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.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Welcome back, AG Hogan and Ms. Fox. Welcome, Ms. Dorion.

I have a couple of quick questions, probably for Ms. Fox.

The Service Fees Act requires remissions and rebates to people when we haven't met the service standards. That was suspended over COVID-19, I understand. Has that been re-established? If so, when? If not, why not?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Fréchette, thank you for being here with us today.

Could you describe for us, if you will, the changes in your office since your mandate and powers were amended by Bill C-44?

[Jean-Denis Fréchette, Parliamentary Budget Officer, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As per your committee order of reference related to vote 1 under the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer's main estimates for 2018-19, I am glad to report that our estimates have been considered by the Speaker of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Commons, who conducted their thorough due diligence. Following that, the PBO's CFO and DCFO—Sloane Mask—exercised oversight attesting to our budget requirements. As per parliamentary procedure, our budget has been referred to your committee for final approval.

The PBO's budget totals $7.6 million, including a total voted budgetary requirement of $7 million, as well as a statutory budget component of $600,000 to fund the employee benefits program.

The budgetary request for the PBO's first full financial cycle as an independent entity supports the fulfillment of Parliament’s desire for transparent, timely, and credible electoral platform costing, in addition to funding non-recurring transition expenses to establish the office in accordance with Bill C-44. The request can be detailed as follows: a transferred appropriation from the Library of Parliament of $2.6 million for direct operating costs; $1.5 million to enhance economic, analytical, and administrative capacity; and $2.9 million for professional service and transition requirements.

For the current year, the $7 million is because of the transition to a new structure—outside the Library of Parliament—through the requirement to establish service agreements and the anticipated increase in requests from parliamentarians and parliamentary committees because of changes to our mandate.

For the next fiscal year, which also corresponds to a general election year, the amount requested will be $7 million as well, but this time mainly because of the statutory obligation to assess the cost of election platforms. Subsequently, the annual budget of the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO), will decline once again to $6.5 million a year. It will be constant during the first three years of the new, or the next Parliament.

As per the PBO's legislative mandate to provide impartial, independent analysis to help parliamentarians fulfill their constitutional role, which consists of holding government accountable, we published last week a report on the 2018-19 main estimates, which support the second appropriation bill for the current fiscal year. It follows the 2018-19 interim estimates, which was tabled in Parliament on February 12, 2018.

The government's expenditure plan and main estimates for 2018-19 outline $276 billion in total budgetary spending authorities. This represents an increase of approximately $18.1 billion compared to the total budgetary authorities identified last year, in 2017-18.

Statutory budgetary authorities are projected to be $163 billion in 2018-19, which is an increase of $7.2 billion compared to the total estimated statutory spending in 2017-18. Seniors' benefits and the Canada health transfer are two of the largest contributors to this increase, and are set to rise by $2.6 billion and $1.4 billion, respectively.

The federal organizations with the largest increase in their total budgetary authorities from the main estimates 2017-18 are the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, with $7.1 billion; Finance, with $3.8 billion; Employment and Social Development Canada, with $3.5 billion; National Defence, with $1.7 billion; and Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, with $709 million.

Finally, Mr. Chair, in November 2016, the PBO applauded the government's objective to enhance Parliament's role in upfront financial scrutiny. More recently, in our May 1 report, we said that the changes reflect an effort on the part of the government to improve alignment between the budget and the estimates. However, full reform requires that alignment to be accompanied by an alignment with parliamentary procedure, which means providing clear, specific, and transparent information to members in the object of the vote itself, which we haven't seen and therefore reported.

We welcome the statement of the President of the Treasury Board, who said that he would now correct the situation by including the table in the vote for the supply bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We will be happy to answer your questions.

[Ramez Ayoub, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is always interesting to talk about elections and Bill C-44.

What challenges need to be addressed? Obviously, we have still not gone through an election year, as you mentioned already. What do you think the challenges we must address are? What can you already suggest as a movement or improvement to be made, so that, in 2019, we don't end up in a funnel, as has been the case in the past? What are the gaps? A piece of legislation is never perfect. It can always be improved, even if it is very recent.

I would like you to provide us with more details on this.

[Jason Jacques]

It was. The business case was developed over the course of the summer once C-44 had received royal assent. We finalized it at that point.

[Catherine Ebbs, Chairperson, Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board is an independent quasi-judicial statutory tribunal with the unique expertise required to deliver on its two key services, adjudication and mediation.

The FPSLREB was created on November 1, 2014, from the merger of the former Public Service Labour Relations Board and the Public Service Staffing Tribunal, bringing staffing and labour relations under one umbrella. The board and its predecessors have been responsible for administering public sector labour relations for 50 years, and for resolving public sector staffing questions for over 10 years. With public service modernization in 2005, the board gained jurisdiction in the human rights area, both in staffing and labour relations.

At its foundation, the board's purpose is bringing the highest values of Canadian justice to bear on labour relations, grievance adjudication, and employment and staffing issues in the federal public sector. It is committed to resolving those issues impartially and fairly. This contributes to a productive and efficient workplace and helps to achieve harmonious labour relations and a fair employment environment for public sector employers, employees and their bargaining agents.

The FPSLREB operates with neutral and impartial board members. Most board members come with deep expertise and experience gained by working either on the management or the bargaining agent side of labour relations and staffing. As prescribed by the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act, their appointment is made in recognition of that expertise with, to the extent possible, an equal number appointed from among persons recommended by the employer and from among persons recommended by the bargaining agents. However, despite being recommended by the employer or the bargaining agents, they do not sit on the board as representatives of the viewpoints or interests of either side.

At present, the FPSLREB's composition consists of one chairperson, two vice-chairpersons, and seven full-time members, as well as one part-time member. The board is currently working with the government to fill board member vacancies. A selection process is under way to appoint full-time and part-time members.

The FPSLREB has jurisdiction over several areas of federal public sector labour relations and staffing matters. Specifically, the board administers the public sector collective bargaining and grievance adjudication systems for the federal public service as well as for the institutions of Parliament. It resolves complaints related to internal appointments, appointment revocations, and layoffs in the federal public service. It resolves human rights issues in grievances and complaints that are already within its jurisdiction, as well as pay equity complaints in the federal public service. It also administers reprisal complaints of public servants under the Canada Labour Code.

Through the board's dispute resolution services, expert mediators and panels of the board help parties resolve a variety of labour relations and staffing disputes and complaints coherently and consistently and reach collective agreements often without resorting to a hearing.

Through the board's adjudication services and via fair and impartial hearings, it ensures that well-reasoned decisions are produced by an expert board for the federal sector.

The decisions made by panels of the board add to its growing case law in both staffing and labour relations, which is accessible to anyone.

During a continued period of legislative change affecting its work, the board has revisited how best to ensure uninterrupted service excellence while looking toward the integration of its additional mandates. This holistic approach to the formulation and implementation of a renewed vision in the efficient delivery of its mandate encompasses the values of fairness and transparency in its proceedings and includes one-stop shopping for mediation, adjudication, arbitration, and conciliation for the federal public sector.

The board has set a clear direction on providing a fair hearing and rendering well-reasoned decisions with a dedicated focus on dispute resolution.

Now I'd like to talk about the current mandate of the board under the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act.

While the bulk of the board's caseload comes from its stakeholders who fall under the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act, the board also has significant experience with the issues of parliamentary employers and employees. It has been the board responsible for this area since parliamentary employees first attained the right to bargain collectively in 1986. The FPSLREB is the expert board with respect to parliamentary labour relations. Part I of PESRA is administered and applied by the board, which hears various kinds of labour relations disputes, including such things as applications for certification, unfair labour practice complaints, and designations of persons employed in managerial and confidential capacities. The board also adjudicates grievances referred by parliamentary employees.

Now I'd like to talk about the impact of Bill C-65 on the work of the board. The FPSLREB has significant hands-on experience and expertise with labour relations and employment matters in the federal public service and for parliamentary institutions. From 1986 to 2000, public sector employees had recourse to the board, which was called the Public Service Staff Relations Board at the time, to challenge work refusal “absence of danger” decisions. These were not called appeals at the time, but they served the same function. During this time, parliamentary employees had no recourse with respect to occupational health and safety matters under part II of the Canada Labour Code.

In 2000, recourse for both private and public sector employees was transferred to appeal officers of the Occupational Health and Safety Tribunal of Canada. Beginning in 1986, public service reprisal cases were heard by the board. This continues to the present. Reprisal complaints were not included in the transfer to the Occupational Health and Safety Tribunal that took place in 2000.

