through the worst global economic recession since the Great Depression. That leads me to the obvious question: how can the Liberal government afford all this spending? The answer of course is higher taxes. That is, after all, what tax-and-spend Liberals do.

The Liberals have also completely abandoned our small businesses, which are the key drivers of our economy and create the majority of jobs in Canada. Budget 2017 does absolutely nothing to help those businesses. In fact, the Liberal budget mentions small business only six times. Let us contrast that with the last Conservative budget, in which small businesses were mentioned almost 200 times, and in which we laid out concrete steps the government would take to support their growth and success, including lowering the small business tax rate to 9%. It is surprising just how quickly the Liberal government has made a mess of our tax system and the supports we implemented for small businesses.

Just this week, I met with the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, which is still demanding that the Liberals make good on their promise to cut the small business tax rate to 9%. With new payroll and CPP taxes on the horizon, small businesses are worried that many of the policies implemented by our former Conservative government will be reversed. Why is this significant? Canadian businesses do not just compete locally, they compete in a North American and increasingly global marketplace. As the former minister of international trade, I know that. I have travelled all around the world. I have seen how Canadians are working hard to try to compete within the global marketplace. The Liberals are undermining that effort. Liberal tax and economic policies are chasing away investors and undermining our competitive advantage in the North American marketplace.

Also, the election of President Trump has really thrown a spanner into the works. The new president has announced that he is reducing the U.S. corporate tax rate from 35% down to 15%, and re-energizing the coal industry to deliver cheaper electricity to manufacturers. In Canada, we are going in the opposite direction, increasing taxes on our businesses and foisting astronomically expensive electricity costs on our job creators in places like Ontario.

Kevin Libin, writing in the National Post last week, commented:

As our G7 competitors have trimmed away at corporate tax rates, Canada’s average rates only grew, moving us from one of the most attractive to one of the least attractive in just a few years. Trump’s tax plan will make us look much, much worse.

That is disgraceful, to take a country that was a leader in competitiveness when it comes to taxes and lose that competitive advantage.

This does not end well. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce implored the federal government to reduce business costs and improve Canada's economic competitiveness. In fact, CEO Perrin Beatty had this to say:

Investment crosses borders like light through glass. If we continue to allow a growing gap between what it costs to do business in Canada and the costs our competitors face, businesses will be forced to locate their activities elsewhere.

Let me repeat, they will “locate their activities elsewhere”.

One organization that reached out to my office is the recently formed Coalition of Concerned Manufacturers of Ontario. They include the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Baking Association of Canada, Food and Beverage Ontario, and a host of mostly mid-sized manufacturers across the province of Ontario.

In speaking about the direction of the government, their founder, Jocelyn Bamford, said that they are standing on a beach with a giant wave called cap and trade barrelling down on them, and the government still doesn't realize that this tsunami will destroy manufacturing and small businesses in Ontario. She said that businesses are terrified of what the federal government is doing. She said that the government is supposed to help businesses, but its policies are causing them to consider moving their growth to other jurisdictions. Let me repeat that they are considering moving their growth to other jurisdictions. That means to other countries.

In the last 10 years, her company has experienced more than a doubling of its energy costs, undermining her company's ability to do business. In her words, “We don't worry about our competition anymore. We fear the government.” That is the Liberal government she is talking about.

For so many manufacturers across Canada, the high cost of energy and the impact of carbon taxes are enough for them to look south to more favourable jurisdictions in which to do business and grow. That is shocking.

What the Prime Minister is doing is dramatically tilting the playing field against Canadians. This is about competitiveness and about the ability of our businesses to compete on a level playing field in North America and within the global marketplace, and the Liberal government is failing on every account.

Is the Prime Minister listening? Canadian businesses cannot afford reckless policies that drive capital and small businesses out of our country.

Will the government reverse its decision to impose a massive carbon tax on Canadians? Will the Prime Minister fulfill his election promise to reduce taxes on our small businesses?

Hard-working middle-class Canadians and their families, and let us not forget those working hard to join them, are also suffering. The Liberals have piled it on by raising taxes on everything from public transit, to Uber, to beer and wine sales. They are even taking away the children's fitness tax credit. It is unbelievable.

Not only that, the Prime Minister is significantly increasing the fees that Canadians pay for a wide variety of federal services, including things such as campsites and fishing licences. If we want to take our grandchildren fishing, the Liberals are jacking up the fees to make it less likely that Canadian families will get a chance to go fishing. They are also jacking up the fees on passport applications.

Here is another little dirty Liberal secret. Remember the massive carbon tax that the Prime Minister wants to force Canadians to pay? Well, he is also planning to have Canadians pay the GST on that carbon tax. Members heard that right: the Liberals want Canadians to pay a tax on a tax. In fact, it is already happening in B.C. where we are being charged a federal GST on the amount of carbon tax being charged by the provincial government. It is insanity.

The bottom line is the government is nickel and diming Canadians to death to pay for the Prime Minister's out-of-control spending on his own vanity projects, like the $2.65 billion he spent on environmental projects outside of our country when the money could and should have stayed in Canada. There is a whole host of these. Is there any Canadian supervision over how that money is spent? I have asked about it and have been told there is very little supervision, very little monitoring to make sure those billions of dollars being spent abroad actually do what they were intended to do.

The Liberals have failed Canadians miserably. They have saddled us with more debt, more deficits, and more taxes than at any other time in our history. I repeat, this will not end well for us and for future generations. Is the Prime Minister listening?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the member across the way has demonstrated, and quite well, that the Conservative Party really and truly has lost touch with Canadians. In fact, the Conservatives are not even listening to what Canadians want.

The member across the way said tax, deficit, and debt. When the Minister of Finance came up with the largest decrease in income tax for Canada's middle class—nine million Canadians benefited, hundreds of millions of dollars were put in the pockets of Canadians—what did the Conservatives do? They voted against it.

When it comes to deficit, we can never achieve, in this very short timeframe, the amount of debt that Stephan Harper achieved, over $150 billion. We do not need to take a lesson from the Conservatives on the deficit.

Would the member not agree that Canadians want this government to invest in Canada's infrastructure? That is one of the things, I would suggest, the Conservatives need to rethink, and they need to vote in favour of Canada's infrastructure program.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

That is really funny, Mr. Speaker. This is a government that promised to invest $120 billion for infrastructure. Do members remember that promise? In their budgets, the Liberals pushed virtually all that spending off 10 years, to the end of the 10-year cycle. Why? It is because they really do not want to spend that money.

When we were in government, every single penny we promised to spend on infrastructure was spent on critical infrastructure, including our gateways, the Asia-Pacific gateway, the continental gateways, inland ports. We invested heavily to make sure Canada maintained its effectiveness.

What are the Liberals doing? They are investing in make-work projects. They have pushed off all of their infrastructure spending commitments 10 years down the road so they will not have to live by them. It is shameful, this record. All Canadians have to do is check this budget and check what the Liberals are spending on infrastructure. It is there, boldly standing out as a failed policy of the Liberal government.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

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

He talked about competitiveness from a business and economic perspective. We do not often see eye to eye on this topic, but the Liberals recently increased the excise tax on wine products by 2% in their budget. This will affect our wine producers' ability to compete.

Given that free trade agreements will leave the door wide open to wine imports, our own vintners are sounding the alarm. They are saying that this is unfair to them and they will lose a lot money as a result.

Does my colleague think the Liberals should do more to protect them and get rid of this tax? Does he think it is a mistake to add a tax, let alone one that will increase every year in line with the consumer price index?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

The simple answer, Mr. Speaker, is no. We Canadians believe in fair competition. We believe in free trade. I want to remind the member of back when the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement was being negotiated. Does she remember that? Remember how our wine growers were saying, “This is the end of our industry because we will not be protected against California wine anymore. It is over for our industry”. What happened? The Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and then NAFTA came into force, and our wine industry was forced to adapt and get better and invest in itself.

Today, our wine industry is a world leader. How do I know that? This past weekend I was in the Okanagan Valley doing wine tasting, visiting different wineries.

[An hon. member]

It was research.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Researching, yes, Mr. Speaker, that is what I was doing. It was great research to do. The quality of our Canadian wines is the best in the world. That is what we Canadians do when we can compete fairly.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Scarborough—Rouge Park.

I am proud to speak today to budget 2017, the next step in our government's ambitious plan to create jobs, grow our economy, and provide more opportunities for Canadians. I would like to highlight a few aspects of the budget that I know are important to people in my riding of Oakville. Budget 2017 puts Canada's skilled, talented, and creative people at the heart of a more innovative economy, one that would create middle-class jobs today and tomorrow for all Canadians.

Of particular importance to me, as chair of the Liberal auto caucus and MP for the riding that is home to Ford Canada and the Oakville assembly plant, are investments in the automotive industry to help manufacturers such as Ford Canada commit to long-term growth and development. The automotive sector is a key enabler for good-quality, well-paying middle-class jobs.

I would like to particularly point out that budget 2017 would create a $1.26 billion, five-year strategic innovation fund to consolidate and simplify the strategic aerospace and defence initiative, the technology demonstration program, the automotive innovation fund, and the automotive supplier innovation program. The strategic innovation fund would attract and support new high-quality business investments and would continue to help aerospace and automotive firms while also expanding its support to other dynamic and emerging sectors such as clean technology and agrifood. For example, with the support from AIF of $102 million, the connectivity and innovation centres created across Ontario by Ford Canada, including in my riding of Oakville, would both create 800 jobs and ensure that Canadians are part of creating the connected and energy-efficient vehicles of the future.

I know from round table discussions that the Oakville business community will be pleased to see the budget would establish a venture capital catalyst of up to $400 million over three years to increase late-stage venture capital available to Canadian entrepreneurs.

In addition to helping bridge the gap between innovation and manufacturing, budget 2017 proposes to launch a new procurement program. A portion of funding from federal departments and agencies would be allocated to help Canadian innovators find the first customers to test and validate their technologies.

As I hear from people at their doors in Oakville, the demand for home care services in Canada continues to grow. Approximately 15% of hospital beds are occupied by people who could receive their care at home or in community-based settings. Meanwhile, many families caring for loved ones at home are struggling with the stresses and pressures that come from not having enough home support. In both cases, these people and these families need more help. Budget 2017 proposes to invest $6 billion over 10 years to provide Canadians with improved access to home, community, and palliative care services as well as more support for informal caregivers. This means that more people would get the care they need in their homes and that more families would be getting increased support.

For those who receive care at home, an increased burden is put on family members. Balancing work and family caregiving responsibilities can be a real challenge. Things can be especially difficult when a family member is suffering from a serious illness. To give eligible caregivers a well-deserved break, budget 2017 proposes to create a new employment insurance caregiving benefit, which would give eligible caregivers up to 15 weeks of EI benefits while they are temporarily away from work to support or care for a critically ill or injured family member. Budget 2017 recognizes that people make enormous sacrifices to care for loved ones and would help ease that burden by giving people time to be caregivers.

An overwhelming number of Canadian families are affected by mental illness at some point in their lives. In any given year, one in five people in Canada experience a mental health problem or illness. While great strides have been made to improve our understanding of mental illness and its impact on people's lives, wait times to see a mental health specialist in certain regions of our country can range up to 18 months. In Oakville, I have heard from residents about the challenges of accessing mental health services in our community. Our government recognizes that this is not good enough, and that is why the budget proposes to invest $5 billion over 10 years to support mental health services. It would also help approximately half a million young Canadians who are currently unable to receive even the most basic mental health care. Clinical evidence has shown that it is absolutely essential for those struggling with mental illness to have access to timely and appropriate mental health services. Improved access to mental health supports would result in improved health outcomes and shorter wait times for hundreds of thousands of Canadians.

Canada's opioid crisis has led to devastating consequences for individuals, families, and communities. The effect of this crisis is being felt in my riding of Oakville. I have met with a number of local health groups, including the Halton Equitable Drug Strategy and ADAPT, a treatment program, about their role in supporting harm-reduction initiatives to save lives. I have heard about the challenges some residents are facing as they try to access the treatment and support they need.

The budget supports the Canadian drug and substances strategy with a total of $100 million over five years for Health Canada, the Public Health Agency of Canada, and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. I want the residents of my riding of Oakville and all Canadians to be protected from the opioid crisis and illicit fentanyl distribution. This plan would provide invaluable resources for treatment, prevention, and enforcement measures.

Oakville is a commuter town, and I know just how important it is for residents to have reliable and safe public transit. After a long day spent working hard, we should expect clean, efficient public transit to get us home on time. To support the next phase of public transit projects, our government is investing $20.1 billion to support urban public transit networks and service extensions. This investment would make it possible for Canadian communities like Oakville to build new urban transit networks and service extensions that will transform the way we live, move, and work. It would mean new transit lines, more buses, more reliable services, and fewer cars on the road. To get it right, the government is working closely with provinces and municipalities as reflected in the most recent funding of nearly $5 million for the Oakville transit, thanks to the public transit infrastructure fund.

A clean environment and a strong economy are connected. Canadians know this, and our government agrees. Budget 2017 lays out our government's plan to invest $21.9 billion over 11 years to support green infrastructure. This investment prioritizes projects that reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, help deliver clean air and safe water systems, and promote renewable sources of power.

Oakville clean tech companies have already received over $7 million from our government, underlying the potential for innovation we have in my community and across Canada. Through these investments, Canada has positioned itself as a global leader in clean growth, illustrating to the world that a clean environment and a strong economy can go hand in hand.

Canada's vast expanses of protected natural areas, our magnificent natural scenery, and our wealth of wildlife are a point of pride for all Canadians. The residents of Oakville enjoy their close connection to nature. The natural and cultural heritage we enjoy as Canadians enriches our communities and creates jobs by spurring economic growth through tourism. There is perhaps no better example of Canada's natural beauty than our national parks. Recognized around the world and loved by those who visit and work in them, our 47 national parks and four national marine conservation areas are a source of real pride for Canadians. Our national parks are part of our Canadian identity. They allow more Canadians to learn about the environment and connect directly with nature.

To ensure we are able to enjoy our national parks for years to come, budget 2017 provides up to $364 million to the Parks Canada Agency to protect and preserve our national parks. To make it more affordable for more Canadian families to visit and appreciate the outdoors in Canada's 150th year, admission to all national parks, national marine conservation areas, and national historic sites will be free for all of 2017. I am looking forward to using my pass to visit some of these parks with my family.

With a strong focus on innovation, skills, partnerships, and health, budget 2017 takes the next steps in securing a more prosperous future for all Canadians.

Our government's plan is focused on ensuring immediate help to those who need it most and providing everyone with a real and fair chance of success.

Budget 2017 has some great news for Canadians and some great news for the people of my riding of Oakville. I will be supporting it.

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

Mr. Speaker, the words in this budget are going in the right direction. Goodness knows, after nine years of Harper budgets where the words “climate change” could not be found in a budget, it is encouraging to hear about climate change.

There is something that I find concerning. When we look at the dollars for mental health, for child care, for homelessness, and for infrastructure, it is true that none of the funds will be spent before the 2019 election. In the budget $20 billion is pledged for public transit but a bit less than $1 billion of that would be spent before the 2019 election. That is the case with respect to all of the categories I have just mentioned. Large amounts are promised but spending is postponed.

I would ask the hon. member for Oakville if he could explain. I find it counter to the job we do as parliamentarians, where we are responsible for the public purse. We should be able to look at the annual budget and know what money is going to be spent this year, not review something that would not really happen until after the next election.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a balancing act. Just as we believe one can improve the economy while at the same time protecting the environment, it is a balancing act governments have to work through.

I believe that the right investments are being made. People in communities and at the provincial level will see where funds are being targeted. The investments we need to create jobs to give Canadians confidence in the economy and to get growth happening again in Canada would happen through the budget. We are going to see tremendous growth coming to Canada, thanks to the work of budget 2017.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the most egregious parts of this omnibus bill, and it is an omnibus bill, is the changes to the parliamentary budget officer. We heard clearly from the PBO yesterday that he is not happy, and his office is not happy, with the changes that would be put upon them. They feel it would limit their freedom. It would limit their independence in reporting on the government's spending. That is not something Canadians support. Canadians would like to see transparency.

Let us be honest. The PBO often reports on the government in a way that perhaps is not positive for the government, so I can understand why the Liberals are attempting to silence the PBO and have the PBO actually answer to you, Mr. Speaker, as opposed to putting forward his own agenda on what the office would like to study.

Could the member explain to me how Bill C-44 would make the work of the parliamentary budget officer more transparent if the PBO would be required to submit to the will of the Speaker of the House of Commons and the Senate?

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to open and transparent policy and budget-setting. We are absolutely supporting the parliamentary budget officer and the work being done. Having the Speaker, who represents all of us in Parliament, have a say and involvement with the budget officer is a good direction for us.

Our government is committed to open and transparent policy, and I am glad and proud to be representing that here in Parliament.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's speech. He has done a fantastic job of explaining how the budget would have a very positive, profound impact on Canadians.

I wonder if he could share some of his thoughts on how important building Canada's infrastructure is for our country.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, infrastructure is a very important investment for Canadians. Whether it is in transit or green tech, it is a critical part of how we are going to be moving forward. Infrastructure creates jobs while we are making the investments, and it builds for the future so that future generations benefit from the infrastructure investments we make today.

There is an incredible, almost record-breaking investment in infrastructure through this budget and through the commitments in budget 2016. I believe that every Canadian will see the benefit of those investments as they go forward. Whether it is transit, sewage and water systems, or better protection during the storms we are starting to experience, it is a very solid direction for Canadians.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by congratulating our Minister of Finance for delivering on our promises to help the middle class and those trying to join it.

Our first budget appears to have had the desired effect. The new Canada child benefit has helped hundreds of thousands of families improve their standard of living. I recently had coffee with someone who works in poverty reduction in the city of Toronto. She confirmed to me how the CCB has affected so many of the people she serves.

I do not have to go far to find families and children helped by the CCB. I routinely run into people who say that it has changed their way of life. Our office has assisted constituents who needed to file their income tax to qualify for the CCB. They have told us the impact it will have on their lives. The CCB is really a game changer.

I want to share some of the statistics from my riding of Scarborough—Rouge Park. In October 2016, the Canada child benefit helped 17,250 children, in 9,930 families, with an average benefit of $670, totalling close to $6.7 million. Let me remind my colleagues that this is approximately $670 per month tax free. These payments were not made to millionaires but to those who need it, based on their income.

This is the type of program that will help grow our middle class. It will allow young people to engage in things like soccer, hockey, gym, and music. It will provide better housing. It will provide better Internet access. It can help families in any way they need to improve their standard of life.

Building on this and other initiatives from the 2016 budget, our Minister of Finance and his team have crafted a budget for 2017 to support Canadians. I am therefore very proud to speak in support of this budget.

I will focus on three aspects of the budget: first, support for caregivers; second, innovation; and third, support for housing.

Last month, at the Malvern Family Resource Centre, our Prime Minister, along with the Minister of Health and my friend, the member for Scarborough Centre, met with many of my constituents who are the primary caregivers for their loved ones. The Malvern Family Resource Centre is a state-of-the-art facility that supports people of all generations with early years programs through to seniors programs. It has incredible leadership, with Girmalla Persaud, its executive director, at the helm. In 2016 it had 559 volunteers, who worked just under 20,000 hours to help this community.

At this gathering, the Prime Minister was able to speak to caregivers about how the proposed changes would improve, expand, and simplify the current caregiver tax credit system by replacing the existing credit programs with the new Canada caregiver credit. Budget 2017 would replace the current caregiver credit, the infirm dependent credit, and the family caregiver tax credit with one single new credit.

The new Canada caregiver credit would provide support for those who need it the most and would help more families who give care to their loved ones. The new credit would provide $6,883 for the care of dependent relatives with disabilities and $2,150 for the care of a spouse, common-law partner, or minor child. It would provide an additional $310 million in tax relief for Canadians over the next five years. It would be indexed to inflation, and it would be subject to no reduction until the dependent family member was making more than $16,163.

In addition to the Canada caregiver credit in budget 2017, our government announced that we will extend EI benefits for people caring for family members and parents caring for a critically ill child.

Budget 2017 would provide an additional $691.3 million, for five years, to create a new EI caregiver benefit of up 15 weeks. Parents of critically ill children would continue to be able to access up to 35 weeks of coverage, with more flexibility to share the benefit among multiple family members.

These changes will help thousands of families across the country to support one another, and will simplify the everyday lives of many people in my riding.

I want to take a moment to thank all the caregivers in my community, and those around the country, who look after their loved ones. As we know, governments cannot take care of people as well as those close to them. However, governments can and must support those caregivers. This budget is a great start.

Innovation is very important to our government. We have many innovators. In my riding of Scarborough—Rouge Park, we have great examples of businesses that focus on innovation. At the University of Toronto Scarborough campus, we have a program called the hub, which acts as an incubator of new ideas and businesses. When I met with a Parks Canada official last week, she confirmed that the hub is working toward developing an app to navigate the Rouge National Urban Park, which is also in my riding.

We have many more innovators who continue to build an innovation-based economy. For example, last year's Google Demo Day's award winner, Knowledgehook, is from Scarborough—Rouge Park. This company of the future, started by Travis Ratnam and his team, continues to grow and will contribute to the economy of the future.

It is in this context that I am very excited that budget 2017 would serve as a foundation for our future growth. It focuses on one thing, and that is to help people succeed. This budget is a visionary step toward building the economy of the future.

Here are some elements. It proposes to invest an additional $1.8 billion over six years in labour market development agreements with the provinces. For the average Canadian, this would mean more opportunities to upgrade their skills, receive career counselling, start their own business, and gain experience. However, our commitment would go well beyond by expanding eligibility for Canada student grants and loans each year to an additional 10,000 part-time students, and it would expand eligibility even more to students who support their families.

We would launch a pilot project to test new approaches for adult learners who return to school, at a cost of $287.2 million over the next three years.

We would make changes to EI to help those going back to school, investing in skills development, creating more jobs for youth, and increasing the availability of co-op placements for students.

In this budget we propose a new strategic innovation fund to make high-quality investments in businesses that will bring jobs to Canada.

We would create a new $400-million venture capital fund, through the Business Development Bank of Canada, to help Canadian businesses get a leg up and add value to our economy. We would invest in the next generation of entrepreneurs by partnering with great organizations, like Futurpreneur Canada.

Let me turn to social housing. Good housing is a fundamental need for the development of an individual. It is the centre of one's life. The member for Scarborough—Agincourt and I met with the CEO of Toronto Community Housing on March 28. We went on a tour of six Toronto Community Housing complexes in Scarborough. We were able to see first-hand the need to invest in housing. These complexes, located in my riding and in Scarborough—Agincourt, help thousands of families make ends meet. They provide affordable living and support those who are most vulnerable in our society.

Budget 2017 would make a historic investment of $11.2 billion over 11 years to build, renew, and repair Canada's affordable housing and to ensure that all Canadians have their housing needs met. This would include $5 billion dollars that would go toward our new national housing fund to address housing issues in our cities, including for co-op housing. As members know, there are 12 co-op housing complexes in my riding.

An additional $2.1 billion dollars over the next 11 years would go toward a homelessness prevention strategy, working with communities across the country to combat homelessness and to provide support to mitigate underlying issues that lead to homelessness.

I am very proud of this budget. Budget 2017 provides answers to many of the difficult questions facing our society today. It would invest to support Canadians in adapting to a modern economy. It would look forward by investing in education, training, and businesses. It would support caregivers. This is a forward-looking budget that I think we can all get behind, and I am proud to support it.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague about tax loopholes. The Liberals are putting the private interests of the wealthy few in our country ahead of ordinary Canadians who are working hard every day to make ends meet. In the last 16 months, the government has not managed to eliminate the tax loopholes that mainly benefit the wealthy in our country, the CEOs. They have subscribed to these huge tax breaks that were offered to businesses by the Harper government.

In the last two election campaigns, in 2011 and 2015, the Liberals clearly promised to “set a cap on how much can be claimed through the stock option deduction.” However, they backtracked on this promise once they were in power. Why did the government decide to renege on its promise to eliminate the tax loophole associated with stock options for CEOs in budget 2017?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that my friend may not have read the previous budget, budget 2016.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

You closed it.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

What is important to recognize is that—

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Did I miss it?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

If I could speak, Mr. Speaker, I could answer that question.

What is important is that in our previous budget, the first budget, we increased taxes on the top income earners. We took away the Canada child benefit from millionaires. Billionaire families are not receiving a cheque every month from this government. We do not believe that those with means should be getting additional money from the government. That is the type of tax fairness our government has implemented. Looking forward, we will continue to do that. I am very proud we are on that track.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I want to remind hon. members that this is an interactive process, but not at the same time. There is a certain procedure that goes on.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Edmonton West.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will give my hon. colleague across the way plenty of time to answer this and will not interrupt him.

When are you going to balance the budget?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I am sure the member did not mean me, the Speaker.

The hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge Park.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our country has had a social deficit for the past 10 years. We failed to invest in critical parts of our economy. We failed to invest in critical infrastructure. If we look at our historic investment in transit, housing, green energy, and green infrastructure, we are on the right track to building an economy that will lead to a balanced budget. I am very proud we are on this track.

We cannot balance the budget on the backs of the poor. That has been done over the years. It is important to recognize, going forward, that we need to invest in things like housing, our children, and the economy so we will have a long-term sustainable economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was somewhat surprised by the question from the New Democratic Party. When the NDP had the opportunity to vote in favour of putting a special tax on 1% of Canada's wealthiest, it voted against it. If we listened to the question our colleague across the way asked, one would have thought she would have voted in favour of that special tax.

Does my colleague find it somewhat ironic, like I do, that the NDP would vote against a tax on Canada's wealthiest 1%?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with my friend. It is important to recognize that our party has found that balance. We are ensuring that millionaires do not get the Canada child benefit to raise their children. We have equalized it toward people who need it based on an income test. We are investing in very important infrastructure that will help families, communities, and cities, and that is the longer-term vision. We can balance the budget, but not on the backs of those who do not have housing, are the poorest of the poor, and do not have money to put food on the table.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, budget 2017 can be called a lot of things, including visionless and empty. It is a budget of broken promises.

During the last election, the Prime Minister promised that in 2017 the budget the deficit would be no more than then $10 billion. It turns out that his $10 billion deficit is actually a $30 billion deficit, three times larger than what he promised.

The Prime Minister promised that the budget would be balanced in 2019. It turns out that in 2019, instead of delivering a balanced budget, the Liberals are on track to deliver a deficit of $23.4 billion. It gets worse. According to the Department of Finance, based on the current Liberal plan, the budget not only will not be balanced in 2019, it will not be balanced in 2029, or 2039 or 2049, not until 2055. That means someone who is born this year or was born last year will be nearly 40 years old before the Liberals get around to balancing the budget.

The Prime Minister promised to invest in infrastructure for things like roads and bridges. He has not. The Prime Minister promised to not increase taxes for middle-class Canadians. Again, it is a promise broken. Budget 2017 increases taxes on hard-working middle-class Canadians by nickel and diming middle-class Canadians; nickel and diming middle-class Canadians by eliminating the public transit tax credit; nickel and diming middle-class Canadians by increasing the price of beer and wine; nickel and diming middle-class Canadians by taxing ride-sharing services, like Uber. Whatever it is, the Liberals are nickel and diming middle-class Canadians. Not only is this budget a broken promises budget, but it is also a budget that nickel and dimes middle-class Canadians.

Before I go on, Mr. Speaker, I am splitting my time with the hon. member for Brantford—Brant. I know my colleague will give a very eloquent speech about why this budget is a bad deal for Canadians.

What is the government's plan when it comes to jobs and growth? It seems like the government's plan is to increase taxes on job creators, on small business owners. Small businesses account for 90% of the companies in Canada. Seventy per cent of the private sector is employed in small businesses. The government is punishing small businesses.

Last year the government punished small businesses by cancelling a small business tax cut. It further punished small businesses when it eliminated a hiring tax credit that would allow small businesses to hire new employees and create jobs. This year the government is punishing small businesses by increasing CPP and EI premiums.

It could not come at a worse time. Right now the U.S. administration is cutting taxes and rolling back red tape. The United States is not only Canada's biggest trading partner, it is also our largest competitor. Increasing taxes on job creators undermines Canada's competitiveness, which in turn undermines Canada's long-term jobs growth and prosperity.

The Liberals just cannot help themselves because they are wedded to a tax-and-spend agenda.

In the last year and a half that the Liberals have been in office, we have seen discretionary spending increased by 12%. That is unheard of. That is unprecedented for non-recessionary times. One might say the Liberals are spending like drunken sailors. However, as President Reagan would say, that would be unfair to drunken sailors.

In my home province of Alberta, while 100,000 Albertans are out of work, the government has virtually turned its back on us. It has turned its back on Alberta by killing pipelines and by attacking the energy sector. The latest attack on Alberta came in budget 2017 when the government eliminated a tax credit for the exploration of new wells. Talk about kicking Albertans when we are down.

For all the spending, for all the deficits, for all the debt, what do the Liberals have to show for it? What they have to show for it is fewer jobs created than projected, less economic growth than projected. The government talks a good game about infrastructure, but what have we seen in infrastructure in terms of new infrastructure funding for things like roads, bridges, airports, ports and railways? How much new funding was provided for in budget 2016? A big fat zero, only to be repeated by a big fat zero for new infrastructure investment in budget 2017.

The government talks about investing in affordable housing, investing $11 billion over 11 years. That number is significant, because the vast majority of the money does not start flowing until 2022, five years from now, and three years after the next federal election. Talk about an empty promise.

With respect to the defence budget, during the last election, the Liberals talked so much about ensuring that the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces would have the tools and equipment they needed to keep Canadians safe. When it comes to delivering for the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces, the Liberals have come out short. In fact, while they are spending more, taxing more, blowing the budget and spending like drunken sailors, they have managed to cut $12 billion out of the defence budget.

It seems like the return of the decade of darkness is upon us, except the good news is that the Liberals will not have a decade to shortchange our Canadian Armed Forces, because we will be back in 2019.

Broken promises, wasteful spending, higher taxes, massive deficits, massive debt and a failure to fund priority areas, that pretty much sums up budget 2017. It is a failed budget and it deserves to be defeated out of hand.

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

Mr. Speaker, a number of Conservatives have tried to rewrite the history book, and at times they need a reality check.

It is important to recognize that when Stephen Harper assumed office, he inherited a multi-billion dollar surplus. Before the recession actually got under way, he turned that multi-billion dollar surplus into a multi-billion dollar deficit. Through his years, he accumulated a total debt well in excess of $150 billion.

Given that Conservative member after member will try to give this government advice on deficits, why would the Liberal government seek any advice from a party that did so poorly with respect to deficits? Why would be want advice from the Conservative? They were unable to achieve a balanced budget. Stephen Harper in fact added in excess of $150 billion to Canada's debt.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will tell members what Stephen Harper did before the recession of 2008 and 2009: he paid down $38 billion in debt, which constituted one of the largest debt repayments in Canadian history. Then, during the 2008-2009 recession, which I would remind the hon. member was the worst recession since the Great Depression, our Conservative government made short-term stimulus investments to turn around the Canadian economy, and guess what: Canada's economy recovered better than any economy in the industrialized world. We moved forward with the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio, the lowest unemployment rate, the fastest job creation rate, and a balanced budget.

It gets better, because it was not just a balanced budget. It was a $2 billion surplus. Guess what the current Liberal government managed to do with Prime Minister Harper's $2 billion surplus. It managed to turn it into a $25 billion deficit. Imagine that.

I will say for the member that I will take Stephen Harper's record any day over the record of the current government.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the member about something that came forward in this budget that was unexpected by the wineries in our country. This is a $9-billion industry in our country.

We import 67% of our wine already, and these imports will increase under CETA. Since 1980, the excise tax has increased 125%, from 28¢ to 63¢ per bottle. This excise tax rate is higher than in any other top wine-producing country. France is at 7¢, the U.S. is at 38¢, and Germany's is at zero. This increase of 2% in the budget is tied to our consumer price index and would rise indefinitely every single year, which would hurt our wineries and would do nothing to improve the economic standing of wineries tourism and everything that spreads out from the agricultural footprint of these important Canadian companies and small businesses. This excise tax will hurt that sector, and, shockingly, the Liberals had no consultation with the wineries in our country before raising it.

What are the member's thoughts on the negative impact to our Canadian wineries, and does he believe, as I do, that this measure should not be included in budget 2017?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the member for Essex. Ths is another example of the Liberals' hurting a whole host of sectors in the Canadian economy.

The member mentioned the wine sector. I would also mention the fishing sector and the agricultural sector, where the government cancelled a tax credit on insurance for farming and for agriculture. The government talks a lot about innovation, but again it only identified, arbitrarily, six sectors of the Canadian economy, excluding agriculture, excluding the fishing industry, excluding the energy sector. It really is a failed plan from a failed government.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the member for St. Albert—Edmonton, for his impromptu speech, which really hit the nub of the issue, the fact that this is a tax-and-spend budget and has nothing to do with innovation. Those are the themes I am going to carry on with.

Like all members, I have had the opportunity to speak with many of my constituents and I must say that the government side will not be happy with what my constituents had to say.

The Liberals are fond of calling this the innovation budget. There is really nothing innovative about this budget. It is just good old-fashioned Liberal tax-and-spend. There continues to be no plan for job creation and there continues to be no plan to balance the budget. In fact, the innovation budget, just as my colleague said and as I will underscore, nickels-and-dimes Canadians by recklessly spending billions that the government does not have and saddles future generations, my grandchildren, with that debt.

This budget hikes taxes on the working poor using public transit. It hikes taxes young entrepreneurs when they want to use ride sharing. It hikes taxes on hard-working construction workers simply because they want to enjoy a cold beer at the end of the day. It hikes taxes on struggling parents using child care. It hikes taxes on small business owners, such as farmers, real estate agents, and hairdressers, and the list goes on.

Perhaps we should have seen this coming. After all, the Prime Minister's first budget took the exact same approach. First he blew up his election promise to run only a modest deficit, a small deficit, and to balance the budget by 2019. Those were election promises. Next he hiked taxes on gasoline and home heating fuel, on savings accounts, on paycheques. He even hiked taxes on kids' soccer and piano lessons.

It is another year, another Liberal tax hike, and another lost opportunity to deliver for Canadian families.

This budget fails to be innovative and it fails to deliver for families. Families need a job plan. Instead they got higher taxes and more debt, which, as I said, will have to be paid off by future generations.

The Liberals are not growing the middle class; they are growing government, and Canadian families are going to foot this bill.

By his own admission, the Prime Minister tells us that $195 million of the funding for child care will actually go toward hiring bureaucrats in Ottawa. What the Prime Minister cannot tell us is how many child care spaces the Liberals are actually going to create. They hope it is 40,000, but they do not have an actual plan. They hope to balance the budget, but they do not have an actual plan. The pattern has developed and continues to develop.

I can tell members that our previous Conservative government took a much different approach. We focused on supporting families, and we had a plan. That is why we implemented initiatives such as the universal child care benefit, the children's fitness tax credit, the children's art tax credit, tax credits for post-secondary education and textbooks, and income splitting for families.

Unfortunately, since taking office, the Liberals have eliminated these initiatives one by one, with the public transit tax credit being the latest to get the axe.

When in government, the Conservative Party understood that in order to keep up in this global economy and create jobs, we needed to push a real innovation agenda. That is why we created a more efficient and effective national digital research infrastructure system by investing in CANARIE, Canada's world-class, high-speed research and education network. We extended Canada's participation in the international space station mission to 2024 to build on Canada's strong legacy of supporting space exploration. We developed the next generation of innovation leaders by supporting graduate-level research and development internships through Mitacs. We made a landmark investment in post-secondary education by creating the Canada first research excellence fund, with $1.5 billion over the next decade. This investment helped to secure Canada's international leadership in science and innovation.

We provided $49 million to the Canadian Youth Business Foundation to help young entrepreneurs grow their firms. We fostered world-leading research by investing $220 million in the TRIUMF physics laboratory to support leading research and launch cutting-edge spinoff companies. We provided $1.5 billion to support the private sector in research and development to strengthen the competitiveness of Canada's aerospace sector through the strategic aerospace and defence initiative. We launched the venture capital action plan to increase private sector investments in early-stage risk capital and to support the creation of large-scale venture capital funds. We supported technology innovation by investing $15 million in support of the Institute for Quantum Computing for research and commercialization of quantum technologies, and $3 million to support the creation of the Open Data Institute.

We stood up for the automotive industry by investing $500 million in the automotive innovation fund to support significant new projects in Canada. We also provided over $800 million to support cutting-edge post-secondary research infrastructure through the Canada Foundation for Innovation. These are real, tangible supports for ideas and for entrepreneurs that make innovation happen, as well as real, tangible supports for Canadian families.

That is what is missing from this budget. There are no plans. There are platitudes. There are promises after promises that continue to get broken from the previous budget through this budget. There is nothing innovative about it. It is just good old-fashioned Liberal tax-and-spend.

It reminds me of the area of the country I come from, which is Ontario. I have watched the deterioration of my province, sadly, to the status of a have-not province through years of Liberal budget mismanagement. In the last budget, the current Kathleen Wynne government presented to our province more of the same: tax, spend money they do not have, and take us further into debt. We are already the deepest in debt of any sub-sovereign government across North America.

Here we go again, with the federal Liberals taking a page from the Kathleen Wynne playbook, with the individuals who were the architects now being the architects of what happens in the Prime Minister's Office in terms of budget and policy creation. It is absolutely disastrous, and will be disastrous, if we do not have a plan to balance our budget, because as Canadians know, we cannot continue to spend money we do not have and continue to pile on the debt for future generations to have to deal with.

The government should know that well. Previous Liberal governments had to deal with it in the 1990s. They had to cut health care by some 30% in trying to get us back to a reasonable fiscal balance in the country. That is exactly where the Liberals are taking us again. It has been done before. It has been experimented with before.

We are watching the results in Ontario. We are watching company after company in my constituency considering the question of moving to a lesser-priced jurisdiction. I can think of two specific meetings I have had with companies that employ well over 400 people that are actually, right now, entertaining the idea of moving to somewhere in the upper U.S. They are considering the New York, Michigan, or Ohio areas to relocate their businesses. It is because the taxes and the ongoing expenses of operating their businesses are making them uncompetitive. These are international companies in the sense that they have international customers. They must compete on a global basis, and they are having a hard time now finding the resources within their operations to cut their costs to be competitive.

In fact, their costs are skyrocketing as a result of mismanagement and policy at the provincial level. That is what we are seeing here. We are seeing more of the same, tax and spend. Canadians know that all too well.

There is no plan for job creation, no plan for balancing the budget for Canadians, no hope that we will see a light at the end of the tunnel, fiscally, in this country. My constituents and many other Canadians have been underwhelmed and uninspired by this budget. That is why I will be voting against it.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, something I am very concerned about in this budget, and I am certain that the member has heard it from his constituents, is the lack of transparency from the government.

When we talk about the changes to the PBO that would happen under this omnibus budget bill, they are quite concerning. These changes are not only to how things would be brought to the House—they would now have to go through the Speaker, and the work plan would have to be approved—but they also impact the way we receive information from the PBO. The government would now have one day to look at this before it is released to the public. Again, it would have one day to spin this in any way before the public sees it. Another thing is that parliamentarians would not be able to request the PBO conduct a study anymore. It would have to go through a committee.

These types of changes do not reflect transparency, freedom, and the ability of the PBO to basically look at what the government is doing and provide Canadians with a snapshot of whether that spending is justified or not, and to have that true independent accounting.

Is the member as concerned as I am about our lack of ability as parliamentarians to bring things to the PBO, and the lack of transparency that Canadians would receive?

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let us make no mistake about the way the Liberals govern. This is something that Canadians have recognized over and over again. The Liberals say one thing and do another.

It reminds me of operators in my world of small business who present a smoke-and-mirror image. They present an image of “this is what we profess to be” and then they turn out to be something absolutely different.

When it comes to transparency, putting the brakes on, putting in more barriers, and in fact muzzling the PBO and other objective observers of the process by bringing in legislation, the Liberals have accused other governments of doing this. The tone of this started with the government House leader bringing in Motion No. 6 and taking away the rights of the opposition to open things up for discussion. We cannot do that anymore. It is being limited.

The Liberals are doing it now with the Standing Orders. This is all a smoke-and-mirrors game to put more control in the PMO, more control for the government to have the rules that facilitate it. The Liberals do not care about this particular sacred spot we are standing in, the Parliament of Canada, which should be open and transparent in all things.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to draw to the member's attention the comments of his own chamber of commerce, which said that the skills innovation investment in this budget was very welcome, and that the Liberals are doing great things to get adults back to school, and investing in education and retraining. It is important to invest in retraining and training, as I am sure members will agree. Indeed, this is an innovation budget.

The member for Brantford—Brant mentioned that he is concerned his grandchildren will have to pay for these investments. In fact, his grandchildren will see the benefit of these investments when there are jobs. There is a study that shows that 65% of children who are born this year will work in jobs that do not even exist today. Those are the investments we are making.

After the member for Brantford—Brant and I are long gone from this planet, our children and grandchildren will thrive because of these investments. They will have jobs that will support the future and will keep Canada and Canadians strong forever. It is because of these investments today that his grandchildren and my children and grandchildren will flourish.

Could the member comment on that?

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is going to enjoy my comment on this one. They will also have a debt so large that health care will have to be cut again by 30%, as the Liberals did in the 1990s. That is what happens when we get too far in debt: people cannot carry mortgages that they cannot pay for.

The reality is that there is nothing innovative about supporting people with retraining, education, and all of the things I mentioned. Governments have been doing that for decades. You are just carrying on the same work as previous governments, so do not talk to me about your bringing forth innovative ideas. These ideas have been around forever. Conservatives funded them and previous governments funded them.

Again, do not try the smoke and mirrors thing here. It just does not work.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I can assure the member for Brantford—Brant that I will not be trying anything on him.

The hon. member for Surrey Centre.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Scarborough North.

I am pleased to rise today in support of budget 2017, entitled “Building a Strong Middle Class”. Today, I will be highlighting new budget measures that are important to Canadians, British Columbians, and those who make their homes in Surrey Centre. These past few weeks have been busy ones, and I have had the opportunity to speak with many residents of Surrey Centre. We were able to talk about the real impact budget 2017 would have on their lives, positioning them and their families to succeed not only in tomorrow's economy but in today's.

Our government's commitment to innovation, infrastructure, housing, and protecting our oceans and waterways is what makes this budget and this government's agenda so transformational. It is with great pride that I can say that the decisions the government is taking, along with the policies we are putting forward, are having a positive impact on the lives of Canadians. This past weekend alone at an event in Surrey, I was speaking with Ted Singh, a constituent in Surrey Centre, who I had the good fortune of meeting for the very first time, a constituent whose two children will see first hand the investment in post-secondary education in Surrey.

Late last year, the Prime Minister was in Surrey Centre to personally share the good news of a $45 million investment in Simon Fraser University's Surrey campus, an investment that will have an impact not only today but tomorrow and for future generations of people who call Surrey home. This investment will provide supports, resources, and the means for world-class institutions such as Simon Fraser University for the people of Surrey who have aspirations for contributing to making our community and this country a better place.

My constituents are concerned about the ailing infrastructure that surrounds the city, such as the Pattullo Bridge. I am therefore pleased to see the formation of the infrastructure bank, which will help cities and provinces fund great projects and help the constituents of Surrey Centre get to and from work faster, spend more time with their families, and have more money to do the things they enjoy.

I am pleased that the Canada child benefit is continued in this budget, as more than 22,000 children in my riding are benefiting from the support. They are getting over $700 per month per child, on average, tax free. This is real support for middle class families that live and work in Surrey.

It is with great pride and honour that I can stand here today behind the Prime Minister, who leads a government that invests in institutions like Simon Fraser University and Kwantlen Polytechnic University that provide opportunities for young Canadians, young British Columbians, and people around the world who aspire to higher education.

Education and post-secondary institutions are not the only places in which this government is committed to investing. Infrastructure is another important area, and under the leadership of the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, I am proud to say that through budget 2017, the planning of Surrey light rail transit will continue. These investments in infrastructure were characterized as a “game-changer” by the metro Vancouver mayors. Approximately $2.2 billion will go toward building rapid transit projects in metro Vancouver. The chair of the metro Vancouver mayors' council said, about budget 2017, “Today’s historic federal investment in transit and transportation is a game-changer for our region and the largest in Metro Vancouver in 20 years”.

We are working with our municipal and provincial partners to deliver the projects they are asking for, because our government understands that municipalities should decide on the best projects for where they are, and only through collaboration and respect will we have success. We can see the product of collaboration and investment right in Surrey. Recently, I had the opportunity to announce a $25-million project that will expand the capacity of the Surrey Central Station to make it and the SkyTrain more accessible for residents and people who use the station to commute on a daily basis.

I would be remiss if I did not highlight the important investments in innovation that budget 2017 lays out. Something that I was really proud of was that in the days following the release of budget 2017, the Minister of Finance visited Surrey Centre, specifically Innovation Boulevard. A partnership between the City of Surrey and Simon Fraser University, the boulevard is a one-square-mile centre of health care technology and excellence that is anchored by Surrey Memorial Hospital and SFU Surrey, with the goal of helping to accelerate real-world patient solutions. Surrey's Innovation Boulevard is a product of one of Canada's greatest strengths, our skilled, hard-working, creative, and diverse workforce, and under budget 2017 we would see initiatives like this grow and prosper.

Our investments in innovation include the launch of an ambitious initiative that would see up to 10,000 young Canadians have opportunities in work-integrated learning and co-op placements. This would go a long way in places like Surrey and across the Lower Mainland of British Columbia.

This government is putting forward a plan that is based on fairness. It provides 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 our implementation of our bold economic policies that put a focus on growing the middle class to ensure the prosperity of our country.

Whether it is education, infrastructure, or innovation, this government has an ambitious plan to better the middle class and, with that, the entire country. I for one am so proud to rise today and support it.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague across the way on his speech. I get that he is pleased with his government's choices, but I have a simple question for him.

I am aware of the public transit situation in his riding and I would like to know how the people of Surrey, British Columbia reacted when they found out that the tax credit for public transit and bus passes was going to be cut.

Many people in my riding are complaining about this because it takes $255 away from them every year.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, constituents in my riding are happy that we are creating better transit and more transit and getting them to and from work faster. That is the goal that saves them hours a day and dozens of hours a week. That is a bigger monetary benefit to them than the discontinuance of the tax credit. What they want is faster transit, more efficient transit, and more environmentally friendly transit. With that, by all the conversations I have had with my constituents, I can proudly say that they are very pleased with the budget.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker what does the member for Surrey Centre think of the changes that this bill would bring to the powers of the parliamentary budget officer, something that has no place in a budget implementation bill? I get the impression that because the Liberals saw the word “budget” in there, they thought they could slip it in, but the only reason to put in something like this which would decrease the independence of the parliamentary budget officer would be to make it easier for them to slip all sorts of other things into the budget in spending that we as individual MPs could not query.

I would ask the member how these changes would make the parliamentary budget officer more independent, or even as independent as he was, when that is what that office demands.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary budget officer is an important and integral part of our democratic process, and anything to strengthen his or her role is beneficial. It is very appropriate to have it in the budget, as the parliamentary budget officer's duties are to review the budget and make sure the budget fits in with the fiscal strength of our treasury and ensure that our forecasts and our expenses are done accordingly. Therefore, it is very fitting for it to be in the budget and is an appropriate source for modifying and modernizing the parliamentary budget officer's duties.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on the question about the PBO. It says that PBOs are to be independent and non-partisan and to provide support to Parliament, and yet the PBO himself stated with respect to the changes, “Maintaining the Speakers’ control over the PBO using the exact terms by which the Speakers direct and control the Library seems entirely inconsistent with the clause’s stated intention.”

The member said he supports what the budget does to the PBO because it would give the PBO more control, but the PBO himself said the opposite. I wonder if the member can comment on the consistency of his answer and his comments.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the PBO has the right to give his opinion on whether he thinks it will help him or not. In the scope of what I have seen of having it under the Speaker it is well-suited and it will strengthen. He has the right to his own opinion and I will leave it at that.

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak to the 2017 budget.

I want to first extend my best wishes to all those celebrating Asian Heritage Month. Every year the month of May is a special time to acknowledge the long and rich history of Canadians of Asian descent and their contributions to our great country. It is also a time to celebrate the beauty and wisdom of various Asian cultures. This month I encourage everyone to visit the Chinese Cultural Centre of Greater Toronto located in my riding of Scarborough North to explore its distinguished art collections and exhibits.

When our government was elected in 2015, we promised Canadians real change to turn our economy around and to get it growing again, recognizing that a strong economy is built on a strong middle class.

Canada's unemployment rate is now dropping because of thousands of new jobs created since our government took office. We are delivering on our promise to Canadians. This year's budget continues to do just that. Through investments that strengthen the middle class, we would grow our economy over the long term and build on real change we have seen over the past year and a half.

I am honoured and humbled to represent the people of the multicultural riding of Scarborough North. During the last election, I too promised real change to my constituents to provide them with hope and opportunities for a better future. I am proud to say that this budget continues to deliver on that promise.

When I speak to residents about the issues that affect them the most, public transit is an issue that almost always comes up. Public transit is the lifeblood of a thriving city. Whether it is commuting back home to Scarborough North after a long day of work in downtown Toronto, or getting to class on time at the University of Toronto's Scarborough campus, fast, efficient, and reliable public transit is essential. That is why this budget is so important, because it would provide an investment of $20.1 billion for public transit projects over the next 11 years. This is real change that would make a difference in the lives of people in Scarborough North and across our country.

I now turn to another issue that is near and dear to our hearts and that is affordable housing. Last August, I had the honour to participate in Habitat for Humanity's ribbon-cutting ceremony for its historic home build at 140 Pinery Trail. This initiative will construct a record-breaking 50 townhouse units in my riding of Scarborough North. Upon completion, 50 families currently living in unsafe, unhealthy, and overcrowded housing will each have a new and affordable home. This project speaks to the importance of our government's commitment to invest $11.2 billion over the next 11 years to support affordable housing, including the construction of new units. This budget does the right thing by ensuring that Canadians have access to safe, adequate, and affordable places to live.

Scarborough North is home to a number of housing co-operatives. Following the release of this budget, I spoke to a number of representatives of these co-ops. I was pleased to share that this budget would invest $5 billion in a national housing fund, one that would support lending for the construction of new rental units as well as give much needed funds and operational support to social housing providers. This budget would improve the lives of low-income and vulnerable members of our community who rely on social housing for a roof over their heads.

Not only that, this budget would also help improve the lives of new Canadians. Coming to a new country to start a new life is never easy. As a child of immigrant parents, I witnessed first-hand not only the difficulties that new immigrants face, but also just how much the government can do to help new immigrants feel they belong in Canada.

Many of our new immigrants are highly skilled and highly educated. They want to put their talents to use and to contribute to building our great country. Many times, however, highly skilled and educated immigrants face barriers that limit their employment opportunities once they arrive in Canada. Our government recognizes these barriers as a problem and with this budget we are doing something about it.

This budget proposes to allocate $27.5 million over five years starting this year and $5.5 million per year thereafter to support our targeted employment strategy for newcomers. This ambitious program would break down the barriers that bright new immigrants face in fully contributing to our economy. Our plan would improve pre-arrival supports for newcomers so that the process to recognize their foreign credentials can begin before they arrive in Canada.

We would also put in place targeted measures to test innovative approaches to help skilled newcomers gain Canadian work experience in their profession. One of the main reasons people choose to come to Canada is to seek new opportunities, both for themselves and for future generations. That is why this strategy would do the right thing by helping new Canadians and their families find appropriate work.

When Canadians secure meaningful employment, it grows our economy, which is why this budget is also focused on supporting innovation. I am proud that my riding of Scarborough North is home to many thriving businesses, including Canada Goose, which celebrated a strong IPO last March.

While industries like textiles and manufacturing will continue to play an important role, the global economy is changing. To address the changing nature of our global economic realities and to ensure it continues to thrive for our children and grandchildren, this budget introduces an ambitious innovation and skills plan. This plan includes $2.7 billion over six years for unemployed and underemployed Canadians to receive training and employment supports, an investment that positions Canada as a leader in the changing global economy.

That is not all. This budget would do even more to help our seniors and give them the respect they deserve. I know how important this is for my riding of Scarborough North, which is home to many seniors homes, such as the Yee Hong Centre for Geriatric Care, a provider of exceptional care to many seniors in the greater Toronto area. In addition to recognizing the invaluable services that facilities such as Yee Hong provide, our government is recognizing that there are many Canadians who prefer to receive care in a home setting.

Our government is committed to giving patients the care they need in the setting that they choose. This budget would invest $6 billion over the next decade for home care, money that would be used to improve access to home, community, and palliative care services. It would also provide more support to informal caregivers, such as family members working hard to balance full-time careers with caregiving for their loved ones.

Finally, this budget rightfully supports our veterans and their families. Scarborough North is home to many veterans. as well as Royal Canadian Legion Branch 614, which recently celebrated its 50th anniversary. Our veterans have dedicated their lives to defend our country, and they deserve our unwavering support and gratitude.

Last year's budget invested $5.6 billion over six years to give more money to veterans with injuries or illnesses resulting from their military service. Continuing to recognize the sacrifices our veterans have made, this budget focuses on supporting the well-being of our veterans and their families. Our government proposes to help our veterans receive the skills, training, and education they need, as well as the mental health supports they may require.

In conclusion, this budget is one that all Canadians can be proud of. It would create the conditions for a strong and innovative economy that would provide more opportunities, more than ever before, for the middle class and those working hard to join it. Through smart investments and a profound commitment to fairness, our government is proposing a budget that ensures our best days are on the road ahead.

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the member's contributions to this place. He is a very positive person, something we need to see more of in Canadian politics. It is an exciting thing.

On a slightly different subject, the Minister of Finance has advocated publicly that any new taxation on proposed marijuana sales should be kept low in order to keep out organized crime. I have spoken to doctors in my riding, and they have told me that there is very little difference, as far as the health of the lungs is concerned, between smoking marijuana versus regular cigarettes. They are equally bad. However, the government has added an excise tax of 2% this year, plus an ongoing escalator every year, which is only going to raise the price of cigarettes, and ultimately undermine the regular market. As we know, here in Ontario and all the way through to British Columbia now, there is a growing problem with contraband tobacco.

Does the member support that escalator despite it showing that there will be as much damage from people smoking marijuana as there is from smoking cigarettes? At the same time, it will only encourage more black market sales, by putting on that escalator.

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to be clear. Our government's plan is to strictly regulate and ensure that marijuana is kept out of the hands of children. We plan to do that by having a market that is open. As the member opposite said, this is about keeping the money out of the hands of criminals. Criminals are currently growing marijuana illegally, then selling it to our kids, and roaming near our schools. This is not good. It is not good for Canadians. It is not good for children.

That is why our government is taking our heads out of the sand. We are going to strictly regulate, legalize, and restrict access to marijuana in a responsible way. We look forward to having that conversation on the legislation that is forthcoming.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of representing 10 legions and also a base. The amount of veterans in my riding is numerous. It is a great honour to speak with them and hear their stories.

One of the things I hear from veterans across my riding is their deep disappointment because they have waited long enough. They want to see lifelong pensions for injured veterans established again. That was a campaign promise of the Liberal Party. It is really unfortunate that here we are, again. I appreciate that some of the services have been made more available, and that is wonderful, but the real point is that veterans have waited long enough. They were betrayed by the last government and they want to see this established.

How long will it take for this to be done?

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is correct. Veterans were betrayed by the previous government. However, they will not be betrayed by this government. We plan to ensure that our veterans receive the support and the resources they need and deserve. This budget takes further action than what we previously committed to ensure veterans receive the skills training and education they need to succeed. We will better support the families of veterans who have been injured during their military service. Also, we will invest in mental health because so many of our veterans are suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. We want to ensure we tackle those mental health issues and provide the best care for our veterans and their families.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member talks about a lot of things he thinks are great in the budget. However, he has neglected to mention that the infrastructure component in the budget will not be invested in until years 2023, 2025. I would like to hear his thoughts as to why that component was even put in the budget at this point in time.

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, we are making significant investments in infrastructure, into areas like public transit and affordable housing. Not only that, we are putting money into the pockets of Canadians right now through our Canada child benefit, which is lifting hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty. We have also increased taxes on the wealthiest 1% so we can cut taxes for the middle class.

These investments are putting money into pockets of Canadians today, while we continue to develop an infrastructure plan that will make a meaningful difference to grow our economy and provide a better future for Canadians today and for future generations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay. I look forward to his impressive speech.

Today I rise to speak to Bill C-44, the budget implementation act. The bill is deeply flawed in my opinion. By the end of my speech, it will be very clear why I will not be supporting the bill. In its 290 pages, it amends over 30 separate acts. Despite all of this, it does very little for the middle and working class.

Once again the Liberals have put the interests of their friends ahead of those of the vast majority of Canadians. On the one hand, they are eliminating the public transit tax credit and on the other, they are facilitating the purchase of public infrastructure by private investors.

Last week I had the honour of having a conversation at a small business in my riding called Townsite Brewing. It is a great microbrewery in Powell River. Its innovation, dedication to the community, and obviously the great beer it makes have been a real builder in their local economy. Sadly, the 2017 budget is not working for it. It has asked me to raise this important issue, and I hope the minister will hear its calls. The federal budget would raise the excise tax for beer, wine, and liquor by 2%. Then it would tie it to the consumer price index. This means that the price will rise for the consumer every year after that. That is simply not good for business.

There are a number of really good reasons for the government to stop this.

There are hundreds of small brewing companies in communities across Canada, employing people, using local ingredients, innovating with new styles of beer, and investing in their business to sell great beer and participate in a very competitive market. This is truly amazing when we look at the history of beer monopolies of the past. Consumers now have more choice. This industry creates great local jobs. For Townsite Brewing, it creates 16 meaningful positions in the community.

Across Canada, small communities have worked very hard to diversify their economies, and this hits these communities particularly hard. Brewing is one of the few remaining industries that is domestic. Eighty-five per cent of the beer sold in Canada is made right in Canada. Not too many food industries can make this claim like the beer industry can. Should the government not support the growth of this share to 90% or 100%, rather than discouraging growth by imposing higher and higher taxes on these products? The entire brewing community and its customers are united in wanting to see the government make the decision to repeal this tax before it becomes law by the end of June.

In my riding of North Island—Powell River, this tax would also impact the wine and liquor industries the riding has.

As I mentioned earlier, the bill would amend more than 30 pieces of legislation. I found it very interesting when a member across the ways said “I don't support omnibus bills” while supporting this omnibus bill. Almost one-third of the changes are nowhere to be found in the budget.

During the last election campaign the Liberals promised to abolish the use of omnibus bills because the practice was undemocratic. The omnibus bill should have been split to allow Parliament to conduct in-depth reviews of the changes affecting the parliamentary budget officer and the creation of the Canadian infrastructure bank. The bill clearly shows that the Liberals put the interests of their friends ahead of those of the vast majority of Canadians. They are totally forgetting that people across the country desperately need infrastructure in their communities. Therefore, by creating the infrastructure bank, the government is giving a green light for privatization of our public infrastructure.

As Mark Hancock, the national president of CUPE said, “If you’re an infrastructure bankroller or a billionaire tax dodger, today is a good day. For working Canadians, not so much”.

Bill C-44 is mute with regard to the number of details that would have to be clarified in future legislation. Some provisions suggest that the infrastructure bank will be entitled to use the Access to Information Act to withhold important information from the Attorney General of Canada and the parliamentary budget officer under the guise of sensitive commercial information. Canadians expect accountability. It should therefore be established by the means of a true bill and an exhaustive review by Parliament, not through an omnibus bill.

When it comes to accountability, Canadians can count on the parliamentary budget officer, as he plays a fundamental role in Canadian democracy and his work depends on his neutrality and independence.

However, it appears that the Liberals want to make his job much more difficult. The parliamentary budget officer would be required to produce an annual work plan, which would be approved by the Speakers of the House of Commons and the Senate, as well as the government member who chairs the finance committee. This is the only officer of Parliament who would be required to seek approval for his work plan.

The PBO analyzed the legislative framework applicable to the parliamentary budget officers in 17 other countries, notably Australia, Great Britain, Austria, Belgium, and so on. According to his research, it is most unusual to require political approval for a work plan. Such a procedure would only benefit the government because the PBO could not undertake a study on his own unless it had been included in his annual work plan.

In addition to submitting an annual work plan, the PBO would have to provide his research results to the Speakers of the Senate and the House one business day before it would be made public. How is that accountability?

Furthermore, from now on, only committees and not individual MPs and senators, as is currently the case, would be able to request the PBO to estimate the financial cost of any proposal that related to a matter of which Parliament had jurisdiction. Any request for research from individual MPs or senators would have to relate to a proposal, bill, motion, or amendment they have made. It is this type of individual request that led the PBO to research the cost of the F-35s and the Liberal tax cuts that only benefited the wealthiest. Adopting these changes will reduce my ability to hold the government to account. It will lessen transparency to Canadians.

This budget fundamentally betrays the commitment to creating a more accountable and transparent government.

This bill also has a huge impact on veterans. I am happy to see there is an investment for additional support for veterans' social reintegration and transitioning. I am pleased to see the creation of an education and training benefit, for example. However, I am deeply disappointed there is no mention of re-establishing lifelong pensions for injured veterans, yet another broken promise by the Liberals.

Overall there is little movement and most promises for veterans have had to wait for the next year's budget. Veterans have waited long enough. David Flannigan, Dominion president of the Royal Canadian Legion, agrees. He said, “Bottom line, this budget doesn’t do enough for our Veterans and their families...How long do Veterans have to wait?”

This budget did very little for the military as well. Our military has become extremely good at finding efficiency in everything it has done over the last decade. There comes a point when we simply have to feed the people who need it. It is time to invest in our women and men in uniform. The New Democrats believe our troops should have the support, training, and equipment they need to do the difficult and dangerous work they are asked to do every day. Only with a well-trained and well-equipped military can Canada continue to play an independent role in the world in promoting peace and security. This budget did not provide the resources for the military to do this. I know we are all waiting for the national defence review to see if more is coming. Most important, the military is waiting.

Seniors issues are not a central part of the budget. Yesterday's CBC headline was “'We're so far behind': Canada unprepared for housing needs of rising senior population”. This was in reference to the census figures. Canadians need a long-term plan, something in which the government does not seem to want to invest.

There has been an investment of some money for drug costs, but it is still not providing seniors with the real help they need. They are making decisions between eating, buying their medication, or paying their housing costs. That is shameful in a country like this. A national seniors strategy is needed now.

Bill C-44 makes our government less accountable and sells public infrastructure that Canadian taxpayers have built to Liberal insiders. When a housing crisis is happening in the country, when our seniors, veterans, and military need help, I can confidently say that the budget bill offers Canadians a series of misguided priorities.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to long-term planning, and I think that we have seen that the government has taken a very proactive approach to long-term planning. We see it in multi-year budgeting. We see it in working with the provinces on the CPP and with the price on pollution. These are all things that go years ahead.

She made reference to our military. As a former member of the regular force, I am so appreciative of what the current Minister of National Defence has done to ensure that we have longevity and that the needs of our forces will be met by having this review over the last number of months. Because of this Minister of National Defence, we are finally putting into place a long-term plan.

However, in terms of the budget specifically, the member said colleagues of her own had been somewhat critical of the idea of long-term planning because whether it is housing or infrastructure investments by the government, it means long-term planning and multi-year budgets.

Does the member across the way believe that multi-year budgets are a good thing?

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

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to actually seeing a long-term strategy that will meet the needs of people across this country.

The reality is that we have a seniors crisis right now. We have seen the poverty rate for seniors grow dramatically in the last several years. There is not enough housing for them. Home care is still something they are struggling to see happen.

A long-term plan is also about having a strategy that people understand. Where is the government's national seniors strategy? We are all awaiting it.

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

Mr. Speaker, when I was last in Halifax, I spoke to a microbrewer who had started in the early eighties, I believe. He said that back in the eighties, there were probably about 60 microbreweries right across Canada. Today there are well over 600. That was such a rapid increase in microbreweries that I asked him why. He said that the Harper priority budget of 2007, which started providing excise relief for microbreweries, caused the whole game to change for microbreweries in Canada.

The current government is actually adding more excise tax, and not just that. The microbreweries do not mind paying their fair share, but now the government has added an escalator whereby, year after year, regardless of where inflation is, the tax will just lockstep up—and again, there is also the GST on top of that—which makes their product more expensive. Let us not forget that provincially there is excise tax as well.

Would this member agree that these kinds of increases, particularly the fact that there is an escalator, are not only less democratic and transparent, but will actually hamper that industry, both wine and beer, and I am sure spirits as well, although I have not heard from them?

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

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that there are over 650 microbreweries across Canada. It is a growing and prosperous industry. I think it is really important. The reality of very many rural ridings like mine in North Island—Powell River, where we had a very strong industry, usually in logging, mining, and forestry, is that whenever those boom-and-bust cycles happened, they had a huge impact.

Now we see these wonderful industries coming in, and they are building the economy. They have good-paying jobs. They just want to keep succeeding. As I said, in the community of Powell River that I serve, these industries provide 60 meaningful jobs. That may not seem like a lot to the Liberal government, but to the small communities of Canada, those are meaningful jobs that mean that people get to live and prosper in those communities.

I think it is shameful that there was absolutely no discussion, no moving forward, and this comes from a government that also backed away from its promise to have less federal tax on small businesses. Where is that 2% cut?

Small businesses are doing their best in our communities. It would be nice to have a government that actually consulted with them. I hope the Liberals change their minds. It is just the right thing to do.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise to debate Bill C-44, the budget 2017 implementation bill.

Back in the days when I taught zoology at UBC and comparative anatomy labs at Memorial University, we talked a lot about form and function. Today I would like to begin by talking about the form of this bill and move on to its function, its contents, and what that means in regard to government priorities.

As others have commented, the most obvious thing about this bill is its sheer size. It is almost 300 pages long. It amends more than 30 separate acts and even incorporates Bill C-43 within it, which was already on the Order Paper. Many of these components have nothing to do with the implementation of the budget. For instance, the bill includes major changes to the powers of the parliamentary budget officer, which I will talk more about later.

This bill is the very definition of an omnibus bill. Many Canadians will remember quite clearly what the Liberals said about omnibus bills in the previous Parliament. They and the New Democrats pointed out that omnibus bills were clearly designed to pass disparate pieces of legislation without providing opportunity for proper debate or committee study. The Liberals loudly complained that one of the Conservative budget bills was 175 pages long. That was a micro-bill compared to this one.

The Liberals were so outraged by the omnibus bills of the Conservative government that they put clear promises in their 2015 election platform, saying, “We will not resort to legislative tricks to avoid scrutiny” and “We will change the House of Commons Standing Orders to bring an end to this undemocratic practice”, yet they could not resist doing the same thing with budget 2017, and in a very egregious way. The Liberals have broken a growing number of election promises, but this broken promise, one that puts them in the same camp as the Conservatives when it comes to eroding Canadian democracy, must be one of their most disappointing acts for many of their supporters.

Now I would like to move from form to function and some of the consequences of Bill C-44.

One of the main themes of the last federal election was the struggle to reduce income inequality in Canada, an inequality that has been steadily increasing for the past 20 years or more. The NDP has led this battle for years, and in the last election the Liberals agreed with us in principle and said they would, as we have heard so often since, support the middle class and those trying to join it. In the last budget, the Liberals disappointed most Canadians in the middle class by doing absolutely nothing for those making less than $45,000 a year, instead bringing in income tax changes that gave tax relief primarily to those making $150,000 to $200,000 a year.

The Liberals promised that they would plug the loopholes that allowed CEOs to pay taxes at half the rate of middle-class Canadians, but did nothing in last year's budget and, I am sorry to say, did nothing in this budget as well. Bill C-44 has no provisions to close this loophole, which costs the government almost $800 million each year and leaves that money in the pockets of the wealthy Canadians who least need it.

Who do the Liberals choose to squeeze money out of instead? It is transit riders, the middle class and those seeking to join the middle class who take buses and trains to work every day. Under Bill C-44, they would lose their public transit tax credit so that the government could pocket $225 million in savings. Wealthy CEOs get to keep $800 million, while bus riders have to cough up $225 million. Budgets are about choices, and this is the unfortunate choice the Liberals have made.

On top of that, we in the NDP were hoping that the Liberal government would take concrete steps to shut down offshore tax havens, where the wealthiest of Canadians and corporations that have pocketed billions of dollars in tax cuts move their profits to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. However, neither Bill C-44 nor any other legislation before us addresses this critical step in reducing income inequality in Canada.

As I mentioned at the start, one of the features of Bill C-44 is a section that would change the role and powers of the parliamentary budget officer. This has no place in a budget implementation bill. Maybe the Liberals thought they could slip it in because of the word “budget” in the title of this important office. The parliamentary budget officer must be independent and neutral, but Bill C-44 would degrade that independence in several ways.

First, it requires the parliamentary budget office to submit an annual work plan to both the Speaker of the House and the Speaker of the Senate. This requirement could only benefit the government, as the PBO would not be able to undertake any study unless it had been approved in the annual work plan.

Second, only committees—committees dominated by government MPs—would be allowed to request that the PBO estimate the cost of any proposal that relates to a matter over which Parliament has jurisdiction. At present, individual MPs can request the PBO to undertake these analyses, but if Bill C-44 becomes law, they could only request cost analyses on proposals that relate to a bill, a motion, or an amendment that they themselves had made.

Again, this bill would greatly restrict the independence of the PBO and restrict the abilities of individual MPs to study the costs of government proposals. It was this type of independent initiative that exposed the true costs of the F-35 fighter jets to Canadians, and it was this independent action that showed that the so-called middle-class tax cuts of this Liberal government only benefited the wealthy in our country.

Another point of disappointment in the budget is the change that would index the excise duty on wine to the consumer price index beginning in 2018. My riding, I must admit, produces the best wine in Canada, and the wine industry plays a large role in the economy there and in other wine regions of the country.

Canadian wine producers are very concerned that this duty will now rise automatically every year, despite already being almost twice as large as the duties levied by other countries. For instance, the duty is 63¢ per litre in Canada versus 38¢ in the United States, while Germany has no excise tax on wine at all.

This automatic increase will exacerbate those differences and undermine the growth of the wine industry in Canada, impacting the entire economic value chain from farm gate to retail.

I would like to end on a positive note by mentioning a few measures that I am happy to see in the budget.

One is the promise to spend about $40 million to support projects and activities that increase the use of wood as a greener substitute material in infrastructure projects. Using wood as a primary material in large buildings is a technology for which Canada is already a world leader. One of the leading companies in Canada in the construction of these buildings is Structurlam in my home town of Penticton. Structurlam sources a lot of wood for its glulam beams and cross-laminated timber panels from the Kalesnikoff mill near Castlegar on the other side of my riding.

Expanding this part of the forest industry in Canada would give it a much-needed boost in these troubled times as mills across this country face trade sanctions through the softwood lumber dispute. We have heard a lot recently about efforts to diversify our foreign markets, but here is an opportunity to build the domestic market as well, and to build it quickly. Unfortunately, this spending is not scheduled to start until next year, when it might come too late.

Another way that the government could move forward on this file is by adopting my private member's bill, Bill C-354, which directs the government to consider the use wood in building projects. Government procurement is a powerful force that would immediately boost the forest industry across this country.

I am pleased that the Liberal government is keeping at least one of its election promises, albeit a year late, which is to phase out subsidies for the fossil fuel industry. In 2014, the Pembina Institute estimated that more than $1 billion in fossil fuel subsidies still exist in our tax framework, so I am happy to see that budget 2017 will exclude producing wells from the Canada exploration expenses tax deduction.

In conclusion, I will simply say that budget 2017 represents yet another lost opportunity for the Liberal government to turn the corner on rising inequality in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, a number of New Democrat members have challenged this piece of legislation, the budget itself, and how they are connected.

I want to assure the member that all the budgetary legislation is in fact related to the budget. When the New Democrats introduced their amendment, they tried to say that the infrastructure bank, for example, should be a separate piece of legislation, when in fact the infrastructure bank is an important aspect of the budget.

We know there seems to be a disagreement by the NDP within the House of Commons as a political entity. New Democrats outside the House of Commons do support an infrastructure bank—at least, I have found that to be the case.

I am wondering why the New Democrat members continue to push something that really does not have a strong case. The member talked about the parliamentary budget officer. There is a direct link to the budget and some of the things that are actually happening. Can the member list specifically what in the budget implementation bill is not budget related? Could we have the specifics, please?

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first I will say that it is not just the NDP that is concerned about the infrastructure bank. This morning I heard one of my Conservative colleagues say that it scared the heck out of him. I would just like to point that out.

Getting back to the parliamentary budget officer, I am mystified as to how this is directly related, or even indirectly related, to the implementation of a budget, unless it is to make it easier for the government to spend money without the oversight of members of the opposition, individual MPs, who will look at that spending and want to go to the PBO and say, “Can you do a cost estimate of this?” This change would stop our ability to do that.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his well-thought-out speech. He had me going right up until the attack on the energy industry, but apart from that, it was great.

The published mandate of the PBO states that it is to provide independent and objective analysis to Parliament. The parliamentary budget officer has stated, regarding the Liberals' proposed amendments:

The proposed amendments impose significant restrictions on the way the PBO can set its work plan and access information. Those restrictions will undermine the PBO's functional independence and its effectiveness in supporting parliamentarians to scrutinize government spending....

We queried one of the Liberal members earlier. His comment was merely, “Hey, that is the PBO's opinion,” and he brushed it off.

I wonder if the member would let us know if he agrees that these significant concerns, these attacks on the PBO, are merely the PBO's opinion.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to say that a PBO's opinion is what we hire them for. Their function is to give us an intelligent and informed opinion on cost estimates and other things relating to the budget. I would certainly listen to the PBO before I would listen to the government on matters such as that.

The Liberal government, and I think every party here, has always said that the PBO has to remain independent. If we change anything in that office, we should increase that independence and neutrality.

These changes would decrease that independence. Any time individual MPs wanted to query a cost estimate that was not directly related to their private member's bills, they would have to go to a committee and get that committee to agree to put that to the PBO. The committees are controlled by government members. It is obvious that the independence of the PBO would be decreased if this passed. Certainly that is something I would love to see taken out of this bill.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for the Bay of Quinte. It will probably be sometime after 3 o'clock today before he gets his chance.

I have been looking forward to the opportunity to speak to budget 2017, because it marks a remarkable new step forward in a lot of communities across Canada, including mine in Fleetwood--Port Kells, my city of Surrey, and Metro Vancouver.

Given our region's role as Canada's western gateway for billions of dollars in trade every year, the investments our government is making at home for me are going to have positive ripple effects at home for every member of the House.

The highlights for our home ridings in budget 2017 are considerable. Our $20.1 billion commitment over 11 years to improve public transit across Canada would deliver a 40% share of the cost of three key rapid transit lines in Metro Vancouver. One is the SkyTrain extension along Vancouver's Broadway corridor that would serve what is now North America's busiest bus route. The other two rapid transit lines budget 2017 would support are in Surrey.

Our regional growth management plan says that we will be home to a good percentage of the 1.2 million new residents expected to arrive in Metro Vancouver by 2041, so better mobility is going to be really important. Plans are for our Fleetwood neighbourhood to have three stations along the Fraser Highway: one at 152nd, one at 160th, and one at 166th; and perhaps even two more, one at 148th and the other at 156th. Revitalization will take place along the new line.

We have seen this sort of thing happen in the Cambie Corridor, along the Millennium Line, etc. We expect this revitalization to truly reshape Fleetwood and bring to reality the hard work of many visionaries over the years, including, and especially, our friend the late Rick Hart.

Budget 2017 would also make a huge difference in the lives of many Surrey families, particularly those people who have come to Canada with the professional skills we urgently need but who face barriers because their credentials are not recognized here. Every day a doctor, a nurse, a teacher, or an engineer is underemployed, these people lose, their families lose, and we lose. Budget 217 would invest $27.5 million over five years, starting this year, to remove those barriers. We would start the process even before the professionals arrived. Once they were here, we would support their efforts to get Canadian accreditation with a loans program to help cover the costs. Finally, a targeted deployment strategy would help them get essential Canadian work experience so they could relaunch their careers.

There are three more highlights from budget 2017 that I would like to mention. I think I can get them in quickly. Each would make a difference in communities across Canada, including mine.

As we all know, housing prices in Metro Vancouver, Toronto, and other cities have pushed home ownership out of reach for far too many families. Our decision to get the federal government back into a national housing strategy responds to the calls for help from the provinces, municipalities, and neighbourhoods. In Surrey, the Guildford neighbourhood, which I share with my colleague the hon. member for Surrey Centre, is where our city's main stock of affordable housing can be found. Budget 2017 would provide $11.2 billion over 11 years across Canada to design, build, renew, and repair homes for millions of Canadians working hard to join the middle class.

Another $5-billion national housing fund would better support vulnerable Canadians: the elderly, the disabled, and women seeking refuge from abuse.

Housing costs are a major source of worry and insecurity in many cities across Canada. Our government listened, we heard, and we have made affordable housing a priority.

Another acutely urgent issue in Metro Vancouver is the opioid crisis. No community or neighbourhood is immune from the tragedy of overdose deaths or the gang-related violence that accompanies the drug trade.

In February, our government provided $10 million in emergency support to help British Columbia respond to the crisis. Illicit drugs took 914 lives last year alone, and more than 320 in just the first three months of this year. This funding builds on the $65 million over five years we also announced in February for a strategy for an opioid action plan. Budget 2017 would enhance that with a further $22.7 billion over five years.

This budget would build on scores of other initiatives that matter a great deal in Fleetwood—Port Kells and in every community across the country, important measures like the new Canada caregiver credit that would help those needing care and the families providing that care.

Improvements to our family reunification program are helping families reunite more quickly, something that matters a lot in many homes in Fleetwood—Port Kells. We also cannot underestimate the impact of the first full year of the Canada child benefit, over $22 billion in tax-free support for families that need it the most. It is putting food on kitchen tables in Fleetwood—Port Kells and across Canada, lifting more than 300,000 children out of poverty, and depending on the multiplier one uses, sparking over $200 billion in economic activity.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member will have four minutes and 30 seconds remaining when we return to this topic.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that C-44, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The hon. member for Fleetwood—Port Kells has four and a half minutes left in his speech.

The hon. member for Fleetwood—Port Kells.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, for those who may remember, we were talking about the budget and some significant investments that the federal government had been making to move a number of very important things forward. It all contributes to economic activity, but it is important to realize that what the government has been doing so far, budget 2016 and budget 2017, is more than a stimulus program. The investments we are making in infrastructure, jobs training, innovation, and early learning and child care are about building a solid foundation for a prosperous economy, one that offers a fair share and a fair shake to all Canadians willing to step forward to invest some hope and hard work for a real change in their lives.

Listening to Canadians and evidence-based decision-making are blazing a new path for the country in a fairly uncertain world right now. This recognizes that while the previous government's ideology may have been well-intentioned, it simply did not deliver the results the majority of Canadians wanted.

Speaking of results, I want to save some time to talk about the issue of deficits, because they keep coming up.

The previous government sought to balance its last budget at all costs, this, after racking up over $150 billion in accumulated deficits over 10 years. What a cost it was. If it did indeed balance the budget, it was thanks in part to service cuts and lapsed funding that fluffed up the bottom line as ministries and programs did not actually spend the money the Conservatives committed.

A balanced budget at all costs, but who paid? Our veterans certainly did when front-line staff was cut back and service offices were closed. So did unemployed young people and our disabled Canadians when tens of millions of dollars in promised funding went unspent. So did Albertans, when Mr. Harper's government had no response for them in 2014 and 2015 as falling oil prices foretold tough times ahead. All Canadian taxpayers certainly did when over 60 of the Canada Revenue Agency's most senior auditors were let go to cut costs. They are the ones who could have tracked down many millions of dollars in taxes avoided by wealthy families, which may now be helping even more wealthy families avoid paying their fair share of taxes.

The Conservatives believed so much in the virtue of a balanced budget, at all cost, that they tried to close the gap for 2015-16 with the fire sale disposal of the General Motors shares they purchased during the economic collapse of 2007-08.

The Globe and Mail reported that this badly timed sale, done to balance the budget, resulted in as much as a $3.5 billion loss off the original purchase price. All Canadians took it in the neck for that one.

As I mentioned, lapsed funding, the underspending of government budget commitments, also padded the Tories' bottom line.

Of course, every government, every year, sees lapsed funding, but as The Canadian Press reported in December 2014, the Conservatives gamed the system deliberately, with rewards for managers who underspent their budgets.

The balanced budget bragging rights the previous government pursued, at all cost, was the old bait and switch, a carnival side show or a shell game.

To be sure, as we look at budget 2017 and the critically important work it does to build on budget 2016, there are financial deficits. However, Canadians understood during the last election campaign that those deficits were an investment, that deficits would lead to something our country sorely needed. They can see today that there are dividends of many kinds being delivered.

I think it occurs to people, when we think about it, that there is more than one kind of deficit. There were times in the decade prior to budget 2016 that Canada experienced many deficits, deficits in dollars, to be sure, but also deficits of compassion, imagination, vision, and optimism.

Budget 2017 is delivering a surplus on all those accounts. The kind of Canada we are supporting will have the equity, the economy, and the future that will ultimately deliver the kind of genuinely balanced budget we have not seen since the days of Chrétien and Martin.

I was a teenager when Canada celebrated its Centennial. I remember, with great fondness, the incredible energy, enthusiasm, and pride that swept from coast to coast to coast. We owe it to today's teenagers, to everybody, in fact, to recreate that experience. What a better time than now, our 150th birthday, and what a better way than with the direction and future laid out for our country in the federal budget before us today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of many aspects of the budget. In two budgets now, the government has dealt with Canada's middle class.

One of the things we do not hear too much about in this budget is the importance of venture capital. By enabling venture capital opportunities, we will be helping small businesses.

Could my colleague share his thoughts on the importance of what I would argue is the backbone to Canada's economy and how we can support our middle class by getting behind our small businesses?

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. It brings to mind the fact that this government has been criticized somewhat for not decreasing the tax rate on small business. However, we hit the nail on the head in that our small business does not need a tax cut. There is nothing to be saved if we do not make money. What our small businesses needed was more customers.

The impact of the Canada child benefit on the tax reduction for middle class has actually rippled through the economy and is helping to build stronger businesses at the community level, which is where we need them.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the comments of my hon. colleague concerning the cuts to program delivery, which we saw over the years of the previous government, and how many communities suffered, including my own, which lost counter service and delivery of government programs, and the Canada Revenue Agency. We lost a counter service and service to our community in Immigration.

I have many questions for my hon. colleague, but I will ask him this. Why is there nothing in the budget to increase that program delivery, to put resources back into the service delivery of the government? He talked before about the government that cut them.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that they cannot all be restored at once. We are restoring some very important things like services to veterans and the opening of the Veterans Affairs office. We are investing more into the Canada Revenue Agency to see if we can improve the revenue intake of the government from people who should be paying a fair share of taxes.

Like the hon. member, things are missing off the list in this budget that I would like to have seen. This is one budget. There are more to come. As we collaborate together in the House and we raise the issues that are important to Canadians and we hear what is important to Canadians, those surely will be the priorities in future budgets, just as they have been in this one.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will continue my questions, since I have been given another opportunity.

I would categorize this implementation bill as an omnibus bill. It is full of things that are not necessarily budget related, including changes to the Investment Act and changes around parental leave.

There is not much in this implementation of budgets. A lot of other things have been crammed together.

However, my comment on one of the insertions in this omnibus bill is around the changes the Employment Insurance Act. Here is an example where the government really could help families, particularly in my riding. Instead of increasing the benefits, instead of making it easier for people to access the employment insurance program and making it better, which I need to remind people is funded by employers and employees, not the government, the government has just extended what I would say is not a very high level of benefits over a longer period of time.

In my riding, many people will be unable to access this extended parental leave because they just cannot afford to live on that amount of money.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may remember that we did in fact help to boost the unemployment benefits, particularly for the people who were very hard hit in Alberta. We are looking at a situation right now with the prospect of people right across the country being very hard hit as a result of the new sanctions, the new tariffs being brought on our softwood lumber. I believe, and it has been commented on by a number of observers, that the government has had to keep its powder dry in some respects. We do not know the level of service or the level of support that will be required to help Canadians who will find themselves potentially in very difficult situations simply because of what has been going on with our largest trading partner.

It would be good if we could do it all, but we are doing the most important things first.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-44, the budget implementation act.

I would first like to thank the hon. member for Fleetwood—Port Kells for sharing his time with me. He was a teenager when Canada celebrated its 100th birthday and I was a day away from my fifth birthday, so I can learn from the member and all that he has done for his great riding.

Bill C-44, the budget implementation act, and its unprecedented investments in infrastructure represent more than $180 billion over 12 years. Infrastructure, quite simply, is the providence of the most basic and necessary foundations of all our lives. There is a direct correlation between the condition of our travel and trade corridors, our roads, trade corridors, energy transmission, utility or public transit services, and our ability to thrive, excel, and innovate.

Budget 2016 sets the focus for the first phase of our government's plan to recapitalize and modernize our existing infrastructure assets. By keeping our foundational systems in the best possible repair, we are making it easier for Canadians to navigate their larger life ambitions, whether that is to protect and study our country's diverse environments, to develop our key resources, to build, manage, or expand on existing services, or to connect with friends and family in this immense and beautiful country we live in.

That is why I am so proud that budget 2017 ensures that our infrastructure, as a national foundation for the diverse and vibrant lives that Canadians lead, is strong. Budget 2016 initiated upgrades to long-neglected critical infrastructure. It also enabled us to sign bilateral agreements with all provinces and territories, as well as partner with indigenous and municipal stakeholders to plan and deliver infrastructure projects. Phase one of Canada's new infrastructure plan included $11.9 billion over five years that started in 2016.

Since November 2015, we have approved over 2,000 projects for a combined investment of over $21 billion. As part of the fall economic update, we are investing $81 billion over the next 11 years, starting in 2017-18. We have also proposed the creation of the Canada infrastructure bank, an arm's-length crown corporation, which would allow us to attract and mobilize private capital funding from world-leading institutional investors.

Funds held by the bank would be released to our provincial, territorial, and municipal partners after successful and innovative financial negotiations in order to supplement our wider public investment toward infrastructure projects. In doing so, our government is encouraging an innovative process of delivering key investments for our most vital sectors, including $3.4 billion for public transit, $5 billion for investments in water, waste-water, and green infrastructure that supports a clean growth economy, and $3.4 billion for social infrastructure that promotes affordable housing

As for public transit, we all know that when it is easier to reach our destinations, it increases our productivity in our workplaces and also the enjoyment of our leisure time. This is why budget 2017 has enabled us to approve 744 public transit projects for federal funding.

I am thrilled that my local riding, the Bay of Quinte, has received over $1.4 million for transit in the city of Belleville, $169,000 for Quinte West, and $22,000 for Prince Edward County, respectively. I was proud to read in today's paper that transit in the city of Belleville is up about 10% this year already. It proves that these investments build our economy and create better lives for the people who live there.

This federal funding will enable upgrades and expansion of existing transit services across the Bay of Quinte region. These investments will generate feasibility studies on existing transit usage, modernization of vehicle storage facilities, creation of additional bus shelters, and expansion of coverage as well as the transit services offered. Across Canada, 132 transit systems will receive similar funding to help build and connect public transit across our communities. By offering more reliable, accessible, and connected public transit options, we are allowing our communities to lessen their ecological footprint, but simultaneously take larger steps toward improving the ways we live, move, and work.

I will now turn to the clean water and waste-water fund. We all know that when we can trust our sources of water or the practices associated with processing all the residential, commercial, and industrial forms of waste that we make, we are able to rest easier knowing that our health and safety are not in question. This is why budget 2017 has set aside funding to expand 219 waste-water systems and to rehabilitate another 328. Few of us like to think of what exactly is hidden, treated, and recycled through these systems, but none of us can ignore the importance of these crucial arteries of infrastructure. Without proper sewer, air venting, and water intake mechanisms in place, we are unable to deal practically or safely with the most basic aspects of human life.

Notable projects include the Bragg Creek flood mitigation in Alberta, and the sanitary servicing to reduce phosphorus to Lake Simcoe-Royal Oak, Bay, Cottage in Barrie, Ontario. This reminds us all that our rural, remote, and urban communities need clean water for their residents, for their agriculture, commercial, and industrial processes, and especially for emergency services like firefighting. These projects and others can encourage efficient water use and assist the key gatekeepers of our rivers, streams, and watersheds and waterways to provide safe water intake and treatment for all Canadians.

Regarding green technologies, all across Canada other projects that generate the use or development of clean and sustainable products or services have also received funding as part of our wider initiative to build safe, inclusive, and sustainable communities. With the support of a low-carbon green economy, projects like upgrades to the Red Rock waste system treatment plant in Red Rock, Ontario, illustrate the success of budget 2017 in supporting the acceleration and adaptability of our communities, whether urban, rural, or remote.

These projects are just a few of the strong examples of our plan to encourage intergovernmental stewardship of existing resources or energies and use of emerging technologies, and draw from multi-faceted expertise of Canadians going forward. We know that in order to generate and share the very best practices, ideas, and innovations in products, culture, or agricultural fare and connect with our fellow Canadians, whether locally or over long distances, we must ensure that our infrastructure is greener, accessible, and technologically equipped to offer the highest levels of service to our citizens, residents, and visitors. We owe this as much to ourselves as we do to our future generations. The stronger our infrastructure is, the stronger our own capacity to shape our future becomes.

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

Mr. Speaker, the budget is a very important document for any government. It establishes the priorities, and I believe that the first priority for this government has been Canada's middle class, ultimately believing that if we have a healthier middle class, we will have a healthier economy. We have seen strong governance in the many different departments that have had such a positive impact in many different ways. For me personally, one of the most significant things we saw in the past number of months was the agreement in the health care accord, where virtually all provinces, except my own Province of Manitoba, unfortunately, have health care agreements in place. That is something that is important for me.

When my colleague reflects on the number of things that have taken place over the last while, what would he say is one of the more important issues, outside of the budget and the details of the budget, but just something in principle?

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

Mr. Speaker, as some of us here are aware, being a former mayor of a small municipality, I would say it is important for us to have suitable funding and programming so that our mayors can plan forward. When we made the transit announcement in the city of Belleville, the mayor was so happy because this allowed him to update the transit system, not only in technology but in bus shelters and technology in hand-held devices so we can tell when the transit is more efficient. This is going to increase ridership in my community.

It is also important for my college. My riding is the home of Loyalist College. We are all well aware of students and their transportation needs. It is important to run an efficient transit system to our college. It is also important for our industrial park. We all know that many industries in our industrial park need seven-day transit services, and this enables the mayors to plan forward.

The mayors in my constituency are excited about infrastructure money that they can depend on, money that has been coming, money that is making projects in their communities to determine growth.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and a lot of government members wax on about all the money in the budget for social housing. I notice in the budget there is more money for charging stations for millionaires and their Teslas over the next four years than there is for support for northern housing and support for indigenous people not living on reserves or federal lands being made available for social housing.

How can the member say that the needs of millionaire Tesla owners are much more important than these respective needs?

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

Mr. Speaker, lots of money is going to those areas through budgets. There is always more money that could go to other things.

Highway 401 goes through my riding. The member talked about electrically powered cars. I feel that as the community goes and how things are, we as leaders should look at alternative technologies. The member referred to millionaires driving electrically powered cars. Some of my family members drive electrically powered cars but they are not Teslas.

In general, the member's question is valid, but having said that, we have to look at the big picture.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, many members in this place are shocked to see in this budget implementation bill what the Liberals are proposing for the parliamentary budget officer. When his colleagues participated with me on OGGO, the government operations committee, on reforming the scrutiny of estimates and supply, they made a dissenting report and in that report they requested that the government, the Conservative government at the time, take immediate action to make the parliamentary budget officer an officer of Parliament. What happened to the Liberal Party and its belief in the independence of the PBO?

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

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I do not sit on the committee the member referred to. I feel that the answer was given today by the hon. government House leader. In the sense of the member's question, she answered that suggestions are coming forward and we offer her suggestions on how we can make our policies and legislation better.

It is about how the House reacts. I have listened to everybody being so negative on the budget, and I know that is the role of the opposition, but I like to look at positive things. Together, as leaders and as members of both parties, we could co-operate more and make better public policy.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity today to give some of my thoughts on this budget.

I really believe this budget is a lot of bafflegab and bluster. I believe it is short on substance and that it saddles future generations of Canadians with massive debt. One of the biggest challenges is that we will be putting the burden on our young people, on our kids and our kids' kids, to pay off the massive debt that we will incur over the next few years.

The Prime Minister campaigned on the promise to run a modest $10-billion deficit, but it was not long after the election that he broke his promise. He pledged to return to a balanced budget, and that pledge has been completely abandoned. To top things off, our national debt is spiralling out of control.

Before I continue, I want to mention that I will be sharing my time with the member for Lethbridge, if I may.

This budget is simply nickel-and-diming the middle class. It is making the cost of living more expensive for middle-class Canadian families. It is becoming obvious to us in this place and to Canadians across the country that the Liberal economic plan is not working. Budget 2016 failed to create jobs and failed to grow our economy; budget 2017 is just more of the same.

The Financial Post reports that in 2016, the economy had one of its most difficult years, with a growth of merely 1.3%. It goes on to say that it does not get much better looking forward and that the federal government's own Department of Finance predicts economic growth will average just 1.6% out to 2030. Further, the report notes that growth expectations from private sector economists have consistently declined since the Liberal government came into power. Even more troubling is that the Liberal economic update forecasts have consistently decreased, and have now been downgraded to 1.6% in budget 2017.

Our party leader correctly noted that the government's own numbers show that the economy is growing no faster than before its spending binge began. She also correctly noted that Canadians are working fewer hours and that their wages are not keeping up with the cost of living.

The Prime Minister should not be surprised by all of this. He cannot expect different results by using the same old Liberal tax-and-spend methods.

As was the case with the 2016 budget, this year the Liberals have once again abandoned small businesses. Small businesses are the largest employers of Canadians across the country. Almost every business needs a tax break, but when it comes to spirits, wine, and beer, the Liberals have decided to increase taxes by 2%. This tax hike will have a very negative impact on wineries, craft breweries, and small distilleries in the riding of Niagara West, and consumers will once again have to pay more at the cash register because of more new Liberal taxes.

I have received numerous letters from stakeholders in the wine industry who are pleading with the Prime Minister and Minister of Finance to reconsider this ill-conceived tax hike. Wine is among the highest value-added agricultural products in Ontario, and many of our grape growers may face economic hardship in the face of this tax increase. Wine, as one of Ontario's signature industries, should be supported and promoted by our federal government, not selectively targeted.

The long-term impacts on wineries across Canada will be immense, as will they be on others in the value chain, including restaurant workers, bartenders, delivery truck drivers, and others. For the sake of the long-term survival of the Canadian wine industry, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance should pay attention and consider reversing this tax hike immediately.

The wine industry is not the only victim of Liberal overtaxing. Others will feel the Liberal pinch as well. With respect to public transit users, for example, roughly 1.8 million Canadians will see higher taxes and higher prices for bus passes because the Liberals have decided to get rid of the public transit tax credit. A Toronto Transit Commission analysis showed that the elimination of this credit will mean 2.5 million fewer people will ride the TTC in 2017. Uber and ride-sharing services will become more expensive because the Liberals have decided to slap a tax on them.

Others include donated medicines; child care; small business owners, including farmers, fishers, doctors, lawyers, and accountants; oil and gas companies; and the tourism industry.

These are all in addition to the Liberal tax hikes last year on gas and home heating and Canadians' savings accounts, the implementation of more payroll taxes for businesses, and the ending of tax breaks for children's soccer and piano lessons. It seems that no matter what the Liberals do, they always somehow end up raising taxes on average Canadians and plunging our country into more debt and deficit.