The FPSLREB also has a great deal of experience with issues of harassment. It has dealt with these issues for many years. Harassment matters have come before the board through various legislative routes, such as grievances for violation of a collective agreement, grievances against disciplinary sanctions, matters pertaining to duty of fair representation and unfair labour practices, and staffing complaints.

Under Bill C-44, which received royal assent in June 2017, parliamentary employees will have their ministerial appeals and their reprisal complaints heard by the FPSLREB. Most political staffers will be added to the parliamentary employees and will also have their appeals and reprisal complaints heard by the FPSLREB.

To summarize, the board has extensive expertise and experience with occupational health and safety reprisal claims under the Canada Labour Code. It will retain its current mandate for reprisal claims from federal public service employees, and will acquire a new mandate for parliamentary employees, including most political staffers, for appeals of ministerial work refusal decisions regarding absence of danger, appeals of ministerial directions regarding contravention complaints, and reprisal complaints.

Given the board's substantial experience with the matters I've just described, I would like to conclude by saying that the FPSLREB has the adjudication and dispute resolution expertise to deal with appeals under part II of the Canada Labour Code, as it did before 2000, and to extend its current public sector mandate for reprisal claims for the federal public service to include parliamentary employees.

Thank you very much.

[Josette Roussel, Senior Nurse Advisor, Policy, Advocacy and Strategy, Canadian Nurses Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for the invitation to be here with you this afternoon.

I'm a registered nurse representing the Canadian Nurses Association, CNA, the national professional voice representing more than 139,000 registered nurses and nurse practitioners. Across Canada, there are close to 5,000 nurse practitioners who provide care to over three million people in Canada.

I am pleased to be here today to speak about the specific measures related to nurse practitioners, or NPs, in Bill C-63, budget implementation act number two. We are pleased to be here to discuss this important bill ahead of nurse practitioner week, which starts on November 12 and ends on November 18.

On May 17 of this year, CNA appeared before this committee to inform members about the important role played by NPs in our health care system. Our official testimony before the committee on Bill C-44, budget implementation act number one, noted that NPs conduct physical assessment, order and interpret tests, write admission and discharge orders, and prescribe medications.

As an update, I am pleased to say that NPs enthusiastically joined our October 24 webinar entitled “Updates of Form T2201 Federal Disability Tax Credit Certificate: New Authority for Nurse Practitioners”. NPs have certified the DTC since March 22, 2017, budget day, the day the changes took effect. The proposed amendments in Bill C-63 will provide Canada's NPs with the capacity to treat patients to the full extent of their qualifications. As this committee is aware, these qualifications include the ability to complete documentation about their patients' medical conditions.

CNA has gone through the proposed amendments in Bill C-63. We are pleased to let the members of this committee know that the amendments complete the remaining clauses where NPs needed to be added to fully modernize the legislation. As a result of these changes, NPs will be identified in the Income Tax Act and the income tax regulations as eligible to provide certifications or reports related to other tax measures wherever certification or reports are currently provided by medical doctors.

We are pleased to see that these changes will lead to amendments to the medical expense tax credit, the child care expense deduction, the definition of qualifying student, the registered disability savings plan, and the registered pension plan regulations. We therefore encourage members of the committee to accept the proposed changes. These changes will enhance access for patients whose primary care is delivered by an NP in rural/remote and urban communities across Canada.

As we move forward, CNA anticipates that similar changes will be made to the Canada pension plan disability benefit. CNA has met with both ministerial and departmental officials at ESDC about changes that will authorize NPs to complete the disability-related medical reports for patients. These changes will not only enhance access to care but also lower health care costs.

Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to encourage members of the committee to support the recommendations that were outlined in CNA's 2018 pre-budget submission. The recommendations outlined in our brief aim to strengthen public health education of health care providers, including nurses. Our key recommendations to the federal government include investing $125 million over the next five years in public education in advance of the passage of Bill C-45, including a one-time investment of $1.5 million to increase the level of cannabis education for nurses. We also recommend an investment of $45 million over the next five years to scale up provincial and territorial acute care and community-based antimicrobial stewardship programs, including a one-time investment of $1.5 million to increase AMS competence and capacity among nurses through a nursing profession-led knowledge, education, and mobilization program.

In closing, I encourage members of this committee to support Bill C-63. We are pleased that the bill builds on the important changes that were found in Bill C-44.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to speak today on what is proving to be one of the least popular budget bills in modern Canadian parliamentary history, although I regret not having the opportunity to address the ill-conceived Canada infrastructure bank directly, since it has been embedded in one of those omnibus bills and legislation. I will therefore dedicate my remarks to talking a bit about another Liberal boondoggle.

Bill C-63 is a continuation of the decline we have seen the government taking Canada on since it was first elected. Why is this a surprise? It is the Liberal way to tell Canadians one thing at election time and then do something completely different while it is in power.

I remember the election campaign. The Liberals promised a small deficit of $10 billion to fund infrastructure. Many Canadians voted for a modest deficit, taking the Prime Minister at his word, in contrast to the fiscal responsibility promoted by my own party and also, quite frankly, by the NDP.

It did not take long for the concept of a modest deficit to fall by the wayside, and since then it has spiralled out of control. The last economic update did not even offer a plan for balancing the budget. No plan at all. It is unbelievable.

What is worse is the conduct of the finance minister in regard to his own affairs. In case anybody has forgotten, let me remind the House.

First, the minister failed to put his assets from his family firm Morneau Shepell, a human resources and pension management firm, in a blind trust, despite saying he would do so. These assets consisted of millions of shares, which are worth approximately $21 million in current stock prices.

Second, the minister continued to receive dividends on these shares, dated from the time he was elected. At a dividend rate of about 6.5¢ a share, the minister was roughly earning $65,000 a month over the past two years. For comparison, according to Statistics Canada, the median wage of an individual worker in the province of Ontario, the area I represent, is just over $44,000 per year. That is $20,000 less per year than our finance minister was earning per month from dividends alone. That is on top of his salary as a cabinet minister. Said another way, the average Ontario worker makes $20,000 less over the course of a year than the minister made per month. Now, there is a clear message for the middle class.

Third, we also learned that while the minister was calling small business owners tax cheats, he apparently forgot to disclose that he owned a private corporation, with a sole purpose of owning a villa in the south of France. I guess it is a small villa, maybe a “villette”. Why own a corporation to own a villa? To avoid paying inheritance tax, of course, the same tax the minister has proposed to the farmers of my riding when they transfer their family farms to the next generation of Canadians. We should be proud that the next generation of Canadians wants to farm our great country.

Fourth, we also learned that Morneau Shepell, the minister's aforementioned family business, had an $8 million contract to manage the pension and benefits of the Bank of Canada. What minister is responsible for the Bank of Canada? Why, the Minister of Finance.

To summarize, the minister continued to hold shares in a company he regulated, while the company signed a contract with a department for which he was responsible. It is really quite astounding. One would think that this minister would have been fired for this clear conflict of interest. The Ethics Commissioner, to her credit, has fined the minister for this breach. However, the Prime Minister continues to defend him and allow this attack on our farmers to continue while not dealing with his own minister.

Bill C-63 would simply continue the out-of-control spending of the Liberal government and would further hike taxes on everyone it has claimed to help. The Liberals are adding debt at the twice the rate that promised and the minister's own numbers project debt for every year in the future. Unfortunately for Canadians, someone has to pay for this Liberal spending spree, and it is middle-class Canadians. In fact, it is estimated that more than 80% of the middle class pay more tax today under the Liberals than under the previous government.

Regarding some of the specifics of the bill, the Liberals are now going to tax our beer. Breweries in my riding, whether it be Creemore Springs, Side Launch Brewing Company, Collingwood Brewery, or Northwinds Brewery, all create jobs. They attract tourists who are eager to sample their products, and they already pay enough tax.

However, it is not enough for the Liberals, who look at successful entrepreneurs as tax cheats and a source of revenue. In fact, the Liberals are so desperate for money that they are also targeting type 1 diabetics. They have now decided to deny type 1 diabetics their tax credits. Individuals who need help are going to help the Liberals get back into the black, I guess.

The Canada Revenue Agency itself confirmed that with respect to insulin therapy, new direction was given at the beginning of May regarding applications under the disability tax credit. This change in direction was unannounced, and it has caused huge confusion and suffering for those suffering from type 1 diabetes. It has resulted in hundreds of diabetics receiving less funding by hundreds, sometimes thousands, of dollars.

What is worse is that the minister has the power to stop it today, but she and her fellow cabinet colleagues, her government, her colleagues on the other side of the House, have not reverted the directive. It is simple. A directive from her to her department will reverse the changes and allow those type 1 diabetics to receive their tax credits until further consultation could be done. I raised this in the House last Friday, but to my knowledge, the minister has yet to act.