It also seems strange that the Liberals are calling budget 2017 their innovation budget. There is really nothing new or innovative in this budget. Many of the programs are recycled and repackaged. What is becoming clearer is that they have no plan, no commitment, and no ideas on how to create jobs and grow our economy.

However, here is the kicker. They are spending billions on buzzwords and catchphrases. Mr. Speaker, unless you are a venture capital catalyst or a supercluster, this budget is simply not for you.

Innovation thrives when businesses and entrepreneurs are free from excessive taxes, regulation, and interference, but this budget takes the opposite approach. It picks the winners and just does not really care about anyone else.

Here is what really worries me. The Prime Minister promised to run modest deficits for a couple of years. What this has turned into is borrowing $143 billion over six years. If that is a modest deficit, then I do not want to see or hear what he considers a large one.

What Canadians must keep in mind is that the national credit card that the Prime Minister keeps swiping works in a very similar way to their own credit cards—namely, the money needs to be paid back, and paid back with interest. Incredible amounts of money have already been borrowed. What this means is that not only this generation but generations to come will need to pay the principal and interest on the debt being racked up now. Canadians turning 18 years old today will not see a balanced budget until they are in their fifties. Essentially, our children and even our grandchildren will be on the hook for paying off debt that the Prime Minister is needlessly racking up now.

This is in addition to making all Canadians pay more taxes for virtually everything, and it explains only half the vicious cycle the Prime Minister has been inflicting upon us. What happens when the debt cannot be paid back? Will he raise taxes even more? Round and round we will go again.

With all this spending of billions of dollars on our national credit card, the Prime Minister could not seem to find a sufficient amount of money for our men and women in uniform. For the second year in a row, the budget contains very little for them. Budget 2017 makes major cuts to defence, despite demands from the U.S. that NATO members commit to spend at least 2% of their GDP.

The government is deferring $8.5 billion in equipment purchases, having already deferred $3.7 billion in the past budget. The Department of National Defence now faces a $12-billion shortfall. It certainly does not look like national defence is a priority for this Liberal government. In an era of so much Liberal spending, it is of great concern that the largest cuts are consistently at the expense of the Canadian Armed Forces, raising the question of whether the Liberals believe that Canada needs the ability to defend itself and our allies from clear threats such as Russia, North Korea, Iran, and ISIS.

Recent examples, including the Liberals' decision to pull our CF-18s out of the fight against ISIS, their preference for fourth-generation fighter jets, their lack of increased support for our Ukrainian allies, and their failure to advance important procurement projects, all suggest that the Prime Minister is of the view that other countries should be relied upon to do the heavy lifting.

With growing United States pressure for increased budgets, Canada's allies have committed to modernizing their military capabilities and spending 2% of their GDP on defence. Our Prime Minister has not followed suit, putting us in a very precarious position. Considering the clear global threats to our security, we need the appropriate investments in Canada's national defence and we need them now. The finance minister does not seem to agree, stating that the government believes the military is appropriately provisioned.

We are living in dangerous times, when our security as a nation should be regarded as a matter of the utmost importance. By not allocating the necessary funds to our armed forces, we are playing a dangerous game and putting our country at constant risk. lt is simple: the Liberals are asking Canada's military to do more with less. This cannot stand. On this side of the aisle, we will continue to fight for the resources that our Canadian Armed Forces deserve.

If the Liberals will not listen to us here in this place, then I hope they will listen to the hard-working Canadians that this budget will directly affect. According to a Nanos poll reported by The Globe and Mail, most Canadians are giving the Liberal government's second budget a thumbs down. What this poll found is that Canadians are expressing a strong desire for the Liberals to lay out a plan for eliminating the deficit after the budget, there is no mention of when the federal books will be balanced. It is no surprise that only 5% of Canadians had a positive view of the budget.

Nik Nanos himself said:

I think the fact that only one out of every 20 Canadians had an outright positive view of the federal budget should give the Liberals pause because it suggests that the budget, at least for a number of Canadians, was a disappointment.

When Canadians were asked if it is important to them that the federal government have a plan in place to eliminate the deficit, four in five Canadians agreed that a plan should be in place. The reality is that the Liberals have no plan.

We, as the official opposition and as Conservatives, are the voice of the taxpayers and will hold the Liberals to account. We will not and cannot stay silent while the Prime Minister nickel-and-dimes Canadians with no plan whatsoever to create jobs and grow our economy. Too much is at stake, and we hope he listens and understands that so far his ideas are not working.

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

Mr. Speaker, the opposition often raises the issue of small businesses. I would like to share with the member a very important industry in Canada, focusing on Winnipeg, and that is the taxi industry.

The taxi industry provides hundreds of jobs to wonderful, hard-working people in Winnipeg, and there is a sense of unfairness as to why the taxi industry has to pay GST, for example. One of the initiatives in this budget was to recognize that Uber has a responsibility to pay GST. For whatever reasons, the Conservatives have come out against that particular tax, yet small businesses in many different regions of Canada, especially where there is a healthy taxi industry, are very supportive of that particular initiative because at least it makes the playing field a little more level.

Does the member not believe that where one can, one should promote that level playing field, and that if one pays the tax, the other should also pay the tax?

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in terms of trying to tax everyone more, I suggest we should try to tax small businesses less.

Small businesses have to deal with a number of things. In my speech, I talked about regulations being one of those things, but if we start looking at things like a carbon tax or CPP, we see that there are a number of different taxes that by themselves will not necessary hurt businesses, but an accumulation of multiple taxes and regulations makes it very difficult for businesses to survive and thrive when times are tough.

I would encourage the government, as it continues to spend money on innovation, to realize that taxation is also a part of that. Instead of trying to make everybody pay more taxes, I would encourage it to find ways to lower taxes for all businesses to make it easier for them to survive.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to the matter of taxes. As members know, people in the spirits and microdistillery industry have been calling for lower excise duties on 100% Canadian products for years, but the government has refused. Not only has the government refused, but it also told them today that there would be an immediate increase in excise duties. In fact, excise duties will continue to increase indefinitely based on the consumer price index.

Could my colleague talk about this Liberal proposal, which, instead of helping our microdistilleries that produce fine Canadian products, will impose more taxes on them, with no end in sight to the increase in excise duties?

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I had a private member's bill on the excise tax in 2005. When Conservatives became government in 2006, we eliminated the excise tax on 100% VQA products. We also did that for microbreweries as well. As a result of what happened, there was unprecedented growth in the wine and microbrewery industry over the last 10 years.

I do not believe that was only because of reducing the excise tax, as there were a number of other factors involved, but what I hear from the microbreweries, micro-distilleries, and the wineries is that we should start looking at ways to reinvest. The distilleries were concerned that they did not get a break. They have been looking for a break, because they use Canadian products. Why they are looking for the break is not so they can stuff their pockets with more money but so they can reinvest in their businesses. That is one of the challenges we have to address.

I appreciate the money that is available for innovation funds, but not every business is going to have access to those funds. We are talking about the digital industry and a number of other industries that I think are important, but the challenge is that the normal, boring businesses, the businesses that are maybe not that sexy, also need access to capital. What happened with the wine and microbrewing industries is that the money was reinvested in those industries so they could actually have growth of capacity.

There are other issues facing those particular industries, the cross-border tax being one of those things, but, as I said, it is important that they have the money to spend and reinvest in their businesses so they can grow their businesses.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-44, the budget implementation bill.

When the federal government releases its annual budget, it is far more than simply numbers on a page. It is actually a declaration of intent, a vision statement of sorts; and so it is important for us to take time to learn about what exactly the government plans to do on behalf of Canadians, or perhaps it is in hindrance of Canadians.

On March 22, the Liberal government put forward budget 2017. In this 278 page document, the Liberals outlined their plan to spend the money of taxpayers.

We all know that I am a Conservative member of Parliament in this place. I believe governments should be as small as possible. I believe business owners should be provided with freedom to innovate and create jobs, and I believe in freedom of choice and the fact that it should be protected. Naturally, I look at the budget through a different lens than my counterparts do. As the member of Parliament for Lethbridge and as a Conservative, I was thoroughly disappointed by the budget.

The bottom line is this. The Liberals are hiking taxes, stalling on infrastructure spending, and doing little to help seniors, and they have zero plans in place for helping the rising generation. I have not even mentioned the fact that the Liberals are incurring a deficit load of $28.9 billion in this budget, which is a far cry from the $10 billion that they promised during the election. This would leave future generations with the task of paying for their reckless spending.

To be fair, there are a few measures in the budget that I would like to draw upon, and of course, many of them have to do with former Conservative initiatives that are now being expanded. One would be the caregiver tax credit that rolls three different Conservative tax credits into one. The Liberals continued also with the Conservatives' trend of providing greater access and flexibility to student loans to ensure adult learners have the resources they need to access training to improve their work prospects.

The budget would also provide new flexibility to mothers on maternity leave, and different flexibility for people on employment insurance to return to school. I do believe these are excellent or noteworthy changes. Unfortunately, however, these positives were overshadowed by an entire host of negatives.

With increased taxes on public transit, Uber, beer, wine, tobacco, home heating, and gasoline, life gets a lot more expensive for Canadians with budget 2017. These new taxes would make life less affordable and disproportionately affect those with low or fixed incomes.

Let us take a closer look. Budget 2017 would eliminate the public transit tax credit, which many of my constituents have told me would have a negative impact on them. Getting rid of this tax credit disproportionately affects those with disabilities and those on a fixed income, particularly seniors.

Furthermore, the Liberals decided to increase taxes on those who offer insurance to farmers and fishing properties, thus driving up the cost of insurance for those who are farming families in my community.

Budget 2017 would also increase taxes on tourists who visit Canada on a tour package, thereby driving up the cost of visiting our great country. It is a mystery to me why we would want to do that. This would result in job losses in the tourism sector, especially in regions such as Yukon and the Maritimes, who can afford it the least.

As already mentioned, courtesy of the Liberal government, every Canadian who enjoys a glass of wine, a bottle of beer, a cigarette, or taking Uber would now pay even more.

The Liberals have justified an astronomically high deficit by saying that much of the money will go toward infrastructure projects, which are meant to boost the economy, they would argue. However, since the Liberal government took office, 94% of approved projects have not yet broken ground. This is a huge problem. This means jobs are not being created, and it means that the economy is not being stimulated in the way the Liberals promised.

Budget 2017 contains no new infrastructure spending beyond what was announced in the 2016 fall economic update. As for Lethbridge, as the member of Parliament, I was really hoping to see greater funds become available for infrastructure projects within a medium-sized centre such as ours. However, that was not the case. Instead, we were left out in the cold. Why might that be? It is because the Liberals made all the money available to Liberal-friendly big cities like Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver. There is zero new funding for small and medium cities like ours.

When it comes to helping seniors, budget 2017 is far more harmful than it is helpful. The Liberals scrapped the public transit credit, eliminated the family caregiver tax credit, and increased the cost of living by putting in place a carbon tax. To top it all off, the Prime Minister continues to refuse to put a minister for seniors in place. Right now in Canada, one in six people are seniors. They deserve more.

However, they are not the only ones. Canada's youth are put in a significant place of disadvantage with the budget. Instead of raising taxes, the Prime Minister really should have focused on job creation and policies that would lead to that. In the last year, Canadians aged 15 to 24 lost 42,000 full-time jobs. To make matters worse, the best solution the finance minister has to offer the younger generation is that they simply need to get used to what he calls “job churn”. This is absolutely unacceptable. We need to take this generation much more seriously.

Since being elected in 2015, I have had a chance to travel from coast to coast across the country, and I have talked to young people in each province as I have gone along. The biggest concern I hear over and over again is that they want to find meaningful employment after they graduate from university or college. Many youth have called upon the federal government to provide a tax incentive to employers who hire young people. Such an approach would allow the free market to reward job creation and, unlike government job programs, would result in long-term, well-paying jobs for these young people. I believe that budget 2017 was a missed opportunity to advocate for the rising generation.

Sadly, with this budget the Liberals are mortgaging the future of our great country, and it is our children who will ultimately have to foot the bill. It is extremely concerning to me that budget 2017 puts Liberals on track to spend $100 billion more than they will collect through tax revenue in the life of this government. This is like taking a $100 billion mortgage out, which our children and our grandchildren would be responsible for paying back. This is hard to justify, when our children and our grandchildren would see little to no benefit for this money.

In short, I will be voting against Bill C-44, the budget implementation bill. I cannot in good faith look my constituents in the eye and tell them that this budget is in fact in their best interest. Neither can the party opposite. The truth is that the Liberals have a spending problem. When it comes to spending my constituents' money, they cannot help themselves. They find that fun, and I am not okay with that. I am not okay with their raising taxes so they can pay their corporate cronies who come begging for government bailouts. The Liberals call it advancing innovation, but we know it is actually corporate welfare. The Liberals are taking from the poor and giving it to the rich. I believe that is absolutely, fundamentally wrong.

It is no surprise that the Prime Minister and his cabinet ministers keep getting caught holding swanky cash for access fundraisers with the business elite of Canada, or that the rich Bay Street business types and the Liberal-friendly think tanks are the ones that are benefiting from the Liberal government's policies.

Canada's economic future is looking a little uncertain. There are factors beyond our control, such as the unpredictable American government, that further advanced this uncertainty. This is why it is even more important than ever that we get our own house, our own country, in order first and foremost.

The budget points Canada into very dangerous economic waters. My job as a member of Parliament in this place is to defend the taxpayers, and this budget fails to respect their investment in this great country, the country we call Canada. Therefore, I will be voting against Bill C-44, the budget implementation bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, as an example, when we have a bridge that requires annual maintenance and we do not do maintenance for a year, the bridge will be fine. If we do not do it for two years, it will not be doing so well. We will start to see the cracks. After a few years though, we have to rebuild the bridge. If we want to have proper infrastructure in the country, it takes that annual investment, that constant improvement in infrastructure, that constant investment.

The deficit we have in the country exists all across the country, in our physical and social infrastructure. It is everywhere. If the member does not want to have any kind of investment, that is fine. She can get up and say that. However, I believe if we want to improve our country, improve our investments in infrastructure, and prepare for the future, we have to invest. The best way to do that right now is through the deficit spending that we are doing.

I wonder if the member would like to assert her lack of desire to invest in our infrastructure.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to infrastructure, I would agree with the member. I do think it is very important that we invest in our infrastructure and that we maintain our infrastructure. In fact, that is why I believe we should start getting some shovels in the ground. Six per cent just is not cutting it. There is another 94% of projects that have been approved that have not even started. Canadians do deserve better. They do deserve their roads, their bridges, etc., to be maintained. Unfortunately, the present Liberal government seems to be incapable of getting the job done.

That said, when it comes to infrastructure spending, I think we should note that it is actually the Liberal governments of the past that have severely cut back. If we are noticing a lack, if we are noticing cracks in roads or bridges that are not holding up, I think we actually need to look opposite.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very clear and coherent speech, although we do not exactly share her political point of view. That is normal, however, and we respect that.

I wonder if she could talk a little more about the infrastructure bank that is being created. The Liberals said during the election campaign, and are still repeating today, that interest rates are low, so it is a good time to borrow to invest, and that we need new infrastructure.

Now we are suddenly learning that about 90% of the money for the infrastructure bank will come from the private sector, which will expect to make money and see a return on investment. This means more tolls and user fees. Once again, it will be Canadian taxpayers, people in my riding and in the member's riding, who will have to pay for it.

What does the member think of the Liberals' plan regarding the infrastructure bank?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the infrastructure bank, we are looking at billions of dollars, without a concrete plan attached to those dollars. When I read through the Liberals' plan, so to speak, the waters are actually quite muddied for me. I am not exactly sure what the plan entails, in terms of rolling that money out and actually getting projects done.

In terms of public-private partnerships and engaging the private sector, I think the private sector gets the job done, and it always does it at an expense that is far less to the taxpayer than if it were publicly funded and operated.

That said, I think I am waiting on the Liberals, in terms of their actually rolling this out and getting some money into the hands of developers and making sure that these infrastructure projects actually take place, and the Liberals have not shown themselves to actually have a plan to get that job done.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, the member for Lethbridge, for her great presentation on the reality of the current Liberal budget.

I have two adult children and six grandchildren. My daughter and daughter-in-law currently stay at home and care for my grandchildren. I am curious to know how this 2017 Liberal budget is going to impact my family, given what we have heard and read in the budget.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has two adult children, one of them is a stay-at-home mom. The former Conservative government brought in something called income splitting, which would actually benefit her a lot because it would mean that—ultimately, at the end of the day, without going into it, it would save them a lot of money. That measure was actually reversed by the Liberal government that is now in place. That is really unfortunate and, of course, that is detrimental to my hon. colleague's daughter.

In addition, when we are talking about almost $30 billion worth of borrowed spending just in this year alone, at the end of the day, that is getting passed on to my colleague's daughter and to her children, again, for things that they actually may not see the full benefit of. At the end of the day, it is their taxes that are going to go up and it is their health care that is going to get pulled back, and other services they depend on, because the government is going to eventually have to pay this money back.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we go to resuming debate, I would like to inform hon. members that we have surpassed the five-hour time after the first round of speeches on this particular motion that is before the House and so, thereafter, all speeches, interventions, on this motion will be limited to 10 minutes for a member's remarks and five minutes for questions and comments.

Resuming debate, the hon. Minister of Status of Women.

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Minister of Status of Women]

I would like to emphasize the number five, as you just have, Mr. Speaker, later on in my presentation, but there is one thing I must say before I do.

It is a great privilege for me to be here, on traditional Algonquin territory.

What a great privilege it is for me to be on this traditional and territorial ground of the Algonquin peoples, to be the member of Parliament for the incredible riding of Peterborough—Kawartha, and to have the opportunity to serve the people of Canada as their Minister of Status of Women Canada.

I am speaking today to budget 2017, which is a budget of opportunity, and not just for the people of my riding, where we have a college and a university, where we have one of the highest percentages of seniors, who have chosen to spend their golden years in my riding, and where we have high rates of poverty and a lack of access to affordable housing.

Budget 2017 is a budget of opportunity for women and girls in Canada.

I am speaking in support of the budget, of course, and I am thankful to the Prime Minister and our Minister of Finance for introducing such a feminist budget.

In coming up with my remarks today, I thought about what numbers I ought to talk about. Do I talk about the $7 billion we would invest in budget 2017 for a national early learning and child care framework? Should I emphasize the $11 billion we would be setting aside for the first ever national housing strategy? Do I focus on the $100.9 million we would be putting forward to help implement this federal government's very first gender-based violence strategy? Do I talk about the 300,000 Canadian children who are being lifted out of poverty thanks to the Canada child benefit plan, which we introduced when we first assumed office? I thought about elaborating on all these numbers, but perhaps if there is one number I could leave members with today, it would be the number five.

The number five is an important number for several reasons. The United Nations sustainable development goal number five focuses on achieving gender equality and empowering all women and girls. It is a goal that several nations have signed onto, as has Canada, and it seeks to change the course of the 21st century by addressing key challenges, such as poverty, inequality, and gender-based violence. We know that empowering women is a precondition for reaching this goal.

This goal is an important one, because there is worldwide recognition that when we have improved outcomes for women and girls, we have improved societies, we have improved countries, and we have enhanced stability and prosperity for people around the world. This is the evidence-based context in which our government's feminist approach to governance can be understood.

This brings me to chapter 5 in budget 2017. In chapter 5, what we see is a first for the Government of Canada, a gender statement. This is the first time there has been an acknowledgement in a federal budget that the decisions we make, how we tax, how we spend, and how we focus our efforts in terms of programs, services, policies, and legislation affects people of different genders and different backgrounds differently. This gender statement allows for a meaningful and transparent discussion on gender and intersecting identities, which will help us better understand the challenges faced by different communities across this great nation and make more informed decisions to advance fairness, gender equality, and prosperity for all.

I am going to talk about three women who highlight the importance of having a gender lens.

Let me tell the House about a young immigrant woman from my riding who attended Trent University. Her name is Andressa Lacerda, and she is the executive vice-president of Noblegen Inc., one of those clean tech companies that our environment minister is so proud of that are solving real challenges globally through investments in evidence, science, and clean technology.

Andressa's company, Noblegen, received a repayable loan of $600,000 through FedDev Ontario to help the company expand its marketing activities and sell its advanced bio-products on a global scale. It is expected that this $600,000 investment is to help leverage other funds and to create 22 decent jobs in my riding of Peterborough—Kawartha.

This is in line with budget 2017's innovation and skills plan to make Canada a world-leading centre for innovation, creating good, well-paying jobs and strengthening and growing the middle class. It is why we would be funding Futurepreneur Canada with $14 million over the next two years to continue its important work of inspiring the next generation of entrepreneurs so that more of them can achieve the kind of success Andressa has.

I am going to talk about Sophia Fairweather, who I met at the UN Global Compact Network forum in Toronto this past April. Start Up By Sophia is an Edmonton-based organization that creates innovative startup products in STEM to help educate, inspire, and provide leadership to other children in STEM. That is why, in budget 2017, we have put aside $11 million to offer young people, particularly girls, the opportunity to participate in activities that build engagement in STEM fields.

Malala Yousafzai, one of the newest Canadians I know, spoke in this House not so long ago. When I think of her, I think of courage, determination, her passion, and her dedication to human rights and women's rights. Her way of elevating the voices of girls across the world is a lesson and a model for us all. Like her, our government will not be silent about violence against women and girls. That is why, in budget 2017, $100.9 million would be invested in implementing the first-ever gender-based violence strategy that would focus on prevention, support for survivors and their families, and a more responsive judicial system.

Chapter 5 in the budget is an important number, because it begins the important work we need to do to ensure that all of our decisions moving forward are considered through this gender lens so that Canada can lead the world and work with other OECD countries to continue to improve outcomes for people of all genders.

Last, I would like to speak about the Famous Five. Their statue is one of the most meaningful I have come across in the precinct, for a number of reasons. As we get ready for October, when we celebrate the Persons Case, we recognize the work of these five courageous women and their allies, who fought for personhood and for recognition that women and girls in Canada have just as much to contribute as their counterparts do. They fought for personhood, and they won, but they were also fighting for equal opportunity for all, because when Canadian women are elevated, empowered, and included, Canada as a whole prospers.

Budget 2017 reflects the highest level of political commitment to advancing socio-economic outcomes for women and girls and people of different genders in this country. Therefore, with the humility that our work is far from over, we will work together as a federal government, working with our provincial and territorial counterparts, to continue the good work of those great five women. I urge all my colleagues to review chapter 5 in great detail and to support budget 2017.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member across from me talked about violence committed against women and the fact that the government was committed to seeing that reduced. She said we want “to continue to improve outcomes” in developing nations. I find this curious, because the government just supported Saudi Arabia being on the women's commission within the UN. We know that Saudi Arabia does not exactly stand for women's rights. In fact, it does not stand for human rights in general, but it is particularly violent against women.

I am wondering how the hon. member across from me can defend the government's position with respect to supporting Saudi Arabia in this effort to portray violence against women.

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would correct the member. Canada did not support this particular piece. In fact, Canada does not have a seat at that table.

That said, my hon. colleague brings up the Commission on the Status of Women. In 2013, I had the great privilege of meeting the opposition leader, who at the time was the minister of status of women, at the Commission on the Status of Women in New York City. It was the 57th gathering of this particular group of advocates, from all over the world, who were united by one common cause: ending violence against women and girls.

I received a grant through my connection with the local YWCA in my riding and attended as a young woman. I was inspired by all the ways Canada, the country of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, was leading the world.

However, I left there disheartened. I would say that it was a key moment for me in terms of entering politics. It was there that the NGOs and the labour groups in the audience would interrupt the sessions Canada was hosting with outrage and dismay, asking why launching an inquiry to find out what had happened to indigenous women and girls was not a priority for the government.

I returned this year to lead the Canadian delegation as the Minister of Status of Women. I was so proud that not only did we take action and the inquiry is on its way but that we have a feminist Prime Minister and a government with a feminist agenda. We know that the work is not done. There is much work to do, and we are committed to that work.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for mentioning the group in Edmonton. There is lots of great work going on in my fair city.

The member spoke about Malala. Of course, all of us here admire the work of Malala. However, I have to say that there was one thing on the day of making Malala a citizen of Canada that did not happen that disappointed me.

The children of Canada mounted a huge campaign called Shannen's Dream on behalf of Shannen Koostachin, who wanted to have a school in her community. Chelsea-Jane Edwards has continued that campaign. I tweeted her that day saying that I wished she could be here.

I am deeply disappointed, first of all, that the budget and the bill do not mention the need to finally deliver the dollars the Human Rights Commission said the government needs to to provide equal access to services for aboriginal children. The government speaks of equality for women and speaks of caring for children, but when the rubber hits the road, they forget about those out there in the community who are actually doing the hard work to make sure that their communities have those equal opportunities.

I wonder if the member could speak to what happened to the additional measures to make sure that indigenous children are getting equal access to comparable services and education.

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for her hard work and her advocacy on behalf of various groups across Canada. It is work I am committed to as well.

I began my presentation, with what I would call a clumsy French translation, acknowledging that we are on traditional territory, because like our Prime Minister, I believe that there is no relationship more important to us as a country than the relationship with the indigenous peoples of this land.

As an immigrant to this land, I recognize that I have been afforded opportunities that have brought me to this place but that there are many indigenous peoples who do not benefit yet from those same opportunities. We need to change that.

In budget 2016, we invested over $8 billion to begin the hard work of reconciliation through investments in infrastructure, education, and cultural renewal. Budget 2017 would build on that. There is an additional investment of $3.4 billion over the next five years to improve outcomes for the first peoples of this land. This, I believe, is one of the most important priorities every single member of this House has. It is a sacred obligation that I know we will all work hard to address.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we go to resuming debate, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London, Taxation; and the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, Indigenous Affairs.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to join the debate. I want to offer a much more light-hearted critique following the heavy substance we had, provided by the many members of the Conservative caucus especially.

I always start with a Yiddish proverb. I have one of course. The heaviest thing in the world is an empty pocket, and it very much applies to this budget. It will empty the pockets of most Canadians. The nickel and diming in the budget, whether it is higher taxes on Uber and ride-sharing services like Lyft, or higher taxes on cigarettes, alcohol, and transit passes, Canadians will see their pockets far emptier than they have ever been before and their families will feel it far heavier than they ever have.

There has been a lot of criticism in the media. Journalists, columnists, and stakeholder groups have, in a sustained way, criticized the budget for its lack of vision and ideas. There is actually a lack of new ideas. There is nothing new in the budget from the fall economic statement. We simply have a return to more 1970s public budgeting methods, which is extremely high deficits, structural deficits, a lot of new debt, and a lot of program spending with very questionable results on the back end. In fact, in the budget the term “innovation” appears 212 times, “small business” appears six times. The one thing missed in the budget is that the government could have spent money on the purchase of a new thesaurus.

In French, that would be a “Larousse” and a “Bescherelle”.

The 2016 census was released on Tuesday by Statistics Canada. On the population and demographics numbers, its states that we have more seniors than children in Canada now. It says that the working age population, 15 to 64, has declined to 66.5%; over 65 is now 16.9% of the population; and under the age 15 is 16.6%. We have more seniors today than we have ever had before and now it is inverted. We are now a country of grandparents, not children. That was a favourite saying of former premier of Alberta, Ed Stelmach. He used to say that we were quickly coming to the point where we would have more grandparents than young children, and that is a fundamental change to the country and to the way the government should be delivering on programs.

All we see in the budget is simply runaway spending. Some spending is going to seniors, but there is no attempt even to try to constrain some of the spending, redirect it, and make it easier for seniors to access those services. I have a lot of seniors in my riding who are having a very difficult time accessing GIS, OAS, and Service Canada. It is not that they are not eligible for it, but it is the service delivery component that they find very difficult to access. Not all of them are up on the latest app. Not all of them are using the latest Apple device. They are simply having difficulty accessing basic services.

On program spending, by 2021 and 2022, seniors' benefits will account for $63.7 billion. That is much more than double what we will be spending on children's benefit programs by then. This trend will continue, and this budget has too few superclusters of ideas to address the problem of the aging demographics.

The nickel and diming budget, as I like to call it in my riding, includes, as I said, hikes on alcohol, cigarettes, public transit passes, ride-hailing services, and a lot more. It keeps going, especially on businesses. A lot of promises were made by the Liberals during the election, but they have not kept them, like the reduction to the small business tax, which has a material impact on how people plan their business. An analysis done by the CBC found this budget contained only $1.3 billion of any new spending. In a $300 billion operation, which is the Government of Canada, why do we need this budget when it is just a rehash of the fall economic statement? It is generally a rehash with a lot more buzzwords being used, trying to promote the government in a vain attempt to find those extra votes.

In Calgary, the Minister of Finance delivered a speech after the budget. I talked to the media afterward. It was a stock speech. It could have been delivered in any city, in any county, anywhere in Canada. It would have been exactly the same, and it fell flat with the Calgary business community. There was very little interest. It was a quiet crowd and the people had very little to say afterward. I asked the minister the very simple question then about when the budget would balance itself. Obviously, I did not get an answer, because there is no answer. There is no answer in the budget either. The only answer we find is in Department of Finance documents that were put out, which state that we will have to wait until after 2050 to ever see a balanced budget again. The return to a balanced budget is fictional.

When I commented on budget 2016 last year, I thought the government should perhaps put that budget up for the Scotiabank Giller Prize as a work of fiction. Budget 2017 is a redux, a rehash, a lot more fiction, but there is a lot more science fiction in this one than there ever was before.

The Liberals are budgeting from the heart out, as a previous member said. It is vanilla flavoured, as Macleans has called it.

Particularly worrying for me are changes to the tax laws that govern the exploration of new wells. Companies will see their tax deductions reduced between 2019 and 2022. In Calgary, Edmonton, and regions in Alberta, this is going to extract $145 million out of companies when they are hurting the most right now and trying to keep employees on the payroll. The Liberals are giving Alberta $30 million of its own tax money to basically go toward orphan well cleanup and taking away $145 million that would have gone toward the exploration of new wells.

The government's logic is that it will spend $30 million to clean up orphan wells and then discourage the exploration of new wells by taking $145 million from businesses. That is the logic at a time when Alberta is really hurting? It is no wonder the members for Calgary Heritage and Calgary Midnapore were elected with over 75% support in their ridings. With that type of logic, of course we will see those types of numbers. There are 82,000 inactive oil and gas wells, a lot of which could be reclaimed, but not for $30 million. It is no surprise this budget has fallen flat with Canadians, not just pundits, columnists, or politicians.

In a poll referenced by The Globe and Mail by Bill Curry, with the headline “'Canadians were not impressed' by federal budget: survey”, only 5% of Canadians said they had a positive view of this budget. That is interesting. As I mentioned before, the earliest we will see a balanced budget will probably be in 2055 or 2056. These are Department of Finance numbers, not my numbers in any way. This is why there is so little confidence in the government and so little support for this budget. It is a rehash. It is fiction. I do not believe a lot of this money will ever get spent. The Liberals make announcements over years that far exceed the mandate of the government, expecting people to be wowed by numbers in the billions. There is a lot of money in the budget supposedly for science. This year it is science fiction, like I said.

I want to mention the Nebula Award. It is May 4, so “May the 4th be with you”. I want to mention two science fiction prizes and I want to compare the budget to them. I really think the government has a chance. There are two government documents that could be submitted for a prize. They are the budget speech and the budget itself. The Nebula Award is for a short story of less than 7,500 words. That is the budget speech. There is the option of a novelette, a novella, or a novel. The government could submit chapter five that the minister just mentioned for a novella.

The eligibility requirements, though, might prove difficult. However, perhaps it could negotiate with President Trump and have it included in NAFTA so Canadians could also apply for the Nebula Award. It says, “All works first published in English, in the United States, during the calendar year”, which is looking pretty good right now, “in the genres of science fiction, fantasy, or a related fiction genre are eligible for the Nebula Awards in their respective categories.” There is good news. If it is published online, like this document is, it is eligible as well.

I will also mention the 2017 Hugo Awards that will be presented at Worldcon 75 in Helsinki, Finland, on August 11. There is still time to apply for the best novel, best novella, best novelette. One of the works that is up for the award would be competitive. It is called Ninefox Gambit by Yoon Ha Lee. The best novella is The Dream-Quest. This entire budget is a dream quest for a balanced budget to help the middle class perhaps or to take more kids out of poverty, none of which will be achieved.

This is 1970s public budgeting. It failed then and it will fail today. It will fail in 10 years and it will fail the next generation. The next generation will be kids like my kids, who are looking at more debt, programs that do not work, and an entire government that is stuck in the 1960s and 1970s.

Without taking too much time, I will mention one more work because it applies to what the minister was talking about, the best related work, The Geek Feminist Revolution, written by Kameron Hurley and published by Tor Books, a far better read than chapter 5.

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

Mr. Speaker, if we are going to talk fiction, the absurdity of the speech would really do Douglas Adams proud.

The real fiction is that that Conservatives are good fiscal managers. If we want to look for a time that Conservatives brought us from a deficit to a surplus, we would have to go back to the late 19th century. In the early 20th century, they managed to balance a budget. It was inherited from a Liberal government, and it was in full deficit by 1913, ahead of the First World War. Stephen Harper managed to balance a budget inherited from good Liberal fiscal management. There is one budget they claim to have balanced, and it is a spurious argument, and they ended up selling a whole lot of house to pay off the mortgage.

On what basis do the Conservatives believe they have any capacity in fiscal management?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, obviously, the member has a love for Yiddish proverbs like I do, which is amazing. We spent some time in the House procedures committee and he had to survive eight hours straight of my speech on a lot of various subjects that were pertinent to the discussion then.

However, to answer his question, it is quite simple. The Department of Finance disagrees with him. The parliamentary budget officer disagrees with him. Canadians disagree with him. It is all right there in the numbers. The Conservatives are good stewards. Typically, we are elected. When things are going really badly, we clean up the books, we lower taxes, we fix government programs, and sometimes we are defeated. Then the Liberals get back in, raise spending, raise the deficits, ramp up the debt and, typically, Canadians then go back to the Conservatives to fix it again.

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

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately for my colleague, people have more than two options at the polls. The fact is that they added $150 billion to the national debt during their time in power, and it was not the end of the world.

Anyway, my question is about the government's choices. By passing an NDP motion, the Liberals agreed to put limits on stock options for CEOs, but that is nowhere in the budget. It could have kept that promise in Bill C-44, the budget implementation bill. It could have followed through on the commitment it made when it passed our motion on March 8. Unfortunately, there was no mention of it in the budget tabled on March 22. Now Bill C-44 makes no mention of that commitment either.

What the Liberals did do was get rid of the public transit tax credit. People in our ridings use that tax credit. People come to see me, and they tell me that they use it. Sometimes it is the only tax credit they can use because they are not in a position to make charitable or political donations. They do not have access to other tax credits; this is one of the few they can use. Now the government is taking their tax credit away. It just so happens to be leaving generous tax credits for CEOs in place.

What does the member think of the Liberal government's policy choices?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Sherbrooke for his question.

Like me, he is angry that the government listens to neither New Democrats nor Conservatives when we have ideas that can help people in our ridings and people who really need help. I agree with him. We should not be helping big corporations and CEOs; we should be helping small businesses. During the election campaign, the government promised to cut small business taxes. We know that 98% of them create wealth and create most of our jobs. The Liberals have done nothing.

The government is looking at this as if it were another budget. It could have done the job properly. It could have kept its promises and made that part of the government's agenda. That is not what it did, but should we really be surprised? It does not seem to bother them. The Liberals are not here for Canadians. They are here to make sure they will stay in power for decades if possible. They take these programs, like the infrastructure program, and they do nothing with them.

In my riding, Calgary Shepard, there is a rail project that I would like to see built, but it requires federal money. We have not seen any yet. A lot of people in my riding are interested in this project, but they will never get to see this train run unless the government finally decides to convince the province to get the project started.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House to speak to budget 2017, and how it will help our families, our infrastructure, our children, and our seniors.

I am optimistic about the budget. It is a good budget, but there is an aspect of this year's budget that is both unique and historic. Our government has been called Canada's first feminist government, and we are very proud of that distinction. More important, we are determined to live up to it, so that those words become the real and tangible efforts that help all women succeed.

The budget 2017 gender statement represents the government's first comprehensive effort at reporting on gender-based analyses of budgetary measures. Gender-based analysis identifies the ways in which public policies affect women and men differently. Budget 2017 identified more than 60 measures as having differential gender impacts, but we can do more.

We have a real opportunity to show how we considered and prioritized outcomes for women. In this bill, Canadians will find the kinds of things they should expect in a federal budget implementation act: a focus on skills and innovation, infrastructure, and tax fairness, to name a few, examples of things that will help middle-class Canadians succeed. These measures were developed with gender equality in mind. Empowering women to become economic drivers equal to that of men can have a real and positive effect for our economy.

Recent history has shown that as women have become more educated and more established in the workforce, Canada' s economy and the incomes of both men and women have grown. Canadian women are among the most educated in the world, something we should be so proud of, and make up 47% of the labour force, yet women are still paid less than men in exactly the same positions. In this area, Canada lags behind similar countries.

Barriers are particularly evident among younger women with at least one child. They are still far more likely than men to sacrifice careers to perform unpaid work at home. As policy-makers, it is our obligation to consider and to take action to address the inherent bias that persists in these areas, not simply because it makes economic sense, but because it is the right thing to do.

Well before budget 2017, our government started taking action on gender-based challenges. We rolled out the Canada child benefit to better support families and lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty. We increased the guaranteed income supplement top-up benefit to boost support for the most vulnerable single seniors who are disproportionately women. I would now like to discuss a few measures in the bill.

Through this bill, our government is taking steps to help improve the current caregiver credit system that applies to Canadians who are caring for their loved ones. Budget 2017 simplifies the existing system by replacing the caregiver credit, the infirm dependant credit, and the family caregiver tax credit with a single new credit, the Canada caregiver credit. This new non-refundable credit will provide better support to those who need it most. It will apply to caregivers, whether or not they live with their family member, and it will help families with caregiving responsibilities.

Budget 2017 assessed proposed tax measures, including the Canada caregiver credit, to determine their gendered impacts. By applying a gendered !ens, budget 2017 will promote the fair and consistent treatment of women and men under the tax system. Statistics Canada estimates that more women than men are caregivers. However, we also know that a slightly higher proportion of men claim the caregiver tax credits.

Our government is also committed to meeting Canadians' demand for health care services. With the passage of the bill, the government will provide funding to provinces and territories for home care and mental health services in 2017-18 as an immediate down payment to provinces and territories that have accepted the federal offer of $11 billion over 10 years.

Clearly, the demand for home care services is growing with an aging population. Today, approximately 15% of hospital beds are still occupied by patients who could and would prefer to receive their care at home, or who would be better off in a community-based setting.

What is more, a majority of those Canadians who have taken on the responsibility to care for their loved ones are still in the workforce. They are sandwiched. They are men and women who are likely to spend a significant amount of time in caregiving activities. The time to support them is now.

Women also account for nearly two-thirds of all home care clients. Paid care is mostly provided by female health care providers. The targeted health care investments in this bill would be used to train additional front-line home care workers, and increase employment opportunities for women.

When it comes to mental health, scientific research has made great strides to improve our understanding of it and its prevalence. Unfortunately, we know that an overwhelming number of Canadians will be affected directly or indirectly by mental illness at some point in their lives.

Furthermore, family violence is a key factor for poor mental health, suicide, and substance abuse. Many organizations have noted that victims of family violence are predominantly women.

By providing the stable, predictable, and long-term funding needed to shorten those wait times for mental health services, outcomes for many groups, including women at risk, can be improved.

There are other examples of measures from this budget that stand to benefit women. This bill would allow parents to choose to receive employment insurance parental benefits over an extended period of up to 18 months at a lower benefit rate of 33% of average weekly earnings. The existing benefit rate that we have now of 55% over a period of 12 months would continue to be available. This measure recognizes that every Canadian family is different, with different needs when it comes to how a family manages work and family responsibilities. Working parents need more flexibility to navigate the challenges that come with a growing family.

In conclusion, we know this is just a start and that making progress on these issues will demand both continued effort and a clear sense of what we need to accomplish. We must change the way that we create policies to level the playing field so that everyone has a real chance to succeed.

The bill is the first that seeks to implement budget measures that were developed under a lens of gender-based analysis. More work is still to come. I encourage my fellow members to support this bill and the progress that it represents. We need all Canadians to be at their best. We cannot allow anybody to fall behind. We are in a very competitive global world. We need everybody doing their best, and being provided with the opportunities to succeed.

By building that ladder, by providing those rungs so that our women and men can succeed in the workforce, in their families, in the community, that will build a better Canada for all of us.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his presentation.

However, I am always surprised at how he presents things. I get the impression that he is wearing rose coloured glasses when he brags about being part of a feminist government.

The government is saying pretty much the same thing about indigenous issues. It says it made a record investment, but that investment will likely not be made until sometime after 2020, even though the needs of indigenous peoples are urgent and pressing right now. They were urgent and pressing yesterday.

The hon. member says that this budget leaves no one behind. I would like him to address the fact that in every speech today, not one person has talked about indigenous issues or the investments in indigenous issues, which are quite paltry in my opinion.

Why talk about what is going to happen in 2020 or 2021 when the indigenous communities have pressing needs today?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is quite right regarding how pressing these issues are, such as being able to provide safe water on reserve. For many years we heard about many water advisories. Those have come down quite a bit. That has been through significant investments in infrastructure, investments in education, $8 billion of investment. Reconciliation is at the forefront of this government's agenda.

There is much more work to do, but we are diligently working at this. We are working with the entire House. I believe we are all in this together. We are all on the same page. Indigenous people are our fastest growing population. When I say that we need everybody at their best, I do mean everybody needs to be at their best. That is why those investments with indigenous people are so vital and so important.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in honour of my colleague, the member for Calgary Shepard, I want to say a Yiddish proverb, that words should be weighted and not counted. I thought of that when I listened to the member's speech.

I asked a question previously about the government committing $120 million for charging stations for Teslas and then overlooking many other needed items. The member went on and on about it being a feminist budget. I noticed that a new national strategy to address gender-based violence is getting 20% less money from the government than it is providing for Tesla charging stations. How does the member reconcile that?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member should look back a number of years to when there was an egregious amount of spending on advertising by the former government. There was a carpet bombing of ads during the NHL playoffs and during the Super Bowl. They were sandwiched with political ads. There was $750 million spent on partisan advertising on television. What I heard from my constituents was why the former government was wasting so much money on that advertising. The member should go back and look at what the Conservative government did when it was in power and that egregious spending.

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

Mr. Speaker, what a privilege it is to stand in this place representing the residents of Winnipeg North.

I thought I would do something a bit different and give a bit of an overview.

Over the last 18 months since we have had a new Prime Minister and a new government, a great deal has been accomplished. I am often asked in my community what some of the real, tangible things are that the government has done that have made a difference, and how I could best explain them. A number of things come to mind, things that have really had a profound positive impact on the constituents I represent and ultimately on all Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

I think of things such as the Canada child benefit program, a program that was greatly enhanced by this government. We ultimately saw tens of thousands of children lifted out of poverty, many of whom called Winnipeg North their home.

I think in terms of the increase to the guaranteed income supplement. Some of the very poorest seniors in Canada were given significant increases in the guaranteed income supplement, which lifted thousands of seniors out of poverty, many of whom are residents of Winnipeg North.

I think of the CPP agreement. Our national government worked with the provinces and territories and came up with an agreement with respect to the CPP. It is not just about today; it is also about tomorrow. Parties of all stripes came to an agreement. We saw an increase for retirement into the future, something the previous government could not accomplish, something I am proud of, because this will help my constituents, who will have that much more money when it comes time for them to retire.

When I talk about retirement, I have to make mention of the reversal of the Harper decision. Members may recall that former prime minister Stephen Harper increased the age for individuals to qualify for OAS from 65 years to 67. Our government reduced the age back down to 65. This particular policy decision enabled hundreds of my constituents and thousands of Canadians across Canada to benefit.

There are many things, direct and indirect, that I could talk about.

I could talk about students. Our government almost doubled the student summer employment program. Hundreds of youth are given the opportunity to get work experience during their summer break, and Many of those jobs are in my riding of Winnipeg North. There are so many things that this government has been very successful in doing at the local level.

Then I could talk about the bigger picture. The budget implementation bill that we are debating today is a continuation of what this government started when it first took office. The Prime Minister made it very clear: Canada's middle class and those who aspire to be a part of it are the government's first priority, and the initiatives that have been taken by our government support that primary objective. For example, we saw a special tax increase on Canada's 1% wealthiest. We saw a decrease in tax for Canada's middle class, and millions of Canadian families in every region of our country benefited. There is so much more in terms of just addressing the middle-class issue.

This budget is also about investing in infrastructure. Record high amounts of money are being invested in Canada's infrastructure. Every region of our country will benefit, including the residents of Winnipeg North, where these dollars will ultimately help to improve their quality of life. I am speaking of infrastructure such as streets, capital infrastructure, facilities dealing with public transit, green projects, because we believe we need to invest in Canada. Infrastructure is absolutely critical in terms of our further development as a country.

We have also seen the government take a very proactive approach on issues that we know are very important and top of mind to constituents. One of those is the price on carbon pollution. We hear a lot of criticism from the Conservative Party on that, but when we talk to young people in no matter what region in the country, we find that the Prime Minister has it right. In fact it is beyond young people, but I am always encouraged by how young people get engaged on this particular issue.

When we went to Paris, we made some commitments. Governments around the world made commitments. Our Prime Minister and our Minister of Environment took those commitments and turned them into something tangible and real. This is an issue on which working with the provinces has really made a difference.

It seems the only party in Canada that is opposed to this measure, with the exception of Brad Wall, is the local Conservative Party here in the House. That demonstrates just how out of touch the Conservative Party is with Canadians. One would have thought they would have learned something from the past election. They need to start listening to what people have to say.

The Prime Minister often talks about how important it is that as members of Parliament we represent the interests of our constituents here in Ottawa, as opposed to what it used to be, when MPs would often be representing Ottawa in their constituencies. It is absolutely essential that we take talk with our constituents, get the understanding of our communities, and bring that to Ottawa to help formulate policies that would really make a difference.

And it is starting to pay off. We have some very encouraging trends that give us reason to be optimistic. We will continue to move forward because of the many initiatives our government has brought in and put in place in a relatively short time span.

I heard some members across the way say they were concerned about tourism, that tourism numbers are down. It is not true. In fact, we have record numbers of tourists coming to our country. I believe it was in excess of 30 million last year, which was a substantial increase. It is almost a double-digit increase, a 9% to 10% increase, from the previous year. When those sorts of things happen, it means there are going to be more jobs in the hospitality industry.

Jobs are important. We recognize that as a government. That is why in the budget we spend a lot of time talking about not only protecting the jobs of today but looking at ways we can ensure that there will be jobs for tomorrow.

We have a government that is very progressive in its thinking and is proactive in dealing with trade agreements. We were able to get CETA across the goal line. We talked about the trade agreement with Ukraine and the negotiations that have benefited our canola farmers in the Prairies. There are ample examples of our government's approach having a significant positive impact on our economy.

I bring it back to what we have talked about a great deal for the last two years and more, even before we were in government. The Prime Minister and our government are focused on Canada's middle class and those who are aspiring to be a part of it. We are working hard every day to ensure that the policies that continue to evolve from the many different ministries do what they can to reinforce the importance of working hard, providing hope, and ultimately believing that if we have a healthier middle class, we will have a healthier economy. I understand the benefits of the economy and I believe that in time, Canadians will continue to support the types of government initiatives that we have witnessed over the last 18 months.

I would encourage all members of this House to get behind this legislation. It is a budget implementation bill. It is a good budget. It is a continuation from the first budget we introduced, and Canadians will benefit. If in fact opposition members listen to what Canadians have to say, I suspect they will be inclined to vote for this budget.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on child poverty rates, the member mentioned at the beginning of his statement that in 1994, under a previous Liberal government, 15.5% of persons under 18 were low income. By the time that previous government left office, it was 15.7%, so the previous Liberal government did not really do anything, it failed.