Another item that would be created with this omnibus bill, Bill C-63, is another infrastructure bank support. We saw in the omnibus bill, Bill C-44, the creation of the Canada infrastructure bank. It is a $35-billion boondoggle. François Beaudoin, the former CEO of the Business Development Bank of Canada and witness at the Gomery inquiry into Liberal corruption, stated that this new bank is easily open to “political interference”. However, in the rush to create that fund, the Liberals ignored everyone.

This time there is a commitment to support another infrastructure bank, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, for an immediate investment of $256 million, and a further authorization in the future for the potential of another $480 million. The Liberals will have bought 1% of this bank. What do taxpayers get back? Nothing. We commit money as Canadians so that other countries can get cheaper loans and build their infrastructure. By bringing Canada into the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, the Liberals would be sending hundreds of millions of Canadian taxpayer dollars to foreigners with no control over how the money would be spent or whether or not Canadian companies would benefit, let alone Canadian citizens.

As I have said previously, I am very confident in saying that Canadians want investments in our infrastructure here in Canada. Whether it be in my riding, Collingwood, Wasaga Beach, Adjala-Tosorontio, Angus, or Alliston, we know that infrastructure is needed. Canadian citizens need it so that they can make their businesses more successful, and so that they can make sure their children get to school safely.

I was happy to be a part of a previous government that understood that we worked with our allies, the United States and Japan, and did not support this bank. We could not then, and the Liberals cannot now, ensure that the bank would follow environmental, social, and human rights standards that we expect of our institutions. Therefore, while they preach about human rights and environmental policy standards here at home and to others abroad, they are prepared to turn a blind eye when it suits their needs.

Bill C-63 is a continuation of a shameful decline in our government finances. I will be voting against it, and I encourage all members on both sides of the House to vote against the bill, which is one that invests in others outside of our nation's borders and not in Canadians.

Transportation Modernization Act

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Red Deer—Mountain View.

Bill C-49 has a number of legislative gaps.

This bill is simply an omnibus bill. It is a whole bunch of random ideas tossed together to make one large omnibus bill.

Obviously, the transport minister looked around his department and asked if anyone had anything he or she wanted passed in legislation. He took a list of requests, put them in this bill, and that is what we have. Besides having some loose connections to transportation, there is little common among the items in this bill.

One component of the bill outlines a passenger bill of rights, but there is nothing concrete, no details outlined in the bill, that truly protects passengers. The reception of this bill by passenger rights advocates has been the political equivalent of standing for three hours on the tarmac on a hot summer's day. It is really terrible. That is because the Liberal government is proposing a passenger bill of rights that fails to actually do much for passengers. However, the one thing it would do is allow the Minister of Transport and the Canadian Transportation Agency to set monetary compensation for passengers on their own, with no oversight, yet again another constant theme of the Liberal government.

We all know that the last thing Canadians want is the Liberals having an easier time spending tax dollars. Along those lines, there is more.

The Liberals have also suggested possible increases to the cost of airport security charges.

The Liberals also opened the door to possible increases in security service fees at airports. To top it all off, the minister also gave himself the power to approve or reject risk ventures between airlines, which could diminish the role of the Competition Bureau, which is independent and non partisan.

This is yet another scenario under which the Liberal government has placed more power in the hands of the minister and less power and control in the hands of Canadians, where it rightfully belongs.

Not to be outdone by other omnibus bills, the government has also decided to tackle the issue of grain shipping by rail. I am certain prairie producers, just like those in the riding of the member for Brandon—Souris and other members who represent grain farmers, were delighted when they heard the Liberals would tackle this grain shipping issue. As part of the previous Conservative government that supported the Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act, greater opportunities were provided for grain farmers. The Liberals are not focused on that.

What have the Liberals done? They have proposed major changes to shipping policies that were introduced by a former great minister of agriculture and member of the House, the Hon. Gerry Ritz, and the very capable minister of transport at that time, the member for Milton. By changing the interswitch rate, the Liberal government will make it more difficult for shippers and farmers. We will also see an increased use by American railroads without reciprocal rights for Canadians. Again, I am not sure what the logic of that is. Last I checked, the Canadian government should be putting Canadians first.

One hopes this is not the Liberal negotiating strategy for NAFTA, literally giving the farm away. The Liberals could and should keep the Conservative policies in place, policies that were designed by people who actually have experience in this area and who are working, or have worked, with grain farmers. Instead, they have chosen to side with the industry, making life far more difficult for shippers and farmers.

Another part of this omnibus bill, and, as I said, this is just a laundry list of things, is a proposal for the railways to have locomotive voice and video recorders. This has already been mentioned in the House today. I believe this initiative is designed to help prevent further rail accidents, but, again, this is another item that has been added to the list and the legislation has not been thoroughly thought out.

There is not a person in the chamber who does not want to improve rail safety. We want our railways to be as safe as possible. As a former minister of labour, I understand the call for locomotive voice and video recorders, the LVVR, to be installed, but I do not think this legislation has been thoroughly thought through.

First, Transport Canada just launched a review of the Railway Safety Act in May. Why would we not wait until that review comes back before moving forward?

Further, the public has not seen the analysis of the privacy aspect of this initiative. Regulations mandate that airline cockpit voice recorders keep only a record of the last two hours of a flight. Thus far, all we have heard is that an entire transport trip would be recorded with respect to rail. The minister needs to clarify this, and fairness is important. As I have mentioned before, details are important, and the details of this legislation simply do not exist.

There have also been concerns raised about the use of this data. The legislation states that it would only be used for Transportation Safety Board accident investigations and for rail corporations to inform their safety management systems. However, there are concerns that there would be no limit on LVVR usage in the legislation and that the rail industry would use it for employee discipline beyond the intended purpose. This initiative clearly needs to be better thought out, and quite frankly, clarified. Workers need to know what is happening, and the rail industry needs to understand as well.

If all these loose ends do not demonstrate the weakness of, and the concerns about, this omnibus bill, I have decided to save the best for last. In one of the two marine-related clauses, the minister is proposing to amend the Canada Marine Act to allow port authorities and their wholly owned subsidiaries to receive loans and loan guarantees from the Canada Infrastructure Bank.

As members know, I have some strong views on this bank. First of all, it seems like just another classic example of an ill-thought-out component of the Liberal omnibus bill. Despite calls from every party and every sector in Canada to separate the Canada Infrastructure Bank from omnibus Bill C-44, the Liberals ignored everyone and rushed ahead with this flawed initiative. Even the bible of the Liberal elites, the Toronto Star, demanded further parliamentary review. This $35-billion slush fund, as the Star says, “should not be railroaded through Parliament as a mere footnote in a 300-page omnibus budget implementation bill”.

The only people in Canada who seemed to have been in a rush for this infrastructure bank to be created and the legislation passed were those who use their connections with the Liberal Party to make a few more dollars. The infrastructure bank has been a boondoggle from day one. The budget in 2017 revealed that $1 billion of lapsed infrastructure funding from 2016 will not be reallocated until fiscal year 2022-23. If that is not bad enough, we learned that $15 billion will be taken away from community infrastructure projects to finance the infrastructure bank.

Municipal leaders in my riding and others across the country, particularly in small communities like my own, are wondering why they never seem to benefit from the Liberal government. I wonder if part of it is that the Minister of Transport comes from a large urban area, and the Minister of Infrastructure comes from a large urban area, and they just do not seem to understand that small communities like Collingwood or Alliston, or others across the country, actually need help as well. Small municipalities may never benefit from the infrastructure bank, because even if they scraped together all the money for a large proposal, they would be competing for the minister's approval. While folks like the Minister of Infrastructure and the transport minister live in large cities, small-town Canada actually has no place in the Liberal infrastructure plan.

If the clear favouritism toward big cities over the rest by the Liberals is not clear enough, the governance of the infrastructure bank is so vague and open-ended that we can see a governance scandal on the horizon. I will start with the mandate of the bank. What mandate? There does not seem to be a clear one. The mandate of the Canada Infrastructure Bank is so vague that we are not sure what it is actually supposed to target, and there is no policy directing the bank's investments thus far.

There are also no criteria to determine whether the bank has made investments that benefit Canadians, or whether it has been a huge waste of money and resources.

It will certainly be the latter, as the bank duplicates the work of the P3 Canada fund, which is a completely independent crown corporation.

Alarm bells have also been rung about the bank and its potential for political interference, and there is good reason for this. Final sign-off on the project will be in the hands of the minister, and we know that this is a flawed initiative.

We have learned that foreign companies are able to apply for it. Let us say that a Chinese donor to the Liberal Party applies to the bank and receives $100 million as a loan, and the project goes bust. Who is on the tab for that? It is Canadian taxpayers, people in my riding and yours, Madam Speaker.

Like Bill C-44, Bill C-49 is an example of a poorly thought-out omnibus bill. It would do little to improve transportation.

I will be opposing this legislation, as will my colleagues on this side of the House.

Veterans Affairs

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, last spring, I asked the minister about the infrastructure bank and the fact that it would result in user fees and tolls on Canadians. It is an important issue for a vast majority of Canadians, who deserve a real answer. I hope the Liberals will, despite previous practice, be honest with the people they serve, just as they promised when they came to power.

The 2017 budget, as well as this fall's economic statement, represented great opportunities for the government to build an economy that benefits everyone, not just the wealthiest. Sadly, the Liberals did quite the opposite in both cases. Despite sunny ways, it appears that the current government remains focused on using governance as a means to increase the wealth of its friends at the expense of hard-working Canadians. Where is the promise to be transparent and accountable? The infrastructure bank proves, on several fronts, that the Liberals cannot keep their word.

The infrastructure bank project was included in an omnibus bill that was about 300 pages long. I recall the Liberal promise during the last election campaign to abolish the use of undemocratic omnibus bills, which the Liberals vigorously denounced while the Harper government was in power. Can the minister explain why the use of such undemocratic practices has suddenly become acceptable?

In 2015, the Liberals promised that the Canada infrastructure bank will provide low-cost financing for new infrastructure programs. One year later, we learned that the infrastructure bank will be largely financed by private sector investors, who would demand significant returns on that investment. Projects funded under the infrastructure bank will have to produce revenues, notably by imposing user fees, tolls, and other new costs to citizens throughout Canada. I do not recall the Liberals being transparent about tolls at the time that the legislation was introduced. The bottom line is that Canadian taxpayers will be funding private corporations for public services. The infrastructure bank represents nothing less than the privatization of our infrastructure, privatization that benefits wealthy investors at the expense of hard-working Canadians who rely on public services.

It raises the vital question of whether public services would be deemed unessential if they do not meet an acceptable profit margin for infrastructure bank investors. For example, would the public safety of rural areas and impoverished regions be overlooked because they would not generate enough profit? Once again, profit appears to trump the public good and the sunny ways rule book.

The NDP has been very vocal in its opposition to the infrastructure bank. It does not serve the needs of Canadians. This privatization is disastrous for all of us. Infrastructure should first benefit all Canadians, including workers and families, not the financial elite and corporate friends of the Liberals. We should most certainly not be double billing Canadians with additional user fees and tolls for essential infrastructure that they have already paid for with their tax dollars.

Earlier this month, a report from the Columbia Institute, echoed by Canada's Information Commissioner, argued that Bill C-44, passed in June, will further undermine the public's ability to access information about the infrastructure bank. The report clearly stated that private sector interests are given a veto over releasing information about how public money is spent. It is clear that nothing has improved since I first asked my question in May. In fact, it looks worse than ever.

Transportation Modernization Act

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise to address the House today on Bill C-49. We have covered a lot of ground in the debate today.

The word “omnibus” has been used by both the official opposition and the NDP to describe this bill. The vision that came from committee and the minister is that this bill reflects the nature of transportation. Transportation, as we know, is now called logistics. It is more than just moving goods and people; it is also the data behind the networks. It is tracking packages as they go from one form of shipping to another. Whether it is from a ship onto a container at a transloading facility, onto rail, and then onto a truck, we need a transportation network that has an act behind it that reflects the true nature of transportation.

The acts that this legislation would cover, the CN Commercialization Act, as was mentioned by the previous speaker, would attract investment up to 25% of the ownership of CN or CP being covered by international investment, to look at attracting international capital into Canada.

The Railway Safety Act, as was just mentioned, would include the use of devices for the safety of rail and, as we saw in the disaster in Lac-Mégantic, how to avoid disasters in the future through the use of technologies, so we can make sure that the equipment is operated safely and effectively. It is governed by subsection 28(1) of the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act. We have a backstop. We will not have to focus on conversations in the cab between the engineer and other operators. We are looking at safety and the safe operation of equipment, and we have acts to govern that. We are looking at the comprehensive nature of safety between air travel, road travel, shipping, and rail.

We are also looking at the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority Act, to authorize the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority to enter into agreements for the delivery of screening devices on a cost-recovery basis. That concern was mentioned by the NDP earlier, but cost recovery can take many forms in terms of financing activities, such as improving screening devices within facilities.

The Coasting Trade Act looks at repositioning empty containers on ships that are registered in any register. There can be tracking of empty containers and a more efficient way of handling the movement of containers across Canada as they become unloaded and go to other forms of shipping, and then eventually get back to the registered owners. It is to make use of the containers throughout the time they are in Canada.

The Canada Marine Act permits the port authorities and their wholly-owned subsidiaries to receive loans and loan guarantees from the Canada infrastructure bank. That infrastructure bank, which has been discussed in this place on other occasions, looks at how to attract international investment. It looks at how to maintain control of it through our management of foreign capital within our shores, knowing how expensive it is to operate ports, to add rail infrastructure, to build bridges, to improve our transportation network across Canada. There are international markets looking for investment, looking for projects to participate in. As long as Canadians know how we are doing that and we are transparent in the way the conditions of Bill C-44 will be coming forward to Parliament so that it can get royal assent and we can get on with investment in transportation, that is what we want.

There are also other acts, as always, including the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Competition Act, the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, the Air Canada Public Participation Act, the Budget Implementation Act, 2009, and also the Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act.

This bill is not omnibus; it is omni-transportation. We are not suggesting that we cut down environmental protection in the middle of a budget bill or other things that have been termed omnibus in the past. We are not bringing this forward in any way, other than to make sure we have an integrated act that reflects the integrated nature of transportation in Canada.

When we look at integration and different forms of travel, we also have the competition between freight and people. How do we manage the investments in our infrastructure? In my riding of Guelph, people are trying to get down Highway 401 to Toronto on the train, and the train gets waylaid as freight comes through. Freight makes a profit for rail organizations. Freight always takes precedence over people. People are trying to get to work or trying to get home, and they cannot do that efficiently.

The only way to get past these problems is with comprehensive legislation that allows investment, so that we can get dual tracks between Toronto and Kitchener-Waterloo, including Guelph, to have one track for freight and one track for people.

Transportation 2030 is looking at where we are going in the next 20 or so years. We want to have an integrated nature of transportation that can also pave the way to use the new forms of transportation, autonomous vehicles, new ways of moving goods through new ways of port control, and new transloading facilities for rail. We need to have comprehensive legislation, such as Bill C-49, in order to make way for future carriers of people and goods across this great country that we have.

When we look the scope of Canada, we also need legislation that is as broad in scope as we are as a country, so that we can reach northern Alberta, reach Windsor, and so we can have proper control in our major centres of Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Halifax, and all points in between.

When we look at the joint ventures, attracting the most efficient use of travel, we do not want part carriers on part carriers and two operations losing money, but a means in which they can collaborate and work to the benefit of Canadians under the new legislation.

Competition is essential, and competition, as I mentioned earlier, includes attracting international participants. We can look at countries where there is best practices that we can borrow from, such as China and the United States. Europe has border issues that it has been able to solve. We are are still working on old border issues that will hopefully benefit from this legislation as well, as we open up our roads and bridges and our rail lines to international markets.

Finally, I mentioned in the question section that Guelph is looking at increasing our opportunities for air travel. We have YKF, which is the international regional airport in Waterloo that is partway between Guelph, Waterloo, Kitchener, and Cambridge. To come to Ottawa this morning, I had a 4:15 a.m. pickup and a shuttle to Pearson. I had to go through security, so I was dropped off an hour and a half before my flight. I got to my office here for 8:30 a.m., after having left Guelph at 4:15 in the morning. If we had YKF operating and we had a low-cost operator, as we almost had last year—we had it for a very short period of time—I would have been able to drive 20 minutes to the airport and be at the office an hour earlier than I was. I would be able to get home to my family a lot easier once we are finished with the work of the House.

However, we cannot do that without good legislation such as we have before us, which attracts investment, attracts competition, and enhances the network that we have in Canada, bringing it into the next century with transportation 2030.

I will be supporting this bill as it comes forward.

[Robert Ramsay, Senior Research Officer, Research, Canadian Union of Public Employees]

Good afternoon. My name is Robert Ramsay. I work as a senior research officer with the Canadian Union of Public Employees at our national office here in Ottawa.