In 2006, when a Conservative government took over, the child poverty rate was 16.3%. By the time the Conservatives left office, it was 14.7%. Actually, the rate was down even in absolute numbers. I have the sheet going back to 1994, two government cycles, and for the first time the number was lower than one million Canadians under the poverty line. Is the member convinced that his government is on the right track? The previous Liberal government failed miserably at this. It was the right policies of the previous Harper Conservative government that actually got it done. Why are the Liberals introducing more policies that will fail again?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would challenge the member across the way to think about what I actually said. We had a substantial increase in the Canada child benefit program that lifted tens of thousands of children out of poverty. The member across the way, with his Conservative colleagues, voted against that.

He might want to talk about the past; I am talking about what, in the last two years, this government has been able to accomplish. What we know for a fact is that there are fewer children in poverty today because of this government and the policies that we have brought in, policies that the member across the way and the Conservative Party specifically voted against. The Conservatives need to rethink whether they want to fight poverty, because if they want to fight poverty, the best thing they can do is vote for this budget.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North tried to give us a laundry list of what the government has accomplished over the past year and a half. In that vein, how many bills has his government presented to this House, and how does that number compare to the average that new governments would have presented to Parliament in their first year and a half after being elected?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member is being a little mischievous with that particular question. I would let the member across the way know that there are many ways in which a government can deliver on the promises that it makes to Canadians during the election.

I think Canadians want to see, first and foremost, issues within the budget that are actually going to deliver and are going to make a difference. I would suggest that within these last two budgets, we had the most progressive government in providing good, sound policies that are taking people out of poverty, that have clearly demonstrated the ability to generate jobs for Canadians, and that are giving more hope. We have seen tourism numbers going up. We have seen job numbers trending up. Once again there is opportunity for Canada to continue to grow and prosper into the future.

I believe that if we were to canvass Canadians, we would hear that the most important issue for them is to have some faith that they have a government that is listening to what Canadians are saying. For the first time we have a Prime Minister who is truly listening, accountable, transparent, and making a difference in the everyday lives of all Canadians.

[Bob Bratina, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad there was mention of tourism, because we heard some statements from across the way saying that measures we have taken would negatively impact on tourism. I would argue that this may be the greatest year in the history of Canada for tourism in view of not only the tax measures we have taken but also of the image that Canada has created for itself through our Prime Minister and through other things. With the American dollar exchange rate and Come From Away with seven Tony Awards nominations, I think people are going to be wanting to come to Canada. Would my friend comment on the positive effects that tourism would see thanks to our measures?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is so correct. More than 30 million people have come to Canada. That kind of number is unprecedented. Even Stephen Harper could never achieve that. We have done that within two years. I think the opportunity to continue to see some positive trends is there. It is very real. Much of the information that we hear from across the way is not necessarily full and complete.

I can assure members that we are on the right track. That is one of the reasons why I would challenge them to actually recognize it and vote with the government for a budget that is going to make a difference here in Canada.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we go to resuming debate, I will let the hon. member for Edmonton West know that there is somewhat less than five minutes remaining in the time for government orders this afternoon. I will have to interrupt him partway through his usual 10 minutes of remarks, but he will have the remaining time when the House next gets back to business on the question.

The hon. member for Edmonton West.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I know my time will be short, so maybe I will make up for it by yelling like our friend across the way, the member for Winnipeg North.

I would like to rise to speak to Bill C-44, budget 2017, otherwise known as the line of credit bill. Before I get to my reactions to the bill, I want to share with the House someone else's reaction to the bill.

After the budget came out, I was at home, on a Saturday, because I am here on a Friday, and I was grousing about this huge deficit and debt that the government is adding for future Canadians to pay. I was grousing to my wife about the extra $100 billion. My oldest son—who is in Grade 12, a strong libertarian, a strong Conservative, who is entering the real world next year—was in the room, playing on his computer. Normally, we could set a bomb off and it would not distract him from his video game, but he heard “$100 billion”, looked over at me, and yelled, “Dad, what the heck?”—actually, it was not “heck”; it was a different word, but members get the idea. He said, “Thanks for sticking us with the bill”.

That is what we are doing here. We are sticking future generations with the bill for the present government's inability to act responsibly today. There is a disconnect between the government's perception of its budget and reality. From its spin, we would never realize what a train wreck its financial plan is. The government is raising taxes, taking away family tax credits, shamelessly adding a tax on a tax by adding GST to the tune of about $200 million to the carbon tax in Alberta and British Columbia, and even with all these added taxes, it is still saddling us with over $100 billion in debt over the next four years.

What do we get for selling out our children and our grandchildren? We get 1.7% projected growth. There is no need to check Hansard or the translation. Members heard me correctly. I said 1.7% growth.

I am disappointed in the unsustainably high deficits, the tax increases, the continuous movement of the financial goal posts just to cynically meet the Liberals' needs on a given day and the stunning lack of new ideas from the government.

The government has not even been around for two years. This is only its second budget, and we are already hearing about how lacklustre it is and how disappointing it is that the government is unable to offer anything new. Do not take my word for it. Here are some quotes from our friends in the media.

Stephen Gordon, in the National Post, wrote, “With this federal budget, the Liberals have let the middle class down, again”.

If Mr. Gordon is watching on CPAC, I will tell him that he forgot to mention that they are also letting down those working to join the middle class.

Andrew Coyne said, “No money, no ideas, but a wealth of bafflegab and buzzwords from the Liberals”.

Paul Wells, of the Toronto Star, says, “It's a mystery how the Liberals are encouraging innovation and helping the middle class.... It would be nice if [the] budget offered real gains because so far the [Prime Minister's] government's handling of both issues is pretty much a mess.”

To put this into perspective, there are more recorded examples of Pravda criticizing the Soviet government than there are of the Toronto Star criticizing the Liberals.

The media are correct. The budget does not offer anything new or meaningful to help Canadians get a job, save for the future, or grow the economy. Instead, the budget spends more, borrows more, delivers on very little, and provides no hope for those in the middle class and those working to join it.

The government likes to brag about how often it consults Canadians. I would love to meet those who rely on the public transit tax credit in order to afford the bus passes, who actually told the finance minister to go ahead and end this tax credit. I would love to meet the young Canadians who use Uber because it is an affordable alternative to a car, who told the finance minister to go ahead and tax this service. I would love to meet the small business owners who enthusiastically support the government's broken promise to lower the small business tax. I would absolutely love to meet the people who said yes to higher oil and gas exploration taxes.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The member will have six minutes when debate continues on this matter.

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from May 4 consideration of the motion that Bill C-44, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Edmonton West had six minutes remaining in his speech when this was last before the House.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to finish my speech from yesterday regarding Bill C-44, the line of credit bill.

I started my speech yesterday with a description of what my oldest son said about the bill when I told him it was $100 billion of debt with which he and his generation would be stuck. His comment was “What the heck, Dad. Thanks for sticking us with this bill”.

Before I was cut off at the end of the day yesterday, I finished my part talking about the Liberals' propensity for how much they consulted on the budget. I would absolutely love to meet the people who said yes to higher taxes on oil and gas exploration. I will take a wild guess that it is not the energy workers whose jobs rely on the energy development projects. Canadians who said yes to higher taxes on the oil and gas industry are probably the same ones who told the Prime Minister to leave the oil in the ground.

I am not surprised the Prime Minister listened to that advice, but I am stunned that the four Liberal MPs from Alberta sit idle, while the government writes into the budget how it will use the tax system to reduce emissions and greenhouse gases, and by extension, phase out the oil sands. The government is fine for hundreds of millions of dollars in bailouts and bonuses for Bombardier to make energy-guzzling, greenhouse gas belching planes, and hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars for its Ontario auto industry for cars running, surprisingly, on gas. However, for Alberta's energy industry it will use the tax system to phase it out, and make a special effort to tell everyone by placing it right in the budget.

By 2021, Canada will be $102 billion further into debt, which is an average of $4,000 per taxpayer that needs to be paid back. The Liberals promised that this deluge of spending would lead to unprecedented levels of of economic growth. Just one year ago, they were musing about a multiplier effect of three to four times the size of the investment. It turns out they were wrong, and we got 1.7% growth.

The Globe and Mail noted that the bulk of the Liberal deficit spending had not been about infrastructure. It is borrowing for groceries more than the mortgage. The question is whether the Liberals, who have repeatedly moved the goal post, will be able to live within this constraint.

What are those billions actually going toward? Innovation? I wonder if the government knows what innovation means, if it actually has a definition, or if it is just like the middle class. The Liberals do not know what it is, they cannot define it, but it sounds pretty good so they will repeat it a few hundred times and hope something happens.

The budget is innovative though, truly the most innovative budget ever. To prove it to us, the word “innovation” appears more than 200 times in the budget. Unfortunately, simply repeating something does not make it true. We need a plan. We need tangible goals and outcomes and a real means of achieving growth.

The Liberals have announced initiatives thousands of times, indeed over 4,200 times since winning the election in 2015. However, as the parliamentary budget officer noted, even though the government has a penchant for announcing funding, it has completely failed to ensure the money gets out the door. This year alone, over $2 billion in infrastructure funding was allowed to lapse because the government was simply incapable of writing the cheque.

The government will stand and respond breathlessly that at least it is doing something, and demand of us, the opposition, some policy options to counter its own. We have provided those ideas. My Alberta colleagues and I provided very specific recommendations in our Alberta jobs task force report that was submitted to the finance minister. We consulted with over 5,000 Alberta families, small businesses, and stakeholders affected by the economic downturn. By the way, in case anyone is wondering, none of those we consulted said to jack up taxes on the gas and oil industry and phase out the oil sands.

We advised the government of these options provided to us in the jobs task force, which include: reduce the tax burden on Canadians by stopping the carbon tax; honour the promise to lower the small business tax; support families in need by reversing the punishing new mortgage rules; and enhance Canada's fiscal strength by developing and communicating a clear path back to a balanced budget. These are good, meaningful, and broadly supported recommendations that would help not only Albertans but Canadians. It is too bad the government is all to happy to ignore them.

Instead, the government will take as much as it can from Canadians to fund buzzwords, undefined ideas, palatial renovations to ministers' offices, limousines for cabinet ministers, and vacations for the Prime Minister to billionaire island.

Two years ago, the government promised to table budgets with modest deficits. It bragged and boasted that its costed plan meant it could keep its promise to Canadians, and also manage our finances. Once this promise became inconvenient, it was taken out back and “dealt with”, like Tony Soprano cutting off loose ends and handling “problems”.

By the time budget 2016 was tabled, the Liberal promise to balance the budget by 2019 disappeared entirely. The new reality of deficits well into the 2050s is now treated like Lord Voldemort, something really bad and evil that we know is out there but we do not mention it by name.

What are we getting for $102 billion in debt and higher taxes? What are our children receiving for a mortgaged future? Buzzwords about superclusters, rampant announcements for items well into the future, but misleading treated as action today and nothing but bafflegab. “What the heck, Dad”, indeed.

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

Madam Speaker, the member makes reference to “bafflegab” and “rhetoric”. I have listened for the last six minutes, and he might want to reflect on some of that.

When we talk about the province of Alberta, the Conservative Harper government failed at getting any pipelines to tidewaters. In less than 18 months, not only did we establish a process under this administration, we are now advancing and will be seeing two pipelines, understanding the importance of our environment and economic development. That is the realization of thousands of jobs, not only for the province of Ontario but for many other Canadians.

I had to laugh when the member made reference to ministerial limousines. The Harper government did not say no to limousines. I recall when Stephen Harper flew to India and he flew his limousine there too, at a million dollar cost to the taxpayers.

The member talked about the discussion he had with his son. I wonder if he told his son that $150 billion were added to the debt by Stephen Harper. Did he tell his son about that and what did his son have to say about the $150 billion debt added by the Harper government?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to answer that. My son is in grade 12. He is a very strong and bright Conservative, who is already reading Adam Smith. He does not have to be told about that $150 billion because he remembers the Liberal Party, in coalition with the Bloc Québécois and the NDP, demanding that billions more be added to the deficit. Therefore, shame on the member for trying to mislead Canadians on this.

My son does not have to be told about the disgraceful conduct of that party during that time, trying to take down a validly-elected government and jack up billions more in spending.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, when we bring up our families in debate, we usually bring up our children, and we talk about what type of legacy we will leave for the next generation. In his case, the member brought up both of his sons and the debt they would be facing in the future. Therefore, I would like to hear him expand on that, with this ridiculous tax plan the government has proposed, this so-called middle income tax cut, which gave the biggest tax cut to the wealthiest. Those of us in this chamber earn just enough to be eligible for the full benefit of the supposed middle-income tax cut.

I would also like to hear more from him on the national debt. The Liberal government has absolutely no plan to either pay down the debt or to control its spending, with a $28.5 billion deficit just this year. Every table in its budget shows it increasing the national debt. Therefore, I would like to hear more from the member in comment on that matter.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, what we are doing to the next generation is an absolute disgrace. I have to go home every Friday night, and I do stay on Fridays, and apologize to my children for the actions of the federal government in jacking up taxes and mortgaging their future. There is not one answer ever from the government as to how we will pay this money back. This is not just free money.

The Liberals talk so much about their incredible middle-class tax cut, which delivers about a dollar a day to the average Canadian. It is not very much, but it does add up into the billions. However, this is not free money; it is borrowed money. They misled Canadians when they said that it would be paid for by a tax on the wealthiest 1%. That is incorrect. That is not true. It is borrowed money being used for this tax cut, money that will be paid back later. It is like going to an ATM, taking money out and saying, “Oh, look, I made a bunch of money”. It is not. It is borrowed money. The government should be ashamed of itself for continuing to mislead Canadians in this manner.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to budget 2017. It is a continuation of the plan that we ran on in the last election and began to enact with last year's budget, a plan to build a strong foundation for economic growth and prosperity that will ensure all Canadians can share in our success.

We on this side of the House like to talk a lot about the middle class and those working hard to reach it, and that is important.

I have many middle-class families in my riding that need just a little help making ends meet. They have to choose between investing in their children's education and saving for retirement. We have put many initiatives in place to help them, from a strengthened Canada pension plan and a middle-class tax cut to the Canada child benefit and increased student assistance.

All of this is important, but today I would like to talk about helping those families for which the middle class seems out of reach no matter how hard they work to reach it, for low income Canadians who need to choose between paying the rent to keep a roof over their heads and buying groceries to put food on the table and for whom the high cost of child care prevents both parents from participating in the workforce and bringing an important second pay cheque home. I have many of these families in my riding of Scarborough Centre and I am here to speak for them.

I heard their stories during the campaign, and I continue to hear their stories when I meet my constituents at coffee shops, town halls, and on their doorsteps.

One of the first things our government did to help them was to introduce the Canada child benefit. By making it tax free and targeted to those families who need it most, families with less than $30,000 in net income receive the maximum benefit of $6,400 per child under the age of six, and $5,400 per child for those aged six through 17. This initiative alone has lifted more than 300,000 children out of poverty and is making a real difference for low income families.

We also addressed seniors living in poverty by increasing the guaranteed income supplement top-up benefit for single seniors to up to $947 annually, improving the financial security of about 900,000 single seniors across Canada.

Those are just a few of the measures from last year's budget, and I am pleased to see more strong action to help low-income Canadians in budget 2017.

For me, the signature item in budget 2017 is the investment in housing. For too long the federal government has been on the sidelines when it comes to housing in Canada. We have not been at the table when provinces, municipalities, and affordable housing providers have tried to tackle this critical issue. After a decade of absence, the cry for federal leadership is finally being answered by this government.

In Scarborough, housing is a pressing issue. Affordable housing is the bridge to improved prosperity for low-income families. Housing is a public health issue, a public safety issue, and an economic issue. Having a safe, clean, and affordable place to live allows children to fully participate and succeed in school. It allows their parents to go to work not having to worry about keeping a roof over their heads or having to make difficult choices between rent and groceries.

Unfortunately, housing is increasingly precarious for too many families. The stock of affordable housing is increasingly limited and in poor shape. Developers are building unaffordable condos and even converting rental buildings to condos instead of investing in new rental stock. Existing rental stock is often in poor shape and is being priced out of reach for many families in Scarborough. This forces them to live in unclean, unsafe, and often overcrowded environments. It forces them to make difficult choices no family should have to make.

That is why I am excited about the new national housing strategy that will be coming from the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, and with the $11.2-billion investment proposed in budget 2017 to help build, renew, and repair Canada's stock of affordable housing.

With stable and predictable funding over the next decade, the government will work in partnership with the provinces and territories to help ensure that Canadians have affordable housing that meets their needs. This will include a new $5-billion national housing fund to address critical housing issues and better support vulnerable citizens, renewed and expanded federal investments to combat and prevent homelessness, more federal lands for the development of affordable housing, and expanded funding to strengthen CMHC's housing research activities.

We will work with the provinces to support priorities that include the construction of new affordable housing units, the renovation and repair of existing housing, rent subsidies and other measures to make housing more affordable, and initiatives to support safe, independent living for our seniors, persons with disabilities, and other individuals requiring accessibility modification.

With the new national housing fund, there will be a co-investment fund to help pool resources from other housing partners, direct lending to municipalities and housing partners for the repair and renewal of housing units, as well as the construction of new affordable housing units, and support to help social housing providers maintain rent-geared-to-income units when long-term operating agreements expire.

This is a much needed renewal of federal leadership in the housing space, and will make a real difference over the years to come to lower-income families in Scarborough and across Canada that face a precarious housing situation and struggle to find an affordable place to live.

Another highlight for budget 2017 is the substantial and substantive investments in early learning and child care. When I speak to Scarborough families, they tell me that next to affordable housing, their biggest challenge and biggest concern is access to affordable, quality child care. For lower-income families, the high cost of child care can mean one parent is forced to stay at home instead of entering the workforce and bringing a much needed second paycheque into the household.

This is another area where federal leadership has been sorely lacking over the last decade. The “create a tax credit and walk away" approach of the last government did nothing to encourage the creation of more affordable child care spaces, and is a drop in the bucket compared to the costs families are facing right now.

Like affordable housing, early learning and child care is also an economic issue. With access to affordable child care, both parents can choose to participate in the workforce, and a child with access to early learning support will be better positioned to succeed in school and in life.

Last year's budget made an initial investment this year in early learning and child care of $500 million. I am pleased to see that budget 2017 builds on this commitment by investing an additional $7 billion over 10 years to support and create more high-quality, affordable child care spaces in Scarborough and across Canada. Over the next three years, we hope this investment can increase the number of affordable child care spaces for low-income and modest-income families by supporting up to 40,000 new subsidized child care spaces, as well as make it more affordable for parents to return to work.

Real action here, though, will require a collaborative approach, and it will require a long-term plan. That's why I'm pleased the government is working with the provinces and territories to develop a national framework on early learning and child care, focusing on best practices and new approaches to best serve families.

There are many more items in this budget that will make a difference to lower-income Canadian families, but I feel these substantive and long-term investments in housing and in early learning and child care will make a meaningful and lasting difference for Canadian families struggling to make ends meet.

That is why I am pleased to support this budget. I invite my colleagues to join me in supporting it as well.

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

Madam Speaker, there are some things in the budget that I do support. Of the things that is being implemented has to do with the family caregiver benefits. I think the extension of those benefits beyond what was identified previously is a positive thing. However, there are certain things with this implementation that I am a bit concerned about.

We have the child care space exemption. There was the elimination of the credits for people who are independently, in their businesses, eliminating those tax credits. I was hoping the member could talk about that.

Also, what is being done with respect to rural areas? We talk about housing. Are we going to make sure that this impacts all 338 ridings or, like previous housing issues, are they going to be specifically looking at Toronto and some of the larger cities and not looking at the impact on the rural communities? That is another big concern I have.

Perhaps you could talk to me about the elimination of the tax credit for businesses which are building the child care spaces. Why is that going to be eliminated? How can we make that better?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I will not speak to you about it, but I would ask the member to address the questions to the Chair.

The hon. for Scarborough Centre.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, budget 2017 is the next step in our government's ambitious plan to create more jobs, to grow the economy, and to provide more opportunities for every Canadian. That means providing more opportunities for middle-class families and those working hard to join the middle class.

We introduced the Canada child benefit, which is helping nine out of 10 Canadian families and which has lifted over 300,000 kids out of poverty. It is making a real difference in the lives of people every day. We will continue to build on our plan. We increased the taxes for the wealthiest 1% to give tax breaks to middle-class families. The plan is working, and I am sure it will continue working for the next many years.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, I do feel that my colleague is very sincere. She and I share a lot of the same concerns in our ridings around child care and around affordable housing.

Unfortunately, what I am finding during this debate is that when push comes to shove, when we ask what the government is actually doing this year, in this budget, to make a difference in the lives of people in our ridings, we often get the reference back to the previous budget and the measures that were put into place.

I would like the member to comment on the fact there is no money in this year's budget for child care, and how she feels about that.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, budget 2017 does make long-term commitments. This is by design. We have heard loud and clear from provinces, municipalities, community organizations, and stakeholders that they need long-term stable and predictable commitments from the federal government to help them plan and leverage federal investments with their own funding to tackle the many pressing issues Canada is facing that are too complicated and long term to solve in one budget.

Communities want the federal government to be a long-term partner. That is why we are doing it.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am all for long-term planning. I am all for working in collaboration with the provinces. What I have an issue with in this budget implementation bill is the commitments the government is making beyond its mandate. To me, those are not sincere commitments. They go much beyond the mandate, both for housing and for child care.

I would like to have her comments about what the government is doing in this term to help child care and to help people with housing.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, we are committed to making long-term investments. When I talk to my constituents in the riding of Scarborough Centre, I hear all the time that they have to make tough decisions, such as whether to have a roof over their heads or to pay for groceries for their kids.

Through our budget, we are making sure that middle-class families get immediate help. Those people who need the help get immediate help through the Canada child benefit, through tax breaks.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-44, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, this budget is disappointing, both for what it provides and does not provide. Counted among our critical duties as elected members is holding the government accountable for its spending.

As per Standing Order 80, the House retains the sole authority to authorize supply. In 2002, the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates was established, with a clear mandate to guide and oversee the House of Commons estimates review process, either directly through the estimates documents, or indirectly by examining government operations.

As critic for public works at the time, I participated in a review to strengthen parliamentary scrutiny of estimates and supply. We examined both the format and timing of estimates and program priorities, and the need for greater support to members of this place in effective scrutiny of spending.

As the report states, “Parliament's control of the public purse is still very much at the heart of our democratic government.”

Among the challenges facing members is the lack of access to information, expertise, and the time to fully understand and review estimates and operations. We need access to clear, consistent, and reliable information and analysis. Many experts support the appointment of an independent parliamentary budget officer, mandated to assist members and the committees in their evaluations of spending.

What actions have been taken by the government to deliver on its promises of more open and accountable governance, and the creation of an independent PBO? Despite election promises, it tabled a 300-plus page omnibus budget implementation bill, amending no less than 30 bills. As well, despite promises to the contrary, this omnibus bill strikes a blow to the ability of the members of this place to deliver our responsibilities.

Bill C-44 significantly reduces the independence of the PBO, and in turn the ability of that office to serve the needs of members. Why is the PBO so important? The office was established specifically to provide independent analysis to this place and the other place, about “the state of the nation's finances”, the estimates of the government, “and trends in the [national] economy; and...to estimate the financial cost of any proposal” of a matter under federal jurisdiction.

Analyses and reports of the PBO have proven invaluable in disclosing issues on costing and spending. During the election, the Liberals espoused clear support for an independent PBO:

We will not interfere with the work of government watchdogs. [...] We will ensure that all of the officers are properly funded and accountable only to Parliament, not the government of the day.

We will ensure that the [PBO] is truly independent, properly funded, and [answerable] only--and directly--to Parliament....

While in opposition, the Liberals echoed our calls to the Harper government to act immediately to make the PBO an independent officer reporting directly to Parliament. While now in power, what have the Liberals done to the PBO? Are they making the parliamentary budget officer an independent officer reporting to Parliament? No. They are mandating the Speakers of the two Houses to scrutinize both the priorities and spending by the PBO. They are further reducing its independence.

It is another broken election promise, and a serious blow to the mandate of the PBO and to the ability of the members in this place to carry out our responsibilities to hold the government to account. An important reminder to all members of this place, including on the government side, is that holding the government accountable for spending is not just the duty of opposition members, it is the duty of all elected MPs.

We all benefit from an independent parliamentary budget officer. The government says it is open to amendments, so please strike down these measures that are reducing the independence of the parliamentary budget officer.

What is missing from the budget bill? After 18 months in office, not a single bill has been tabled by the government, let alone enacted, to protect the environment. If it so favours the return of omnibus budget bills, why not have one to restore the laws that Stephen Harper eviscerated and the Liberals promised to restore?

There has been no bill to restore the protections to navigable waters, a once critical trigger for environment assessment. There has been no bill tabled to extend to Canadians a voice in policies and approvals impacting their health or environment, a commitment that is imposed on the government under NAFTA. There has been no bill tabled to restore a credible environmental assessment process or even interim reforms, as the government glibly approves major resource project after resource project.

Finally, there has been no bill tabled to enact the rights prescribed under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The current government espouses to support those rights, including the right to free, prior, and informed consent to development on their territories that is impacting their peoples. However, again we see first nations peoples and Métis having to take the government to court, because of its approval of the Site C dam, because of its approval of pipelines, and because of its abject refusal to even review major projects and consider right to title of first nations peoples.

While there are pages of rhetoric in the budget bill on the Liberals' commitment to clean energy, there are close to zero dollars allocated to be spent on those important roles this fiscal year. We have raised this continually. They say that over 10 years, over the next decade, blah, blah, blah, they are going to commit all kinds of dollars to child care, to housing, and shifting to a cleaner energy economy. When we actually look at the pages of the budget bill where they allocate the dollars, they allocate absolutely zero for a clean energy future in this year's budget, including no monies to assist northern and first nations communities to switch from dirty polluting diesel fuel to cleaner sources of energy, something they desperately need.

The Liberals' skills development and innovation budget also makes no commitment for a just transition strategy for workers and communities for a cleaner energy economy. To the credit of the Alberta government, this is something that it is proceeding on with the workers of the province, including in the coal-fired power industry and for the oil sands industry. It is something that the Germans are pursuing with their workers.

If we are switching to different sources of development, it is very important that we also have a skills development and educational strategy, and an incentive strategy to support the workers to gain retraining or to relocate for new kinds of training. Certainly we see private entities in my own province. Electrical contractors themselves, through fees that they pay on their contracts, have set up a training program for electricians, including plug-ins for electrical cars and the installation of solar panels. We see nothing in the budget implementation bill to move forward on a strategy for a genuine and just transition towards a cleaner energy economy.

Those certainly would be measures that I would love to see added to the budget bill. The Liberals have said that they are open to amendments. Those would be very useful amendments, to lend greater credibility to their talk of balancing environmental and economic development. I look forward to questions.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I would like to touch on something she mentioned at the start of her speech about the Liberals' twisted logic regarding omnibus bills.

When we ask the Liberals if they think this is an omnibus bill, they tell us not to worry because they have a solution. They say they will give the Speaker of the House the power to split omnibus bills into several separate bills.

The thing is, the Liberals are in government and could have done exactly that. They do not need the Speaker to split this bill into several bills. They are the ones who drafted it. If they do not want omnibus bills, why did they not simply choose not to make one? They are the ones who drafted it.

Would the member please comment on the Liberals' totally twisted logic when they say they do not want any more omnibus bills but just introduced one anyway?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent and indeed an obvious question. Only today during question period, the government members said, “Oh well, we are going to let the Speaker decide if they could divide up omnibus bills to decide which committees they go to.”

However, as I mentioned in my speech, the Liberals promised during the election that there would never be another omnibus bill. They also committed that they would create an independent office of the parliamentary budget officer, which would give us greater ability to hold the government accountable on spending. When the Liberals were in opposition, they spoke against the omnibus bills of the Conservative government, and they certainly spoke for creating an independent parliamentary budget officer. We see a certain level of hypocrisy here.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to ask another question, because I do not think I heard what my colleague was saying about the creation of the infrastructure bank, which is an important part of this bill.

Speaking of dividing up the bill, this is exactly the kind of measure that could be separated, so that parliamentarians could vote on that in one way and on other measures in a different way. The very principle of splitting a bill is about allowing parliamentarians to vote on each measure rather than having to vote on all of them as a whole.

What does my friend think of the infrastructure bank and the potential risks of privatizing our infrastructure? According to the bill, the mission of the infrastructure bank would be to fund projects that generate revenue. This means more user fees.

I wonder if my colleague could talk about that part of the bill, regarding the creation of the infrastructure bank. What are her thoughts on that?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is another excellent question from my colleague from Quebec.

I, too, am deeply concerned about the establishment of the infrastructure bank. I am sure I shared with many in the House today our shock when the government suggested that a mere $15 billion for the establishment of the infrastructure bank, using taxpayers' dollars, is nothing to worry about. Perhaps that is small change to the Liberals, but it is not small change to the majority of people I represent.

There are also growing concerns among the public about the conflict of interest, with the very people who were consulted on the establishment of this bank who may in fact be the very persons who get contracts or loans from this infrastructure bank to initiate major projects.

I heard earlier from one of our Liberal colleagues about how committed she is and the need for affordable housing. We need more spaces in affordable child care. I do not think anyone will be going to the infrastructure bank to establish those projects.

I have met with the majority of the groups in my own city who are trying to provide affordable housing and housing for the homeless. We are in dire straits in our city. It would be nice if the government would take part of that $15 billion and put it towards affordable housing and access to affordable child care.

[Bob Bratina, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, the finance minister has a tradition that when he makes his first budget speech, he has a new pair of shoes. Since this is my first speech to the budget, I have decided to implement a new tradition and I have a new tie, which was created by Inuit artist Aoudla Pudlat from Cape Dorset and it is called “The Imperial Bird”.

I am pleased to stand today to reflect on the budget measures our government is putting in place to carry out our plan for Canada.

In the brief time I have, I would like to highlight aspects of the budget that relate solely to the Canadian steel industry and the 22,000 Canadians who are direct employees along with 100,000 others indirectly employed in this fundamental sector of the Canadian economy.

There are 19 basic steel facilities in five provinces with annual sales of $14 billion, a big number. Let me put it in terms of my city of Hamilton.

ArcelorMittal Dofasco has a payroll of 5,000 employees in Hamilton whose average wage is $75,000. Let us do the math. This is an injection into our city's economy every year of $375 million, not including pensions and benefits. Furthermore, the company has never been busier. Thanks to advanced manufacturing innovations, it makes 450,000 tonnes of steel a year, which is more than twice the tonnage with less than half the employees than when I worked there years ago. This is world-class, environmentally sound, well-paid manufacturing second to none that supports Hamilton's middle class.

Hamilton's other steel plant, Stelco, is currently being restructured under the CCAA process, which allows it to continue operations and maintain employment. When this process concludes, Stelco's management is predicting a very positive future for its Hamilton operations, thanks in part to the measures we are introducing in budget 2017. These measures are intended to strengthen Canada's trade remedy systems by amendments to the Special Import Measures Act and related regulations, and I will described them briefly.

On circumvention, domestic producers will be able to file a complaint regarding trade and business practices that are intended to avoid duties. The Canada Border Services Agency will investigate complaints and apply duties to goods that are found to have circumvented our regulations.

On scope, specific products can be investigated by border services to determine if they fall within the scope of a trade remedy measure.

On particular market situations, unfair trade often involves price distortions by exporting countries. I will give an example of how they can get around the rules. Sheet steel that would otherwise be subject to tariffs might be chemically treated with a boron coating, which would then allow the steel to be re-categorized as an alloy product and thus not subject to the duty.

Another way of circumventing Canadian tariffs is shipping Chinese coils to finishing mills in Vietnam. Re-rolling that material and shipping it to Canada from Vietnam allows the Chinese producer to avoid Canadian duties.

These are simple examples. The process can get very complicated when foreign currencies are manipulated to hide the true cost of exported products, so we have created the tools industry needs to fight these practices.

The trade remedies we have introduced have already had a profound effect on the steel industry in Canada. In Calgary, Tenaris has just reopened a manufacturing plant and is in the process of recalling about 100 unionized employees. In Grande Prairie, Tenaris is moving ahead with a $20 million service centre, creating 20 jobs.

In testimony before our international trade committee, the company's representative stated that part of the reasons for these actions was the federal government's crackdown on dumping by countries like China that had depressed prices and forced layoffs and plant closures.

Sean Donnelly is president and CEO of ArcelorMittal Dofasco, chair of the Canadian Steel Producers Association, and a board member of the American Iron and Steel Institute. Here is what Sean had to say to our Standing Committee on International Trade:

Let me start by saying that ArcelorMittal Dofasco welcomes the Government of Canada's budget 2017 commitment to improve its ability to defend Canadian manufacturers against dumped and subsidized imports by implementing measures that effectively modernize the Canadian trade remedy system. These legislative and regulatory amendments will improve the enforcement of trade remedies, address the circumvention of duties, and better account for market and price distortions.

There is a very similar American perspective.

Thomas J. Gibson is president and CEO of the American Iron and Steel Institute. I met with Tom in Ottawa, and again recently in Washington, when I attended congressional hearings on the American steel industry. He said:

Congress recently passed legislation to improve enforcement at our borders to try to catch those who evade tariffs by deliberately mislabeling where the steel comes from, in addition to other clever tricks that are undermining the American steel industry....Congress gave the Commerce Department new tools last summer when it enacted legislation that made improvements to the trade remedy laws, and now it is critical that the department aggressively use them.

Budget 2017 also recognizes that labour unions have an important perspective to bring to trade remedy investigations. Therefore, regulatory amendments will be made to ensure unions have the right to participate as interested parties in trade remedy proceedings.

During my visit to Washington, I also heard from Tom Conway, the vice-president of the United Steelworkers, who acknowledged his Canadian guest and stated, “Buy America is about fighting our enemies and not our friends”, in reference to Canadian unionized steelworkers.

As co-chair of the parliamentary all-party steel caucus, I can report to the House that planning is under way for a joint meeting of our caucus and the American congressional steel caucus sometime in the next couple of months. Our American counterparts have made it clear that they will be taking strong measures against dumping of foreign steel in the American market. They will be encouraged that Canada is following suit with the measures I have outlined to keep our trade policies aligned with our NAFTA partners.

Canada cannot be seen as an easy entry point for cheap foreign steel produced without regard to modern environmental standards, working conditions, and compensation. The language I heard at the steel congressional hearings was explicit. “We are at war with China”, was the statement made by Ed Vore, who is the CEO of ArcelorMittal's tubular products division in Pittsburgh. The executives I met in Washington were aware of Canada's initiatives regarding trade remedies, which will go a long way toward ensuring a positive relationship in steel manufacturing between our two countries.

The measures I have just outlined did not make many headlines. However, virtually every stakeholder in Canadian steel has responded in the most positive fashion, not only by the supportive comments but by the actions already taken, as shown by the Tenaris announcements in Alberta.

Of course I am happy for my city of Hamilton but also for Regina, Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg, Contrecoeur, Quebec, and every place in Canada within the steel supply chain. These were the measures big steel asked for, and these are the measures that we provided.

Budget 2017 also includes investments in automotive and aerospace. Our infrastructure investments in transit and transportation will require vast amounts of steel for projects all across Canada, from rail cars to rebar, because steel is a basic building block of our nation, and our steelworkers make the best in the world, with the highest environmental standards.

My emphasis on the budget measures related to steel is in part to dispel the myth that this is an industry of the past, associated with rust belts, old manufacturing, spoiled environments, and lost jobs. The company I know best, my old employer, Dofasco, has been steadily hiring for the past five years, and 30% of the workforce joined the company in the past five years. Young people are getting jobs in steel.

In terms of investing in its facilities, Dofasco has already spent $1.3 billion in the plant over the past two years, and another $1.5 billion in the capital budget between now and 2018. These expenditures are in step with the government's creation of a national advanced manufacturing economic strategy plan that commits to increasing value-added exports by 30% by 2025 and the establishment of innovation superclusters.

Members of the House and Canadians need to know that Canadian steel is world class, innovative, and advanced manufacturing is providing wages, benefits, and opportunity for thousands of Canadians. It is our duty as a government to provide the legislative and regulatory tools that steel needs to survive and flourish. That is what we have done in budget 2017.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, it has been a pleasure to serve on the all-party steel caucus with the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek. Certainly, I would welcome the improvements to trade remedy provisions as a positive feature of the budget. Of course, the devil is in the details, and I hope the government follows through with enforcement on the good words in the budget.

I would like to ask about another aspect of the budget, which is the billions of dollars for infrastructure that other government members have mentioned during this debate. I would like to ask the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek whether there are any provisions in the budget that would encourage the use of that money to procure Canadian steel, rather than building infrastructure with steel imported from offshore. Something that has concerned me is the new Champlain Bridge in Montreal, which is a huge federal infrastructure project. It is only using 19% Canadian steel. I believe we can and should do much better than that.

[Bob Bratina, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his participation and interest. I would point out that in his city of Regina, EVRAZ has just been named to provide 75% of the Trans Mountain pipeline steel, which will go between Edmonton and Burnaby, British Columbia. That news came forward very recently.

There is a bit of complexity in that we have very balanced trade between Canada and the United States. The value of products imported and exported is almost to the dollar. As we go through the next several months of discussion over NAFTA and the relationship between Canada and the United States, we will hedge our bets on how that kind of proposal would actually go forward without upsetting the trade balance we currently have with our American friends.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, steel is very near and dear to my heart. As a mechanical engineering technologist, I have spent a lot of time in Canada's steel facilities.

Perhaps the member could comment a little further on the integrated supply chain for steel. Sault Ste. Marie is using coke and iron from the mines in the United States. Similar to the automotive industry, we cannot look at Canadian steel without having American content and vice versa.

[Bob Bratina, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is profound insight into the overlying question of how we will advance with our American friends. I would point out for my friend from Guelph that the commerce secretary for President Trump is Wilbur Ross. He is a member of the board of ArcelorMittal. He knows better than anyone the integrated nature of our two countries with regard to steel.

As I mentioned earlier, the balance in trade, in dollar terms, is almost completely equal. Therefore, it will be interesting whether there are anymore explosive tweets that come out of these subjects. Once we dig into the details, we will find that we are really the best friends of American steel and vice versa. For example, the ability for us to exchange coal and iron ore between the two countries gives us a huge environmental advantage over countries like China, which pollutes the environment with even the transportation of the raw materials it needs to make its steel.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand on behalf of the 160,000 constituents in Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, the largest constituency in terms of population in the country, with Leduc-Nisku at the heart of it, the heart of Canada's energy sector as well. I want to talk a bit about that energy sector, because, as I look at budget 2017, there is significant concern in the sector and with our biggest competitor, the U.S., cutting red tape and taxes. The Liberal government, of course, continues to jack up taxes, making the Canadian energy sector less competitive.

I have a couple of quotes from experts in the sector. The first is from Tim McMillan, the president and CEO of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, who stated:

I am disappointed and I think it sends a bad signal and further puts us at a disadvantage in terms of the capital we are trying to attract from global markets compared to the U.S., which is our biggest competitor for that capital.

He went on to say:

The government is very concerned with the middle class. Our industry hires the middle class.

Successive Liberal budgets and policies have been devastating to the middle class in my riding of Edmonton—Wetaskiwin.

Jack Mintz from the School of Public Policy at the University of Calgary had this to say:

I think this competitiveness issue is a huge issue for Canada coming down the road and I'm surprised they took actions right now on this when they will be needing to deal with a much bigger set of changes next year.... The U.S. is going in a completely different direction on carbon and major U.S. tax reform. That's in addition to the measures being taken on carbon in Alberta. You start adding it all up and it's not a healthy climate. Businesses are taking their money elsewhere.

This Liberal fiscal approach is of great concern to my constituents, with $52 billion in deficit over the past two years, $52 billion. I had the chance to host four round tables with constituents. More than 60 constituents came to the round tables during the last break. There were six main concerns that permeated the discussion at the round tables. Two of them were refugees and marijuana, but the other four were all financial concerns. Deficits and spending was one of them. Pipelines was another one. The carbon tax was another one. Seniors care and benefits was another one.

One of the questions that I ask at round tables is: For the $52 billion in deficit spending that we have had over the two years, with no real end in sight, no plan to get back to balance, does anyone feel that he or she is better off? I would say that of the more than 60 people at my round tables, there was one couple who said yes, they were better off, but then they went on to explain that their life circumstances had changed and they were better off because of changes in their life circumstances. It was certainly not because of anything the Liberal government had done for them. Again I ask that question: Is there anybody in Canada who is really better off for this $52 billion in deficit spending over the last two years?

One thing we do is look at history. History provides us a really good lesson in terms of where we are going under the current government. We can look at the previous Trudeau government back in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, when the prime minister of the day ran budget deficits in 14 out of 15 years over that course of time. The results of those deficits, of course, in the mid-1980s were that interest rates were so high in Canada and employment was a challenge in Canada. If we look at the result over the next nine years, the Mulroney years, while the government of the day pretty much spent what it brought in, the interest payments on the Trudeau debt were astronomical and provided some of the biggest deficits in Canadian history because of the debt that Trudeau ran up during those years.

We fast forward to 1993 when a new Liberal government came into power. What did it have to do? It had to cut transfer payments for social services, health care, and education. It cut spending across the board, cut international development spending, things that are really important to people in Canada and abroad. They were devastating cuts. We remember the tough decisions the provincial government had to make in Alberta. The provincial government in Ontario and provincial governments across this country had to make very difficult decisions because $35 billion in transfers were cut right out from underneath them for that important spending.

We fast forward to today and look at the current government. We take a lesson that down the road, someone is going to have to pay for this deficit. Down the road, difficult decisions are going to have to be made. Let us look at the demographics we are talking about when we are considering how those decisions are going to be made.

In the mid-1970s, there were seven people working in this country for every senior citizen. Today, that number is four. There are four people working for every senior citizen today. With the demographics changing, by 2030, we are going to have two and a half people working for every senior citizen. That is two and a half people paying the taxes and sharing the burden. Of course, seniors pay taxes as well, but in terms of people working before their senior years to pay the burden of this debt that is being racked up right now, it is going to be the younger generation who is going to pay for that. It is going to be our kids who are going to have to pay for that, much like the taxpayers in the mid-1990s had to pay for decisions made by the Trudeau government of the 1970s. Those cuts were devastating at the time.

If we are concerned about things like seniors care and benefits that my constituents brought up as one of the six issues that they are concerned about, for seniors living in a generation from now, having to face the cuts that are inevitable, given the unprecedented level of spending of the government, it is going to be tremendously difficult. Then the younger generation, the people who are just starting to vote now, are the ones who are going to have to pay the lion's share of the burden to pay off that debt. It is very concerning, to say the least.

Let us look at a couple of the other issues, such as the pipelines issue that my constituents bring up because it is very important. Let us take a look at energy east and, again, take a look at the perverse nature, I guess, in the sense of the government's decisions as they relate to the fiscal situation of the country. More than 600,000 barrels of oil come into Canada from outside Canada, from countries like the U.S., Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Algeria, and Angola. We have more than 600,000 barrels every single day coming into Canada from those countries by ships and by rail, instead of just having the political will to set in place a process that allows energy east to happen. It does not even require government spending. This is something that the private sector would build and the government just needs to get out of the way. If the government did that, we would see jobs come back to Alberta, jobs come back across the country, in terms of the building of the pipeline. We would see taxes being paid and revenues within the government increasing, not by raising the percentage, but just by creating wealth in the country. We would see transfers for things like health, social services, and education go up because of the impact of that. The government just needs to get out of the way.

I also want to talk for a second about something that is very personal for me. In all of this $52 billion of deficit spending the government has done, it could not find $3.8 million for a Canadian autism partnership. One in 68 Canadian children today is diagnosed with autism. It is a significant issue. If we think of an average family being four people, that is one in 17 Canadians living in a family with someone with autism.

We had an expert working group work for two years to establish a plan for this, report to the government with a budget ask that was incredibly modest, $19 million over five years, $3.8 million per year, and that budget ask was rejected. With $52 billion in deficit spending, hundreds of millions of dollars in spending overall, $3.8 million could not be found for some of the most vulnerable Canadians in our society. That is unconscionable. Something needs to be done about that.

I see that my time is winding up. I look forward to questions from my hon. colleagues. I am sure the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader will stand, as he usually does, and I look forward to his question.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-44, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. member asked if there is anyone in Canada who is better off. I actually wrote down the phrase when he asked that question, rhetorically, of course.

I can share with the House that, as I speak, there is $58 million being invested in 24 first nations in Manitoba to prevent and address long-term drinking water advisories, and finally produce clean water for those indigenous communities to drink. Of these 24 projects, one is in the feasibility stage, 10 are in the design stage, and 13 are in the construction stage. These are critical investments toward our goal of ending all long-term drinking advisories in indigenous communities.

Does the hon. member think those 24 indigenous communities are better off?

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, some of the youngest populations in Canada are on reserve. When we look at where the burden will be because of the $52 billion in just two years in deficit that the government is running, the biggest burden will be on our younger people.

I would respond to the hon. member by saying when we look at the record, the historic levels of spending that the government is undertaking right now by borrowing money to do so, it will be the very people he is talking about who will pay the price down the road, because there will be a bill coming down the road. We just have to look at history, a former Trudeau government, to see what that price will be.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Edmonton—Wetaskiwin for his excellent comments and for his advocacy. His riding actually includes a lot of south Edmonton as well, so I thank him for his work for the city.

He is one of the greatest advocates that we have in our country, and certainly in this Parliament, for the issue of autism, and the cut to the support is disgraceful. I am wondering if the member could expand a bit on some of the work that could have been done with that money and how important it is to the community.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the concern that my colleague has always had, both privately and publicly, for families living with autism.

I am fortunate. My son Jaden is 21, and having grown up in Alberta, he has had solid support from the time he was two years old. However, the situation facing some families in this country, depending on where they live in some provinces, they know that their child has autism at two, but they cannot get a diagnosis for two years because they are on a wait list until the child is four. They cannot get treatment until the child is six. Certainly that is provincial jurisdiction.

What this Canadian autism partnership would have done, again for $3.8 million a year in the context of a $52 billion deficit, is bring experts together, renowned world-class experts who are right here in Canada, to advise governments in their jurisdiction on things like early intervention, education, housing, transitions and employment, all of those things that are real challenges for families living with autism, people living with autism across this country.

Again, we are talking about a minimal investment and two years of work by an expert panel that reported to the government on this, and it was rejected in the budget.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a great honour and a privilege to rise today in this House on behalf of the citizens I represent in Saint Boniface—Saint Vital to share my thoughts on the budget.

I am happy to say that budget 2017 would deliver on the policy platform on which we were elected in October 2015. As important, it would deliver on what we have heard from Canadians over the last 18 months. We have done a lot of consultations, we have listened, and we are acting.

Let me say first that this budget is very good news. It is excellent news for the province I represent, the province of Manitoba. There are a number of initiatives that would benefit Manitoba as a whole. For example, budget 2017 would give Manitoba a major transfer of $3.7 billion in 2017-18. That is an increase of $148 million from the previous year, and it is the largest year-over-year increase since 2008. Members are never going to hear anyone in the premier's office or the Premier of Manitoba say those numbers, but they bear repeating. Budget 2017 would increase the transfer to Manitoba by $148 million, the largest year-over-year increase since 2008.

The Government of Canada's investment in the province of Manitoba is not limited to these large transfers of $3.7 billion. We are also going to make significant investments in clean technology in indigenous communities, our cities, our communities, and the Lake Winnipeg basins.

Within the $3.7 billion transfer there would be important investments in clean technologies, in indigenous communities, in rural communities, in cities, of course, and in the Lake Winnipeg basin.

We would deliver results with the Canada infrastructure bank. The infrastructure bank would be an arm's-length organization that would work with provincial, territorial, municipal, indigenous, and private-sector investment partners to transform the way infrastructure is planned, funded, and delivered in Canada. Public dollars would go further and would be used more strategically, maximizing opportunities to grow the middle class while strengthening our economy in the long term. Canada's infrastructure bank would be responsible for investing at least $15 billion over 11 years using loans, loan guarantees, and equity investments. These investments would be made strategically, with a focus on transformative projects connected to regional transit and transportation networks. We will continue to build strong communities using better public transit.