I want to start by thanking the committee for this opportunity to present our thoughts on Bill C-58. We look forward to seeing our recommendations as well as the serious concerns expressed by the witnesses in previous sessions reflected in your committee work.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees, or CUPE, is the largest labour union in Canada. We represent 650,000 workers across the country in sectors as diverse as health care, social services, child care, municipalities, schools, universities, and transportation, among others. Our members provide a range of vital public services in thousands of communities, where they and their locals are engaged civic partners.

Since our founding in 1963, CUPE has been one of the strongest and most consistent voices defending public services in Canada. We know that robust, well-funded public services serve Canadians best and that the privatization of these services leads to higher costs, as Auditors General have revealed when they gain access to the full range of information about a privatization project. Privatization, whether through asset sales, P3s, outsourcing, or social impact bonds, also represents a real threat to the quality and level of access that public services should provide. As such, CUPE has serious concerns about Bill C-58, both about the parts of the current Access to Information Act that it proposes to amend and about the existing deficiencies that it fails to correct.

First, this bill leaves intact sections 18 and 20, which exempt from disclosure any material or information that falls under the broadly undefined category of trade secrets of either the government or a third party. The language removes from public scrutiny any financial, commercial, scientific, or technical information that has what is called “substantial value” or is reasonably likely to have substantial value in an undetermined future.

The current language allows the government to refuse to disclose third party information that was treated confidentially by that third party. It exempts from disclosure, in a preposterously broad limitation, any information that “could reasonably be expected to be materially injurious to... the ability of the Government of Canada to manage the economy of Canada”. The scope of information that can be exempted from public disclosure under this language is virtually infinite: contracts with private security or accounting companies, pharmacological research, reports by consultants on proposed government actions, records of foreign investment, information relating to the health and safety performance of a third party entity providing public services. These are some of the possible exemptions under sections 18 and 20, and they are also examples of material and information that must be accessible to Canadians if access to information legislation is to be meaningful.

Certainly we understand that there are legitimate grounds for non-disclosure, such as national security and personal privacy, and that access requests can sometimes require judgment calls by government officials. These exemptions, however, like those in other sections that hide from view the actions and decisions of the PMO, cabinet, and ministers' offices, are overly broad, not subject to a test of real harm, and not subordinated to a meaningful public interest override.

We must note as well the dangerous ways these exemptions intersect with other legislation this government has proposed in what others more cynical than we are might characterize as a war on transparency. For example, Bill C-22 gives the staff of the Department of National Defence the authority to decide what is excluded from disclosure without any independent review. In Bill C-44, section 28 of the Canada Infrastructure Bank Act expands exclusions to include information about proponents, private sector investors, and institutional investors in infrastructure projects, again with no independent review.

The Canada Infrastructure Bank Act provides a clear example, in fact, of the regressive nature of the current legislative trajectory. Not only does the Canada Infrastructure Bank Act lay out overly broad additional exemptions, it also places final decisions before cabinet, essentially shrouding the entire process in darkness, out of the reach of the Information Commissioner, the Auditor General, and even the federal courts.

Let us provide a concrete example. CUPE recently filed an access to information request for information and material related to the government's participation in the private REM light rail project in Montreal, specifically for the reports and analyses prepared by a third party consultancy called Blair Franklin Capital Partners. This is a project to which the government has committed 1.3 billion public dollars, and it is something the government has indicated the Canada Infrastructure Bank may take on as one of its first projects.

Is this a good investment? What information has the government relied on to make that decision? Were environmental, health and safety, or accessibility concerns integrated into the decision? What is the business model and the business case? What is the projected fee structure, and will it be regressive or restrict access?

Answers to these questions are central to the public's understanding of this particular public investment. In other words, the public interest is immense. However, when we received a response—after a delay, of course—Infrastructure Canada invoked section 18 to redact virtually all of the records, making the entire 613-page disclosure incomprehensible and useless.

Rather than apply the exemptions narrowly and with respect for the public interest, it has become common practice for the government to redact by default, to exclude by default. This is an application that runs counter to the stated aims of the act and the bill under review, and counter to international standards of open government.

While there may be legitimate exemptions for disclosure of third party information, they would need to pass the test of real harm in each case. It is not legitimate for government to refuse disclosure simply because the information is related to a third party interest.

A recent report by the Vancouver-based Columbia Institute, entitled “Canada Infrastructure Bank and the Public's Right to Know”, notes that there is virtual unanimity among information commissioners across Canada that private entities that receive public funds or perform a public service or public interest function must be covered by access to information legislation. This is the emerging consensus internationally as well.

Here, though, this government has moved in the opposite direction by establishing a regime in which information on how our public services and public infrastructure are provided, how they are funded, how these decisions are made, and even who is involved in the work can be hidden behind a curtain of third party privilege. CUPE submits that the government instead needs to ensure that access to information under sections 18 and 20 faces far narrower exemptions that are subject to a test of actual harm, to a strong public interest override, and to review by the Information Commissioner, and that this act take precedence over any other act, such as the Canada Infrastructure Bank Act, that seeks to unreasonably limit the public's right to know.

We would also like to take a moment to echo the serious concerns of your previous witnesses. Proposed section 6, as written, creates new hurdles to gaining access by establishing requirements for the structure and content of requests that void the government's duty to assist and that defeat the very purpose of the act. Proposed section 6 also would allow the government of the day to create unilaterally a “do not respond” list of troublesome Canadians who always seem to want to know something and ask too many big questions. The determination that an access request is frivolous, trivial, vexatious, or made in bad faith is one that cannot and should not be made by the government of the day to whom the information request is made. This is a subjective determination that is necessarily rife with conflict of interest.

Another barrier to access is cost. Bill C-58 leaves open the possibility of government requiring new and onerous costs for access. Where is the promise for a nominal $5 fee with all other costs voided, and for the $5 fee itself to be refunded if timelines are not met?

We also agree with other witnesses that Bill C-58 represents a missed opportunity. There are serious problems with the current legislation, problems that the current government correctly identified while in opposition and that remain wholly unaddressed in the proposals before you. Canada, despite its leadership in other areas, sets a very poor example globally with the current act. According to the global right to information index compiled in part by the Centre for Law and Democracy and based on 61 indicators, Canada is ranked 49th out of 111 countries on the quality of its access to information laws.

News Media Canada has criticized this government's approach to access to information as being “even worse” than the previous government's. Your own outgoing Information Commissioner has called Bill C-58 “a regression of existing rights”, as has been mentioned many times at this committee. We urge you to take her 28 carefully considered recommendations.

To summarize, we submit that the law must apply to private third parties who receive public funds or perform a public service function. All exemptions must be discretionary in practice. The Information Commissioner's office must have at its disposal a full tool box of real order-making powers and the authority to enact penalties. We agree with Democracy Watch that the appointment process for the Information Commissioner must be changed so that it is open, merit-based, and not controlled by the very ministers the commissioner will be reviewing.

In conclusion, we cannot recommend that Bill C-58 proceed as written. It is, quite simply, bad legislation. It makes access more difficult rather than improving it.

Instead, CUPE calls on the government to review the problems that these hearings and previous commentary have identified, to research the best examples from your provincial and international counterparts, and to draft amendments that have as their guiding principle what Mr. McArthur, the acting commissioner from B.C., called “access by design”: an act that facilitates access rather than blocks it and that leads to a government that is truly open by default and closed only in the narrowest, independently defensible circumstances.

Thank you again for the time. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Access to Information Act

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member must know that past legislation the government put forward, such as Bill C-44, Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1, actually limited access. Section 28 actually limited the access Canadians could have to documentation related to the Canada infrastructure bank.

The member must know that in this legislation, the government is actually getting rid of the section that forces departments to list the types of documentation and records they keep. That is not me saying it. Ken Rubin and the Centre for Law and Democracy say this. How can the Liberals claim that this is somehow a vast improvement, when they are actually drawing back on certain elements and have kept every single exemption in the law?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, listening to the President of the Treasury Board speak, I think we should be breaking out the champagne for this once-in-a-lifetime change to the access to information law that will achieve everything. I heard him say that it is early in the day. I am sure he will make some time in the lobby behind us for other government members. However, I have bad news for them. The supposed openness and transparency law that the Liberals have introduced, where they faked themselves into thinking they have accomplished something, falls far short of what they promised during the election campaign. Also, according to the experts, it falls far short of what should have been achieved over this 30-year gap between when the ATIP law was introduced and the amendments they are proposing to make.

What is interesting is that we rise in the House in question period to ask questions that we never get answers to. The Liberals could have provided fulsome answers then. We have Order Paper questions asking for simple definitions that should be textbook, yet they fail to provide the answers for these Order Paper questions. These are privileges that each member of this House enjoys, and the government should be providing complete answers to those Order Paper questions. Therefore, it is no wonder that this access to information amendment it is proposing will fall far short of what should be achieved.

Many times I have heard the member for Carleton ask what the definition of “middle class” is and what the impact of the carbon tax would be. He has tried to get that information through the access to information laws. However, we never get that information from the government. What the Liberals are proposing today will never fix that. What is needed is a cultural change. I call this system that they are proposing the Potemkin ATIP system. It has all the window dressings, the image that is needed, but none of the changes they have promised to make will be in the guts of it.

I do have a Yiddish proverb, because I think it speaks volumes to what the government is proposing to do. It is, “The luck of an ignoramus is this: He doesn't know what he doesn't know.” I am not speaking with respect to the President of the Treasury Board, I am speaking of the government in general.

I will quote from the access to information law experts from the Centre for Law and Democracy, which noted a couple of disturbing elements in this bill.

It stated, “a large majority of the proactive publication obligations are already being implemented in practice by these bodies. While it is some progress to formalise these commitments, this is hardly groundbreaking”. I agree.

It goes on to state, and this is an important point, that the bill “fails to address the serious problem of delays in responding to requests. It does nothing to address the broad regime of exceptions....” That was my first question to the President of the Treasury Board.

It goes on to note that the bill “would also remove the obligation on public authorities to publish about the classes of records it holds, which is designed to facilitate the making of requests for access to information” in the first place. Therefore, that will be removed.

When I came here as a rookie member of this House, one of the very first things I did was to learn and understand how each department worked and the areas in which it specialized. I wanted to understand how to better keep the minister accountable. To do so, I looked for the type of information and the type of records the department was keeping. That was so I could better understand what types of records I could request through an access to information request if I did not get an answer to an Order Paper question or an answer in question period.

The Centre for Law and Democracy notes that section will be removed, which takes me back to my Yiddish proverb. If we do not know that a document exists, then how could we ever ask for it? It is interesting that the government is removing that one section. It is not just me saying that, but so is the Centre for Law and Democracy, which is the expert on this. It does analyses of all access to information laws in every jurisdiction in Canada, and it rates them. It is those experts who are saying that it falls short.

Who else is saying that it falls short? Robert Marleau, the former information commissioner from 2007 to 2008, stated, “there's no one [in government departments] to review what they choose not to [publish]”. This is contrary to the principles of the act. They put the commissioner out of the loop. If we requested briefing notes and parts of them had been blacked out, you had someone to appeal to. This is no longer the case. You cannot even ask the court. It is a step forward, two steps back.

Let us see what the Liberals say they have done. We have heard about mandate letters now being released to the public. It does not help if one does not follow the mandate letter and fulfill what is in it. It is just a letter, a piece of paper. It does not help us to understand anything. Also, I have news. The Alberta government has been releasing mandate letters for well over a decade. Therefore, it is not as if this is groundbreaking and setting some type of new frontier regarding access to information. Alberta has been doing it for years. I remember when the member for Calgary Confederation and the member for Calgary Signal Hill were in the provincial government, and they had mandate letters that were published. The difference is that they followed through with the contents of their mandate letters and were held accountable by the premier of Alberta for the contents. Here, they are not held accountable.

The other thing they say they will be doing is documentation on the training of new ministers, titles and reference numbers of briefing notes, development notes for question period, backgrounders for appearances before parliamentary committees, travel and hospitality expenditures, and contracts of more than $10,000. Other governments have been doing some of these things for a long time now, through freedom of information laws that are provincially based. These are not new frontiers. These are very basic documents.

Some of them are here. However, if they remove from the law the very basis of what type of records the department has to keep, how am I supposed to know that a record exists in the first place? It is like chasing a needle in a haystack a lot of times.

I have experienced this first-hand when doing access to information requests to the health department where I have been stalled out for lengthy periods of time. Sometimes I stumble upon new documents that I did not know even existed before. Then I do another access to information, and my staff and I continue in this manner. Many of the changes being proposed here will not end any of that.

It is hardly historic in terms of changes. There is an RTI rating, which is the methodology that assesses each access to information law to determine its score. The score is based on 150. On the RTI rating, according to the Centre for Law and Democracy, Canada will go from 90 to 92 points. That is a two-point increase. One would think after two years that the government could have cobbled together an amendment to the access to information law that would live up to the promises it made during the last election, because it has broken them here. It could do much better than a two-point increase in its score on access to information laws.

It is not as if Canada will be rising greatly. It is not as if the government did not know how to increase its score. It is not as if it did not have a comparator that it could look at, such as Serbia, which supposedly has a much better rate than we do.

Many experts in the field have said that there are issues, and I note in the law there are interesting oddities and amendments. One of them, and we have heard this before, is with regard to frivolous or vexatious claims for access to information requests. A department would be able to say that they cannot do that.

According to Policy Options, a well-respected think tank, the power to prevent such abuse is included in many ATI laws. However, that power should rest with the Information Commissioner, not the department that is subject to the request. If the department can determine what is frivolous and vexatious, then it can block any type of request it feels is frivolous and vexatious. It could up to the individual civil servant who receives the request.

Bill C-58 also includes a five-year review. The first five-year review would take place only a year after the legislation comes into force. Given the glacial pace of how legislation makes its way through the House and then to the Senate and then bounces back from the Senate, because the government does not really know what it is doing there, I do not think we would have a review of it before 2019, before the next election.

My other concern is that it does not have a sunset clause. Even the Bank Act has a sunset clause. It is set every five years. It forces the parliamentary committee to review the legislation through a mandatory review. It knows that it will sunset unless it provides feedback on its contents. I like the idea of mandatory reviews and sunset clauses in legislation, because it forces us, as parliamentarians, to review legislation on a consistent basis. When I worked as a staff member in the provincial legislature in Alberta, it was one of the things I kept pushing for in regulation and statutes with the minister I had the privilege of working for. I pushed that every single piece of legislation, regulation, should have that included, to mandatorily force members to review the legislation to make sure it still made sense, that the amendments that had been proposed in the last five years, and the improvements, were actually worth carrying on and being included in the final legislation.

I have a page from the Liberal policy platform from the last election. The Liberals promised many things on access to information, some of which they achieve here, and some which they absolutely do not. They said they would expand the powers and role of the Information Commissioner. They have done some of that. They also said that government data and information should be open by default, and that formats should be modern and easy to use. I have no problems with that. That is a great idea.

It is interesting to note that the previous President of the Treasury Board and the previous government started an open data, open government website, where people could download data on Excel spreadsheets. I know this, because we used them in the office that I worked in before. We downloaded bits of data, and used it to supplement Statistics Canada data that we were purchasing as well.

In this policy platform, the government talks about ensuring that the system continues to serve Canadians while it undertakes a full legislative review of the Access to Information Act every five years. I have been to many parliamentary committees where we get a cursory review.

In fact, on the small business tax change, the biggest tax change in a generation, the Liberals on the committee forced it through after we heard only six hours of testimony from witnesses. That was all the time allowed. The Carter commission took six years. If that is the standard the Liberals are going to go by, then I have worries about the mandatory five-year review. I have to wonder if in three or four years will we get six hours to review the legislation. Will the committee be stuffed with members from the Liberal side who will simply say that the committee will be given three hours every five years to figure it out and then they will be done with it? The Liberals have not lived up to the real change, the open and transparent government that they promised.

I will keep referring to the Centre for Law and Democracy, because it has produced a lot of information on the shortcomings and some of the improvements that it sees. There are a lot of shortcomings.

The centre also says that the bill fails to address the serious procedural problems, namely the highly discretionary power of public authorities to extend the initial 30-day limit for responses to requests. I have been the victim of this. I was told that I had asked for too many documents, or they were too difficult to get or too complicated. They tried to get me to pare down my request. That is when I knew I should keep pushing forward and get all of the documentation I was requesting.

With respect to the 30-day time limit for responding to requests, power has been applied with disturbing regularity they say, often to create very lengthy delays in responding to requests. On one access to information request, I was told it would take two years to respond. I reminded them that by then I may no longer be a member of the House and therefore the information they provide may be of limited use to me, which would be a shame.

There are a number of options for reducing official discretion in this area, for example, by requiring officials to obtain prior permission from the Information Commissioner for delays beyond the set period of 60 days. In fact, many access to information laws say that the government must respond within the 60-day time limit. That would be a vast improvement. No courts would be involved, and there would be no need to go to another body to get a document that has been lawfully requested. The documents would simply be released within 60 days.

There are hundreds of thousands of public servants who work for the federal government. Why can they not do a request within 60 days when a reasonable request for documents is made? Why should I, as a member of Parliament, need to go to a court to obtain them? I am not going to get questions answered in the House in question period or through an Order Paper question. My only recourse is to get documentation through access to information.