Public transit figures prominently in our budget. We will be making an investment that will help build strong communities, achieve greater economic efficiency, improve the quality of life, and ensure environmental sustainability.

The benefits of public transit are very clear: shorter commute times, less pollution, more time to spend with family and friends, and stronger economic growth. These are all well known and well documented. Through the public transit infrastructure fund, budget 2017 would invest $20.1 billion over 11 years through partnerships with the provinces and territories. In addition, the Canada infrastructure bank would invest at least $5 billion in public infrastructure transit systems across Canada.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I apologize to the member for Saint-Boniface—Saint-Vital. I forgot to tell him that I would be interrupting him at a certain point because the House must proceed to the consideration of private members' business.

The member will have almost six minutes to finish his speech when the House resumes debate on this matter.

Bill C-44—Time Allocation

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

moved:

That in relation to Bill C-44, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measures not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the said bill; and

That fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period. I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places so the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in this question period.

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

Mr. Speaker, here we go again with another important debate being shut down. Members of Parliament who should be speaking on behalf of their constituents are being silenced by the Liberals. It is extremely frustrating, but it is also wrong.

We have a budget implementation bill before us that is chock full of things that are going to cause a lot of problems for Canadians, never mind the increased fees for Canadians. We see that this infrastructure bank, which we should really call a Liberal bank, is going to be giving favours to billionaire friends of the Liberals, with no accountability. The taxpayer is going to be on the hook for this infrastructure bank. We also have the issue around the parliamentary budget officer being silenced.

These are really important issues that our members of Parliament on this side would still like to speak to, and one day is not enough time. I ask the government if it would reconsider. We need more time to speak to this bill. The debate should not be shut down. This begs the question: Where is the openness? Where is the willingness to work together with opposition parties that the Liberals promised? We are not seeing it all.

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, we do know that this bill has already had 39 members speak up and give their point of view. We know that includes 13 members from the Conservative Party and five New Democrats.

We do know that members on the opposite side have brought up points that they would like us to continue to look at, points that require further study. In our view, that is something we should do. That is why we would like to get the bill to committee. We believe doing that affords us the opportunity to have those discussions in a way that will allow the bill to progress forward and make sure we can get on with the work of making sure our economy works for Canadians.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think I have the numbers straight. This is an omnibus bill, which consists of more than 300 pages. This is a bill for which we have had three days of debate, the government will say. However, it will not say that one of those days was a Wednesday, when of course we do not begin until later in the afternoon, and one was a Friday, when we had a grand total of one hour and 15 minutes of debate.

This is the budget implementation bill. My hon. friend from the Conservatives has already pointed out that issues like the parliamentary budget officer, the infrastructure bank, and others are at issue, but so are myriad other issues, many of which have nothing to do with the budget.

I wonder if the government could reconsider and allow us, as the opposition, to do our job for Canadians.

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, again, for the member opposite, I appreciate and understand his comments. I would say that we have had 39 members in this House already speak about this bill. We do recognize that there is an important opportunity for us to continue discussions, if we can get this bill to committee.

As mentioned, we know that there are very important things that we are trying to achieve through this budget bill, which would make a real difference for our economy. Moving forward on this will be important for Canadians. We are already seeing the impact of budget 2016 on our economy, with positive impacts on employment, positive impacts on our economy broadly.

We want to continue to move forward with our plan to make a real difference. That is why we recognize that there has been debate already. We believe moving this bill to committee is the right thing to do at this stage, so we can hear further discussions and make sure we get this done in a way that is positive for Canadians.

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, I too would like to raise my concerns about the limited time we have to discuss the bill. It is 300 pages. There are some significant issues about the parliamentary budget officer, the infrastructure bank, and myriad other issues that need to be brought up. Only 39 members have spoken to the bill. It is absolutely outrageous to think that this is enough.

There are 338 members in the House representing the ridings across this country, and it is incumbent upon each and every one of us to represent our constituents in a way that is relevant, that is transparent, and that holds the government to account. Shutting down debate on more than 300 pages of the bill is absolutely unbelievable. Canadians deserve better than that.

I would like to ask the minister to please reconsider shutting down debate, because there are many Canadians who would really like to understand the content of the bill and the implications, because there are implications for each and every Canadian across the country. It is going to affect Canadians and their families. A lot of the money is back-ended. Things are not flowing. Infrastructure is not flowing, and I would like the minister to address this.

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I recognize that it is important that we hear from members in the House. We have had some discussion already. We have had some comments about things that require further study. We believe that sending the bill to committee is the way to get at those discussions. The measures in the bill are entirely related to our budget. They are focused on how we can make an important difference for Canadians.

We believe that moving forward to get the bill to committee will allow us to get to that work. We know that the things we have done already in our term of office have started to have a real impact. We know that Canadians are impatient to see that continued positive impact on them and their families, the kind of things we are already seeing in terms of the positive impacts on employment, which are critically important, and the positive outcome in terms of what we are seeing in our economic growth possibilities.

We know that 39 members have already spoken about this. We know that moving this to committee will allow us to consider the issues that have been brought up in a way that is constructive. We are anxious to get to that, because we want to work on behalf of Canadians.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would hope that the Minister of Finance is good at math, but I will simply point out to him that 39 members is 10% of the number of MPs who sit in the House.

He was not here during the previous Parliament, but if he had been, I have to wonder how he would have reacted to the Harper government, which did exactly the same thing that he is doing, that is, limiting debate on a 300-page budget bill that amends about 30 pieces of legislation.

How would he have reacted to the Conservative government doing exactly what he is doing right now?

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for her question.

I know that having the opportunity to study our budget measures is very important. I also know that we have already heard from 39 members, as my colleague pointed out. I know that what matters now is having an opportunity to examine the points that have been identified. That is why we believe it is time to study these important matters at committee. That way, we can achieve our objective of improving the lives of Canadians as soon as possible.

That is our goal. We think that enough time has been taken and it is now time for the committee to take over the study we have begun.

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

Madam Speaker, this budget clearly expands on our government's ambitious plan. It continues help for the middle class, it has great support for veterans, and it strengthens our health care system. What I find particularly important is the increased family leave and the flexible benefits for parents. Being a father of two young children myself, the importance of this measure speaks volumes about where this government is heading and the compassion this government has for families and the middle class.

I wonder if the Minister of Finance can comment on why it is important to get these measures, and the other key features in the implementation act, before a committee so we can make this the law of the land and families can benefit from the measures in Bill C-44 that will actually help Canadians.

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question and speak to the comments he made. In the first instance, of course, there is an important role for the government to be empathetic to families and to recognize different family situations. However, I would like to also take this from an economic perspective.

We see that one of the greatest challenges in our country is demographic change. We know that demographic change means that we will have challenges in terms of the percentage of the workforce that is actually working and creating the opportunity for our economy to be successful. As a result of that, we need to think about how we can get a higher level of workforce participation for segments of the population that may not be as engaged in the workforce. Therefore, we have taken measures in this budget to make sure that we have a high level of workforce participation in places where it is not as high as it could be. In fact, it has been a continuing theme of our government.

A good example, and the one identified by the member, is women, in particular women between the ages of 25 and 54 . We have seen a flattening of workforce participation in that group. We know that by creating the kind of flexibility families need, we can help women to be more engaged in the workforce. That is an important effort in this budget. It will make a difference for families. It will make a difference for the long-term economy of our country. We need to move forward on this, because we know it is the right thing to do, and we know it will help our economy in the long run.

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

Madam Speaker, just 39 members, or 12% of members, have had the chance to speak in the House to this important bill. That means that 88% of members will be muzzled by the current government and will not be able to speak to such an important bill. It makes no sense.

Let us not forget that this is the party that promised to do away with omnibus bills. This bill is nearly 300 pages. It implements certain measures in the budget, but it also affects 30 statutes and creates two brand spanking new entities, two completely unacceptable things that have nothing to do with the budget.

Judging by the answers we got yesterday, the Canada infrastructure bank is going to be just one more thing to please Liberal Party cronies. What is more, the government now wants to control the parliamentary budget officer. That is the worst thing that could happen. The Speaker of the Senate, who is appointed by the Prime Minister of Canada, will now have veto power over the annual work plan of the parliamentary budget officer. It is not right.

I want to take advantage of the Minister of Finance's presence to ask him directly the questions I twice asked the government House leader, who answered on his behalf, unfortunately.

How can such a dignified, honourable, and upstanding man stoop to doing such despicable things? This makes me think of the very popular song, Say it isn't so.

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I believe that the member asked at least three questions. I will try to answer them all.

First, as I said, we believe that it is now time to debate our budget measures in committee. Thirty-nine people have had the opportunity to speak and I believe that we have heard some important comments. However, it is now time to study the measures in committee.

Second, the infrastructure bank is very important to us. It will allow us to do more for Canadians and build more infrastructure across the country. As the government, it is important to be able to make very significant investments. Accordingly, we have decided to invest $180 billion in infrastructure over the next 10 years.

Of this amount, $15 billion will be used as seed money for our infrastructure bank, which will allow us to attract investors and make more and bigger investments. That is very important. With more investment, we will create more job opportunities and a more efficient economy in the future.

Lastly, the issue of the parliamentary budget officer is also very important. We want this office to be more effective and more independent, and that is the goal of our proposal.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, the finance minister says he wishes the parliamentary budget officer to become more independent. I would say that the only continuing theme of the government is breaking election promises. I would remind the Liberals of what they said during the campaign. They said, “We will not interfere with the work of government watchdogs.... We will ensure that all the officers are properly funded and accountable only to Parliament, not the government of the day.” They also said they would ensure that the PBO “is truly independent, properly funded, and answerable only—and directly—to Parliament”.

Among these 30 bills amended by this budget implementation bill is the shackling of the parliamentary budget officer.

I would remind the government that it is not just the opposition that holds the government accountable with regard to spending. Every elected member is responsible for holding the government accountable.

It was agreed in our committee some years back to make the parliamentary budget office reportable to Parliament, which the Liberals supported. It was a key measure to enable us to hold the government of the day accountable.

Why is the government deciding now to break its word on its election promise? Why is it shacking the parliamentary budget officer?

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, our goal is to make the parliamentary budget officer more effective and independent. We would like to strengthen the office so that it actually has the ability to do the work it needs to do.

We have heard comments in this House. We are open to hearing those comments. That is the way we would like to move forward. We will take these comments into account as we move forward to committee. That is the way it should work.

Our overriding intent is to make the parliamentary budget officer more effective and more independent. That is the reason we put the measures into the bill. To the extent that there are comments and ideas on how we can go further in that regard, we are open to listening to them. That is something we expect will happen at committee. That would be in line with how we would like to move forward.

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

Madam Speaker, with respect to these debates about time allocation, I would have wished we could ask questions of the Government House Leader, because decisions about the way the government is proceeding and the increased use of time allocation is the House leader's area. The breakdown in relations between the House leaders of the largest three parties in this place is leading to an increased use of what I would call Harper tactics.

Although this is not an omnibus budget bill with the weight of the egregious misuse of power we saw in Bill C-38 and Bill C-45 in 2012, this is nonetheless an omnibus budget bill, and unfortunately so. While there is a connection to the parliamentary budget officer, because “budget” is in the title, the creation of a stand-alone parliamentary budget officer as an independent officer of Parliament, as promised in the Liberal platform, is a subject of such importance that it would have been preferable to have that discussion separate from the passage of budgetary measures.

Time allocation at this point has the effect of disadvantaging those members of Parliament who belong to parties with fewer than 12 members. Our constituents are equal. Our rights, in theory, are equal. It is disproportionately disadvantageous to members of smaller parties or independents when time allocation is used. In my view, it should be used extremely rarely. To say, as the Liberals now do, that they are using it less than Harper did is no excuse for adopting bad tactics and majority rule in a way that hurts the healthy functioning of this place.

I would urge the government to reconsider and not apply time allocation. The Minister of Finance will tell us that it must be done, but it must not be done.

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, there were a few questions or comments in what she said. To start, we have talked about the fact that we believe it is time to move this bill to committee. We think that is an effective way for us to move forward to make sure that we can make a difference for Canadians.

With respect to the parliamentary budget officer, we have also said that we believe our overriding goal is clear: we want this office to be effective and independent. We have also said that we are open to amendments, so as we move forward in committee, we are going to listen and hear potential improvements. That is something that we are open-minded to and will consider as we move forward.

With respect to the size of the budget bill, we want to be clear that the measures in the bill are related to the budget. We are not trying to sneak things into the bill that are unrelated to the budget. We are not trying to do something that perhaps has been done in the past to get things through without due consideration. The budget bill in fact includes only measures that are related to the budget. We believe that is appropriate. That is what we committed to doing in our election campaign and that is exactly what we are delivering with this budget bill.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, I know that the minister does not excel at math, so I will do a little math for him. He said 39 members have spoken on this particular bill. When we subtract 39 from 338, it means 299 members of this House have not had a chance to speak on this particular bill.

I also sit as the vice-chairman of the finance committee, so I would like to ask the minister if the government can assure us it will not bring closure to the finance committee as it did in the last budget. If it is going to bring closure to the House on the budget bill, let the finance committee do the work that the finance committee, as the minister says, does so well. Will he stand in this House today and assure the House that the government will not bring closure to the finance committee's work?

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, if the hon. member chooses, I would happily go into a math competition with him at the time of his choosing, if that is in fact what he is challenging me on. I have no problems with that. I would suggest that maybe we could do more than addition and subtraction; we might want to use even more complicated tactics than that.

With respect to his question, we have made it pretty clear that we are working on behalf of Canadians. We know it is important that members have the opportunity in this House to speak on their point of view. We have heard from 39 members. We do believe that moving the bill to committee is important. As the hon. member knows, I am not responsible for the finance committee, so I am not in any way able to dictate the terms under which that committee works. That is not my responsibility.

What I can say is that we respect the importance of the finance committee. We know, as I have mentioned, that there have been some comments in particular with respect to the parliamentary budget officer. I have said clearly that we are open to amendments. If there are constructive ways in which we can improve on our goal of making sure that the parliamentary budget officer is effective and independent, that is something that we will be able to listen to. I look forward to that. With respect to the workings of the finance committee, I will leave that to the finance committee.

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

Madam Speaker, someone who is wiser than I once said, “Justice without force is powerless; force without justice is tyrannical.”

Bill C-44 is not just any bill. It is a bill that clips the wings of the parliamentary budget officer, makes it easier for foreigners to acquire Canadian companies, and creates an infrastructure bank that will cost taxpayers a lot of money, while making a big profit for the finance minister's friends on Bay Street.

This bill also eliminates the public transit tax credits that helped ordinary Canadians. It raises taxes for wine producers and microbreweries.

I cannot understand how the Minister of Finance can say that a day and a half of debate is enough for parliamentarians to do their work on a bill that amends no less than 30 laws. The Liberal government has a lot of nerve saying that.

Why does the finance minister have such disdain and contempt for the rights of parliamentarians?

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I said, we think it is very important to consider the items included in our budget. We have already heard from 39 members, which is a significant number.

As the member said, we think that the budget contains important things for Canadians, things that will help to improve our situation and our economic growth. That is why we want to continue moving forward so that we can accomplish the things we want to accomplish.

We think that it is time for the committee to examine the bill. That is the next step, and it is an important one. We think that now is the time to do that.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, on almost every one of his answers, the Minister of Finance has commented that they want to move the matter into the finance committee so these matters can be properly studied. The difficulty is that the finance committee has sent off letters to four, possibly five, committees asking them to review the issues pertaining to their particular committees.

In the immigration committee, for example, there are a number of issues in the budget implementation bill that affect immigration. The immigration committee, through the majority of the Liberal voters, has said it does not want to study it, so the matter is not going to be studied in the immigration committee, and I do not believe it is going to be studied in the finance committee. Therefore, my question for the finance minister is this: why is the PMO, or whoever is giving instructions to the committees, saying that the committees will not review these matters?

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, this morning we have had the opportunity to ask the same question on numerous occasions about the process that we are going through. We have heard from 39 members. We have heard 13 from the Conservative Party and five from the New Democratic Party. We know that there are going to be considerations at the finance committee level. We believe it will have the input to make those recommendations back to us. We believe it is time to move forward on this matter. We recognize that what we need to do in terms of our overall goal is to move forward on things that can make a real difference for our economy. That is our government's record. The record so far has shown that the things we have done are having the positive impact on our economy that we had hoped. It is clear.

For those people who are not paying attention to the numbers, unemployment has gone down. We have gone from 7.1% to 6.5%. Growth has gone up. That is what we are seeing as the positive outcomes. We are looking forward to continuing to have that opportunity.

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

Madam Speaker, could the Minister of Finance provide a brief comment with regard to the tax that has been applied to Uber? I want to bring it up because in Winnipeg the taxi industry has provided so much. They are great ambassadors for our city. There are all sorts of things they have to do as small businesses, one being to pay taxes. Perhaps he could provide some comment on why it was necessary to put on that particular tax.

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, in the case of ride-sharing services, it is important to have an even playing field. We want to make sure that when someone decides to get into a taxi or some sort of ride-sharing situation, they are on an equal playing field. Putting the GST in place for ride-sharing services was the right thing to do from a fairness standpoint. It keeps intact the integrity of our tax system and makes sure we have an appropriate way of dealing with the new economy.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #265

Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed from May 5 consideration of the motion that Bill C-44, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Second Reading

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

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

The hon. member for Saint Boniface—Saint Vital has six minutes remaining in his speech.

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

Mr. Speaker, my riding had the honour of a visit from the Prime Minister for a highly anticipated announcement about day cares.

About one month ago, my riding had the pleasure of welcoming the Prime Minister for a long-awaited announcement on child care. The purpose of the visit was to draw attention to our long-term funding commitment to child care. The $7 billion 10-year time frame will support and create more high-quality, affordable child care spaces across our great country.

Over the next three years, these investments will increase the number of child care spaces for low and modest income families by supporting up to 40,000 new subsidized child care spaces. This is incredibly important for Manitoba, the province I represent, because more than 14,000 children are on waiting lists for licensed child care spaces.

Parents who want to return to work need to have quality, affordable, safe day care options.

While creating child care spaces is incredibly important, we need to ensure we have long-term funding, which is equally important. Our government has committed to be a long-term partner, with the provinces, by providing 10-year funding for the spaces created by our initial investment. This is a stable, responsible, and long-term investment by our government for middle-class families.

I would also remind the House that early childhood was one of the priorities identified by official language minority communities during the Standing Committee on Official Languages' study.

It is also a priority for indigenous communities across the country.

I would also like to talk about the historic health care agreements reached between Ottawa and the provinces and territories, with the exception of Manitoba.

Just as there are changes occurring in the workplace, the demands for our health care system are changing. Our government has clearly indicated a willingness to partner with the provinces to bring about transformational changes to meet the health care needs of Canadians.

Our priority should always be the well-being of Canadians and making sure that the care available is equitable and universal.

The question is how best to invest in the future.

Across the country, governments are trying to find ways to adapt to our population's needs for today and tomorrow. Research has shown that receiving better in-home care provides greater benefit to one's overall well-being. That is why our government is investing in better home care and better mental health initiatives that will help families that need it most. There are $6 billion of new money over 10 years for better home care and $5 billion of new money over 10 years to support mental health initiatives. This is over and above a 3% annual increase for the provinces and territories that sign on for better medical services. These targeted investments will strengthen Canada's publicly funded universal health care system and address key health care priorities over the long term. It is what we have heard from Canadians.

The final point I want to highlight is the very important measures we are taking to advance reconciliation with indigenous peoples. This is an issue of particular importance in Manitoba. I am extremely proud of the progress our government has made since the election. For example, as I speak, $58 million are currently being invested in 24 first nations in Manitoba to prevent and address long-term drinking water advisories and improve the capacity and reliability of water and waste water systems. Of these 24 projects currently occurring in Manitoba, one is in the feasibility stage, 10 are in the design stage, and 13 are at the construction stage. These are critical investments toward our goal of ending all long-term drinking water advisories in first nation communities across our country.

In addition, budget 2017 builds on last year's historic investments for indigenous communities. We are investing over $3.4 billion over the next five years in first nations, Inuit, and Métis health infrastructure to strengthen indigenous communities, education and training, and measures to promote language and cultural revitalization.

As a proud Métis, I am particularly happy to see that the Métis National Council and its five provincial federations, including the Manitoba Metis Federation, will receive $85 million over five years to help build governance capacity.

As a proud Métis, I am very pleased with the $85 million in funding over five years for the Métis National Council and the five provincial federations, including the Manitoba Metis Federation, to support and strengthen their governance capacity.

This is another important recognition of the Métis nation in Canada and another step toward reconciliation.

That is a brief recap of budget 2017. It responds to many of the top issues we have heard, which have been raised by my constituents during many meetings over many months. However, there is much more I can go on about.

There are $90 million over five years to enhance and preserve indigenous languages. There are infrastructure dollars. There are $16 billion over four years to support clean tech, as well as dollars for Lake Winnipeg.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is from the Prairies, and one of the changes in the budget was the elimination of grain tickets. In the farming industry, the availability of that type of program for expenses and revenue over two years in agriculture is a very temperamental thing with Mother Nature, as farmers found out again this winter. It was a great tool for farmers to use, but this budget would remove it. Although the government says farmers can consult, it gave a rationale for taking it out. It says farmers can consult, but the government has already given its rationale that the Canadian Wheat Board does not exist any more. When I talk to farmers, they say this has nothing to with marketing their grain and averaging their income and expenses.

The hon. member may want to respond, as he is from the Prairies, on the grain ticket issue in the budget.

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

I can tell you, Madam Speaker, that the agricultural industry is incredibly important for Manitoba and Canada. That is why we believe it is equally important to innovate, modernize, and do things in a better way. We have budgeted over $1 billion over four years to support clean technology in agriculture to address the very issues that the hon. member speaks of. In agriculture, energy, mining, forestry, and fishing, we are committed to modernize, look at innovations, and improve our systems in budget 2017.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, in budget 2017, the government promised greater access to mental health, wellness, and suicide prevention services for indigenous young people. It did this without designating the actual program investments that are desperately needed in their communities. These are encouraging words to read in a federal budget, but they are meaningless for the young people who are without the community supports that are only possible with actual program investments.

Where will the funding come from for mental health counselling for youth, traditional healing programs, culture, recreation, and language programs? Important for the people in my riding of Courtenay—Alberni, when will these investments find their way to remote and isolated communities? I know the member cares deeply about this issue. I know that this is a high priority for the Nuu-chah-nulth people in my riding.

Perhaps the member could speak to how this will get to communities. This is urgent and a high priority for the people in my riding.

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

Madam Speaker, I agree with the hon. member. There is nothing more important than our relationship with indigenous peoples. Mental health is clearly a priority in the budget. We have tabled extra dollars, new dollars, not repurposed dollars, for mental health with the provinces that sign on. No government in recent memory has invested in indigenous communities the way this government has over the last two years. That is simply a fact. There were $9 billion in new money last year, over $5 billion in new money this year, and that is over and above what is in the line items in the departments. It is not a sleight of hand that governments often do, calling it new money but taking it from somewhere else. These are new dollars.

In my province, there are $58 million being spent, as I speak, on water treatment systems and clean water for indigenous communities, and that is not enough. We know there is more work to do. We have to do a better job, and we are committed to doing it.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, on March 22, our government delivered its second budget and today I rise to talk about the ways in which budget 2017 is meeting the needs of my riding of Sudbury and, indeed, all of northern Ontario.

Budget 2017 continues on our government's plan to strengthen the middle class, the heart of Canada's and Sudbury's economies, and makes responsible investments. These will provide Canadians and Sudburians with good, well-paying jobs and opportunities in our new innovative economy. Budget 2017 makes smart investments to help adult workers retrain and upgrade their skills, adapt to changes in the new economy, and help young people get the skills and work experience they need to start their careers.

Budget 2017 invests in seniors and in youth.

We are investing in social housing, as well as making investments to support our veterans and first nations. These kinds of investments are needed for communities like Sudbury, which has achieved some measure of success.

For starters, budget 2017 provides a further $25 million in core funding for FedNor, the federal economic development agency for northern Ontario, over the next five years. The increase will boost FedNor's base budget to $46 million a year, reversing years of budget cuts.

Last fall, I worked with my colleague, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour, the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North, to draft a growth strategy for northern Ontario. One of the things we heard loud and clear was that northerners want a budget increase for FedNor. They want to reverse years of Conservative government cutbacks. The recommendation to increase FedNor's budget was also supported by our northern Ontario caucus.

I was very pleased to see that our recommendation was taken into account in the budget and that our growth plan for northern Ontario is moving forward.

This is just the start of the good news, because there is a lot more for northern Ontario.

We are very pleased that budget 2017 is advancing Canada's efforts to build a clean economy. It is investing almost $22 billion in green infrastructure, including initiatives that will support the implementation of a pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change. Sudburians understand that a strong economy and a clean environment go hand in hand.

As I have said in this chamber many times before, my riding of Sudbury is an established global leader in the innovation of mining and of mining technology.

Sudbury has built quite a reputation. We are leaders in the mining sector. Our methods are more effective and proven than those anywhere else in the world.

Sudbury companies have been providing clean tech solutions to mining challenges for a generation, and now we are marketing these clean tech solutions all over the world. Today, Sudbury's mining and clean tech cluster consists of more than 300 companies. They employ almost 14,000 skilled workers and experts. Sudbury alone generates approximately $4 billion in revenue each year.

Increasingly, these mining supply and services companies are testing international waters. They are making inroads in the United States, Latin America, Africa, Europe, and Russia. The Sudbury companies behind these projects are using innovation to drive economic and environmental benefits. They are using innovation to create jobs and help strengthen this vital economic engine for Canada. They strengthen Canada's middle class in the process.

I want to share something that makes me even prouder: our government believes in the potential and power of green technologies, which create jobs and fuel innovation.

The global market for clean technologies is already more than $1 trillion per year and it is growing. It is creating well-paying, secure jobs for Canadians. Clean technology has contributed to the fight against climate change and it makes our economy more sustainable. I am proud that our government understands this potential.

This is why our recent budget makes significant investments in clean technology, including $200 million in support of clean technology research in Canada's natural resources sector, $12 million for a clean growth hub that will improve access to federal resources in labs for Canadian entrepreneurs and innovators, and more than $14 million to track our progress so we can report to Canadians. Canadian companies are capturing their share of the emerging global market for mining innovation in clean technology, and we support their efforts. We support them from waste management to biofuels to greener solutions for the oil and gas industry.

This is just the beginning of what budget 2017 means for Sudbury and northern Ontario.

Almost 10% of Sudbury's population is indigenous. There are several dozen first nations communities in northern Ontario, including some of the most remote communities in Canada. Budget 2017 includes a $4-billion investment into on-reserve infrastructure. This much needed investment will provide housing, health centres, and water treatment systems to communities that need them the most. As well, first nations people living off reserve will have access to a $225-million investment over the next 11 years. These investments will go toward needed repairs, renewals, rental subsidies, and new construction. These are important investments being made in first nations communities across northern Ontario.

Already this year, I have had the privilege of announcing $10 million for seniors' health and children's welfare for first nations people in northern Ontario. On top of that, on behalf of the Minister of Health, I was pleased to announced a $1-million investment to support the work of two top researchers in the Health Sciences North Research Institute at Laurentian University.

Their work will focus on finding new ways to address two serious challenges, specifically aging and dementia in first nations, Inuit, and Métis populations.

As well, I was proud to stand with the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs to announce an investment of more than $9 million to help first nations in northern Ontario raise their children in healthy and safe environments.

Our government will invest more than $11 billion under its new national housing strategy. These investments cover initiatives designed to build, renew, and repair Canada's stock of affordable housing. They will ensure that Canadians have adequate and affordable housing to meet their needs. This includes $225 million to improve housing conditions for indigenous peoples, as I have just said.

Through budget 2017, our government is advancing reconciliation as well with the indigenous peoples. It is advancing reconciliation through investments in infrastructure and first nations and Inuit health, through actions to strengthen indigenous communities, funding to support education and training, and measures to promote language and culture.

What I heard most often when I was going door to door before the 2015 election is that Sudburians wanted their federal government to start investing in social housing again. Our government heard that message. Our government has taken the necessary steps and is showing leadership on this.

In fact, housing is the largest single commitment in budget 2017. Our government's commitment is to rebuild, renew, and repair Canada's stock of affordable housing, and we will do that. Those initiatives include responses to indigenous housing crises on and off reserve. It is also promising more money for the provinces and municipal partners to spend on their own housing priorities.

Our government will create a new pooled investment fund that would pool resources among many housing partners, including the private sector. The fund would also expand an existing lending facility for municipalities and for the construction of new affordable housing.

One of the first things I did as an MP was to meet a number of housing service providers in Sudbury. I was shocked to learn that the Greater Sudbury Housing Corporation alone has a backlog of deferred maintenance of more than $10 million. The corporation also has an ambitious energy management plan. The plan would retrofit most of the properties to make them more sustainable, energy efficient, and comfortable. A $3-million investment would pay itself back in 20 years. These are exactly the kinds of projects our government needs to be investing in, and I want to help get these off the ground in Sudbury.

There is so much more in budget 2017 to support middle-class Canadians and those working hard to join the middle class.

There is help for unemployed people to access the training and employment support they need. Budget 2017 boosts the federal support by almost $3 billion over the next six years.

For the people of Sudbury looking for work, this means more chances to update their skills, gain experience, or get help to start their businesses. It also means more support, such as job counselling, for planning their career.

In addition, we are identifying skills gaps with employers and exploring new and innovative approaches to skills development with the provinces. Adult students can face challenges in pursuing learning. Part-time students from Sudbury, as well as adult students with dependent children, will be eligible for Canada student grants. This means more non-repayable assistance for adult learners and workers. It will help them manage the high cost of post-secondary education. It will help them in balancing the financial pressures of raising a family.

As a tax lawyer, I understand the importance of a fair and equitable tax system. Our government has committed to undertake a wide-ranging review of tax expenditures. The review's objective is to eliminate poorly targeted and inefficient tax measures. The review will allow our government to identify opportunities to reduce tax benefits that unfairly benefit the wealthiest Canadians.

Under budget 2017, we are making changes to simplify the tax system by making existing tax relief for individuals and families more effective and accessible. For example, since our new Canada child benefit was implemented, more than 7,400 families in Sudbury alone have benefited from increased payments.

It is quite the investment for families in Sudbury.

The other side of the taxation coin is collections. When some choose not to pay their fair share of taxes, it places an unfair burden on the tax system, and on other Canadians.

Those are only some of the measures that are in the budget. I will take any questions on it, because I am so proud of the budget, which is investing in Sudburians and Canadians across Canada.

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned many times how proud he is of the budget.

He mentioned child care. While there were billions announced in the budget, 70% of the new money will not be spent until after 2022. There is only $10 million for the entire country this year for affordable housing. Also, nearly $4 billion of the $5 billion is not going to be spent until after 2022. In fact, there is no new funding in 2017-18 for early learning and child care, homelessness, home care, housing, research, northern housing, and indigenous programs.

I wonder if he could explain why he is so proud of the budget.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, what I am very proud of is these are long-term investments. This is not short term. We are not looking at the next few years. We are looking over 10 years. These are long-term investments that families need. When we invest in housing, we cannot just do it over a number of years. It takes a long time to implement, to make sure the money gets on the ground, and it is done well.

With respect to families, I have been hearing from them at the doors, right now, that the child tax benefit is life-changing for them.

That is why I am so proud of these investments. Again, these are not short term. They are long-term investments in Canadians.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member talked about first nations and investments in indigenous peoples. The government said that the most important relationship is working nation-to-nation with indigenous people. It also promised to stop fighting indigenous people in court.

The member said that he is getting funding in his riding, and I appreciate hearing that. I will tell the House what it is like in my riding. The Huu-ay-aht were awarded $13.8 million through the special claims tribunal decision for breaches of duty Canada committed between 1948 to 1969. Instead of going with the decision made by the special claims tribunal, the government decided to appeal that decision. The Nuu-chah-nulth have been fighting in the courts for a decade over their right to catch and sell fish, a right that we already know they have. The government has lost repeatedly. The case was thrown out by the Supreme Court twice.

The Conservatives' strategy was that of appeal and delay. The Liberal government is taking that same approach in dealing with indigenous peoples. Is this the reconciliation the member is talking about?

Maybe the member could talk about how much the government has budgeted to fight indigenous people in court, because I would like to know what those costs are.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, talking about reconciliation, we have invested record amounts with our first nations. It is a long-term relationship that we need to build back. There is no doubt that our past relationship is not something to be proud of, but it is important for us to build the relationship back again. It will not happen overnight. It is a long-term investment. It is a strong change that we need to make happen together. That is why in northern Ontario we have received investments first-hand. These investments are a start not an end. They are a start to reconciliation.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, housing is a pressing issue in my riding of Scarborough Centre. Affordable housing is increasingly limited and in poor shape. It is our job to make sure we do not pass this infrastructure debt on to our future generations.

Could the hon. member tell me how budget 2017 will help to resolve this issue?

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, one of the first things I did when I was elected in 2015 was to take stock of where we were with respect to the housing issue in Sudbury and northern Ontario. This issue is across the board. It is not just a northern Ontario thing, not just a Toronto thing. It is an issue across Canada. That is why I was so proud to see, in the last budget, historic investments in housing. However, again, it cannot happen overnight. It is just not a one-time hit. We need to invest over a long period of time, say over the next 10 years. People need to be assured that there is stable funding for housing to make a difference in the middle class and those working hard to join it.

I hear my colleague loud and clear. These investments are important. They will make a big difference in my riding and across Canada.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, I really do appreciate the opportunity to participate today. I consider myself fortunate because I am going to be one of probably some 50 members of this House who are going to be able to stand and speak to the budget, because of the government invoking closure. That means that some 289 members are not going to get a chance to speak on behalf of their constituents on this budget. We certainly feel in the opposition that it is unfair. After the Liberals campaigned on openness, transparency, not using closure, and not bringing forward omnibus bills, we see where all of those promises have gotten us.

I want to take a few minutes to address a few of the issues in the budget. After the Minister of Finance delivered the budget, I was asked by the media in Calgary for my comments. I said it was a Seinfeld budget, a budget about nothing. Yesterday, the finance committee had Department of Finance officials before it to start to go through the budget division by division. One of the things that became quickly apparent was that I was wrong. It is not a budget about nothing; it is a budget about tax increases and the removal and rescinding of a number of tax incentives that exist.

I want to focus, on behalf of the constituents of Calgary Signal Hill, on some of the taxation measures in this budget document. I know there are other issues that, if one had more time, one could certainly debate. I know some of my colleagues have already debated the division around removing the independence of the parliamentary budget officer. I know we are going to have a debate around the infrastructure bank, so I will leave those to other speakers.

I want to talk about some tax measures and the removal of a tax credit, which is really unfortunate. First, let me talk about the rescinding of the transit pass credit that the Conservative government brought in a number of years ago. The government likes to talk about the middle class and those who are attempting to join it. If there ever was a tax relief that appealed to either the middle class or those hoping to join the middle class, it was this tax credit on the transit pass. It is only $250 for the average user of a transit pass across the country, but that is not that one per cent on whom the government keeps saying it is increasing the taxes. That is a direct tax on Canada's working people and those who use public transit. I know that the bureaucrats have told the minister that this is just a nuisance for them to administer. We have to assume that the government is going to take the advice of the bureaucrats and not listen to working Canadians, who every day try to get to work on our transit systems, and not give them that tax credit. I think it is deplorable, quite frankly.

The second tax measure that is not in this budget bill, but was raised by the minister and is going to be taking place, is the reduction in the petroleum drilling incentives grant that has been in existence for a number of years. I was told yesterday at the finance committee that there will probably be some future consultations and it will appear in the fall budget bill. I would like to be part of those consultations today.

I represent a riding in Alberta that has taken the hit of the downturn in oil prices globally. Recently, with the uptick in oil prices, we have had an opportunity for a number of companies that are in the exploration business to resume drilling activities, which is putting Albertans back to work. With the removal of this drilling incentive, many of those drilling companies are going to do one of two things: they are going to take that drilling rig and park it back in the yard, or they are going to take it across the border and drill in the United States where the incentives and the bottom line are much better.

The government can talk all it wants about creating jobs, but if it wants to create jobs in Alberta, removing this incentive is not a way to do it. If the government is listening and it is not part of the budget bill, I would strongly encourage the government to back off on this initiative before bringing forward its budget bill in the fall.

I know that a number of members have commented on and have raised this issue, having heard from their constituents regarding the increase in what is described as sin tax by governments, the taxes on alcohol and cigarettes. It is hard to argue against an increase in sin taxes; however, what the government needs to take into account is the spinoff effect of the increase in alcohol taxes.

The Canadian restaurant association has been very public about saying that it was blindsided by this, and it is going to significantly impact small businesses in this country. Again, I am an Alberta representative, and we have an Alberta government that has been hammering the same industry with increases in sin taxes and minimum wage, and a carbon tax. Now the federal government loads on additional taxes. Small businesses involved in the restaurant industry, not to mention those in the wine and beer industry, are clearly going to feel the impact of this.

During their campaign, the Liberals promised to reduce small business taxes. In fact, they did that to match what the other parties were saying, and then once they formed government, they reneged on that promise. Now they are hitting small businesses with this additional tax.

Those are just three areas, because I have limited time. I want to focus a little on one other chilling aspect of the budget document. In committee yesterday we were going through the budget implementation bill. There is an important division to which I would draw all members' attention: part 4, division 2, under the title “Public Debt”, “Enactment of Borrowing Authority Act”. What this particular division does is allow the government to go out and borrow up to a maximum. This particular bill, and it is right here in the bill, allows the government to borrow up to $1.3 trillion. We are talking trillions here.

That covers the current debt, which is almost $700 billion today. It covers some $275 billion in debt that crown corporations have incurred. Then there is a bunch of provisions in there, the differential of some $300 billion for future debt and also for a contingency fund.

Let us just take a minute and talk about our debt situation. The member for Louis-Saint-Laurent has asked the Minister of Finance on numerous occasions—I think it is up to 25 or 30 times—when we are going to balance the budget. He refuses to answer that question. We have to assume that he is refusing to answer the question because his finance officials were correct when, the day before Christmas, they released a document that said we will not balance the budget until 2055.

What does that mean to Canadians? First of all, it means that we currently pay $25 billion a year in interest payments alone, and that is only going to go up. What does that mean to an individual Canadian? It means that each Canadian owes $17,563, and it means that, in the 10 minutes that I have been speaking, our debt has gone up by another $0.5 million. That is the seriousness of this particular strategy of the federal government.

I could go on for quite some time, but while I am up, I also want to put my stake in the ground, as the member for Bow River has done. Within the budget, the federal government has said it is going to consult on the proposed tax changes for the farming community. If this is the consultation process, let us be on the record to say that, clearly, this is not something that the federal government should be doing. I hope that when it comes forward in the fall, common sense will prevail and this is one that it will back off on, along with the petroleum drilling incentive that it is planning to cancel.

I will sum up with one—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The member will be able to sum up during questions and comments.

Questions and comments, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

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

Madam Speaker, the member talked about jobs in the natural resources industry, and I would like to put a challenge to him. In a year and a half, this government was able to not only put in place a process that would take both the environment and economics into consideration in the development of pipelines, but we were also successful at getting pipelines to tidewater. Something the Harper government failed to do in over 10 years we were able to do in a year and a half.

The member made reference to the small business tax, along with small businesses. I would be interested in his thoughts on that. Liberals and the minister have recognized that small business is the backbone of Canada's economy, and one thing we did through a middle-class tax cut was put hundreds of millions of dollars into the pockets of Canadians, thereby allowing a higher amount of disposal income. That means more consumer spending in small businesses.

Would he not agree that by putting more money into the pockets of Canadians, we are in fact supporting Canada's small businesses?

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I challenge the member to come to Alberta during the summer break. I will take him to Bruderheim and ask him to show me where those two pipelines actually start. There is no shovel in the ground.

The federal government has given approval, which was already given by the National Energy Board, and it cancelled the one that was ready for construction that the Conservative government had approved, called “northern gateway”.

Be careful what you ask for, Mr. MP.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I would remind hon. members to direct their commentary to the Chair. We try to avoid going into the second person mode in the House. Members should try to be mindful of that.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the member comparing this bill to a Seinfeld show. That can also be used to describe the government's legislative agenda for the spring so far. The government said we have had several days to debate this bill and completely ignored the fact that two of those days were a Wednesday and a Friday, for a grand total of an hour and 15 minutes on that one particular day.

I think the government is looking at the fact that we are in May and is getting quite worried, which why we are operating under the yoke of time allocation. This is all by the government's own doing. Liberals played games in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs by not agreeing with the opposition and their entire legislative agenda for this term has been a train wreck, but it is all their own doing.

Would the member agree with me and maybe provide further illustrations of the Liberals' wrecked legislative agenda?

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more, and it scares me when I agree 100% with the member from the island, but I totally agree.

I think there is one factor at work here. I think the government wants to get this legislation passed and get out of here as quickly as it can, because it knows it is under attack and that the Ethics Commissioner is about to release her report on the Prime Minister's ill-fated Christmas vacation. The government is using closure, and I believe it will use it again in the finance committee, because when the member for Gatineau sat on the finance committee in the last go-round, he put forward a closure motion, so at the next finance committee meeting, I am expecting the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge to bring forward a closure motion.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully and would like the member to perhaps elaborate on the nature of the government's election campaign, in which it promised a one-time stimulatory deficit to fund real infrastructure. It won the election on that promise and on the promise to quickly return to a balanced budget. It completely abandoned these promises and has given us a structural deficit that will last until 2055. It is outrageous.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what is even more outrageous is that most of those infrastructure dollars that have been budgeted are sitting there. They are not actually being deployed into communities. I cannot name one project in southwest Calgary that has been funded by the government that is under way. What is happening right now is that monies that the Conservative government allocated for things like the ring road are being used and the projects are actually taking place, and the Liberals are taking the credit.

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct pleasure to rise in this House to speak to budget 2017 and to talk about the positive impacts it will have in my riding of Brampton West.

Before I begin, I want to take this opportunity to thank the Minister of Finance for putting forward a budget that continues to help middle-class families and those working hard to join it. It builds on our ambitious last budget, and I have seen first-hand the impacts it has had on families in Brampton West and right across Canada.

One of the first things we did as a government was to lower taxes on our middle class and raise taxes for the top 1%.

Our Canada child benefit has helped thousands of families in my riding of Brampton West. I hear this constantly from my constituents, who have benefited from this policy. It has helped them enrol their children in summer camps or even put food on their table. This is real change.

Budget 2017 is the next step in our government's ambitious plan to make smart investments that will create jobs, grow our economy, and provide more opportunities for middle-class Canadians. I will focus on three aspects of the budget that are very important to my riding of Brampton West: health care, especially mental health and a caregiver tax credit; housing; and, finally, our youth.

I would like to speak about a particular family I met in my constituency office a few months ago, the Dhillon family. They were going through a very pressing time. They were extremely stressed, knowing that Mr. Dhillon's aging mother needed constant care. They told me that Mr. Dhillon had to quit his job so he could provide support to his mother in her deteriorating state. The cost of one income-earner not being able to work was great. We are seeing a similar situation today with families all across Canada.

Providing support to families in this situation is crucial. As a registered nurse and as the member of Parliament for Brampton West, I am proud to be part of a government that recognizes these extremely important challenges and takes action. Budget 2017 proposes to invest $6 billion over 10 years to provide Canadians with improved access to home, community, and palliative care services, as well as more support for caregivers. This means that more people will get the care they need in their homes and that more families will be getting more support from their government.

Right now Canadians who are caring for loved ones face a caregiver credit system that is very complex and difficult for families to navigate, so we have simplified it by introducing the Canada caregiver credit. This new non-refundable credit would provide greater support to those in need and would apply to caregivers whether or not they live with the family member who is receiving the care. This measure will provide $310 million in additional tax relief and will support families struggling to take care of their loved ones. I know how significant this investment is for families like the Dhillon family in my community.

Another reality that is far too true in our community and our country is the lack of support systems for mental health. I had the opportunity to participate on a ride-along with a Peel police officer in Brampton West last summer. During the one-night shift, we did about 15 calls, and 11 of those calls were related to mental health. That is a sad reality in our communities.

While great strides have been made to improve our understanding of mental illness and its impact on people's lives, wait times to see a mental health specialist in certain regions of our country can range up to 18 months. That is just completely unacceptable. That is why I am extremely proud of budget 2017, which will invest $5 billion over 10 years to support mental health initiatives. These investments will have a significant impact in Brampton West and all across Canada. Improved access to mental health supports will result in improved health outcomes and shorter wait times for hundreds of thousands of Canadians.

We know this is just a start, and I would like to thank my colleague, the hon. Minister of Health, for the leadership she has shown on these very important issues.

I would like to now address how budget 2017 will improve access for Canadians to housing that is safe and affordable. It is an issue I hear about almost constantly in my constituency office. The rising cost of housing in Brampton results in many people not having access to adequate housing.

The wait time in order to get access to a subsidized unit within the Region of Peel is currently seven and a half years, which is one of the longest wait times in Ontario. I hear about seniors not being able to afford housing because they live on a fixed income. I hear about low-income families not being able to access social housing because of the long wait times, as I just stated.

I need to reiterate that all Canadians need and deserve housing that is safe and affordable. Without it, Canadians feel less secure, making it harder to accomplish every other goal, from raising healthy children to pursuing education to getting good jobs and opportunities.

Budget 2017 would make a historic investment of $11.2 billion over 11 years to build, renew, and repair Canada's affordable housing and to ensure that all Canadians have their housing needs met. This would include $5 billion that would go toward our new national housing fund to address housing issues in our cities, including co-op housing.

An additional $2.1 billion over the next 11 years would go toward a homelessness prevention strategy, working with communities across the country to combat homelessness and to provide support to mitigate underlying issues that lead to homelessness.

Finally I would like to turn toward an issue that is very close to my heart, our youth.

I am very proud of our Brampton West youth council, which continues to advocate for issues that are important for the youth in my community. One of the issues that it has continued to raise is about uncertainty about the future, about lack of support to pay for college or university and then about finding good, well-paying jobs after their education.

I am also very proud to report that Brampton will be home to a new Ryerson University campus soon. That is why investments in post-secondary education are essential to my community in Brampton West.

Budget 2017 is investing in post-secondary education, making it more accessible and affordable, building the skills for tomorrow, and helping youth gain the work experience that they need to succeed.

We are investing $12.5 million over six years for a pilot project to explore new ways to increase awareness for the Canada learning bond and to reduce barriers to access among low-income families.

We are also investing $59.8 million over four years and $17 million per year ongoing to expand eligibility for Canada student loans and grants for students in part-time studies to help even more students qualify for student financial assistance.

To build the skills of tomorrow, we are committing $10.8 million over five years for hands-on learning experiences to introduce diverse groups of young Canadians to the power and potential of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields, as well as investing $50 million over two years for a program to provide coding and digital skills education to more young Canadians.

To help youth gain work experience, there will be an investment of $395 million over three years in the youth employment strategy for additional employment and skills development opportunities for our youth. These investments will ensure that our youth are able to access every opportunity possible now and in the future. I am extremely proud of that.

These are just some of the initiatives in budget 2017 that will have a significant impact in my community of Brampton West. I am very proud of our government, our finance minister, and our Prime Minister, who really listened to Canadians and put forward a budget that has taken steps to address the real challenges and issues that every Canadian faces every day.

I am proud to support this budget on behalf of the constituents of Brampton West and I hope that my hon. colleagues from across the country will do the same.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure the member was in the House this morning when the Minister of Finance was giving his rationale as to why the Liberals needed to invoke closure on the budget bill. One of his reasons was that Canadians are becoming impatient and want to see this budget take effect. I would have to say that Canadians are not impatient but are actually extremely apprehensive.

The middle class and those working hard to join it know that they are facing greater debt because of the actions of the current government. They know that their Canada child benefit, which is supposedly more, is actually outweighed now by the loss of tax credits, the increase in taxes on small business, and the increase in fees. They know that the tax break for middle-income Canadians that was done on the backs of the wealthy 1%, which was supposed to be revenue-neutral, is costing taxpayers $1 billion annually. Therefore, they are very concerned about the budget. They are apprehensive, not impatient.