The commissioner would acquire new order-making powers, but they would be largely crippled and counter-productive. Ken Rubin, the CFE senior fellow who provided a critique on Ryerson University's website on Bill C-58, said it is counter-productive and largely crippled “because no amendments were put forward to change the numerous broad exemptions in the Access to Information Act that cut off access to [these] government records”.

If there are a bunch of exemptions and rules that can be used to not release documents for national security reasons, documents pertaining to cabinet confidences, which is perfectly legitimate, are things like third-party proprietary corporate information at all times really proprietary? It might be better to shed some light on the procurement process so that parliamentarians could better understand what is going on.

We have seen delay after delay, and huge costs associated with the government's failed procurement process. Maybe it is time to shine some light on the problem. The government did not do that in this legislation. It just did the trimmings on the edge, the Potemkin village that I talked about.

The exemptions still exist, and the exemptions are the core of the access to information law. The government has left them as they are so then it could always find an excuse not to release information, to black out information, and to not provide it under the exemptions.

I think the majority of Canadians interested in access to information were looking for the exemptions to be tweaked. The Liberals could have amended, diluted, or removed some of them to make it much easier to access this information.

Another point that Ken Rubin makes is that the Prime Minister has put forward other legislation that makes certain records off limits to the commissioner and the courts for review or their ability to order releases of information. One is the National Security and Intelligence Committee for Parliamentarians, again, on national security grounds. However, that can become overbroad and used as an excuse. We see this in some countries overseas, which use national security to limit access to all types of information, for all types of reasons. It is a blanket catch-all. I hope it does not become that way. However, for national security, I can see legitimate reasons for the government to deny access to information, such as because it would put Canadians at risk or it would put the national security of the country at risk.

The omnibus budget bill, Bill C-44, contains a section devoted to setting up the Canada infrastructure bank. This was a big point of contention in the last session. Section 28 gives the government the power to decide unilaterally what is privileged information, commercial, infrastructure, financial, and political transactions, with no independent review. It is an already controversial enough bill. With these provisions, we can see the government saying that this is a wonderful, new, once-in-a-generation, open and transparent access to information law. However, section 28 limits access to information on the Canada infrastructure bank.

The Liberals are putting exceptions in other bills, but not in the main bill, which should be of great concern to parliamentarians. If the exemptions are not put into the main ATI Act but are put into other legislation, then the government cannot claim to be open and transparent. I do not think anyone would claim that.

Another point Mr. Rubin makes is:

...one amendment in Bill C-58 also directly increases secrecy by expanding and broadening the legal definition of what is able to be exempt under solicitor-client relations.

The Liberals have put some wording around it so the Information Commissioner could have access to it, but they still broadened and expanded it, and Mr. Rubin details that.

Mr. Rubin also makes this point, overall, on Bill C-58, which supposedly would meet the government's promises made in the last election. He says:

It is a stopgap, government-controlled, limited administrative information system not subject to appeal to the information commissioner or the courts, containing a few sanitized offerings the government wants to provide.

I am a big believer in access to information laws. When I worked in the Alberta provincial government, the government there released information. Yes, it took a long time to meet every single requirement. Yes, there were administrative problems. Yes, not everybody was satisfied with the level of customer service they received from the FOIP office there. However, a lot of times it released information eventually and it embarrassed the government to no end. I was in a minister's office at the time, and sometimes it embarrassed our office. However, at least we knew people were getting the same information that we had. The briefing binders were perfectly available to people, and they could ask for the content of them. The only portions blacked out were portions that civil servants determined should not be released. We played absolutely no role in that.

I am sure members on the opposite side, and hopefully all members, will agree that access to information laws are part of our democratic process. People should have a right to get information. I totally agree with that. We cannot fight for the little guy, we cannot fight for the middle class, and then tell them they cannot know things that the government is doing or how it has came to a decision.

However, I will not be able to support the bill, because it does not meet with what the government said it would do during the last election. The Liberals fall far short of the majestic, historic promises they made. This is why I believe members on this side of the House should all oppose the bill. I look forward to continued debate on this.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I am seeking unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House:

(a) if Bill C-23, An Act respecting the preclearance of persons and goods in Canada and the United States, is concurred in at report stage later this day, when debate on the said Bill collapses at third reading, all questions necessary for the disposal of the Bill at that stage be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment, provided that, if a recorded division is requested, the bells to call in the members shall ring for not more than 30 minutes;

(b) Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Indian Act (elimination of sex-based inequities in registration), be deemed read a third time and passed on division;

(c) Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act, the Canada Cooperatives Act, the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act, and the Competition Act, be deemed read a third time and passed on division;

(d) a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that the House disagrees with the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-44, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017, and other measures, because these amendments infringe upon the rights and privileges of the House;

(e) when the House adjourns today, it shall stand adjourned until Monday, September 18, 2017, provided that, for the purposes of any Standing Order, it shall be deemed to have been adjourned pursuant to Standing Order 28 and be deemed to have sat on Thursday, June 22, and Friday, June 23, 2017; and

(f) when, at any time the House stands adjourned until and including Friday, June 23, 2017, a standing committee has ready a report, that report shall be deemed to have been duly presented to the House upon being deposited with the Clerk.

Message from the Senate

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-44, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measures, with amendments to which the concurrence of this House is desired.

Copies of the amendments are available at the table.

Amendments to Standing Orders

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what pals he is talking about.

Bill C-44 was introduced as part of the budget. We made it very clear in the budget that we were going to create the infrastructure bank. Our plans to do that were clear. The infrastructure bank is a way of investing and creating a good fund that will make it possible to invest in infrastructure across the country.

In my riding of Laurentides—Labelle, there is a significant need for infrastructure. In many cases, the money for infrastructure just is not there. The infrastructure bank will help in such cases, and that is why it is extremely important for the development of infrastructure and of the country.

[Jean-Denis Fréchette, Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

You made a good segue when you mentioned the fall. Should Bill C-44 be passed in the next few hours, all of the PBO team members are looking forward to working with your committee, which is one of the four committees mentioned in the PBO legislation. We're looking forward to that.

Mr. Chair, Mr. Vice Chair, members of the committee. Thank you for the invitation to appear before you to discuss the estimates process and our recent reports on the estimates.

Today, I am joined by Mostafa Askari, Assistant Parliamentary Budget Officer, and by Jason Jacques and Alex Smith. I feel that Mr. Jacques and Mr. Smith are members of quite a small group of experts who have been following the evolution of the budget process for many years.

Of course, I include in that group Brian Pagan and his colleague Marcia Santiago, who are both not unknown to your committee.

As you know, in October 2016, the Treasury Board Secretariat released its vision for estimates reform. It rests on four pillars: aligning the estimates with the budget, scope and accounting, vote structure, and finally, the departmental plans and results reports.

We welcome the government's efforts to enhance Parliament's role in financial scrutiny. To help parliamentarians examine the government's proposals, we prepared a document outlining issues to be considered when reforming the business of supply. We have also been monitoring the implementation of the government's reforms through our reports on the estimates. While we have observations on each of the four pillars, I will focus on the government's proposal to improve the alignment of the budget and the main estimates by delaying the main estimates—originally until May 1, and now until April 16 based on a recent motion that would amend Standing Order 81. We will come back to that standing order during the question period, if you want.

As the inclusion of budget measures in the spring estimates is an indication of whether delaying the main estimates will lead to alignment with the budget, we tracked the number and value of budget 2017 spending measures in supplementary estimates (A) 2017-18. We found that only 44% of the additional funding allocated in budget 2017 for 2017-18 was included in the supplementary estimates (A). This is a decrease from the previous year, when 70% of the budget funding was included in supplementary (A)s 2016-17.

Given the limited number and value of budget measures that were included in supplementary estimates (A) 2017-18, we are concerned that the government's proposal to delay the main estimates may not result in meaningful improvement in the alignment of the budget and the main estimates.

It is worth noting that, in 2008, the government began tabling spring supplementary estimates with the stated intention of facilitating a closer alignment of the estimates to the budget. As the number of budget measures included in the spring supplementary estimates has varied considerably, it could be concluded that delaying the main estimates would result in similar challenges.

Our examination suggests that successfully aligning the budget and the estimates will require substantial reforms to Finance Canada's and the Treasury Board Secretariat's budgetary approval processes. Thus, parliamentarians may wish to wait for additional details regarding the government's plans to streamline and align those processes before changing the timing of the main estimates.

To help parliamentarians hold the government to account for the implementation of its budget plan, we also decided to track spending and tax measures from announcement in the budget to parliamentary approval through appropriation and budget implementation bills.