There are the controls on the parliamentary budget officer, concerns about the infrastructure bank, commitments to DND that are now in the air so that we do not see where the money is, and now, $1.3 trillion in borrowing. How will this budget impact the apprehension of Canadians?

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague asked many questions. I will try to summarize, as I did in my speech, all the significant steps our government is taking to address the real challenges Canadians are facing every day and how badly we need these changes implemented so that my constituents in Brampton West, and Canadians all across the country, can benefit.

Again, I encourage all members in this House to vote in favour of our budget. That is what Canadians expect of us. That is what Canadians elected us to do. We will continue to work extremely hard for all Canadians.

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

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

However, I cannot understand why the Liberal government is imposing closure on an omnibus that is full of bad news for Canadians.

I would like someone to explain the Liberals' change in strategy. During the election, they said it was the right time to borrow money to invest in our public infrastructure now that interest rates are so low. However, they never said they were going to use so much private sector money. They are essentially privatizing our infrastructure.

Why are they giving private investors a 7% to 9% return on their investment when we were told they were going to borrow money at a 2% interest rate? It makes no sense.

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, unlike the previous government, our goal is to support our municipal and provincial partners to support the infrastructure they need. We have put forward an ambitious plan. More than $180 billion would be invested in our infrastructure. It would include investing in housing, child-care spaces, public transit, and clean infrastructure.

I was very proud to announce, with all my Brampton colleagues, an investment of over $30 million in the city of Brampton a few months ago. It has helped the city get more buses and build more shelters and has tremendously impacted the commuters and residents of Brampton West.

Our government believes that we can do more for our municipal and provincial sectors by engaging the private sector, and that is exactly what we are doing.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am going to address my comments to the unacceptable use of time allocation in this debate and put to her, and hopefully to her caucus, the reality of the consequences. The citizens of my riding have rights equal to those of the citizens of Brampton West. Saanich—Gulf Islands citizens do not entertain second-class status. However, unfortunately, I have been informed that due to time allocation, I will not be allowed to speak to this bill. I will not have an opportunity at this moment to speak to this bill. We heard the Minister of Finance say that a number of Conservatives have spoken and a number of New Democrats have spoken. Can the hon. member find it in her heart to ask the members of her caucus to give up one of their speaking slots so that I might have a chance to comment on this bill?

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for all the hard work she does on behalf of her constituents.

I described and discussed the budget in my speech and the significant steps our government is taking to address the real challenges facing Canadians every single day. I encourage members to send this bill to committee. We can then hear from witnesses and let the committee do the important work it is mandated to do. I am not sure about the procedure, but there may be a possibility at third reading of the bill of having the hon. member speak.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss our government's plan to build a stronger middle class through what I see as a three-pillar approach. It is an approach that includes investments in infrastructure, a focus on innovation to ensure that our economy continues to unlock new possibilities, and the final pillar, continuing investments in lifelong learning and skills training for Canadians to help them succeed in an evolving 21st century job market.

Budget 2017 would continue our government's bold vision for a more prosperous Canada and a brighter future for all Canadians, including the residents I have the privilege of serving in the riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge. Bill C-44, the budget implementation bill, would ensure that the plan laid out in budget 2017, a plan to strengthen the middle class and to help those working hard to join it, is fully implemented.

Bill C-44 contains a number of measures I am particularly proud of and represents my core values of compassion, inclusiveness, and a desire to ensure a better future for my children.

Measures in the budget include our government's commitment to provide stable, predictable, and longer-term funding for all provinces for home care and mental health care services over the next 10 years. In my province of Ontario, the home care and mental health care funding component would amount to a $4.2-billion investment over 10 years, which would improve access to home care, home-based palliative care, and community-based care.

In addition, Bill C-44 would introduce a new Canada caregiver credit and would change the employment insurance caregiver benefit. The new Canada caregiver credit would simplify existing tax measures for caregivers by replacing the existing caregiver credit, the infirm dependent credit, and the family caregiver tax credit with a more inclusive and enhanced benefit. This new credit would be better targeted and would extend tax relief to some caregivers who may not have currently qualified due to the income level of their dependents. The fiscal impact of this measure over the next four years would be $310 million to Canadians in this situation.

In addition, Bill C-44 would create a new employment insurance caregiver benefit. Presently, EI benefits are available to eligible caregivers in cases where a loved one is gravely ill and at significant risk of death or where a child is critically ill or injured. However, the existing provisions miss a lot of Canadians who provide informal care for seriously ill family members.

I am very proud to say that budget 2017 would dedicate nearly $700 million over five years to create a new benefit to assist caregivers. This new credit would cover a broader range of situations where adult family members are providing care to an adult family member who requires significant support to recover from critical illness or injury.

I wish to focus a majority of my remaining time and remarks on our government's historic plan for investments in infrastructure. It is a plan that would commit nearly $180 billion-plus in investments over the next 12 years. This significant investment would be guided by a firm principle that investing in Canada and Canadians from coast to coast to coast would create long-term economic growth, build inclusive communities, and support a low-carbon, green economy.

Our government was elected on a platform that committed to making significant investments in infrastructure, a plan that included the development of an infrastructure bank. I am pleased to say that Bill C-44, the budget implementation act, would create the new Canadian infrastructure bank, which would oversee the investment of approximately $15 billion in infrastructure projects.

In my humble view, a view shaped by my nearly 25 years in the global financial services sector, the creation of the Canada infrastructure bank would provide the ability to accelerate and expand investments in infrastructure in Canada from coast to coast to coast by leveraging private capital.

Canada is blessed with a multitude of natural resources, but we are also blessed with significant human capital resources as well as financial institutions that manage literally tens of billions of dollars for Canadian pensioners from coast to coast to coast.

In Ontario, firms such as the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan, OPTrust, the Healthcare of Ontario Pension Plan, and OMERS collectively manage hundreds of billions of dollars for pensioners. These are globally respected firms that employ Canadians. They provide ongoing benefits for their retirees, be it teachers, hospital workers, janitors, or engineers, who in turn support our economy with their spending. These institutions would be ideal partners for the infrastructure bank in undertaking strategic investments to help strengthen and grow the Canadian economy.

I cannot understate the importance of the Canada infrastructure bank as a new and innovative financing tool to help public dollars go further and to help build infrastructure projects in Canadian communities.

For Canada and all Canadians to succeed, we must be innovative. We must foster an economy that is flexible and adaptive and that responds to technological change and globalization, an economy that will lift literally millions out of poverty and not leave anyone behind. It is one of Canada's core national values, and our obligation as a government, to ensure that no Canadians are left behind and that they have the skills and tools necessary to thrive in the 21st century. The Canadian infrastructure bank would be a tool that would create good middle-class jobs and ensure a brighter future for all Canadians.

Let me say again that our plan to invest nearly $180 billion in infrastructure over the next 12 years is historic.

I would like to close by outlining some of our commitments contained in Bill C-44 and budget 2017. One is $29 billion for public transit to build new transit networks and service connections to get people to work and home again more quickly in the evenings to their families, or in my case, to my daughters' swimming lessons.

This year, the city of Vaughan and my riding will see the benefits of our government's infrastructure investments with the Toronto-York Spadina subway extension set to begin operation. The TYSSE is already transforming the city of Vaughan with the development of a revitalized city centre that will eventually be home to approximately 30,000 to 40,000 new residents and nearly 20 million square feet of new office, commercial, and residential space.

We would invest $26 billion in green infrastructure to ensure that all Canadians have access to safe water, clean air, and green communities. I am proud to state that we will ensure that all our children, including my two daughters, inherit a country cleaner and greener than we did.

Budget 2017 would deliver a further $25 billion for social infrastructure that would provide safe, adequate, and affordable housing as well as access to high-quality and affordable child care spaces. Our recent historic announcements related to housing would ensure that we would see inclusive growth that would enable all Canadians to step up and contribute to a brighter future for their families.

There would be $10 billion for trade and transportation corridors that would provide safe, sustainable, and efficient transportation systems and allow Canadian companies to access global markets, creating more high-paying jobs for middle-class Canadians.

Finally, our $2-billion investment in rural and northern communities would ensure that these communities would have the necessary resources, including broadband infrastructure, to help them succeed.

I am proud of our government's commitment to invest in infrastructure and the future of this great country. It is the right thing to do.

Bill C-44, the budget implementation bill, is the beginning of the implementation of budget 2017. It is the right legislation to ensure a stronger, more prosperous middle class, to ensure that those who are working hard to join it do so, and to ensure that all of our children, including my daughters, Natalia and Eliana, who are at school today, have a bright future ahead of them.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for talking about the budget implementation bill and in particular for talking about this new infrastructure bank.

Coming from the financial industry, the member should be well versed in how this bank would operate. From the outside looking in, it appears as though this bank would best serve Liberal fundraisers and hedge fund organizers and would really be another opportunity to pad the pockets of Liberal elites.

Why, instead of disbanding the Canada savings bonds program, would the Liberals not have chosen to build on that program, providing ordinary everyday Canadians, the middle class and those working hard to join it, instead of all the Liberal's billionaire friends, with an opportunity to invest their hard-earned dollars in Canada savings bonds, which could have funded this bank?

With interest rates the way they are at the banks today, a Canada savings bond that would generate the kinds of returns their Liberal buddies are going to expect could have served hard-working Canadians very well.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I became a member of Parliament and before I entered into financial services, I worked at McDonald’s as a kid. I worked at a pulp mill growing up in northern British Columbia, and I cleaned fish as a fish filleter in northern British Columbia. I know very well how hard Canadians work day in and day out, and I take great offence at this word “elite”. I am not an elite. I have worked very hard my entire life. My parents came here as immigrants, and we worked, whether it was cleaning or working at a fish plant, or whether it was my mother working as a dietician or my dad working at a pulp mill in northern British Columbia as a carpenter, a sheet metal worker, or a roofer. I take offence to that.

The infrastructure bank would invest in projects from coast to coast to coast. That is the target. We would leverage private capital to ensure that this was done in a way that respected taxpayers' dollars and respected Canadians' rights, and we would do it with institutions in Canada. That would allow us to undertake projects and accelerate investments in infrastructure.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to my Liberal colleague who used the well-known expression “coast to coast to coast”. I would like members to think about the meaning of this expression, because people who live far away do not have the opportunity to speak in the House.

Nevertheless, there is one means available to them, and that is delegation. Canadians elect members to speak for them in the House. The government, however, is saying that it does not want to listen to them. It is imposing closure on perhaps the most important bill that will be passed this year. Not only is the budget implementation bill an omnibus bill—even though we were promised there would be no more of those—but, on top of that, the Liberals are invoking closure.

It is fine for them to say “from coast to coast to coast”, but democracy is important. I will join my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands in asking the government to revisit its position and to listen to parliamentarians. It is not true that after listening to only 39 or 40 members the government can make an informed decision in the interest of Quebeckers and Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-44 undertakes historic investments in health care and mental health care across Canada from coast to coast to coast.

A number of measures in the bill will help Canadians, whether it is the new Canada caregiver tax credit or improvements to EI. These measures will benefit all Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Our investment in infrastructure will remain ongoing.

I have the privilege of sitting on the Standing Committee on Finance. We look forward to a healthy list of witnesses coming forward. We will study the bill and we will do so in a prudent manner.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-44, the budget implementation legislation.

It is important to acknowledge that time allocation has been moved by the government on this bill. When the Liberals were in this section of the House of Commons, they screamed from the highest rooftops that this was undemocratic. They are moving closure at a record pace, even more than was done under the Harper administration, and that is unfortunate.

For the practical person who is watching the debate at home, this means some members will not have a chance to talk about how the budget will impact them, their ridings, and the country in general. Time allocation is done for expediency.

Bill C-44 is being called an omnibus bill. The omnibus approach is a lazy style of governing. The government does not have to move legislation through the proper parliamentary process and procedure in order to get it done. In layman's terms, it basically means the government is putting all kinds of things into one giant box and then shoving them out the door versus going through things individually and ensuring legislation is done properly. Over 30 pieces of legislation would be affected by the bill. This is not like setting up a household budget. This is about making strategic decisions with respect to the rules of how legislation goes through the House of Commons.

It is important for people to understand the necessary and proper planning process for certain legislation. Things will end up in the courts and will cost taxpayers more money. Things will not get the necessary review they need. Issues involving businesses, consumers, the environment will all be impacted by Bill C-44, because the Liberals are, quite frankly, lazy, and that is unfortunate.

Since the Liberals took office, their record shows that committees have been underutilized. That is because very little legislation has come to the House. Plenty of people and organizations want to provide input, but this denies them that opportunity to change things.

I want to talk about a couple of things in the budget bill that relates to issues on which I have been working. They are important not only to my constituents but to all taxpayers across the country.

Manufacturing is one of the issues on which I want to focus. Manufacturing in the United States and other countries around the world is seen as a key sector for national interests. An argument has been made for the national security of a nation state to have solid manufacturing in that country.

The Liberal government's approach to manufacturing has not been a healthy one. The Prime Minister went through southern Ontario. He singled out manufacturing in London, saying it was past what should be done and that we needed to find different ways. No one has ever argued against innovation and change. No one has ever argued against adding supplementary elements to our economy. However, we have always had to fight for manufacturing and we have seen great success from that fight. Our national coffers have been filed by the wealth from manufacturing over the last number of decades. To this day, manufacturing is over 10% of our GDP relating to what we can bring in as income.

On top of that, we have revenue from taxation that comes in from employees who work in the manufacturing sector as well as the taxes that come in from benefits in other types of support systems, which help people to have a decent job, to send their kids to college or university, to invest in a small business, or to get additional training for the future.

For nearly a decade, I have fought in this place for the automotive sector to be singled out for a specific manufacturing strategy, which has been done by most industrial states. The automotive sector is losing out in this budget by the mere fact that it is lumped in with other types of manufacturing or other types of initiatives, including agrifood. Both of these sectors deserve their own strategies.

Agrifood is another sector that relates to national security when we look at food safety, food management and economic development by having stability. Agrifood deserves its own separate strategy.

Manufacturing and auto, in particular, is lumped in again as opposed to a separate auto innovation fund designed specifically to meet some of the exciting challenges and opportunities in the automotive industry.

Before NAFTA, Canada was number two in the world in auto assembly and manufacturing. In fact, before we signed onto the free trade agreement with the United States, we had been very successful through a negotiated agreement called the Auto Pact. Assembly and manufacturing in Canada was at unprecedented levels because we tapped into the skill set of employees. We also exported automobiles to many parts of the world, but predominantly to the United States. We created quite a system of wealth, education, training, expertise, industrial development, and innovation that was critical.

With NAFTA, our Auto Pact agreement was challenged, and we lost it. At that time, the Liberals did not even bother to take us to a secondary challenge at the WTO. The government abandoned it. It is quite shocking in the sense that almost every other country will always fight to the end for something. Not only did the Liberals sign an agreement that killed our dominance in that industry, but they simply gave up. We have a historical problem with the Liberal Party.

The budget shifts away from a special $500 million fund. Then the auto parts manufacturing fund is being lumped together with other elements. To be fair, the government has increased the overall amount of money going into that fund, but it is very small compared to our competitors to the south, Mexico and other places in the world. However, it did go up somewhat. The problem is that the types of different qualifications of that fund have been opened up, instead of having a special designated fund with over $500 million for innovation, especially when we look at autonomous vehicles, hybrids and electric vehicles. Canada has not a had a greenfield, a brand new auto plant manufacturing development, in over 15 years, so there are significant challenges to begin with.

With all those things put together, we have abandoned that type of approach. I will still champion and continue to fight for auto manufacturing jobs and benefits, especially right now. Canadians want that. Canadians want to work in a stable employment environment that has decent wages for the amount of effort, education, and training they put into it. They would have benefits so they could live their lives and ensure that if they had health issues, they would be paid. They would have a value-added industry with a connection to personal relationships, the fact that they could take pride in the work they did and contribute to the overall economy. They would have accountability. Last year, so many workers did not come home safely from their job. Some children were left without fathers and mothers because of industrial accidents. In the past, jobs in the auto sector had some accountability and a working relationship to improve those things.

We have lost out on those types of opportunities because of a lack of industrial strategy. Canadians are asking for that. They want to be part of a greater communal effort to improve their quality of life and to raise the quality of life for the middle class. The budget fails in many respects because it has abandoned the strategies necessary to that.

When we look at the watering down that is taking place on this one specific element I have talked about in terms of the auto manufacturing issues, it is a missed opportunity given the industrial development and advances environmentally and economically in the industry, and because of that, I cannot support this budget.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, in the recent Ontario economic outlook report that was published in February, pointed out that the major concern for small, medium, and large businesses in Ontario is recruiting staff. The top seven concerns included infrastructure investments and training of the workforce, among other things. We have invested quite a bit of money in innovation, which is going to replace some of the industrial jobs that we have lost in the past, but we will invest more in innovation and advanced manufacturing in this country. What is the member's comment on that?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great example of what has taken place in terms of the challenges we face. The problems of the Ontario Liberal Wynne government and the federal government are quite specific when we look at training. In my area, there is manufacturing and tool and die mould-making. The policies of the Liberals and their lack of support to keep a middle class working and functioning includes the offloading of training and education expenses onto students and young people to such a level that when they go into the workplace or get training, be it college or university, it has resulted in students paying for their education well beyond what their career could gain them once they actually complete their education.

It is a challenge to get workers into tool and die mould-making, which is actually getting a resurgence in my area, because the cost of their education is so high and burdensome that it intimidates them. Employers and the government need to do more to make sure students are not entirely burdened by this landslide of debt and prevented from actually entering the workforce.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my friend from Windsor West and his party also campaigned on a balanced budget in the last election. I recognize that his riding is much like mine. There are two automotive assembly plants, a medium-sized truck assembly plant, and a lot of suppliers in that whole field in my riding. Very recently, General Motors announced the layoff of 600 people from one of those plants.

As his and my communities suffer under the Ontario Liberals and the high energy costs, I wonder if he, as I have, has wondered about all of the spending that the Liberals are so proud of. They have not talked about where the money is going to come from and which generations are going to end up paying for it. I wonder if he has any of those same concerns as we go forward. We need to take care of people today, but we also need to be concerned about the young people of tomorrow.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question about the cost of borrowing. One has to look at why one is borrowing and what one is going to get in return. Similar to my constituents, the member's constituents will be very hard pressed to understand why some of these expenditures have taken place and at what cost. There are many policies of the Conservatives and Liberals with regard to manufacturing that I differ with. I believe in a sectoral strategy, which has been done in South Korea's automotive industry. We can look at what has been taking place in Germany, the United States, and Mexico. They have identified auto manufacturing as a specific strategy to actually set targets and numbers. Similarly, to reduce our debt, we have to set the targets, look at the benchmarks, and evaluate them. One of the key elements is to try to make sure there is going to be accountability for those things.

I could go on all day about the infrastructure bank alone and ask for unanimous consent to do so, but the lack of accountability will be its Achilles' heel because we will not be able to see what the value for money will be at the end of the day.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand today to speak in support of budget 2017, specifically in relation to Canada's youth and our young generation.

My riding of Mississauga—Erin Mills contains the renowned University of Toronto Mississauga campus. When we door-knocked and I met with constituents over the past year, one of the recurring themes that kept arising and continues to arise is the concern among our youth about their security in the future, their job prospects, and their career prosects. I am very happy that budget 2017 addresses all of this.

Young Canadians will be the ones who drive the future growth of Canada's economy, yet too many struggle to complete the education they need to succeed now and in the future. Even young Canadians who do well in school can find it difficult to get the practical work experience they need to find and keep good, well-paying jobs after graduation. To help young Canadians succeed, budget 2017 proposes a number of measures that will help create good, well-paying jobs and support young Canadians as they transition into the workforce.

Canadian youth have the talent and the drive to succeed in the labour market. To help them make the transition from school to work and get a strong start in their careers, the government invests in the youth employment strategy, a government-wide initiative to help support Canada's newest workers. Last year, the government announced new investments in the youth employment strategy and the Canada summer jobs program, which help to create short-term job opportunities for students between the ages of 15 and 30. This initiative specifically created hundreds of jobs for students in my riding of Mississauga—Erin Mills.

These investments are supporting the creation of over 5,000 opportunities for young Canadians under the skills link stream, which helps vulnerable youth overcome barriers to employment; nearly 2,500 new green jobs that help young Canadians learn about their natural environment and contribute to economic growth in the environmental sectors; and additional job opportunities for young Canadians to work in the heritage sector through the young Canada works program. To further expand employment opportunities for young Canadians, budget 2017 proposes to provide an additional $395.5 million over three years starting in 2017-18 for the youth employment strategy. Combined with budget 2016 measures, these investments will help more than 33,000 vulnerable youth develop the skills they need to find work or to go back to school; create 15,000 new green jobs for young Canadians; and provide over 1,600 new employment opportunities for youth in the heritage sector.

Budget 2017 presents youth with a new and ambitious approach to work-integrated learning. Co-operative education and work-integrated learning programs such as the ones offered by various universities in Canada are a proven way for students to get the work experience they need to build their resumés and build a network of professional contacts. To create new co-op placements and work-integrated learning opportunities for post-secondary students enrolled in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, or STEM for short, and business programs, budget 2016 provided $73 million over four years for job-creating partnerships between employers and interested post-secondary institutions. This investment is expected to create up to 8,700 new work-integrated learning placements over the next four years, making more opportunities available to young women and men interested in STEM.

Young Canadians are curious, talented, entrepreneurial, and well educated. These are traits that make them well positioned to deliver the next great breakthrough in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. In order to unlock this potential, young Canadians need to have equal access to the formative experiences that can spark new ideas and inspire careers in these important fields. This is especially true for those young Canadians who are traditionally under-represented in the STEM fields, including women and indigenous peoples.

The PromoScience program helps to introduce diverse groups of young Canadians to the power and potential of these exciting fields through hands-on learning experiences such as space camps and conservation projects. To support these efforts, budget 2017 proposes to invest $10.8 million over five years, starting in 2017-18, to allow PromoScience to support more STEM learning activities for Canadian youth, in particular, under-represented groups.

Teachers also play an important role in keeping students engaged in formal STEM learning and in developing the culture of innovation that Canada needs today and in the future. Budget 2017 proposes to invest $1.5 million over five years, starting in 2017-18, to expand the prime minister's awards for teaching excellence, to include 17 new STEM-themed awards. These awards will recognize teaching excellence and allow for broad sharing of teaching practices at the national level.

To help more Canadians learn about and celebrate extraordinary accomplishments in research excellence, budget 2017 also proposes to create a new prime minister's gold medal. This award would recognize scientific excellence and bring greater international acclaim to Canadian scientists and researchers.

To create even more work-integrated learning opportunities for Canadian students, the government announced it would renew and expand federal funding for Mitacs, a not-for-profit organization that builds partnerships between industry and educational institutions. Budget 2017 proposes to provide $221 million over five years, starting in 2017-18, to achieve this goal and provide relevant work experience to Canadian students. This investment in Mitacs' work-integrated learning programs would help deliver 10,000 internships per year to post-secondary students.

Meric Gertler, the president of the University of Toronto celebrated this investment and added, “The Government of Canada is to be commended for this investment in Canadian talent through Mitacs. It will provide career-building opportunities for graduate students and post-doctoral fellows, and top-quality expertise for businesses and other organizations. These are key factors in building our country’s capacity for innovation and in driving our long-term prosperity.”

In addition, budget 2017 is set to renew investments in Pathways to Education Canada. Each year, too many young Canadians drop out of high school, often because they do not have access to the basic supports needed to succeed in school. To help these young students, the government provides support to Pathways to Education Canada, a charitable organization that helps youth in low-income communities across Canada complete high school and successfully transition into post-secondary education and employment.

Budget 2017 proposes to renew the government's support for Pathways to Education Canada by providing $38 million over four years, starting in 2018-19. With this renewed funding, Pathways to Education Canada would provide more vulnerable youth with the supports they need to succeed in school, including tutoring, career mentoring, and financial help, such as scholarships and internships.

Furthermore, budget 2017 provides solutions to reducing employment barriers for first nations youth living on reserve. First nations youth on reserve face unique challenges to enter the labour force. It is important that youth have the supports they need to access employment opportunities so they can begin careers that will benefit them over the course of their lifetimes. To help first nations youth acquire better pre-employment skills, access education and training, and overcome barriers to employment, budget 2017 proposes to invest $39.2 million in 2017-18 to provide case management services for youth living on reserve.

Budget 2017 takes the next step in the government's long-term economic plan, understanding that in the face of unprecedented change, a confident Canadian middle class and an empowered youth will always be the beating heart of our country and the engine of our economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her interesting and important speech.

My colleague emphasized youth and the young generation. We agree it is important to invest in them. However, we do not share the same attitude of the government because, when it borrows money, the bill will be paid by the next generation. If it cannot pay its bills today, it will be our children and grandchildren, many of whom are not born yet, who will have to pay for its misjudgement. I would like the member on this side to explain how the government can be so concerned about youth when it will be handing them a bill for its bad administration, with huge deficits, three times what was expected. She was elected under the oath of a $10 billion deficit, and now we are talking about $30 billion. She was elected on a zero deficit by 2019, and we are now talking about a zero deficit by 2055. How can she deal with that?

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our government believes that Canadians are strong, and we need to provide them with the foundation to help continue to build our country. Budget 2017 is an investment into our future. It is an investment into the Canadian people and our middle class. When we empower our youth, when we empower our middle class, we will help our nation prosper.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, through you, I would like to put a question to the member. I appreciate her putting the emphasis on the value of education. However, what is a great disappointment to aboriginal children in this country is that the government has taken the position that it does not have to respond to the directives of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. It is astounding that it would take that position. It is greatly disappointing for all of the children in Canada who stood up to say that aboriginal children should have the same right of access to quality education as other children in this country.

The government has decided, yet again in this year's budget, not to ensure the same equal access to services and education for aboriginal children as other children in the country have. What is the member's response to that? Does she agree with her government that it does not have to comply with the determination of the Canadian Human Rights Commission?

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our government has made it very clear that we stand for the rights of aboriginal people in our country, and we will do what it takes to make sure that equal access is provided. Therefore, budget 2017 makes major investments into aboriginal youth to ensure that their education is preserved and that they are also able to prosper and become part of a working economy here in Canada. We look forward to working with all members in this House to continue to work for all people of Canada, including our aboriginal communities.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the member to go further into the discussion about the investments that our government is making, the investments in education, investments in STEM, which she mentioned, and the investments in child care and support, which will help get people of all genders working on behalf of Canadians and their own prosperity, as well as the prosperity of our country.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for giving me the opportunity to continue to comment on this important topic.

As the census results came in for 2016, I found that there were approximately 3,000 more women than men in my riding of Mississauga—Erin Mills. Therefore, I am very happy with the great initiatives that this government has taken ensuring further equality in our workforce, making investments with respect to STEM, and ensuring that our diversity of opinion is also reflected in the great work that is done by Canadians in this important field of STEM.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, I am pleased to take this opportunity to thank the voters of my riding for giving me the responsibility to represent their interests in the political affairs of our nation. While my constituents are pleased with the calibre of representation they receive from their federal member of Parliament in Ottawa, their worst fears are being realized by an arrogant Prime Minister who is totally out of touch with the concerns of average, everyday Canadians.

What Parliament has before it today with Bill C-44 is more than 300 pages of out-of-control spending to implement another deficit budget that promises to mortgage the future our children, their children, and the generation after that. For a government that claims to be implementing its election promises, I have yet to be shown where the promise of budget deficits until maybe 2055 was told to voters. The worst parts of this budget are the huge deficit and that it continues to fail veterans. The Liberal Party talked a mean game when it preached to have empathy for veterans.

Unfortunately, the biggest failure of the government, after cutting $12 billion from the defence budget, was not insisting on the resignation of the Minister of National Defence. The minister has disgraced his office, his comrades, and his position. This is a deplorable situation. He lacks the courage to even provide a real explanation for his repeated need to embellish the truth, and he lacks the courage to do the right thing and fall on his sword, which is what honourable soldiers would do if they found themselves in the situation of the Minister of National Defence, which is entirely of his own making.

The Prime Minister has, with his deficit budget, betrayed soldiers and veterans like Warrant Officer Roger Perreault. Unlike the Minister of National Defence, for whom stolen valour was his way to curry favour with his boss Gerald Butts, who is the architect of the Green Energy Act in Ontario and who provides the talking points for the Prime Minister, Warrant Officer Perreault is a Canadian hero. He was critically injured serving his country in Afghanistan.

On February 8, I posed a question to the government on behalf of Warrant Officer Roger Perreault, a member of the Canadian Armed Forces, regarding his eligibility for the critical injury benefit. Unlike the current defence minister who prefers to embellish his service record, Officer Perreault was an Afghanistan veteran who, in the process of serving his country honourably, was critically injured by a roadside bomb. He is being denied the critical injury benefit, being told that at age 46 his injuries are the result of his body wearing out. It is unbelievable. Rejected by the Liberal government for the critical injury benefit in March 2016, he appealed that decision, only to be denied his next appeal.

Veterans are not interested in hearing how many new bureaucrats have been hired or that empty offices are being opened in a government-held riding. Veterans want action. What happened to the election promise to draw, from all circumstances of a veteran's case and all the evidence presented to the government, every reasonable inference in favour of the applicant? Warrant Officer Perreault and other Afghanistan veterans are the real Canadian heroes. Let us start treating them like heroes.

Budget 2016 marked the beginning of a second Liberal era of darkness for Canada's women and men in the Canadian Armed Forces. The decision to relocate or re-profile—which is Liberalspeak for cut—$8.5 billion in defence allocations in budget 2017, in addition to the previous cuts, confirms the worst fears of our women and men in uniform. Canada's veterans are being told that they should just wait, that tomorrow and the next budget will fix everything. It is the tomorrow budget, but tomorrow never comes. It is a false economy to plan on denying veterans benefits with the expectation that the veterans will eventually give up fighting for what they are entitled to receive.

In addition to the treatment of veterans, this budget fails Canadians by what it hides from Canadians. What is not explained to Canadians with this budget, and so much of what the government is doing behind the backs of Canadians, is the real impact of plunging this country into a series of massive deficits in pursuit of agenda 2030: the radical UN climate agenda that is bankrupting individual Canadians and causing massive financial hardship.

Canadians are asking where the line item is in this budget bill to compensate for losses, damages, and the destruction of private property due to environmental policies that have not been properly costed, including a proper cost-benefit analysis.

Canadians are being misinformed that radical environmental policies are necessary to save Canada and the world, with no explanation of cost or whether many of these policies are really necessary or just another tax grab, like the Liberal carbon tax.

Residents in my riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke are only now finding out about plan 2014, after reading about it from American media sources, which has forced some media in Canada to report about it. Plan 2014 was an agreement signed by the dying Obama U.S. administration after the recent American U.S. election but ratified before the new president had taken office. It was signed on December 8, 2016, the day the lame duck U.S. vice-president, Joe Biden, showed up in Ottawa for a visit shrouded in secrecy and speculation as to the true nature of his trip.

Plan 2014 was never brought before Parliament. There was no discussion or debate regarding the cost, including who would pay for the losses. The plan contains no promises or built-in provisions for more federal or state aid to deal with problems it might cause. This treatment is quite different from the treatment given by the Liberal government and the finance minister to nations in Africa, who are given billions of Canadian dollars, taxpayers' dollars, to fight climate change in their countries. The official readout for Biden's Ottawa visit stated “combating global climate change” and other things.

The plan 2014 agreement changes a regulating system that had been in place on the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River since 1958. Plan 2014, which is designed to more closely mimic the lakes' natural ups and down, adds muskrats, fish, and other wildlife to the list of interests regulators must now consider when they decide how much water to release.

The new regulation blocks the flow of water through the Moses-Saunders dam located on the St. Lawrence River between Cornwall, Ontario, and Massena, New York. By blocking the flow of the St. Lawrence, the entire Great Lakes watershed has now backed up. One of its many goals is to create 64,000 acres of wetland to fight climate change. Another goal is to increase hydroelectric power.

The mismanagement of the electricity sector in Ontario is well documented. The Province of Ontario has been politically interfering with the water dams that produce electricity to pay for its failed energy policy by holding back too much water in the reservoirs. With too much water in the reservoirs, there was no place to accumulate the winter melt and any additional rains from the late spring. This is backed up in the Ottawa River watershed and into the St. Lawrence, flooding Montreal as well as the Ottawa Valley and the Great Lakes.

The combination of Ontario's failed electrical policies and the decision by the government of the Ottawa Liberals to change a 59-year-old water agreement between Canada and the U.S. has created a manmade crisis. We had a late spring, and we have the perfect storm of incompetence.

Climate change gets blamed for everything these days, including the deficit budget. The Liberal government in Ottawa has adopted the practice of the Liberal Party in Toronto in blaming every bad policy as necessary to fight manmade global warming. Taxpayers have every right to be skeptical.

Flooding in my riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke is beyond crisis, as residents watch their front yards turned into wetlands. On behalf of the flooded residents, I contacted the Minister of National Defence, who was too busy sandbagging calls for his resignation to respond to the cries for help to fill sandbags to hold back the rising waters. There is no doubt that, had the Liberals responded to my call for help back on April 21 with a flooding crisis, the damage and destruction could have been reduced.

The bill to the federal and provincial Liberal governments, who share blame for this crisis, will be substantial. Will municipalities be expected to borrow from the Liberals' infrastructure bank, which is referred to in this legislation, to rebuild the destruction of the infrastructure, taxpayers borrowing their own tax-paid dollars and then paying $9 billion in interest payments?

Bill C-44 is filled with distorted incentive, blame avoidance, credit taking, ideological policy, finger pointing, and the competitive and duplicative provision of programs in popular spending areas. It is time to send budget 2017 back to the drawing board.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am always intrigued when the member opposite delivers a speech. I reflect on the days when she was in government and had to criticize something, so she criticized the provincial government because it was Liberal. If it is not Conservative, it is bad, bad, bad. I think that is the message the member gets across better than any Conservative, New Democrat, or Bloc member. If there is a dark side to anything in life, the member has a way of pulling it out.

I have a challenge for the member. I have listened to many of her speeches. Is there anything at all that she believes is remotely positive in this budget from her perspective? Canadians as a whole understand, appreciate, and support this government's budget, but it seems she may be the only one in the country who might not have a positive thing to say about the budget or maybe even life in general. I wonder if she could say something positive about it.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have to thank the member opposite, my biggest fan in the House, for his elocution. In any case, I always look forward to his being in the audience to make sure I can draw further attention to the important points that I make.

With respect to the provincial government, that was a warning to the people who were about to go to Ottawa, because the actual architect of the green energy act is now the key adviser to the Prime Minister, and he is driving this country into the hole just the same way he drove Ontario into the hole.

This is not just my opinion on this budget. I talked to constituents and asked for feedback. They gave me the five worst things about the budget. Number one is it betrays veterans. Number two is electronic T4s, because they do not have any faith in the government's being able to stop hacking. Next was student loans for non-citizens, then raising the takeover review threshold, and then the infrastructure bank, where we pay interest on borrowing dollars that taxpayers already put into that bank.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there are many sawmills in my riding. We are talking about the budget, but, unfortunately, I will not have the opportunity to speak about it because the government moved a time allocation motion.

A very important issue was not addressed in the budget, even though we have been asking the government to prepare for it for over a year and a half. The sawmills in my riding are on the verge of a crisis. They may even have to shut down because of the surtax, the countervailing duties, currently being imposed. This will have a negative impact on workers. The government keeps boasting that it is working for the well-being of the middle class, but what are we supposed to tell these people when the government did not include anything in the budget in preparation for this crisis?

There is a major crisis with regard to supercalendered paper, for example, which is very heavily taxed. Two plants, one in Dolbeau-Mistassini and one in Kénogami, will have to close their doors in the coming year. This is a federal tax and, if the federal government does not assume its responsibilities, then thousands of people in my community are going to lose their jobs.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the government's inaction in this budget.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when it was apparent that there was not going to be a deal in time and that the countervailing duties were about to come down, my office received a call saying we would get help for all our unemployed forestry workers. That is not the answer we wanted.

In eastern Ontario, parts of Quebec, and parts of northern Ontario, our chief production is white pine and red cedar. Those products should never have been put into the softwood lumber agreement in the first place. Softwood lumber was for construction lumber. White pine and eastern red cedar are specialty woods. They were thrown into the agreement, and now here we are, asking again to have exclusions for these species.

I want to thank the hon. member for providing me with the opportunity to talk about this important industry. At the end of the day, the Province of Ontario keeps on shrinking the footprint of areas where forestry workers can actually harvest forests. We have the model of sustainable forestry for the world—for every one tree harvested, three are planted in return—but the federal government is not interested. It said from the outset that it wanted to change from being a resource economy to a Google economy.

In any case, the Liberals do not care about forestry workers, and that is the bottom line.

[Raj Grewal, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege and an honour to rise in this House, especially when we get an opportunity to speak to budget 2017, Building a Strong Middle Class.

Our government has been hard at work ensuring that Canadians in the middle class and those working hard to join it have the policies that put Canadians first, but today I want to speak about things that in a changing economy can have a real impact on the lives of Canadians and how our budget is going to help Canadians thrive over the long term. Our success as a country will be determined by our ability to prepare for and adapt to these changes to grow and strengthen the middle class and those working hard to join it.

As a large country that relies on trade for its economic success, Canada needs to ensure that people and products can move quickly and safely, whether from home to work or from harvest to warehouse. The success of many companies depends on high-quality transportation infrastructure to get goods to market.

Here are some names in the agrifood sector in Brampton that members may recognize: the Coca-Cola bottling group, Maple Lodge Farms, Loblaws Companies, Italpasta, Sun Rich Fresh Foods, Maple Leaf Canada, Bacardi Canada, and Frito-Lay Canada.

As announced in the 2016 fall economic update, this government will invest $10.1 billion over 11 years in trade and transportation products. This investment will build stronger and more efficient transportation corridors to international markets and help Canadian businesses to compete, grow, and create more jobs for Canada's middle class. As part of the $10.1-billion investment, we will launch a new national trade corridors fund to prioritize investments that address congestion and bottlenecks along vital corridors and around transportation hubs and ports that provide access to world markets. Building on Transport Canada's gateways model, this fund is expected to target congestion and inefficiencies at marine ports as well as along the busiest rail and highway corridors to ensure that small- and medium-sized businesses in Brampton can produce in Brampton but have access to markets all around the world.

An additional $5 billion or more would be provided through the Canada infrastructure bank to address trade and transportation priorities. In addition to identifying priority investments that would help streamline transportation along Canada's major trade corridors, the fund would look for ways to improve the flow of supplies to northern communities, which is important, and unlock economic development in Canada's three territories and create more well-paying middle-class jobs.

As elsewhere in this country, there are countless people in Brampton who drive trucks to and from our southern neighbour to support their families. Their livelihoods depend on a transportation sector, a booming economy, and a strong trade relationship with the U.S.

Expanding Canada's trade links requires an important discussion around our economic success. Strong trade relationships create more opportunities for middle-class Canadians to succeed and prosper. According to the Brampton Board of Trade, Brampton sees roughly $6.7 billion in goods sold to the U.S. Over 420 Brampton companies export to the U.S. and consider the U.S. to be their most important trading market, responsible for over 34% of their sales. That is why the government is engaging with the United States, with which we share one of the most successful economic relationships in the world, highlighting the fact that our strong interconnected trade relationship is balanced and beneficial to millions of middle-class families on both sides of the border.

We are also prioritizing trade and investment with key markets in fast-growing areas such as Asia, including with China, India, and Japan, to deepen Canada's ties with this continent and create jobs here at home. Succeeding in the global economy of tomorrow requires openness to the world and strategic partnerships. A key example is the March 22 announcement by the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank that it has accepted Canada's application for membership.

Membership in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank will help enable high-quality infrastructure and other development projects that would have benefits for people in the region, as well as for Canadians, by supporting inclusive sustainable economic growth in Asia and beyond. Budget 2017 proposes to invest $256 million over five years to join the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.

When it comes to the engines that power our economy in Canada, Canada's agriculture and agrifood sector accounts for more than 6% of Canada's GDP and employs one out of every eight Canadian. The industry is strong, and in recent years farm revenues, annual exports, and farm incomes have reached record highs, but there is room for improvement, driven in part by the innovative potential of value-added products as the middle class grows in Asia and demand for food rises. Budget 2017 introduces a series of measures to help our agricultural producers and processors excel.

For over 15 years, federal, provincial, and territorial governments have relied on agricultural policy frameworks to promote a collaborative approach to agricultural programming that encourages investment, adaptation, and sustainable growth in the sector. These frameworks have provided the foundation for government agricultural programs and services.

The current agricultural policy framework is set to expire in March 2018. We are committed to working with provinces and territories to develop a new policy framework that supports sustainable growth, innovation, and competitiveness, and helps the sector to adapt to a technology-driven reality.

As part of the development of the next framework, which will be launched in 2018, we will consider the ways in which innovation in agriculture can help strengthen the sector as a whole and create more well-paying jobs for middle-class Canadians.

Brampton is part of the Ontario food cluster, the second-largest food processing cluster in North America. Ontario is home to more than half of Canada's food processing companies. Just a short drive from my neck of the woods, the Ontario food terminal is the largest wholesale fruit and produce distribution centre in Canada and the third-largest in North America, distributing an average of 5.4 million pounds per day.

As part of the innovation corridor, companies in Brampton, like Embassy Flavours, Zadi Foods, Hans Dairy, and KFI lncorporated would have the ability to rely on an innovative agrifood sector, a strong trade relationship, and dependable transit infrastructure. They rely on their governments for this.

That is why our government is taking a multi-faceted approach in budget 2017 to harness change for our benefit. When the middle class is strong and when people feel optimistic and confident about the future, Canadians can and will succeed. When middle-class Canadians believe their hard work can translate to a better life for themselves and their children and grandchildren, they become an unstoppable force.

We know that better is possible and we know the best way to deliver more prosperity to the greatest number of middle-class Canadians is by making smart investments in people and in the economy. The tools that are needed to help Canadians succeed and prosper over the long term are included in budget 2017.

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned the Asian infrastructure bank. Interestingly enough, the Obama administration and the former Conservative governments decided not to join the bank because it was not in the best interests of taxpayers. It is $1.3 billion that taxpayers are on the hook for, when direct funding through CETA guarantees Canadian involvement.

I am wondering, with $35 billion for the latest Liberal infrastructure bank and with the taxpayers at risk, why does he think this is a good idea?

[Raj Grewal, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague started off by saying that the previous Harper government decided not to join the Asia infrastructure bank. However, as she knows, on October 19, 2015, there was an election, and Canadians across the country overwhelmingly voted for change. What real change brought, as opposed to the last 10 years of the lowest growth in the country and lowest job growth in the country, was the highest increase in jobs. We have the lowest unemployment rate in the last eight years because of our investments in the economy.

The Canada child benefit that we implemented has been game-changing for families in Brampton East and all across the country, so we are going to continue to invest in middle-class Canadians and those working hard to join it. Our infrastructure investments are paying off by reducing the unemployment rate in our country, which is at 6.5%. We will continue to work hard to ensure that all Canadians looking for a job have a great one to go to.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has a lot to say about the infrastructure bank. In my riding, the Bagotville airport needs to be renovated and expanded because we want to bring in more tourists.

We want UNESCO designation for the fjord, and we hope the committee will support that. That designation is a global seal of approval. Expanding the Bagotville airport is critical to developing our tourism industry.

In the last election, the government campaigned hard on the infrastructure bank idea and went on and on about a huge infrastructure boom, but sadly that will not help Promotion Saguenay, nor will it get the Bagotville airport expanded. We will not be getting any help from Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions either.

What does my colleague have to say to Promotion Saguenay about the fact that it will not be getting any help from the government or from the federal government program because there is no such help for it?

[Raj Grewal, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our government has made record investments in infrastructure. The Canada investment bank will make a further investment of $35 billion over 11 years.

The NDP's rhetoric has always been about helping Canadians to prosper, about helping middle-class families get jobs that provide food on the table and clothes on their backs. The member opposite talked about infrastructure funding for her airport. I would encourage the member and her party to support our budget, because it invests in infrastructure at a record pace. We will continue to do this. We know that investing in Canadians and in the Canadian economy allows all Canadians to succeed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, reflecting the position of cabinet and those working hard to join it.

The member gave a reasonably good speech but better is always possible. It would have been good to hear about why the government supported the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. The government can invest in infrastructure without giving the Chinese government complete control over where those dollars go. When it comes to accountability, when it comes to human rights, the way in which a bank based out of Beijing operates will be different. The previous American administration chose not to participate in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank precisely because of these concerns.

Why can the Liberal government not make infrastructure investments that do not involve the Chinese government calling the shots?

[Raj Grewal, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I generally do not agree on anything, and that trend continues today. He is a very nice gentleman and I wish him nothing but the best under the future leadership that is about to occur.

When it comes to infrastructure, we will not take lessons from a party that had 10 years in government to help build roads, airports, and transportation hubs in our country. We will ensure we invest in a globalized economy so countries know Canada is ready for their investments, that Canada is willing to ensure Canadians and hard-working small businesses have access to world markets.

When it comes to infrastructure, it is so important for us to ensure that the small manufacturers in Brampton have an opportunity to get access to world markets. That happens with sound, fiscally responsible infrastructure investment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by saying that it is not in my nature to admit defeat at the outset, but this sure feels like an impossible task. I have 10 minutes to do an in-depth, detailed analysis of Bill C-44.

I will start with the title: an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017—so far, so good—and other measures. Obviously, those measures are not listed. I think a list of the measures that are not mentioned would be three or four pages long. This bill is 290 pages long and amends 30 separate acts.

Let no one think this is an omnibus bill. That was how the Conservatives did things. The Liberals will probably come up with some other name for it, but it is all the same thing.

Worse yet, if we in the NDP wanted to pool our resources together and tackle this budgetary measure, Bill C-44, together as a team, we would not be able to. Time allocation has been invoked, which means that many members of the House, who were elected to be the voice of their constituents in Ottawa, will not be heard yet again because apparently the Liberals have heard enough from us.

I am sorry, but we are light years away from a democratic measure and a democratic discussion or exchange worthy of this place. I will have to pick and choose from the items in this budget that I want to address.

When my speaking time is up, then I will give the floor to one of the few people who will have a chance to speak in the few hours remaining in this debate.

This bill contains not a single tax measure that would restore some semblance of balance among the citizens of this country. There has been a lot of talk about the middle class. The Liberals mention it in practically every paragraph. Strangely enough, those who are part of it are the ones who will be most affected. I have an example that illustrates my point quite well. I could go off on a long diatribe about how there is nothing in this budget to help people who, unfortunately, by a quirk of fate, lose their jobs at some point in their career and must relocate. The budget does absolutely nothing to establish fairer eligibility standards.

Over on this side of the House, we have often advocated for a single eligibility threshold of 360 hours. There is nothing on this in the budget. At present, six out of ten workers who pay premiums are not eligible for benefits when they need them. Let me remind the House that the government is not putting one red cent into EI.

The Liberals are very skilled at window dressing, and there really is something in the budget for employment insurance, in particular parental benefits. It is a well-intentioned measure that, in the end, does not amount to much. To create a better work-life balance, I suppose, and to allow parents who choose to do so to stay home longer after their children are born, they are now being told that parental leave will be flexible and can be extended. However, the amount of benefits they will get will not increase.

A parent can use their credit, if I can call it that, for up to 18 months and receive benefits equal to 33% of their salary. The parent can also choose to take 12 months off and receive 55% of their salary. Obviously, living on 55% of their income already requires substantial changes to their lifestyle in order to make ends meet every month. However, it is for a good cause, namely having a new child in the family and spending the first months, even the first year, with their child. That is important. That person is also prepared to make a certain number of sacrifices and adapt to the situation.

However, can middle-class people really afford to take 18 months of leave with 33% of their income? Once again, the government will claim over and over to have helped the middle class when the only ones who will actually be in a position to benefit from the measure are those who are wealthy enough to live off 33% of their income. This measure sounds good in theory, but in practice it is aimed at a completely different group.

I would like to draw members' attention to something else: the budget watchdog. It may not be the nicest expression, but it is definitely an accurate one. I am talking about the parliamentary budget officer. If there is one resource that is absolutely essential for all members of the House in order to fully grasp the measures that are put before us and to introduce effective checks and balances, it is the work of the parliamentary budget officer, who, in theory, is completely independent.

The parliamentary budget officer will now have to have his work plan approved by the Speaker of the Senate or the Speaker of the House. In theory, both are independent, but in reality, that is certainly debatable. According to the parliamentary budget officer's research, in the 17 countries with such an office, no such approval is required and political interference is not allowed. Once again, the Liberals have come up with a proposal that is novel, but not noteworthy.

The Liberals want to prevent the parliamentary budget officer from being a watchdog, as I mentioned earlier. For example, if this bill had already been passed, we would not have known that the Liberals' tax plan benefits the wealthy, nor would we have uncovered the real cost of the F-35s. Furthermore, individual members will no longer be able to ask the parliamentary budget officer to conduct research, which I feel is a disaster. As we know, sometimes there are important items that concern a riding or a very specific region, but not all of Canada, and which require study as though they were of general interest. I have some examples from my own riding, but I will not expand on them because my time is quickly running out.

To conclude on this point, I would like to quote Jean-Denis Fréchette, the parliamentary budget officer, who said: “I think this bill is problematic. I think it is weaker than the existing legislation.” He is more polite than I am, but that is understandable, given his position.

Regarding prior approval for the parliamentary budget officer's work plan, he said that he:

...can easily imagine that a Speaker might not approve a future parliamentary budget officer's decision to assess the fiscal impact of a controversial spending initiative because it would affect the Speaker's party's chances of getting elected.

Those are the parliamentary budget officer's words, not mine. He added that it was difficult to understand how the measure could really work in the interest of greater transparency and get us the results we need.

In the short time I have left I would like to talk about the cuts to international aid. We know that Canada is probably on track to achieve its worst record in international aid. The Minister of Finance announced not too long ago that organizations working in this area would just have to learn to do more with less. That is an old refrain that we have been hearing for ages, and apparently, it will not stop under this Liberal administration.

With respect to tax credits, there is an absolute abyss between what is in here for the middle class and what is in here for the wealthy. Instead of keeping the public transit tax credit, which helps everyone, the Liberals are getting rid of it, but big corporate CEOs get to keep their tax breaks. On the one hand, we have a legal loophole worth about $800 million per year, and on the other, we have a tax credit that truly is for middle-class people because they use public transit a whole lot more than CEOs do.

They are getting rid of a tax credit that cost about $200 million. If that is not a double standard, I do not know what it is.

Here is what Mark Hancock had to say about Bill C-44: “If you’re an infrastructure bankroller or a billionaire tax dodger, today is a good day. For working Canadians, not so much.”

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

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to listen to New Democrats talk about this issue. They say there should be more of a tax on Canada's wealthiest, but the facts speak differently. When the Government of Canada said it believed in Canada's middle class and was going to give Canada's middle class a tax break, the NDP voted no. When it came to putting a special tax on Canada's wealthiest, the NDP said no. That is the reality. That is black and white. That is in legislation and in the budget. Now the member talks about why Canada's wealthiest should be given special treatment.

Can the member explain to the House today why the NDP voted against the tax put on Canada's wealthiest one per cent?

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

Mr. Speaker, when I heard the first part of my hon. colleague's question, I was moved because it seemed like the Liberals were listening to the NDP. It finally dawned on me, however, that they are willing to hear our proposals, but not really listen. There is a difference between hearing and listening and I would love for that gap to narrow.

The measure to increase taxes on the wealthy was supposed to offset the tax cut for the middle class and those wishing to join it. Since its introduction, however, this measure alone has been costing us over $1 billion a year.

In other words, the government took a few dollars from the rich, but not enough for them to notice, in order to give that money to the middle class and charge the deficit to their children's credit card.

I think it is pretty clear why we voted the way we did. Let us not forget that the budget included a host of measures, not just one.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague referred to listening and hearing. My spouse reminds me often of that same listening and hearing skill.

This morning the minister talked about less than 12% of members having spoken to this bill, but he also suggested that Liberals had listened to some of the ideas from some of the members. With only that small percentage that he heard from, if we had longer to speak on it, not closure, there would have been more ideas to listen to, if we had the opportunity. What is the member's response to the closure motion and some of the good ideas that the minister said he had already listened to, and other members not having a chance to suggest more good ideas?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I do not know his wife, but she seems like a wise woman. Unfortunately, like us and my colleague, she will not have the opportunity to be heard in the House.

I thought that no one would ever manage to beat the Conservatives' record for the number of time allocation motions moved during the previous Parliament, but the way things are going, I think that the Liberals may once again outdo the Conservatives and prove to be even more disgraceful than the Harper government.

[Don Rusnak, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand in this House today and highlight the many positive investments budget 2017 makes in northern Ontario and how these investments would benefit the people who live, work, and play in Thunder Bay—Rainy River.

Our government is committed to moving forward on its plan to make a meaningful impact in the lives of northern Ontarians, and budget 2017 does just that. Under the previous government, significant cuts were made to FedNor, causing economic hardship across the region. With budget 2017, FedNor will receive a $25 million increase over five years to promote job creation and economic growth in northern Ontario.

Along with my colleagues in the northern Ontario caucus, I am pleased with the dedication to strengthening our economy and recognizing the key role our region plays in Canada's economy as a whole.

The Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development also launched the prosperity and growth strategy for northern Ontario, a targeted approach to economic development through innovation. This strategy will focus on ways to build on the unique strengths and competitive advantages that northern Ontario has in mining, resources, and agriculture, among other sectors. The strategy will identify ways for these sectors to seize new opportunities in emerging industries, such as clean technology, and develop new businesses that will create the well-paying jobs of today and tomorrow for northern Ontarians.

This regional strategy for northern Ontario is part of the Government of Canada's innovation and skills plan, an ambitious effort to make Canada a world-leading centre for innovation that will create more well-paying jobs and grow the middle class. The goal of this plan is to encourage innovation and attract global investment in every region of the country. It will provide Canadians with the support they need, wherever they live and work, to continuously learn, enhance their skill set, and be equipped for the jobs of the future.

On top of this, budget 2017 invests $2 billion into infrastructure projects in rural and remote communities. This will have a real impact on families in Ontario's north. No longer will FedNor serve as a catch-all for projects in Ontario's north. This shift will free up important FedNor dollars that can then be invested in innovation and economic development, which is why FedNor was initially created. This is an important change in how our government addresses the needs in northern Ontario.

Growing our economy in northern Ontario also means investing in our people and making smart investments. Budget 2017 is assisting in transforming northern Ontario into a world-leading centre for innovation, creating more good, well-paying careers that will help strengthen and grow the middle class.

We are taking measures to ensure that our forestry industry is innovating and growing new opportunities for expansion, such as the partnership between Resolute Forest Products, FPInnovations, and Lakehead University at Resolute's facility in Thunder Bay.

Our government is also supporting early-stage mineral exploration through the extension of the mineral exploration tax credit. Budget 2017 will also create a new strategic innovation fund to attract, support, and grow Canadian businesses in areas such as agrifood, digital, clean tech, and advanced manufacturing.

Northern Ontarians also know the importance of having access to reliable, fast Internet. Our government is working hard to ensure people in Thunder Bay—Rainy River and across the country have access to high-speed Internet. Through budget 2017 we are supporting the affordable access program for low-income families, and the expansion of high-speed broadband for rural communities.

This is in addition to budget 2016's $500 million to support expansion of high-speed broadband for rural communities. This means that in the future families, individuals, and small business owners in Murillo, Kakabeka Falls, Barwick, Mine Centre, and across the riding will be able to enjoy the benefits of reliable and fast service that broadband provides.

When I was knocking on doors in Thunder Bay—Rainy River, many community members also expressed concern over access to health care services. Through health funding agreements with Ontario, we are providing additional support so families can get the mental health care and home care they need. We are also improving access to pharmaceuticals to help lower the cost of prescription medication and make sure people in Thunder Bay—Rainy River can afford medications.

Thanks to budget 2017, northern Ontarians will have better access to the health services they deserve. We are also working to create good, well-paying middle-class jobs.

Budget 2017 helps Canadians to get the skills they need through employment insurance without the fear of losing benefits.

We are also supporting greater career flexibility for parents of young children with the creation of up to 40,000 new early learning and child care spaces over the next three years. These investments are about growing the economy in northern Ontario, supporting families, and investing in our future.

I cannot speak to the positive benefits that budget 2017 has on my riding of Thunder Bay—Rainy River without noting the continued commitment this government has to renewing the relationship with Canada's indigenous peoples. Budget 2017 builds on the historic $8.4 billion investment in indigenous communities made by our government in budget 2016. We are improving access to primary care, mental health services, and home and palliative care, and providing greater support for maternal and child health for first nations and Inuit through an investment of $828.2 million over five years.

Budget 2017 also invests in protecting, preserving, and revitalizing indigenous languages and culture. I am especially proud of the investments budget 2017 makes in improving access to post-secondary education for indigenous learners. Our government has committed $90 million to improving the programs, which would provide more indigenous learners with the resources necessary to achieve their academic goals.

However, we did not stop there. Budget 2017 invested an additional $25 million over five years in Indspire, with an additional leveraging from the private sector of $15 million. Indspire is a non-profit organization that provides scholarships to more than 12,000 indigenous learners, many of whom are ineligible to receive funding through other programs.

We have also invested in the aboriginal skills and employment training strategy, ASETS, to help them meet the growing demand from indigenous peoples for skills development and job training. Budget 2017 also renews support for Pathways to Education, which helps vulnerable youth in Ontario complete high school and successfully transition to post-secondary education and employment.

Not only do these investments in education mean more indigenous students will be attaining post-secondary success, but they also mean that our educational institutes in northern Ontario, such as Lakehead University, Confederation College, and Seven Generations Education Institute, will have more students to serve and our region will see more skilled workers enter the workforce. These investments demonstrate our government's commitment to closing the inexcusable educational gap that exists for indigenous Canadians and will mean a better future for all Canadians.

The well-being of our veterans is also a very important issue in my riding. I have heard from a number of vets in my riding about the positive impact the reopening of our Veterans Affairs office has had on their lives since the previous government closed the office. The government is committed to ensuring that we deliver the programs and services our veterans need as they transition from military to civilian life. However, there is still more work to be done.

Budget 2017 continues that work with support to ensure veterans receive the skills, training, and education they need to succeed; better support for the families of ill and injured veterans; and investments in mental health support for veterans at risk. This includes the creation of a centre of excellence for PTSD and related mental health conditions that disproportionately affect veterans and their families.

These are just some of the ways in which budget 2017 is addressing the needs of people in Thunder Bay—Rainy River, and I am proud to be part of a government that is focused on building a better Canada for all Canadians.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River will have a five-minute period for questions and comments when the House next returns to debate on the question.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-44, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1

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

Mr. Speaker, in Animal Farm, which is an allegory for dictatorship, George Orwell said that all of the animals were equal but that some were more equal than others. It is the same thing in the House of Commons. All Canadians and the members who represent them are equal, but some of them are more equal than others.

I therefore find myself relegated to 34th place in the speaking order with only 10 minutes to speak about a mammoth bill that is 308 pages long. This will be the only opportunity the Bloc Québécois has to speak since the government has imposed a gag order. My colleague from the Green Party wanted to speak, but she will not be allowed to do so. All of this is because the rules were designed to serve a two-party system that has not existed for a long time. Under the circumstances, I will not be able to address all the issues.

As always, before the budget was tabled, the Bloc Québécois held consultations to identify Quebec's needs. I met with about 50 groups, including unions, students, municipal officials, environmental groups, community organizations, and people from the business community in both urban and rural areas. We clearly identified Quebec's expectations.

I informed the minister and his parliamentary secretary of these expectations two months ago today. As always, they were very pleased and interested, and as always they did not take any of this into account. Under the Liberals, consultations do not accomplish much. We saw this with electoral reform as well. When we moved from the Conservatives to the Liberals, we traded “shut up” for “keep talking”.

Just look at the health and education transfers. If there is one thing that everyone agreed on during our tour it was that we must preserve our public services. With the aging population, health care costs are rising and Quebec is under pressure. Starting this year, the transfers will no longer track the rising costs. In the end, it is clear that this will no longer balance. We are heading for permanent austerity where our most essential health or education services will be at risk of imploding.

However, the government chose not to listen. Quebec's health network currently costs roughly $90 million a day. Bill C-44 provides $69 million in funding for that network, or less than the cost of one day of operation. We are on our own for the rest of the year. Lucky thing it is not a leap year. Obviously we will not be voting in favour of this bill.

In addition, when it comes to infrastructure, the government pats itself on the back and announces huge amounts. In its “sunny” press releases, life is beautiful and the future is bright. In real life, things are not as much fun.

The federal government owns only 2% of public infrastructure. It is no expert at this. Cities, municipalities, and the government of Quebec are the experts. The only federal infrastructure program that might be effective is a program that transfers the money to the ones who are the experts and know how to manage it. The gas tax model works well that way. However, that is not what the government is doing.

Last year, the government announced more than $13 billion. It wrote lovely press releases and smiley face tweets. Life is beautiful. Earlier this year, however, the cat was let out of the bag. The parliamentary budget officer, the same one the government has muzzled with Bill C-44, informed us that only a third of the money had been spent.

Since Ottawa wants to stick its nose in everywhere and approve the projects one by one, everything has been frozen. Two-thirds of the money has stayed in Ottawa, and things are twice as bad and twice as slow in Quebec as elsewhere. Quebec has received only 12% of the money. What point is there in announcing amounts like that? That is half of what we were entitled to.

I would have expected the budget this year to resolve this situation, but no. With Bill C-44, the government is continuing its ineffective approach, and, even worse, it is adding fuel to the fire with its infrastructure privatization bank. That is another good reason to vote against this bill.

In their platform, the Liberals said that the government was going to offer municipalities its line of credit so they could borrow money at better rates. There is a little catch, however: their financial guarantee is being offered to the bankers. Bill C-44 is nothing but a tool for privatizing infrastructure. It is a goldmine for the Toronto financiers.

If the infrastructure projects show a loss, they are going to be able to draw on the guarantee of $80 billion of public funds. If they make a profit, they are the ones who will pocket it. In every case, whether we are talking about money from taxes paid by taxpayers, money that comes from tolls, or both, the money will land on Bay Street.

Bill C-44 socializes losses and privatizes profits and sends them to Toronto. When the government takes from the poor and gives to the financiers of Bay Street, we are not talking about Robin Hood; we are talking about the sheriff of Nottingham. No, we will not vote for that.

Bill C-44 disappoints me, particularly because there is so much about Quebec that is attractive. We are at the forefront of the green economy. The technological engine of Canada is in Quebec. We embody creativity. We represent the future.

Ottawa is holding us back. As recently as yesterday, this is what the president of the Chamber of Commerce of Metropolitan Montreal had to say: “When it comes to the major strategic and economic issues, who is the voice of Quebec in Ottawa? For the moment, no one”. That was not the Bloc Québécois speaking; it was the Chamber of Commerce of Metropolitan Montreal.

We will not vote for that. In fact, I wonder how the 40 Liberal members from Quebec, the 40 ghosts, will be able to justify their decision to support it. I doubt that a sunny press release and a smiley face will suffice this time.

Let us talk about the green economy for a moment. What does the budget offer in this regard? The government is cutting the $2 billion announced last year for “decarbonizing” the economy, including $750 million of it this year. What does the carbon tax in Bill C-44 look like? It is just as absent as the 40 Liberal members from Quebec.

When the government does something, it is to prevent Quebec from benefiting from its competitive advantages. An example is Muskrat Falls, which is now competing with us, and is a monumental $10-billion fiasco. It is a joke that is not even remotely funny, in addition to being very expensive.

When I say that Quebec is the technological engine of Canada, I am not exaggerating. Depending on the year, between 40% and 45% of Canada’s technology exports come from Quebec. At the forefront, of course, is the aeronautics industry. With the C Series, Quebec has joined the very select club of airliner manufacturers. This is a large project that is so ambitious that the development costs almost put the company into bankruptcy. When we needed Ottawa, it was missing in action. When it decided to do something, it came up with a pittance, and, even worse, it found a way to put two-thirds of its money into a project for Toronto. When Quebec is good at something, Ottawa tries to develop the same thing somewhere else in Canada, with our money.

In 1995, in the middle of the referendum campaign, Bombardier CEO Laurent Beaudoin wrote to his employees to tell them to vote no to Quebec independence. At the time, he said that Quebec was too small and a world-class company like Bombardier needed Canada’s support to expand. Times have changed considerably. We built the C Series ourselves, with no federal government help. In Ottawa, Quebec simply no longer exists. We therefore got to work and we succeeded, when we had only half a government to count on. Imagine what we could do with a real one.

However, there is not just aerospace. Canada has an economy of American subsidiaries. It is no surprise to see Bill C-44 raise the threshold for foreign investment review to $1 billion, since it wants more subsidiaries. Protecting head offices is not a Canadian priority. There is little innovation done by subsidiaries.

Whereas Canada has one of the least innovative economies in the OECD, Quebec innovates, invents, develops and creates. Our R and D intensity is almost twice that of the rest of Canada. There are lots of start-ups, with 2,500 young technology companies operating on the island of Montréal alone. Video games, information technology—there is plenty of creativity in Quebec. One might call it our modern version of the Mr. Fixit spirit.

There is also the whole field of artificial intelligence. The greatest genius in the Americas in this field is located in Montréal. Since he has trained many young people, a whole ecosystem of innovation is developing in this sector of the future. The big players like Google and Microsoft have realized that things are happening in Quebec, and so have opened offices there.

We are preparing to join the major leagues. We are close to being able to compete with Silicon Valley, so what does Ottawa do? It announces a pan-Canadian strategy to ensure that artificial intelligence develops elsewhere in Canada.

When the Ontario automotive industry was in need of a huge hand up in 2009, Ottawa did not develop a pan-Canadian super-strategy to bring back the industry in Quebec. It sent all the money to Ontario. However, when it comes to Quebec, things are done differently. When we want to develop our industries, Ottawa treats us like crybabies and talks to us about equalization. We do not want charity, we just want development.

The industries of the future are in Quebec, not in oil or in subsidiaries that do not innovate. For us, the future is in Quebec, not in Bill C-44. In fact, I am more convinced than ever that our future quite simply is not in Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, I am saddened by the member's speech. As someone whose family heritage originates in the province of Quebec, I believe Canadians, as a whole, love the province of Quebec and treat it as an equal among the different provinces.

The province of Quebec has so much to offer our country. The member made reference to the aerospace industry. Manitoba also has an aerospace industry. I have talked to people in Quebec about health care. The Minister of Health has been able to achieve a health care accord, working with the province of Quebec. Canadians want that. Whether they are in Manitoba, B.C., Quebec, or Atlantic Canada, they want a national health care program.

Does the member recognize the value of a national health care program? I believe everyone across Canada supports that.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his intervention, his comment, and his question.

Let me be clear that Quebec loves the rest of Canada. There is no question of animosity; it is just that Canada makes its policies, Quebec makes its own, and they are never in step with each other. As people sometimes say, the gears grind. They do not work. Policies created there are defeated here, and we need a hand up because all the flexibility is here and we do not get the money.

My colleague was talking about health. I recall the Quebec minister of health and social services saying that the Canadian health minister had a predatory approach and the same was true for the accord.

As for the additional transfers for this year, they do not even pay for a single day. At 4 p.m. on January 1, they were exhausted. That is not enough, and we are most disappointed with all that. The government was supposed to reverse the Conservatives’ budget cuts.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech. He rightly pointed out that Quebec has received only 12% of the infrastructure money. However, the level of expectation is high, for the government continues to promise billions and billions of dollars. Today we again heard the $180-billion figure.

I represent a riding where the largest city is the 18th largest in Quebec, and the 19th largest has 10 times fewer inhabitants. These rural municipalities will never see that federal infrastructure money, especially with an infrastructure bank designed to be profitable.

I would like to hear what my colleague thinks of these 1,000 Quebec municipalities that will never see a trace of the federal money.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question and her intervention. We are in agreement; the municipalities will have a hard time seeing any of that money.

The party now in power was critical at the time of the slowness of the previous government’s negotiations with Quebec and the municipalities regarding the transfer of money. It said that it would use the gas tax model, a model that works, to transfer the money that the government must return to Quebec and the municipalities to finance infrastructure.

Once it came to power, that did not happen. The parliamentary budget officer, who will be muzzled under the current bill, says that two-thirds of the funds have not been provided. What is more, the infrastructure bank, which was supposed to help the municipalities, has now been turned into a gift for the government’s friends and the big corporations. This is the worst of scenarios in the worst of all possible worlds.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Joliette. I will try to keep my questions very brief.

I have a question about the Board of Internal Economy. In the bill, for the first time, there is an amendment to make its meetings open to the public.

As my colleague has said, however, we are members who have rights. I am in total agreement with the effort to open the meetings, since we are in the same position as the members of the public.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my Green Party colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands for her question and her intervention.

I am in complete agreement with her. It makes no sense. Ours is essentially a two-party system, even though there are several parties in the House. Consequently third parties are at a disadvantage. This has to change. I hope that the members across the way are listening to us on this subject.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to speak for Yukon and to the budget bill.

When the government came into power, we changed the northern strategy, the Arctic strategy, to put the emphasis on people. We believe that if there are strong, healthy people in the north, we will have strong sovereignty in the north, good resource development, and environmental protection. I was delighted that the budgets of 2016 and 2017 reflected this emphasis on the people.

I will just talk about some of the items in those budgets that made northerners very happy.

First, the large increase in the northern allowance in the 2016 budget helped to cover the high cost of living in the north. Sometimes a jug of milk in the high Arctic can cost three, four, or five times what it does down south, as an example. All sorts of things cost more, so this big increase in the northern allowance was very welcome to help keep talented people in the north and to help people who have lived there for generations afford a good lifestyle, raise their families, and provide good clothing and food for their children.

What helped with that immensely, of course, was the Canada child benefit. There was a big increase, especially for low-income families with children. We can imagine the incredible task of a single mother in the north, with these high costs, trying to raise her children. This non-taxable child benefit has gone a long way and has been a big help in the north.

It is the same for all categories of people. There is the OAS supplement, which helps the poorest of seniors. There is the increase in student grants for low-income students and the doubling of student jobs for the summer. These measures all help people, especially people who need it the most, in the north.

In my riding of Yukon, the two biggest private sectors are mining and tourism. Mining, of course, has been the biggest contributor to our gross domestic product since the great Klondike gold rush, the greatest gold rush in the world. It is very important.

In recent years, mineral exploration has been very important to our economy. We worked hard to encourage the Minister of Natural Resources, who was a very strong advocate, to extend the mineral exploration tax credit for another year. This is a 15% tax credit. A lot of the mining activity in the Yukon at the moment is exploration, and probably a vast majority of it would not occur without this tax credit. This is instrumental and a huge help to the people of the Yukon.

The second-biggest sector is tourism. Sometimes it is the biggest employer, for the number of people in the Yukon. It is a bigger part of our gross domestic product than it is in any other province or territory. When there were cuts in recent years, it hurt us more than anyone else.

We were delighted to hear the recent announcement of $2 million for marketing and television ads for Yukon tourism as well as $1 million for the Yukon First Nations Culture and Tourism Association, because a lot of people who come to the north really want the authentic experience of first nations tourism products and services. The Department of Indigenous and Northern Affairs, in budget 2017, would be given $8.6 million for indigenous tourism activities.

The prime marketing agency for Canada, Destination Canada, got an increase last year, a desperately needed increase after many years of cuts, of $37.5 million to help market Canada around the world. We are delighted that this increase would be made permanent in budget 2017.

We have a curious situation in the Yukon, where we have jobs available without people, and we have people without jobs. The reason is that people need training. There are jobs available, but people are not trained to take some of those jobs. We were very happy to see that budget 2017 included $14.7 million for the three territories for basic adult education. Whenever a person gets out of high school or college and needs more education to get into the trades or the professions, this money is instrumental. We are delighted that it has been carried on.

There would also be $90 million to help indigenous students in post-secondary education and $50 million more for the ASETS program, which is skills development for first nation people across Canada.

Another item that is instrumental in the north and in my riding is housing. I was an early member of the Yukon Anti-Poverty Coalition. For years, affordable housing has been one of our highest priorities, so we are very delighted that budget 2017 would have $11.2 billion for a national housing strategy. On top of that, Yukon specifically would get $24 million.

Also important to the workforce, particularly to get women into the workforce, are more child care spaces, and we are very happy with the $7 billion nationally to help create more child care spaces.

Like everywhere else, we have had a number of Canada 150 projects going on this year, which are very exciting. I have also announced a number of seniors projects, which were very well received.

There would be $25.6 million for the territorial health investment fund to help us with the unique challenges of health in the north, and $89.9 million for indigenous languages, which, again, are very important in my riding. There would also be extra money for mental health for indigenous people.

I just made an announcement about indigenous youth and sport and the aboriginal games.

The Yukon government also gets a transfer from the federal government, and this would be the biggest transfer in history, with a $24.9-million increase over last year. There would be an increase of $.8 million in the Canada health transfer and of $.3 million in the Canada social transfer over last year.

We are also delighted to get the new judge we asked for. We have only two federal Supreme Court judges. One is taken up with a major murder case. The other has the routine proceedings every week. A lot of civil cases were backlogged, so we are delighted that this is in the budget.

The increases for Parks Canada are also very important in my riding. Green technology support is very important across the country to help the transition to renewables.

I was in Washington a few weeks ago with the leader speaking at a conference of northern leaders from across North America, Alaska, the three Canadian territories, and Greenland. The two things needed for development were more infrastructure and more affordable energy.

The municipalities and territorial governments were delighted about the large transfers for infrastructure. Unfortunately, I do not have enough time left to go through it all in detail. There is the trade and transportation corridor, $10 billion for the building Canada fund, all sorts of projects for water, waste water, recreation, roads, bridges, and transit. We already have some buses from the transit fund.

There is social infrastructure, green infrastructure, and Internet infrastructure. Northern and rural infrastructure would get $2 billion. I cannot remember a time in history when any government has put that much emphasis on Canada's rural north and come up with a fund of $2 billion for infrastructure. The north is eligible for all these other infrastructure funds. It is on a plus basis, not on a per capita basis, where we get almost nothing. We are delighted that we get a base amount.

There is money for first nations to get infrastructure to protect them from climate change. It is very forward thinking.

The other area I mentioned from the conference is affordable energy for the north. We are delighted that there would be $21.4 million to get northern indigenous communities off diesel, as many of them are on diesel, and $400 million for an Arctic energy fund.

All these items are great for the economy of the north, the environment of the north, and most importantly, the people of the north, because when there are strong, healthy, engaged people who have their culture supported, we are going to have a strong northern part of Canada, which is important for all of us.

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

Madam Speaker, when I look at the 2017-18 budget, I see it as a continuation of our first budget, which delivered so much to Canadians. The first things that come to mind are the increases in the GIS and the Canada child benefit. Many of those programs are from last year, and now we have constituents receiving the benefits this year, as we are speaking today.

Infrastructure is a big one. We believe in building Canada through our infrastructure. What are my colleague's thoughts on just how important it is that we continue to invest in Canada's infrastructure?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, investing in infrastructure is particularly important for the north, but also for all Canadians. I think members can imagine, if they have not had the personal experience, what it is like to be without a job. They go home and tell their kids that they have to move, because they cannot pay the rent, or they have to sell the house. The kids say, “Where are we going to live?” The parents say, “We don't know.” Perhaps the other kids are going on a skating trip or to a swimming pool, and the parents cannot afford to give them the money, or it is Kraft Dinner again tonight. There cannot be much in life that is harder than not having a job to support one's family.

Economists have explained that one of the best government investments to create jobs is through infrastructure, in the north in particular. Where southern Canada has had infrastructure for over a century, such as ports and roads, in the north, a lot of our communities have no access by road. People can imagine the cost of food if it has to go in by boat and air. It is incredibly costly. That is why the trade corridor is so important. Our wealth of resources cannot get out if there are no roads or infrastructure, so it is very important.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, we are debating Bill C-44, and I am very curious. When the Conservatives were in power, they introduced undemocratic omnibus bills that lacked the respect of Parliament. The NDP and the Liberals, when in opposition, strongly criticized the previous government for this. Does the member not find it odd that now that his party is in power, he is supporting this type of thing right here in this chamber?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I am delighted that the member has asked that question, because it gives me a chance to explain what Canadians may have heard but do not understand. We promised that we would stop the abuse of omnibus bills, of putting in a whole bunch of things that had very little or no relation to the budget, such as the dramatic changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act, as an example of what was done. Of course, any budget implementation bill, as members can see from the study done by the Library of Parliament, has to refer to a number of other bills, because obviously, the budget refers to different laws, different departments, and different agencies. The budget implementation bill naturally has to refer to those. The abuse we want to avoid, and I am sure the member wants to avoid, because we are onside on this, is using omnibus bills inappropriately to do things that are not related to the budget to get those items through Parliament without the scrutiny that would normally come with a bill that addressed something independently.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to quote the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons who said last Monday:

...it is with regret that I inform my colleagues that under these circumstances, the government will need to use time allocation more often to implement the ambitious agenda we were elected to deliver. This will be done every time with full transparency.

Today we have the first gag order since the government's new transparent approach. The government has a monopoly on the truth, and we all we can do is sit down and shut up. The Liberals' new way of seeing things more or less amounts to that.

My colleague who just finished his speech chairs a very important committee and has watched as his own government has tried to muzzle the opposition and take away its traditional rights, including the right to hold the government to account on behalf of Canadians. Our role as opposition members is to find the little chinks in the Liberals' armour. It is very easy, because there are so many of them.

We are here today to talk about Bill C-44, which is supposed to implement the measures in the Liberal government’s budget. I would like to thank my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent, who is working very hard to hold the Liberal government and the Minister of Finance accountable to Parliament. That is his role, and that is what we do every day with every good intention. Most importantly, it is our duty to meet that enormous challenge.

This government has promised a lot of things and, for the most part, has done the opposite. The promise that everyone is going to remember, not just next year or in five or ten years but also in 40 years, is the promise of small deficits. This government got elected by promising to run very small deficits and to return to balanced budgets in 2019. However, instead of very small deficits, what we have are enormous deficits. That is what our children are going to remember: the enormous deficits bequeathed to them by the Liberal Party and the colleagues of the Minister of Finance who approve of this trend of putting our children into debt.

This government promised twice to be transparent. Then it tried, on at least two occasions, to change the procedures for its benefit. In addition, it promised not to introduce mammoth bills or omnibus bills, when the one we are discussing today, Bill C-44, is truly one. Lastly, it promised not to politicize the public service. However, the parliamentary budget officer himself says that the Liberal government is doing the opposite by trying precisely to politicize his office.

Welcome to the era of transparency and sunny ways. Unfortunately, that is not what is happening. What does this government, in its infinite arrogance, take Canadians for?

Bill C-44, which we are debating today, is supposed to implement the budget measures introduced in Parliament on March 22. In fact, it is a mammoth bill that amends some 30 statutes.

If it is passed in its present form, this budget is going to cost taxpayers dearly. The Liberal government will be dipping even deeper into the pockets of Canadians; it is going to eliminate existing measures to control user fees for federal services, as well as tax credits; it is going to tax ride sharing services; and it is going to tax Canadians’ leisure activities even more by putting a new tax on alcohol and tobacco.

Another thing, which is not in the budget but has not been denied, is that they want to sell the airports to pay the enormous interest charges on the government’s credit cards.

What then are the government’s real priorities? At a time when the job situation is deteriorating, full-time jobs are being replaced by part-time jobs. In addition, they want to enact legislation to legalize marijuana.

The government is standing still instead of standing up to the U.S. administration, which is attacking our forestry industry and our farmers. The provinces are clamouring for judicial appointments, but is there anything in Bill C-44 that meets their needs? Quebec has asked for 14 judges. Just recently, it got four. Hurrah! Now they are just 10 short.

Dannick Lessard is a constituent of mine who was a victim of the shortage of judges in Quebec. He recently published an open letter in the papers. He says that he is not only a victim of crime, but also a victim of the justice system and the Jordan decision. Let me quickly review the facts.

In October 2012, Mr. Lessard was shot by a man armed with two 10 mm pistols. He was hit nine times, suffering irreversible physical and psychological injury. In his letter, he wrote, “That act of unspeakable violence turned my life upside down”.

On Friday, April 21, 2017, a stay of proceedings was ordered under the Jordan decision for the trial that was to be held in September 2017 of a man charged with the first degree murder of Pierre-Paul Fortier as well as the attempted murder of Mr. Lessard. This ruling is part of a new trend in the wake of the Jordan decision. He said, “This ruling effectively ends any chance that my case will be heard and that justice will be served.”

He asks the following:

Is it reasonable that my alleged attacker does not have to face justice for such a violent and gratuitous crime? Is it reasonable for me to live the rest of my days with the scars from my attack?

He adds, “As a consequence of the Jordan decision, victims and the public have lost confidence in the Canadian justice system.”

What was in Bill C-44 to provide for the additional judges needed in Quebec to ensure that the Jordan decision is not overused? Absolutely nothing.

There are numerous important issues in this bill. One of them concerns the parliamentary budget officer. Last week, at a news briefing, Mr. Fréchette stated, “Last week, an information session at the Privy Council was requested. I left the meeting feeling furious and sceptical.” Meanwhile, the Liberals are trying to make us believe that they want to give the parliamentary budget officer greater autonomy. What they want is better control over him.

The parliamentary budget officer will have to submit his work plan to the speakers of both chambers, the House of Commons and the Senate. Does allowing the Speaker of the House to approve a parliamentary budget officer’s work plan not amount to politicizing the Speaker’s role? How is this process going to be possible? Will the Speaker of the House have to make political decisions? Bill C-44 is really a backdoor way for the Liberals to take control of the House, in spite of everything they say. I will conclude by saying that implementing this provision runs the risk of reducing the independence and perceived political impartiality of the office of the parliamentary budget officer.

When a budget is implemented, whether in Quebec or British Columbia or the Atlantic provinces, we rightly expect that the budget will contain measures to help our constituents. When it comes to my own riding, Lac-Mégantic, I have unfortunately seen nothing in either the last budget or Bill C 44 concerning the bypass track in Lac-Mégantic.

I have seen nothing on the use of mine tailings. Are we going to allow the cities of Thedford Mines and Asbestos to stay alive and to exploit the immense potential of the tailings? Are we finally going to see concrete measures to give all municipalities high-speed Internet access and wireless communication?

For all these reasons, I am obviously going to urge my colleagues to vote against Bill C-44, which simply exacerbates the Liberals’ strong tendency to bequeath enormous deficits to Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, the member is fairly consistent with his critique of government budgets, both past and current. The Conservative Party consistently talks about their concern over deficits. The member knows very well what I am talking about. Conservative after Conservative will stand up and talk about that.

I would like to remind members across the way that when Stephen Harper inherited government, he inherited a multi-billion-dollar surplus. The member across the way knows that as well as I do. He then turned that multi-billion-dollar surplus into a deficit, even prior to the recession getting under way. Stephen Harper never did achieve a balanced budget. The Conservatives might like to believe otherwise, but we know that he did not.

My question is very simple. Why should this government take advice on deficits when Stephen Harper had an accumulated debt of over $150 billion and was never really able to prove that he had a balanced budget?

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

Madam Speaker, my esteemed colleague is used to parliamentary sparring and theatrics. He is trying to change the subject.

He has referred to deficits. Canada got through the last global crisis in better shape than the other G7 countries. We managed to do that while preserving jobs. What we were focused on, during all those years when we saved the Canadian economy, was getting back to balanced budgets. Mr. Harper left behind a balanced budget. In the Liberals’ minds, it seems, there are no difficult situations and there are no problems. With the Liberals, we can have perpetual deficits. That is what we are criticizing them for.

When will we see a return to balanced budgets, so that our children are able to enjoy life, too, instead of paying the Liberals’ debts?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague. Like him, I will be voting against the bill.

My colleague is right in describing this bill as an omnibus bill because it amends 30 laws. Almost one-third of the bill refers to things that were not even mentioned in the budget.

The infrastructure bank warrants its own legislation and debate in the House, as does the issue of the parliamentary budget officer. In our democracy, the parliamentary budget officer plays a vital role, and his jurisdiction depends on him being neutral and independent.

Does my colleague agree with me that the changes the Liberal government is making to the position of the parliamentary budget officer will reduce our ability, as parliamentarians, to hold the government to account?

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

Madam Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague that the government is once again trying to sneakily get out of its obligation to be accountable to Canadians and to members of Parliament, particularly in the case of the parliamentary budget officer.

What the Liberals are doing is quite simple. The parliamentary budget officer will have to submit a work plan. He will no longer be able to accommodate the requests of parliamentarians when a crisis arises or when there are things we want to know, for example, the cost of a war. The parliamentary budget officer will no longer be able to respond to parliamentarians' requests. He will have to follow the work plan that he had to submit to the speakers of both chambers. That means that we are losing half of our independence to the Senate and the other half to the Speaker of the House, who will now play a political role. That is unacceptable.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs]

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to represent my riding and have a voice for the people of Labrador in the House of Commons.

Every weekend, I travel back to my riding. It is a very large geographic region of 295,000 square kilometres, which is hard to imagine. Getting around my riding on a weekend is no small task. No matter where I go within my riding, people will say that they are seeing the improvements they have not seen for a very long time. Those improvements are not just in their communities, but in their families and the regions of which they are a part. Those changes are helping to build and strengthen the communities in rural and remote northern regions across Canada. My area just happens to be one of those regions.

When I look at budget 2017, the things that really pop out to me are those that directly affect ordinary Canadians who have long waited for programs and investment. I want to talk about a few of those today.

With respect to the national housing strategy, budget 2017 will invest more than $11 billion in a range of initiatives designed to help build, renew, and repair Canada's affordable housing and meet the needs that have been inadequately met and have been unaffordable for many Canadians for a long time. This is being done simply because Canadians have been asking for it.

Why would the members not support this initiative? For years and years, those who have needed affordable and accessible housing, both in our cities and rural areas, on reserve and off, have not been able to get the investments they wanted. Why would anyone want to vote against that today? They have been waiting for a very long time.

In my riding last year, we invested in Inuit-specific housing in the northern region. It was the first time ever in history that any government recognized the real need for Inuit housing across the north. We invested in those communities and ensured that the investment went to the Inuit housing corporations so they could manage their own affairs, as was the case in my riding with the Nunatsiavut government. Those are the kinds of new, innovative ways the government is doing things.

The other thing we did in this budget, which many have been requesting for a long time, is extend employment insurance to allow for a caregiver benefit. Many caregivers will be eligible for up to 15 weeks of employment insurance when they have to temporarily take time off of work to care for critically ill or injured family members. That is so important.

I remember when a lady from my riding came to me when her child was sick. Her child had to go from Labrador to the hospital in St. John's. The lady had to leave her job, which did not offer her medical benefits and no income once she left. She needed to be with her child for that 10 to 12 weeks, but there was no income program for her

. This will allow parents who have sick children and need to leave their jobs, without any medical insurance, or benefits or any other income, to tap into the employment insurance program during that period. That has been critical for many Canadians, and they have asked for this.

The other thing is medical care. Issues about medical care are raised quite often in the House, particularly mental health services.

This year our government negotiated with all the provinces and territories to look at a new health accord that would include, and give priority to, mental health services and elderly care. As a result of that, the government is investing over $800 million in the next five years just to improve mental health services in first nation and Inuit communities. This is a new investment of money in communities that need it the most.

Why members would not support these investments for mental health services going into first nation and Inuit communities that need it so desperately does not make any sense. They are the same people who, every day, stand in the House and say that we should invest more in mental health services for first nations. That is exactly what we are doing, and we are asking for the support of the House to ensure those investments get to the people who need them the most.

I also want to talk about filling employment gaps across the country. The federal government is able to provide for skilled and advanced training, as well as on-the-job work initiatives for many Canadians trying to enter the workforce, trying to find employment. This year we gave a very significant boost in federal support to the provinces and territories by investing $2.7 billion over the next six years to help unemployed and underemployed Canadians access training and employment opportunities so they could get good jobs.

There are major initiatives in my riding, like the Muskrat Falls energy development project, mining operations in Voisey's Bay and the expansion of Voisey's Bay, and the expansion of the Iron Ore Company of Canada in Labrador west. All these companies need skilled individuals to work in their operations. In order for them to get the skills, the Government of Canada is prepared to ensure training dollars are available for them to access, that we will help them find the employment they need, and ensure they get the training and skills they need for those jobs. That is what we should be doing as a government and because of that, I hope people in ridings like mine will take advantage of these opportunities to get the training and skills they need to get long-term, sustainable employment in these resource sectors or any sector in which they might choose to engage.

The other program we announced in this budget is, again, a program that Canadians have requested for a long time. Their voices have been ignored to date because it is a difficult issue, but we have taken it on as a government. This year we propose to invest $6 billion over the next 10 years to improve home, community, and palliative care services for Canadians, as well as more support for informal caregivers. This means more people who want to stay at home can get the care and support they need. It means more families will have more support when it comes to family members who need palliative care or that kind of assistance. This government understands and is listening to people across the country and in ridings like mine in Labrador when we make those kinds of investments.

There are so many things I could talk about today, but I want to highlight a couple.

First, our government invested in infrastructure projects across Canada. One of those projects was in my riding in Labrador, the completion of the Trans-Labrador Highway. Last year we partnered with the provincial government to invest over $60 million in the Trans-Labrador Highway, and we will continue with our commitment in that project.

We will also continue with our commitment to other infrastructure projects across Canada, including Labrador, like small craft harbours, women's shelters and centres, cultural centres for people in communities, and clean water for communities that need it. We are a government that is not only consulting with Canadians, but we are listening to them as well.

When we look at the budget before the House of Commons today, it reflects the needs of Canadians in the middle class, lower class, and others across the country. It is meeting the needs of what we need to grow, be healthy, and strong as a country.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, the member talked about $11 billion for affordable housing in the budget. In fact, the budget shows only about $10 million for affordable housing in this current fiscal year, 2017-18. Indeed, almost all of the promised $11 billion is after 2019—in other words, after the next election. The government cannot even really commit to what might happen at that point in the future.

If affordable housing is really such a priority for the government, why is it not investing in affordable housing now while it has the opportunity and the authority to do so?

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Madam Speaker, I want to clarify that the investments we are making right now in communities to serve those who need proper housing is being done out of pure need, need that had been neglected for a long time.

Our housing is reaching all sectors of society. We are looking at urban housing initiatives that we know are needed in many of our cities across the country. We are looking at the rural housing needs, especially across the northern region. We are looking at housing needs on reserves. As a result of this, the government is launching a national housing strategy. Over the life of that strategy, $11 billion will be invested in a range of initiatives. Some of it will go into renewing older properties and making them affordable. A lot of it will be going into building new properties to ensure Canadians have adequate and affordable housing no matter where they live in the country.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, as we are talking about housing, in Vancouver, the homelessness rate has increased 30% since the last homelessness count. The City of Vancouver has advised us that the money the Liberal government committed to and announced for 2016 has yet to flow into the community for real projects. Consequently, all the promises in the world have resulted in no housing on the ground.

I have a constituent who makes $30,000 a year and is fighting for child support. She has applied for low-income housing in British Columbia. She has been on a wait list forever, literally waiting and waiting, and there is no housing available. Her child turned 18 in April. As a result of that, she has lost her $450 child tax credit, which, according to her, is not “play money”. It is essential money. Her child is still in high school.

What can the parliamentary secretary and her government do to help my constituent? Should her child, who is still in high school, not be eligible to continue to receive that $450 child tax credit?

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Madam Speaker, I do not know the specific case or circumstances of which my colleague speaks, but I do know this. We have invested substantially in our children. Under our new child tax benefit, we have been able to lift many children out of poverty. We have been able to ensure that families have the kind of supports they need to ensure their children do not go to school hungry, but with all their needs fulfilled. We are making tremendous efforts toward that.

As a government, we have done more to invest in affordable housing than any government over the last decade. That money may not have flowed as quickly as we would have all liked to see it flow, but that money is targeted. It is going to affordable housing. It is going to help the people who need it most. The sooner we can get it there, the better we will all be.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-44, the first budget implementation bill. There are a number of measures in the bill that will affect my constituents, in some cases dramatically, so I am glad to have a chance to represent the views of the great people of Souris—Moose Mountain.

Most of my colleagues here today returned to Ottawa just a week ago after spending two weeks in their constituencies. I always appreciate and cherish the time I get to spend in my riding, speaking to my constituents and getting their feedback on how they think things are going in Ottawa. Unfortunately, my constituents were less than impressed with the Liberals' 2017 budget, which does nothing to help rural Canadians and could end up hurting them in the long run.

It is not breaking news that the Liberals are completely out of touch with the wants and needs of rural Canadians. Just two weeks ago, the Prime Minister was in a small corner of my riding, touring a farm and talking about the carbon tax. My constituents do not want a carbon tax, and they are sick and tired of hearing platitudes and buzzwords from the Liberals. We all know that the Prime Minister's visit to my riding was nothing but a photo op, and that becomes clear when we look at the content of Bill C-44. If the Liberals truly care about western Canada, and specifically those who reside outside of urban centres, they would actually take action and make it a priority to help those who need it.

As I have said before in the House, there are a lot of farms in my riding. They vary in size, and there is a wide variety of produce that is grown down in the southeast corner of Saskatchewan. Something the Liberals seem to forget is that farmers are small business owners. They employ locals. With the drop in oil and gas prices over the last couple of years, these jobs are badly needed. Farmers need to know that their government is supporting them, yet budget 2017 contained almost nothing for them.

What Bill C-44 does contain is a provision that would scrap the income tax exemption for insurers of farming and fishing property. This would likely result in higher insurance premiums for my constituents and would decrease interest in private insurance plans.

This is the last thing that farmers in my riding need. They have enough to manage as it is, given that farming can be a fickle and delicate business when it comes to dealing with weather, pests, and other unpredictable variables. Now their insurance premiums could increase, taking money away from areas where it could be better utilized within the business, not to mention the threat of a carbon tax.

Not only does the Liberal budget increase the costs for farmers, it also does nothing to support them. There were no details regarding the next agricultural policy framework, so Canadian farmers have been left in the dark. Our farmers feed Canada and the world, and they expect their government to support them, not just show up for a photo op in front of a combine or play with a GPS, thinking it is a video game.

While I could likely stand here and talk about the importance of farmers and agriculture all day, I would also like to touch on what the budget contains with respect to veterans.

As some may know, I hold the title of vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. It is a role I am proud to have, and over my time on this committee, I have learned a lot about the challenges our veterans face.

The very first study the committee undertook, right after the election of 2015, was on service delivery to veterans. During that study, the committee heard from a wide range of witnesses from all over the veterans community. Many of these witnesses were veterans themselves, and I appreciate their willingness to appear in front of a bunch of politicians to talk about difficult issues relating to their service to Canada.

One of the recurring themes we heard from veterans, medical professionals, bureaucrats, caregivers, and others was the difficulty in transitioning from military to civilian life upon discharge. When a soldier is discharged, and especially those who are medically released, they lose the identity they had for so many years. They were used to being part of a family and having that unfailing support available to them at all times, and suddenly, upon discharge, that family is gone.

This is not just the case for the veterans themselves, but also for their family members, who have established a community of support with other military spouses, children, etc. It is a life-altering change, and while the Liberals have made many promises to help our veterans and their families, the 2017 budget does nothing to help these people today.

Another issue that came up time and time again in the veterans affairs committee was that we commission and train our soldiers to go into battle, but we do not decommission them upon their leaving the Canadian Armed Forces. While Bill C-44 does take steps to create a new education and training benefit for veterans, this does not help them with the loss of identity and purpose that many experience once they return from deployment and are discharged.

Soldiers in the Canadian Forces do not need to make doctor or dentist appointments. That is provided for them. They do not need to fill out paperwork or forms or parse through a convoluted list of benefits that they may not be entitled to, as that is done by someone else on the base. All of this ends once a soldier is discharged and his or her care is moved from DND to Veterans Affairs. An education and training benefit is all well and good, but that is something that is of use further down the road, once a veteran has established himself or herself into civilian life.

Furthermore, there should be no time limit for veterans to figure out whether they wish to use the benefit. Often illnesses like PTSD do not fully manifest until years after veterans are released from the Canadian Forces, and the veterans should have the option to take as much time as they need to pursue education and training following their release from the military.

What our veterans need are solid, available, and effective transition services. This is something that was suggested by the defence ombudsman, yet Bill C-44 would do nothing to enact these recommendations.

For example, one recommendation was that the Canadian Armed Forces retain medically releasing members until such time as all benefits and services from the Canadian Armed Forces, Veterans Affairs Canada, and the Service Income Security Insurance Plan, or SISIP, have been confirmed and put in place. Another recommendation from the ombudsman was that the Canadian Armed Forces establish a concierge service for all medically releasing members that would provide a single point of contact to assist members and their families in all administrative matters regarding the member's transition. These are common sense measures that the Liberals chose not to implement.

Given the size of this omnibus bill, it is shameful that they could not do more to ensure that our veterans and their families have the services and benefits that they need and deserve.

The Conservative Party has always stood up for our veterans, and we on this side of the House believe that our veterans deserve programs and benefits designed to meet their ever-evolving needs, both in the immediate future and sustained over the long term. The Liberals need to do more and they need to do better.

Canadians, including those in rural Canada, are counting on their government to provide them with the support they need in order to thrive here in this wonderful country. Instead, they are getting nickelled and dimed at every possible turn.

The Liberals' spending is reckless and out of control. With a $25.8 billion deficit, the budget will not be balanced until 2055. I do not want my children, my grandchildren, and my great-grandchildren to be paying the price of the current government's callousness when it comes to managing public funds. The 2017 budget and Bill C-44 would not grow the economy or create jobs, but they would hike taxes on beer and wine, child care, and small business owners.

The Liberals need to wake up and realize that Canadians deserve better than this. Canadians need their government to recognize the priorities of ordinary hard-working Canadians and their families, and not just the elite. The Conservative Party will continue to stand up for these Canadians, be the voice of the taxpayer, and hold the Liberals to account for their reckless spending and their lack of touch with reality.

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

Madam Speaker, I will not spend too much time addressing the rather spurious statement from my friend across the way about the Conservatives' support for veterans, given the massive lack of investment and reduction in services for veterans by the previous government of the past decade.

I want to go back to earlier in the member's speech, when he talked about rural issues. I think this budget would help rural areas. I am from a rural riding about half the size of his, and the biggest issue we have in our riding is Internet access. I wonder if the member has similar problems in his riding. Our government has already put in $2.5 billion for Internet through the $500-million connect to innovate program and a $2-billion rural infrastructure program, which has Internet as an eligible component. I think it is really important that the Internet has been called “infrastructure” for the first time.

I wonder if the member has any comments on that in particular?

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, I have had the pleasure of working with my hon. colleague on the veterans affairs committee and I am sad to see he is gone, but I know he has a new role and I wish him well in that new role.

One of the things in this budget with regard to rural Canada is we hear all this talk about rural transit. Rural transit would do nothing for my constituents. If my constituent in Maryfield, Saskatchewan, needs to get to downtown Regina, he or she needs to know and have access to all the aspects. While people may not have transportation, they do have access to the Internet, but that does not help them get to see their doctors. It does not help them get to that doctor in Weyburn and it does not help them get to see that oncologist in Regina.

The present government is promising to put money into green infrastructure. The Liberals are not going to put a green infrastructure transit line from Maryfield, Saskatchewan, to downtown Regina.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I particularly appreciated the member's comments around veterans.

In that same vein, a number of retirees have raised issues with me. With this set of omnibus bills, we do not see the government bringing in legislation that would improve financial security for those retirees, something that the Liberals promised, but they are doing quite the opposite with Bill C-27. This bill would allow crown corporations and federal private sector employers to back out of defined benefit pension commitments. This is impacting a lot of people in a negative way.

One of my constituents asked me to voice his concern and his outrage and his disbelief at the government tabling Bill C-27. Forced into retirement because of declining health, he paid into a defined benefit pension for 34 years, but he is going to see a penalty as a result of the Liberal government's actions.

Does the member think it is right for the Liberals to promise retirees that they would enhance their financial security, yet do exactly the very opposite when they formed government?

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, there are a number of things that I have found with the Liberal government and its promises, particularly when we talk about the Canada pension plan and that aspect of protecting Canadians.

The Liberals promised that they would be giving Canadians security with this Canada pension plan, but it will not benefit Canadians. It is going to cost them more money, thereby adding to their expenses. We are going to end up losing jobs because of this, which is not going to help the economy. I contributed to that program for many years in my previous career as a chiropractor. I had to put double the amount of money in. Even with making a significantly good income, I will not max out on the amount that was promised.

I do not see how the promises that the present government is offering are going to work, either on your issue or on other issues.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It is not my issue. I would ask members to ensure that they address their questions and comments to the Chair.

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona, Ethics; the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan, Public Services and Procurement; the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Human Rights.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Guelph.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, the world is changing. Climate change poses serious environmental challenges. A growing number of Canadians, particularly our youth, fear they will never be able to enter the housing market. Growing concerns over the job market have Canadians anxious. These uncertainties mean new challenges for Canadians, but they also represent a source of opportunity to showcase Canadian creativity and innovation, economically, socially, and environmentally.

This is why I rise today in support of the government's proposed budget 2017, because this budget will prepare Canadians for the future, addressing economic, environmental, and social development for our country.

This budget looks to secure and improve upon the gains made in budget 2016, “Growing the Middle Class”. Canada has an economy that is strong, flexible, and full of potential. Canadians reflect this as entrepreneurs and as innovators who can adapt to changing markets as people concerned for our natural heritage and through our concern for each other.

This budget puts Canada on track to build a strong, innovative, and green economy, and improve our social support networks focusing on mental health and housing.

Budget 2017 provides Canadians and Canadian businesses with the tools necessary to continue the economic growth we are experiencing under our government. After many years of flat economic results, last year our economy grew by 1.4%. This year the OECD is predicting growth of 2.4%.

Accurate labour market data is essential in order to continue our growth trajectory. Budget 2017 commits $225 million over four years, and $75 million per year afterward, to support improved labour market information, skills development programs, and measurement of results in Canada. Knowing where our business is experiencing shortages and filling those gaps is essential as our economy grows and as people are now retiring from the workforce in greater numbers.

Knowing exactly what skills are in demand allows us to target the gaps in our economy. This also means addressing the needs of those struggling to join the middle class.

As it stands, Canadians on EI cannot access training programs. Preventing unemployed Canadians from accessing training programs is simply unacceptable. This is why the government is not only reversing this backward policy, but is investing an additional $900 million in training over six years. We need to prevent Canadians from needing EI in the first place, which is why we must address the serious problem of youth unemployment. Budget 2017 builds on budget 2016 to allow part-time students to apply for Canada student loan grants. This has increased grants by 50%. To further expand employment opportunities for young Canadians, budget 2017 also proposes an additional $395 million over three years for the youth employment strategy.

Investing in Canadians is a crucial step to building the economy of the 21st century, but governments must also strategically invest in industries where we can be a global leader. Clusters are dense areas of business activity that contain large and small companies, post-secondary institutions, and specialized talent and infrastructure. Budget 2017 commits to strategic investments in agricultural innovation, advanced manufacturing, clean energy, biosciences, and digital technology.

These actions will grow the economy and promote the livelihood of middle-class Canadians. Guelph can and will play a major role in these areas. This budget is almost written for Guelphites.

The environment is also a cornerstone of this budget. As this government has repeated many times, the economy and the environment go hand in hand. This is why budget 2017 proposes establishing centres for climate services. These centres will improve access to climate science and regional climate resilience centres. The centres will work with local, provincial, territorial, and indigenous partners. This will make it easier for governments, communities, and decision-makers, businesses and organizations to access data and information on climate science.

Investing in green public transit is also crucial. Budget 2017 commits $17 million to develop and implement heavy-duty vehicle retrofits. This plan also includes a carbon pricing program to incentivize innovation and efficiency. This move will reward creative and innovative businesses and raise much needed revenue for the provinces to spend. These investments will help Canada reach its greenhouse gas emission reduction targets and ensure a safer, cleaner world for all Canadians.

This budget addresses systemic social problems which have often been ignored. Since forming government, we have lifted 18 long-term drinking water advisories in first nations in our first year. We are committed to eliminating all boil water advisories, working on solutions with our indigenous communities, researchers, training providers, and businesses. The benefit of our approach is that it is based on long-term planning initiated by first nations leaders, which is why budget 2017 follows through on the promises made in budget 2016 to commit $1.8 billion over five years. Of this, $275 million in targeted funding has already been allocated and 201 projects have already begun.

First nations communities are leading the development of these initiatives, informing the government and partners of what their communities need and want. We will get this done, and we will get it done right. The will is there, the capacity is growing, and people are truly committed to finding long-term solutions based on a new trust.

Addressing the mental health crisis among indigenous groups is also a priority for this government. The effects of depression and suicide, as well as other systemic health issues in indigenous communities, are widespread and unacceptable. Budget 2017 proposes to invest $828 million over the next five years to address the immediate health priorities of first nations and Inuit peoples.

Two areas of social concern addressed in this budget are health care and affordable housing. We are also investing $7 billion over 10 years to create 40,000 child care spaces. Mental health is an increasing concern for all Canadians and budget 2017 proposes to invest $11 billion over 10 years to support better home care and mental health initiatives. Budget 2017 also proposes to create a centre of excellence on PTSD and related mental health conditions. The government has committed $17.5 million over four years and $9.2 million every year after. As the health minister has said, there is no health without mental health. Addressing the unique nature of mental health issues is long overdue.

Adequate and affordable housing is a general concern for all Canadians. That is why we are investing $11 billion in the national housing strategy, to develop a stock of affordable rental housing and other housing to improve the quality of life for Canadian residents. The CMHC will make upfront contributions to providers of affordable housing.

Budget 2017 offers genuine and innovative solutions to the challenges that face Canadians. Through strategic investments in the economy, the environment, and social programs, this budget follows through on the ambitious mandate Canadians gave the government in 2015.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Madam Speaker, one of the concerns I have is the infrastructure piece with respect to water for indigenous communities. I looked at the infrastructure piece and talked about it for two or three years and throughout the campaign. With respect to the budget, it is one thing to build infrastructure but there is a critical piece that I am looking for. Coming from a municipal background, I can say that it may be easy to build those things, but it is the 24-7 trained staff that we have to have in place. If we did not have them in the municipalities, we got into trouble. That is where many smaller municipalities are.

I cannot see that piece here, the education and training for people in those rural communities to maintain some $200 million of infrastructure. If we do not have it, it will just be gone in a few years. Maybe the member could respond to that critical piece of training and good jobs.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member from out west has made an astute observation. I flew up to Dryden, Ontario, in January of this year to look at the training centre that is being established there. We know there is no point in spending money on infrastructure if there is nobody there to operate it, and operate it effectively. Part of our budget is focused on skills development and training within the first nations, as well as infrastructure investment. Hand in hand, those two investments will help us get to the clean water that our first nations brothers and sisters deserve.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member talked about the importance of housing. There is no question about that, as in every community there is a great need. The government has talked a lot about it, but on the ground we have yet to see action. I know that in the city of Vancouver, the money has not flowed, even from the 2016 announcement. We have a crisis on our hands, with people who are in dire need of affordable housing. We have co-ops that need assistance as well. Units have already been lost because of the government's lack of action in this regard. That is affordable housing that we cannot afford to lose.

With respect to this national affordable housing program that the government likes to brag about, when will the money actually be spent on the ground to build real units, real affordable housing, for the people who need it now?

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her passion and commitment to helping people get into affordable housing.

As the federal government, when we are working to establish housing priorities and housing trajectories, we are also working across Canada with the provinces and territories to get housing investments into their budgets. In our first year of being in government, we worked with the provinces and territories to get their budgets to match money coming from the federal government. We are now at that stage and starting to roll out projects, which have to go through a bidding process and a municipal approval process. We are working with all three orders of government. It does take time, but we are on the right track, and we will see progress.

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, may I first congratulate my colleague from Guelph for his excellent speech. I would also mention that I have seen the work he has done in his riding in previous months, and I know how committed he is to working toward the development of his community and how dedicated he is to working for the welfare of his constituents. I would like to invite him to give more examples of how the investments that our government is making in communities, families, and workers will make a difference in the lives of the families and communities in his riding.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to answer the minister. We are looking at the social impacts through the Canada child benefit, which was introduced last time, which was one of the most significant steps a government has ever taken in Canada. Now we are following up with $11 billion, which has not been invested since the 1970s, to get us on track to create affordable housing projects in our communities, thanks to the leadership and vision of the minister and the people who work with him.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is another year, another budget, and another set of broken promises rolled up into Bill C-44, the budget implementation act.

There is, I suppose, a certain irony that the government, which claims to be opposed to omnibus bills, would bring in this massive document that touches on so many areas, rather than separate legislation for its new ventures, such as the infrastructure bank. The government hopes that by burying the legislation in these hundreds of pages, it can avoid any detailed scrutiny.

We have to give the Liberals credit for one thing. They are treating Canadians equally, raising everyone's taxes. That is not surprising when we consider the reckless spending by the government. In the 2015 election, the Liberals made a promise to Canadians that they would run a small or modest deficit, perhaps about $10 billion a year in the first year, and then they should be able to balance the budget after their first term. We know now that those were empty promises. I leave it to Canadian people to decide if they were lies or just incompetence.

Once again, the Minister of Finance has let Canadians down. There is nothing small or modest about the deficit he is running. He has no plan to balance the budget by the end of this Parliament, or maybe ever again. The previous Conservative budget suggested balanced budget legislation that would include pay cuts for cabinet ministers while the government was running a deficit. Somehow I do not think we are going to see this government take that sort of principled stand.

Anyone who has ever run a business knows that borrowed money has to be repaid. The Minister of Finance is sinking Canada further into debt, making future generations pay for his spending spree. It is wrong to mortgage Canada's future this way. Politicians should be setting an example, not behaving as if money grows on trees.

The government will tell us it is doing great things with this spending spree. “Look at us”, they say, “Are we not great? We know how to spend money”. Of course, that is the pride the government has shown people so far. Any child can delight in spending money that does not belong to them. Fiscal responsibility is a lot tougher to accomplish, and the government does not seem to want to work hard enough to do so.

What are the great things the government is doing? There are tax increases for 1.8 million Canadian public transit users, for those who drink beer and wine, and for those who donate medicines to worthy causes. There are more tax hikes on child care, on small business owners, such as farmers, fishers, doctors, lawyers, and accountants, on oil and gas companies, and on tourism. The Liberals' motto seems to be “If it breathes, tax it”.

Where spending is needed, they instead cut back. We are looking at major cuts to defence spending, despite demands from the U.S. that other NATO members spend at least 2% of GDP to shoulder a greater amount of the load for our collective security. The government is deferring $8.5 billion in equipment purchases for our military, having already deferred $3.7 billion in the past budget. Our armed forces may be the best trained and bravest fighting force in the world, but the men and women on the front lines cannot do their jobs without proper equipment.

National defence is clearly not a priority for the Liberal government. In an era of reckless Liberal spending, it is appalling that the largest cuts are consistently at the expense of the Canadian Armed Forces. This raises the question of whether or not the Liberals believe that Canada needs the ability to defend itself and our allies. Recent examples—including the Liberals' decision to pull our CF-18s out of the fight against ISIS, their preference for fourth generation fighter jets, their lack of increased support for our Ukrainian allies, and their failure to advance important procurement projects—suggest the Liberals expect other countries to do Canada's share.

They say Canada is back, but only as long as we are not asked to do anything, except look pretty.

The Liberals have repeatedly delayed releasing their defence policy review. Instead of ensuring that our men and women in uniform have the best equipment, training, and support available, it is looking more and more likely that Canada's military will be further scaled back and asked to do more with less.

Since the Liberals took office, 94% of announced infrastructure projects have failed to start construction. It is just big talk, with no walk. This means that jobs are not being created and the economy is not being stimulated. Instead of coming up with a new plan that actually builds infrastructure and creates jobs, now the government wants to double down on the existing infrastructure plan that has been proven not to work. This is how the Liberals define innovation.

We already knew that the Liberals were planning to take billions of dollars away from communities to pay for their infrastructure bank. Now we learn that they are also going to cancel the public transit tax credit, making it more expensive for Canadians to use public transit. The Liberals talk about something, but do something else.

Additionally, by allocating public transit funding based on ridership, the Liberal government is disadvantaging Canada's growing communities in favour of already developed urban centres. It looks as if no new public transit spending will occur in 2017-18. Indeed, the Liberals have decreased the federal share of funding for public transit projects to 40% and failed to include provincial cost sharing requirements. Without matching funding, municipalities may not be able to complete important projects. It is a mistake for the Liberals to continue to allocate public transit funds based primarily on ridership numbers. This formula favours large urban centres that already have developed public transit systems, and it disadvantages growing communities that arguably need these funds more.

Municipalities need good infrastructure, but they also need programs that are easy to access, provide predictable funding, and do not leave small and rural communities behind. They also need money now, not at some point in the far future, in 2050 or in the 22nd century.

We know that $1 billion of lapsed infrastructure funding from 2016 will not be reallocated until 2022-23, and that $15 billion will be taken away from community infrastructure projects in order to finance the Liberals' new infrastructure bank, including $5 billion removed from public transit projects, $5 billion removed from trade and transportation corridor projects, and another $5 billion removed from green infrastructure projects. That is taking away money that costs less, to borrow money that would cost two or three times more.

Bill C-44 includes the Canada infrastructure bank bill, but it is hazy on some details. Will foreign investors get to decide which infrastructure projects it funds? We already know that it will not be operating at arm's length, making it susceptible to Liberal government interference in its decisions.

One last thing I would like to look at is the changes this bill makes to the operation of the parliamentary budget officer. It is important to note that the government did not consult the PBO on these changes but has introduced them unilaterally. The PBO has expressed concerns about this legislation and its impact on his ability to do his job. He feels it will undermine the independence and non-partisanship of the PBO and undercut his office's ability to support Parliament.

This should be a concern for all parliamentarians, regardless of their political affiliation. This act makes changes to the degree of control that the Speakers of the Senate and the House of Commons will be expected to exercise over the PBO's activities, and it places limits on the PBO's ability to initiate reports and members' ability to request cost estimates of certain proposals.

To involve the PBO in the costing of election platforms, as this act does, seems to me to risk the non-partisan nature of the office. No matter—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The member will probably be able to continue with some of his information during questions and comments.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite has indicated that he does not feel there is much in the budget that will help everyday Canadians. I would like to remind him of things that are actually in the budget that will be helpful to Canadians: $725 million for veterans, $20 billion into public transit, $11 billion into health care, $11 billion into affordable housing, $950 million into innovation clusters, $10 billion into agriculture, $30 million into the Trans-Canada Trail, $7 billion to create 40,000 child care spaces, $5 billion for water and waste water infrastructure plans, and the list goes on.

Would the member not agree that these are beneficial things: creating child care spaces, taking care of our veterans, creating affordable housing for people, keeping our seniors healthy, happy, and living longer in their homes through home care? I think he would agree that these are good things for everyday Canadians.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, those numbers are great numbers. There is no doubt they are there, but it sounds as if we have no programs, no government, and no country. All of those numbers are what we need on a day-to-day basis, but 70% of the allocation of those numbers in the budget will not be utilized until 2022. That tells us clearly what is happening with job creation, which has really taken a big-time hit in our country. That tells us that the plan the Liberal government is implementing is not really working. They are big numbers, nice numbers, but those numbers mean nothing because they are not going to be utilized immediately. It is going to be years ahead. Speaking of the future, the government is taking a big risk to do so and taking a big risk to work toward it.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that the member for Edmonton Manning pointed out that the federal budget skews the allocation of transit funding in favour of existing ridership rather than population. For example, Saskatchewan has 3.2% of Canada's population but will receive only about 1.6% of transit funding from the federal government. Our per capita share of the $20.1 billion of transit funding would be about $640 million. In fact, the federal budget shortchanges Saskatchewan by providing it with only about $320 million in transit funding.

I wonder if the member for Edmonton Manning could elaborate a bit on how this misallocation of transit funding would affect his province of Alberta.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, basically this is a normal thing we have noticed since the first Liberal budget and going to the second budget and moving forward.

I am looking at the budget and government operations from a business perspective, and nothing seems to make sense and nothing seems to add up. If it is not going to add up for Manitoba or for Saskatchewan, then it is not going to add up for Alberta.

The government seems to be treating some people, as we say, with butter and some people with oil. That is happening here. That is how we are experiencing the government's actions. Unfortunately, the budget is a reflection of the government's incompetence in the way it handles business for Canadians.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak in support of budget 2017. Our first budget last year delivered on a number of our election promises, the most significant of which were a middle-class tax cut for nine million Canadians, the new tax-free Canada child benefit, and ensuring that post-secondary education is more affordable.

We are focused on building strong communities with investments in infrastructure to support public transit and green infrastructure. Recently I was thrilled to announce transit funding for my communities of almost $5 million for Oakville and $3.4 million for Burlington. I know the residents of my riding of Oakville—North Burlington have seen the benefits of our investments already.

With budget 2017, we are building on these commitments to allow for more frequent two-way, all-day transit service to help commuters in Oakville and Burlington spend less time travelling to and from work and more time with their families. The Prime Minister recently announced a $1.8 billion investment that will help electrify the Lakeshore West GO line.

As vice-chair of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, I am extremely proud of the work our committee has done on two key issues: gender-based analysis and violence against young women and girls. I was very pleased to see many of our recommendations included in this budget and to see that this is the first budget that was examined through a gender lens and included a gender statement.

Our committee identified the critical need to use a gender lens for ensuring that spending creates the right conditions for economic growth for Canadians of all genders. The budget's gender statement recognizes that when women and girls are given opportunities to succeed, Canada succeeds.

While we have made progress, more work needs to be done. The gender statement recognized that the gender wage gap has narrowed since 1976 but remains significant. In my riding of Oakville North—Burlington, I heard from stakeholders that young women need to see themselves in a variety of occupations, so in May we will host our first young women in leadership program. The program will allow young women in Oakville North—Burlington to be mentored in a variety of workplaces, from firefighting and community organizations to businesses, policing, and new tech companies.

In the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, we are currently studying the economic security of women, and one issue that has been repeated over and over is the need for early learning and child care. Budget 2017 recognizes the connection between economic security and child care and takes important steps to give Canadian families and children the best start in life. Building on budget 2016's initial investment of $500 million in 2017-18 for early childhood learning and child care, this budget proposes to invest an additional $7 billion over 10 years to support and create more high-quality, affordable child care spaces across the country.

The status of women committee has heard from witnesses who called on the government to take a leadership role when it comes to addressing gender-based violence. Budget 2017 includes an investment of $101 million over five years to support a national strategy to address gender-based violence, which would ensure that our government provides the leadership needed on this issue. We also recommended changes to judicial education with regard to sexual assaults, and I am pleased to see that budget 2017 includes funding for the Canadian Judicial Council to support programming on judicial education, ethics, and conduct, ensuring a greater focus on gender and cultural sensitivity training. Already we have heard from the Canadian Judicial Council at committee about its plans to implement expanded training.

In my riding, the Sexual Assault & Violence Intervention Services of Halton work hard to provide free, confidential, and non-judgmental 24-hour support to all survivors of violence, including female-identified, male-identified, and members of the transgendered community. The services advocate against violence in the community at large and promote prevention through community education. Halton Women's Place provides shelter and crisis services for physically, emotionally, financially, and sexually abused women and their dependent children and is dedicated to ending violence against women and their children. This budget would support critical support services and organizations such as these two to further its commitment to ending all forms of violence against women.

Last month I welcomed my colleague, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, to my riding to meet with the Interfaith Council of Halton to discuss our national security. The minister had the opportunity to highlight budget 2017's increased investment in the security infrastructure program, a program that provides places of worship and community organizations with the funds necessary to enhance the security of their facilities.

Rabbi Wise shared with us how his congregation in Oakville had previously taken advantage of funding from this program, and a good discussion was had about the benefits and possibilities of the program at a local level. We all agree that there is no place in Canada for hate-motivated crimes and that Canadians should feel safe where they worship.

I am extremely committed to the public safety committee's call for funding for a national strategy for operational stress injuries in public safety officers and was disappointed that it was not funded in this budget. I will continue to advocate on this issue, but I also recognize that the Minister of Finance had to make some tough choices when drafting the budget. I was pleased to see that we kept our campaign promise to our public safety officers to establish a tax-free community heroes benefit to be implemented in co-operation with the provinces, territories, and municipalities. Budget 2017 committed $80 million over five years to support this benefit.

The budget also recognizes that we need to do more for Canadians living with a disability. The enabling accessibility fund would be expanded to provide funding for projects such as adding ramps, accessible washrooms, and other improvements to the accessibility of community spaces and workplaces.

Our health care system is consistently one of the things that Canadians hold dear. Oakville North—Burlington is home to the new Oakville hospital that opened in 2015 to meet the needs of residents in my community, not just today but well into the future. This state-of-the-art facility is the result of the largest infrastructure investment in Ontario's history. In 2017-18, the government will provide over $37.1 billion to the provinces and territories under the Canada health transfer, an increase of $1.1 billion from last year.

Our Minister of Health has worked tirelessly to implement new agreements with our partners, including my Province of Ontario. I heard from residents in my community about their struggle to juggle caring for aging parents while raising their own families, so I was pleased with our investment of an additional $6 billion over 10 years for home care.

I have also worked with local organizations like the Reach Out Centre for Kids and the Paul Hansell Foundation, which do tremendous work to improve the mental health of our young people. Our government will be providing an additional $5 billion over the next 10 years targeted toward mental health services. In my home province, the Province of Ontario has made a concerted effort to improve mental health services, and this additional investment will build on the work already being done.

My youth council recently met with the youth advisory council of the Positive Space Network, a safe and welcoming community for LGBTQ2 youth to meet, share experiences, and also organize Halton Pride. I welcome our government's investment in an LGBTQ2 secretariat, with funding of $3.6 million over three years.

Canada is taking a leadership role around the world in improving the lives of women and girls. I was pleased to see our government invest $650 million over three years to support sexual and reproductive health. After seeing first-hand the impact that our international development investments can have in areas such as nutrition in the first 1,000 days and the measurable decrease in stunted growth because of these investments, I look forward to the release of our international assistance review, which will outline how Canada will put women and girls at the centre of its development programs.

The budget's commitment to make surplus federal lands and buildings available to housing providers at low or no cost could help groups like Habitat for Humanity Halton-Mississauga, a leader in my community, to ensure hard-working families in need have a safe and affordable place to live.

As chair of the Golden Horseshoe caucus, I know that our region depends on the success of our businesses from automotive to steel, wine to peaches, and that small and medium-sized enterprises are the backbone of our communities. Our educational institutions, such as Sheridan College, are critical to the success of the next generation of entrepreneurs, innovators, and artists.

Through initiatives like the ones I have mentioned today and our progressive, vital investments in innovation, technology, health care, and education, we are firmly positioning Canada as a leader in the world. I am proud of the work we are doing and look forward to Canada's many successes as we prepare to celebrate our great nation's 150th anniversary of Confederation.

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

Madam Speaker, what the member had to say was very encouraging, but what she forgot to mention or did not have time for and was missing is how the government is going to promote and empower the private sector to create jobs and roll this economy forward.

We heard of a lot of big-government thinking and government-knows-best spending, but we did not hear anything about the small business tax rate being cut or about expanding ways for people to save. We had the tax-free savings account and the public transit tax credit cut back, but nothing is actually there to help the people and allow the private sector to grow and create jobs and wealth in their communities.

I wonder if the member could enlighten me on how the government is doing this, because I do not see it.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think we both agree that small and medium-sized enterprises are the backbone of our economy.

Quite honestly, they are creating jobs. We are seeing growth in the economy. We are seeing tremendous job growth, and it is coming from those small and medium-sized businesses in our communities. I have not had one business in my community ask for the small business tax cut to be made.

What I have seen them ask for are the kinds of things our government is doing around innovation and clean technology. They want consumers to have more money, which our tax cut allows, so they can go out and buy their products, whether they are buying gelato or going out for dinner or spending money in their community.

Those are the things they want. They want residents to have the money and to be able to spend it, so they can grow their businesses in the community.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, the member across the way talked about a tax cut putting money in the pockets of consumers to spend. I wonder if she would agree that the consumers most likely to spend any extra money they receive are those earning less than $45,000 per year, precisely the Canadians who will not receive anything from the so-called middle-class tax cut.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would disagree.

We introduced the Canada child benefit to benefit those individuals who were most in need of receiving additional support. It is lifting children out of poverty. It is putting that money into people's pockets so that they can do more for their families.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I noticed in the member's speech that she made the case at length that this bill deals with a number of important issues.

In her speech I did not hear about a couple of those issues that have to do with the establishment of the infrastructure bank. Another, just off the top of my head, would be the changes to the parliamentary budget office.

I wonder, given the complexity of the bill, if the member would agree that the infrastructure bank, for example, which is a significant change in its own right, represents a meaningful change in the way the government is going to deliver on infrastructure projects. If so, should we not be able to study that separately?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would say that we certainly agree that infrastructure investment is important. We are having the debate right now, and the debate will be held at committee, about all of the things that are included in the bill.

If we can make more investments in infrastructure, I know that in my community that is really important. We see things like the flooding that is taking place, which happened in Burlington a few years ago, and if we are able to put in place some investments to prevent these kinds of things from happening, that is where we need our infrastructure dollars going. The more we can do, the better.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity today to speak to Bill C-44, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measures.

I will begin by talking about the part “and other measures”.

Bill C-44 before us is an omnibus bill, as were the budget implementation bills that we became used to seeing for many years. If it passes, this bill will amend more than 30 existing laws even though a third of these amendments were not even included in the budget presented on March 22.

What is strange, or maybe not, ultimately, is that it seems to me that I did hear the Liberals criticizing the previous government many times for the excessive use of omnibus bills. In fact, they promised to abolish this practice, which they deemed to be undemocratic.

I would like to read from page 30 of the Liberal Party of Canada's election platform:

Stephen Harper has also used omnibus bills to prevent Parliament from properly reviewing and debating his proposals. We will change the House of Commons Standing Orders to bring an end to this undemocratic practice.

Those are the very same Standing Orders that the Liberal Party of Canada is trying to change in an undemocratic way, but that is another issue.

The platform is not the only place where the Liberals have called omnibus bills undemocratic. On June 9, 2015, the member for Kings—Hants, who is now President of the Treasury Board, said this in the House:

For years, the Conservatives have crossed the line in what is acceptable in a functioning democracy as a government in the of respect for Parliament. It is not only how they have now normalized the use of massive omnibus bills, they regularly shut down debate in the House....

Nevertheless, here we are debating the budget implementation bill under time allocation.

Here is another empty promise made in the House:

Liberals will end the abuse of omnibus bills which result in poorly reviewed laws.

Who said that? The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, the member for Vancouver Quadra.

The member for Bourassa had to remind her of the following:

I must tell my colleague that we are against omnibus bills. A few years ago the current government claimed that it was against these bills, which at the time might have had 20 or 30 pages. Now we have a bill with more than 175 pages.

I just wanted to point out to my Montreal colleague what he said in the House because his government's budget implementation bill is essentially an omnibus bill, even though it is not quite 290 pages long. He should be pretty ashamed, but do I look surprised? No.

It is part of the DNA of the Liberal Party of Canada to say one thing and do the opposite, the best example, of course, being electoral reform, a promise they broke, plain and simple, despite the fact that they solemnly promised that the 2015 election would be the last election under the current voting system. Shortly after that, they tried to force changes to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons down our throats, changes that are likely to affect our members' privileges, saying that they had promised to do so. Talk about hypocrisy.

During the election, and again today, the Liberals and the Prime Minister talked ad nauseam about “the middle class and those working hard to join it”, and yet those working hard to join it are by no means the people who are given priority in this bill.

In fact, while they eliminated the public transit tax credit that middle-class Canadians actually used, the Liberals are also making it easier for their rich friends to purchase our public infrastructure, the kind of people who can afford to pay $1,500 to have access to the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister, by creating the Canada infrastructure bank.

I want to emphasize that this is not about the middle class and those working hard to join it.

This bill also severely limits the parliamentary budget officer's role, which is to conduct independent studies and produce reports that he believes are in the interest of Canadians. This changes the role of the PBO, who would now have to submit a work report for the approval of the Speaker of the House and the Speaker of the Senate, as well as the chair of the finance committee, who is an elected member of the governing party. He would be the only officer of Parliament whose work plan must be approved.

In addition, research requests to estimate the costs of measures that fall within Parliament's jurisdiction would now be reserved for committees, whereas at the present time all MPs and senators can make such requests.

Incidentally, it is the research of the parliamentary budget officer, made at a member’s request, that showed us that the Liberals’ tax breaks benefited only the wealthiest, and not the middle class and those working hard to join it.

It is clear that this bill seeks to limit the ability of parliamentarians to hold the government to account and demand that it take responsibility for its actions.

I have spoken enough about what this omnibus bill contains. Now I want to talk about what it does not contain.

The 2017-18 budget provided substantial long-term funding for social and affordable housing. Following the government’s announcement, we were expecting to move on to consultations in preparation for the establishment of a real national housing strategy, for which the NDP has been calling for many years. We also thought they had finally acknowledged the ongoing housing crisis in Canada. It would seem, however, that they are in no rush to allocate the necessary resources immediately, in this budget and associated implementation bill. In fact, the government has decided to hold off on releasing over 90% of the budget announced for housing until after the next election.

However, the needs exist right now. More and more Canadian families are finding it hard to find adequate and affordable housing. The 2011 national household survey showed that 40% of Canadian tenant families were spending more than 30% of their income on housing, 19% were paying over 50%, and 9.5% of families were spending over 80% of their income on housing. There are many reasons to believe that these figures are no better today.

At the present time, the waiting lists for low-income families in need of social housing have hit record highs in our country's cities. For example, in Edmonton, 5,800 households are waiting for housing. In Montreal there are said to be 24,000, and in Toronto, 90,000. Ageing social housing infrastructure is in need of major renovations, and with the lack of funding, many housing projects have simply closed down. Property prices in major Canadian cities are skyrocketing because of speculation, to the point that fears of a real estate bubble are growing. For too many Canadian families, access to property is virtually impossible.

I have not mentioned the housing conditions and shortages in indigenous communities. However, in response to immediate and urgent request, the government has announced several billion dollars over 11 years, but has injected only a meagre $20 million in new money this year under the 2017-18 budget, $8 million of which will go to research on housing. Considering the immediate needs, $12 million more is not going to house a lot of people.

Last week I went to the national convention of the Canadian Housing and Renewal Association, the largest national association of housing stakeholders.

While people were generally happy with the investments announced in the last budget, many concerns came up regularly. Since we are already drafting omnibus budgets that include non-budgetary measures, I will cite a few of the measures that were suggested at the convention.

The association would like the housing strategy to formally recognize the right to appropriate and affordable housing, and would like the government to speed up the funding announced for housing in order to meet immediate needs, because the longer we wait, the worse the situation becomes; to take concrete steps to counter real estate speculation; to announce the construction of new social and community housing units; to establish a special strategy for the immediate and glaring housing needs in indigenous communities; and to include in its budget incentives for renovation and energy-efficient construction, which would be a smart investment.

I would add that the government should provide funds that are specifically dedicated to social and community housing, instead of including that funding more generally in the category of affordable housing.

Although I know that the government is going to remind me that I voted against certain measures it put forward in its budget, I will be obliged to vote against this bill, both for what it contains and above all for what it does not contain.

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

Madam Speaker, I always have found it interesting when members of the New Democratic caucus talk about the things that should have been or could have been in the budget. The member raises concerns about housing. We have invested literally billions of dollars in trying to ensure Canadians will have better housing into the future, no matter what region of the country they are from. However, when it really comes time to demonstrate support for a progressive budget, the NDP continues to vote against it. We have seen very strong, progressive budgets that have dealt with tax breaks for Canadians, that have increased the Canada child benefit program, that have increased the GIS, and many other tax initiatives.

In its platform, the NDP said that it would balance the budget. Where would it have drawn the funds from to pay for some of the things member talked about? Please do not just say it is corporate taxes, because that continually comes across from the NDP.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Well, I certainly will not say that. I would just remind the parliamentary secretary to address his questions to the Chair.

The hon. member for Hochelaga.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, the answer could not be simpler.

Making a budget comes down to making choices. When they decide not to invest enough money to go after tax cheats, or to let big corporations pay only 13% income tax when it is more than that in the United States, I say that they could have made different choices. For example, they could have invested more money in aboriginal housing.

Looking at the budget, in 2017-18, $56,7 million will be invested in housing in northern and Inuit communities. I don’t know if the member has gone to Nunavik, as I have, but that amount is not going to build a lot of dwellings and houses. Choices could have been made to increase the budget in the right places. In my opinion, those choices were poorly made.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate being here today. Earlier today the finance minister said that the Liberals had heard, in the short time we have had, some good suggestions that they would take under consideration.

In the speeches today, there have been several instances where I heard members making specific references to specific things. If we had more opportunity, rather than only 12%, we could provide more solid and good possibilities for the government to consider. Maybe she could respond to the short time we now have had to suggest more ideas, which the finance minister said were credible ideas, the government could take under consideration.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if I understand correctly, the member is referring to time allocation and the short time we have to discuss all of this.

If that is his question, in fact I do not agree with limiting the time for debate. We have had very little time to discuss everything that is in this budget. Earlier, I mentioned that 30 laws will be amended. this morning, the Minister of Finance said that 39 people spoke. In fact, 39 members did not speak; I believe that it was 32. That is one-tenth of the members sitting in the House of Commons.

There are many very important topics, such as the infrastructure bank. First, this bill should be split. Several items should be studied separately and we should have more time to study each of them. We are under time allocation, we have to hurry, and the majority of members cannot even take the floor.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to our government's second budget.

Budget 2017 is the next step in our government’s ambitious plan to make smart investments that will create jobs in the four cities in my riding. It will also grow Canada's economy and provide more opportunities for the middle class and those working hard to join it in communities all across the country.

As a member of Parliament and a businesswoman who is very involved in my community, I cannot help but be pleased with a budget that does not leave anyone behind and that addresses real issues. This budget provides opportunities for seniors, families, entrepreneurs, and job creators.

The concept of providing opportunities for all is the cornerstone of the new Liberal approach, and that approach is working. Over the past seven months, the Canadian economy has created some 250,000 jobs. Since December 2015, Canada's unemployment rate has dropped from 7.1% to 6.6%. What is more, January marked the longest run of trade surpluses since 2014, a sign that we are finding more buyers around the world for our exports.

As a member of the Standing Committee of International Trade and the only member from Quebec on this committee, I am proud that businesses back home will have new opportunities to export their products and find new clients around the world. The Liberal approach is indeed working as we can see by the growth rates. As a government, we have made decisions and implemented important measures for the people back home and across Canada.

Over the past year, our government has implemented a plan to grow our economy in a way that works for the middle class and those working hard to join it. Again, under this plan we raised taxes for the wealthiest Canadians who represent 1% of the population in order to lower taxes for the middle class. We implemented the Canada child benefit, which gives more to nine out of ten Canadian families, including 10,000 families in Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, and which will lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty. We also enhanced the Canada pension plan in order to help Canadians have the secure and dignified retirement they deserve.

Budget 2017 also contains new measures to make the tax system fairer by eliminating the tax loopholes that create unfair advantages for some at the expense of others, by investing $524 million more in the Canada Revenue Agency to support its sustained efforts to counter tax evasion and fight tax avoidance, and finally, by eliminating tax measures that are of inordinate benefit to the wealthiest.

When I go meet with my constituents, they are proud that our government is acting to ensure more tax fairness for the middle class.

Budget 2017 directly affects my riding with three important measures: major health transfers, especially for our seniors; infrastructure investments, particularly in affordable housing; and finally, investment in our human capital and innovation.

As I have just mentioned, budget 2017 provides for clear action on health. As of today’s date the government has concluded new health funding accords with the 12 provinces and territories, which have accepted their share of the federal offer of $11 billion over 10 years to provide better support to Canadian families in the areas of home care and mental health.

In my case, when I led round tables in my riding, the vast majority of stakeholders were in favour of more support for home care. I am therefore very happy that budget 2017 responds to this important demand.

The government will also be simplifying the current tax relief for caregivers by replacing three existing income tax credits with a new tax credit called the Canada caregiver credit. This new credit will offer improved support for those who need it most, and will apply to caregivers whether they live with the family member they are caring for or not.

That is why the Government of Canada will be allocating $11 billion over 10 years, $2.5 billion of which will go to Quebec, to support home care and improve mental health care.

The infrastructure investments, including in public transit and affordable housing, are another strength of budget 2017, and directly affect my constituents in Rivière-des-Mille-Îles. The infrastructure investments we make today will be beneficial for many years to come. They will ensure clean and sustained economic growth, make it possible to build stronger, more inclusive communities, and create more good jobs for the people of the Lower Laurentians region and elsewhere.

To do this, our government has set up the Canada infrastructure bank, which will be charged with making investments totalling $35 billion over 11 years. Our infrastructure plan will include investments in the Montreal region that could help build the réseau électrique métropolitain, the REM, a high-frequency train project with a branch line starting in Deux-Montagnes, in my riding.

On affordable housing, we realize that housing needs vary greatly across different communities, and that is why our government is determined to work with the provinces and territories to ensure that the specific needs of communities all across Canada are met.

Budget 2017 thus proposes to grant some $3.2 billion over the next 11 years to the provinces and territories so they can address their main affordable housing priorities. This news has been very well received by the local stakeholders in my riding, who took part in large numbers in a round table recently organized by my staff.

Finally, budget 2017 puts the skilled, talented and creative people of Canada at the heart of a more innovative economy of the future, which is good news for the dynamic and innovative companies in my constituency.

For our government, relying on innovation also means relying on the know-how of Quebec and Canadian society, and that is very important in Rivière-des-Mille-Îles. The role of elected officials is now to focus on and invest in their fellow citizens, and to give the workers of the Lower Laurentians region the tools they need to succeed in the economy of the future.

Many of the measures in budget 2017 are designed to put Canada in a leadership position within the global economy.

First, we will be investing $225 million over four years to identify and address skills gaps in the economy and help Canadians to be as prepared as possible for the economy of tomorrow. Next, we will create a strategic innovation fund which will serve to attract, support and grow Canadian companies in dynamic and emerging sectors, such as agrifood, digital technology, green technologies and advanced manufacturing, thanks to an investment of $1.26 billion over five years.

We will also be offering greater support to “superclusters” of companies that innovate in key sectors such as digital technology and green technology, and that offer the greatest potential for accelerating economic growth, thanks to an investment in 2017-18 of up to $950 million over five years.

I have always been proud to say that the greatest strength of Canada and of the Lower Laurentians region lies in its skilled, hard-working and creative workforce. Hence it is important to strengthen Canada as a global leader in the innovation economy, so as to create jobs and grow the middle class, since innovation is transforming the way we live and work, ushering in new challenges and new opportunities for everyone.

Innovation is the economy of tomorrow. Let us work in lockstep and, together, seize this opportunity to become a world leader in tomorrow's economy. I would like to inform the House that I have full confidence in budget 2017 which, with its concrete measures, will enable the middle class, seniors and innovative companies in my region to prosper in the years ahead.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

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

The Liberals used to think that omnibus bills were not fair, that they were a bad idea, but then they went and put a lot of different things in this bill, including the new infrastructure bank.

Since the government seems to think this is an innovative way to make infrastructure projects happen, does the member think this measure should be examined on its own, apart from the other measures in this budget implementation bill?

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague opposite for his question about infrastructure.

The infrastructure investments we are making will pay dividends for years to come. They will deliver clean, sustained economic growth, build stronger, more inclusive communities, and create more good, middle-class jobs for all Canadians.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in our budget we have announced some significant investments in health care and child care spaces: $11 billion in health care, $11 million in affordable housing, and $7 billion to create 40,000 child care spaces. How are these kinds of investments going to benefit the constituents of the member's riding?

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

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

This budget will definitely help people in my riding. When I went door to door in 2015, lots of people told me they wanted our health care system to include home care for seniors. That is why we are investing so much in this area. We will also be investing heavily in mental health, which is something that affects a lot of people.

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by congratulating my colleague from Rivière-des-Milles-Îles on her speech. I also want to thank and congratulate her for all the work she does for the people in her riding. I had the chance to see her over the past few months not only in Ottawa, but also in her community. I know how important it is to her to work for all the constituents in her riding, especially those who are less fortunate, such as the people whose housing conditions are less than ideal. I know she is working very hard with agencies in her riding to try to improve life for these people.

I want to ask her what are the greatest socio-economic challenges that she sees in her community and that will be alleviated by the Canadian government's investments.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development for the question.

Budget 2017 considerably helps my constituents. In Saint-Eustache, we have housing for the homeless. There are units for youth aged 12 to 17 and for those aged 18 to 25 years. Many people benefit from this. The homelessness partnering strategy will help ensure that people have access to these units. The challenge is to get homeless people to live in social housing and regain control of their lives. There is a clear need for affordable housing, but first we need homes to fight homelessness and to bring these people back to a way of life where they are contributing to our society.

I thank the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development for helping provide assistance to all these people in my riding and to all the stakeholders.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-44, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, in your presentation, you did a masterful job of highlighting the absurdity of our current situation. I have exactly three minutes to talk about Bill C-44, which the government is ramming down our throats as hard as it possibly can, to shut us up and make sure that we cannot point out the inconsistencies and everything that will happen after this budget implementation bill passes.

The bill makes amendments that will affect 30 departments. I will name a few of them. I will talk about the entire mechanism the Conservatives had put in place, during the previous government, in order to prevent the government in power from increasing fees unreasonably on the backs of Canadians.

The Liberal government will simply eliminate this mechanism and will take more money out of taxpayers' pockets. We are not at all surprised, given that the Liberal government is accumulating deficits. The only way for the government to generate revenue, which it does not have enough of, is to legalize marijuana, which will generate revenue at the expense of our youth and Canadians, and to increase costs by cancelling the public transit credit. That is absurd coming from a government that calls itself green.

In the last budget, the government eliminated tax credits for families whose children play sports or participate in cultural activities. Even worse, when tired Canadians go home on Friday and want to relax, the beer they open or the wine they pour will come with another tax on alcohol.

What we are seeing is completely ridiculous. I am not even talking about the infrastructure bank, which will be established at the expense of Canadians. The $35 billion should be used to help all municipalities across Canada, but will grease the palms of private investors who are controlling the government agenda.

Given all of that, we do not understand the purpose of this budget. The government says that it wants to support the middle class, but it is currently doing exactly the opposite.

The government gave us three days to discuss the budget. Really, it gave us only two days, not three, because last Friday, we had only an hour and fifteen minutes to discuss it. Today, I have only three minutes to tell my constituents about the aberration we are dealing with today.

What the government is doing does not make any sense. It is racking up debt for future generations, going forward with spending, and leading people to believe that it is lowering their taxes. It does not make any sense. As an MP who represents his constituents, I am extremely frustrated with this situation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the three wonderful minutes you gave me to speak.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It being 5:53 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #267

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I declare the amendment lost.

The next question is on the main motion.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

The hon. Chief Government Whip.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you would find unanimous consent to apply the result of the previous vote to this one, with Liberal members voting yes.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives agree to apply the vote and will be voting no.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP agrees to apply the vote, but you will be surprised to hear that we are voting no.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote, but we will obviously be voting no.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party agrees to apply the vote and is voting no.

[Hunter Tootoo, Independent, Nunavut, NU]

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply the vote and will be voting yes.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #268

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It being 6:40 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.