As a result of that exercise, we found a number of budget 2016 spending measures, 44% of them, line up with items included in the 2016-17 supplementary estimates. However, many spending measures had more funding or less funding than indicated in the budget, or were simply not funded through the supplementary estimates in 2016-17.

On that basis, we concluded that there is often no clear line of sight between budget spending announcements and their implementation. The different presentation, wording, and accounting methodology makes it challenging to align budget spending measures with items included in the estimates, and it is not possible to track spending on most budget measures beyond the first year or what was actually spent on specific measures. It is thus very difficult for parliamentarians to follow the money and hold the government to account for implementing its fiscal plan as outlined in the budget.

We believe that the government may be able to address some of these challenges by preparing and presenting its budget and estimates concurrently and using a more consistent method of presentation, as was recommended by this committee in 2012.

We have provided copies of the documents I have mentioned to the clerk.

My colleagues and I would be happy to respond to any questions you may have regarding our analyses, as well as the government's estimates process.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Infrastructure

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not understand what the Liberals are missing. The way Bill C-44 is drafted, the infrastructure bank can ignore the laws of Quebec and circumvent municipal bylaws. No agricultural zoning, and the power to expropriate: that is what will come out of Bill C-44. We have said it, the constitutionalists have said it, the National Assembly has said it, the farmers have said it, and even the Senate has said it.

When will this government listen to us and split its bill to have a second look at its infrastructure bank?

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

Mr. Speaker, the infrastructure bank needs to be split off from Bill C-44. Enough with these massive bills and poison pills hidden in 500-page tomes. The infrastructure bank is a bad idea that is going to weaken Quebec to the benefit of wealthy investors.

Will the Prime Minister listen to Quebec, the farmers, and even the Senate and remove the infrastructure bank from Bill C-44?

Changes to the Standing Orders

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today we are discussing Motion No. 18. This is a motion in which we see the Liberals making some compromises after the fiasco that unfolded these last few months over their proposed changes to the rules and procedures of the House of Commons.

The government's efforts are doing nothing to improve things in Parliament or to increase government accountability, and neither are they solving the problematic use of omnibus bills and prorogation. However, those are the goals that the government set out with these changes.

Last Thursday, I had the opportunity to attend a meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons was in appearance to testify on this very matter. During her testimony, she used an expression that I did not at all appreciate given what has transpired. She spoke of a lack of political will. I believe political will is necessary in order to adopt bold ideas and take risks. However, in order to do that and to hold the kinds of discussions the government claims to want to hold, we need a healthy process in which these bold ideas can be heard so that we may then show the political will to move ahead with this so-called modernization of Parliament, to use the terms used by the government.

The government's chosen approach to this issue is a product of its ultimate arrogance. The political will to discuss substantial issues was there. However, without a healthy process in which all voices can be heard, no progress can be made. Unfortunately, that is something the government still does not understand.

Listening to the questions that have been asked and the comments that were made since debate started this morning, it is clear that the government still does not understand.

I do not want to digress too long, because I want to talk about the substantial issues surrounding the motion, but I do want to touch on the question asked by the member for Laurentides—Labelle, for example, who spoke of our search for consensus. The member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley and the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, among others, worked hard for the entire NDP opposition day to try to end partisan appointments. They also worked with the government the entire day to try to come up with an amendment that might allow for consensus, to make the necessary concessions to get the government on board. However, the government voted against that amendment and then voted against the motion.

The member for Laurentides—Labelle accuses us of hypocrisy on this matter. I consider that unparliamentary language. He needs to look at himself in the mirror and acknowledge what has been going on for the past few months. This is not a new problem. We have been dealing with this problem since last year with the infamous Motion No. 6, which sought to remove some of the opposition's powers. When I think about this government's attempts to improve parliamentary life for all members, the expression “do as I say, not as I do” comes to mind.

Let us turn to the substantive issues in Motion No. 18, such as the item on omnibus bills. Instead of putting an end to the practice, to this scourge, which has a negative impact on parliamentary life and prevents members from doing a good job and properly analyzing some extremely important legislative measures, the government is normalizing and validating the use of omnibus bills.

We need only recall what the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons said in committee last week on the importance of themes. The problem with themes is that one can always find a way to justify that something relates to the budget. That is exactly what the previous government did with its excessive use of omnibus bills.

Bill C-44, the bill to implement certain provisions of the budget, contains legislative measures to create the infrastructure bank. This involves a fundamental change in how our infrastructure is funded. This has caused great concern among parliamentarians, civil society, and Canadians.

On Friday, I saw Senator Pratte on television saying that he was in favour of the infrastructure bank but did not understand why the government is bound and determined to include it in this bill rather than carrying out an appropriately thorough review of such an important measure.

Even senators who support the idea of the bank do not like its being in the omnibus bill, proof that the government crossed a line. The same thing could easily happen again, even with the changes proposed in Motion No. 18. The Liberal Party would have us believe that these measures will enable parliamentarians to study important legislative initiatives like this one, but what the motion really does is officially normalize the government's use of omnibus bills.

What is even worse is that, by making these measures part of the House rules, nobody will even be able to criticize them. Now, at least, we can say that it is an inappropriate use of legislative tools, but once it is in the rules, any government, current or future, will be able to say that this tactic is fine because it is in the rules.

Let us talk about prorogation. I remember in 2008 when Mr. Harper announced that he was proroguing Parliament. He was trying to get out of a situation where the opposition parties had the audacious political will to form a new government to replace the Conservative government. Let us not forget what happened when Parliament resumed after prorogation. Perhaps that is why the Liberals are not so keen to talk about prorogation and making real changes, because it seemed to have served them well in 2009. They came back and suddenly had nothing more to say about it. They were quite pleased to have Mr. Harper stay in power. However, I do not want to dwell on the past. I want to talk about the current government.

The government is proposing to table a report in the House of Commons outlining its reasons for using prorogation. It essentially boils down to a press release that would be tabled in the House. If the government does not see that any MP or its communications officer could quite easily come up with a justification for using prorogation, then it is dreaming in technicolour.

In that respect, I asked the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons at a meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs whether there would at least be a vote on this report, as provided for in the Standing Orders of the House in the case of motions to concur in committee reports. She could not even say. She simply said that the use of this mechanism would ensure accountability. That does not mean much. The government is not even considering the possibility of allowing parliamentarians to vote on this report.

Once again, after promising to correct a mechanism that the previous government abused, the new government is simply giving us a fine press release. That is not showing respect for Parliament, quite the opposite.

The government also wants to reduce the time provided for the consideration of the estimates in committee from three months to eight weeks. Once again, I am wondering how giving parliamentarians less time to do this work shows respect for them and the job they do.

In closing, I would like to propose an amendment, but first I would like to say that nothing has been learned with regard to the parliamentary secretaries in committee. If the government really believes that preventing the parliamentary secretaries from voting or moving motions is sufficient to convince us that the PMO and cabinet do not have any power in committee, then it is dreaming in technicolour, because all that the parliamentary secretaries have to do is whisper their instructions to the Liberal members.

That is not the real change the Liberals promised. On the contrary, pretending that this is a real change demonstrates a greater lack of respect for Parliament than simply abusing the mechanisms. At least with the previous government, we knew exactly what it wanted from us. Now, we are getting stabbed in the back. That is not the way to show real respect for parliamentarians.

In conclusion, I move, seconded by the member for Victoria:

That the motion be amended in part 2 by deleting all the words in section 69.1(1) after the words “divide the” and substituting the following:

“bill thematically into separate and distinct bills, each of which shall be deemed to have been read a first time and shall be ordered to be printed. The order for second reading for the newly divided bill shall provide for referral to a committee or committees determined in consultation with the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

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

Mr. Speaker, what a long road we have travelled to get here. The process leading us to today's motion has been a long and very frustrating struggle. It was a struggle where the opposition was forced to mitigate the excesses of a careless and arrogant government, a government devoid of any appreciation for what Parliament actually does, a government that insulted the House and dismissed the role of members who sit in opposition to it.

The process has been a sham from the beginning, despite the assertions that we have been hearing about a conversation, a dialogue, and working better together. Over the weeks and months of question period, the House has heard the full word salad from the government trying to defend and excuse its approach to Parliament, a bunch of jargon and buzzwords tossed together with very little substance and very little weight. Given the way the Prime Minister has handled this whole issue and refused for months to acknowledge the need for all-party support, Conservatives will be voting against the motion.

Let me take a few moments to review just how we managed to get here. On March 10, a Friday afternoon, just before we started our March constituency week, the government House leader posted on her website a so-called discussion paper. The House will recall that this Liberal discussion paper proposed, among other things, to reduce the opportunity for members to hold the government to account by eliminating Friday sittings, automatically time-allocating all bills, preventing the opposition from triggering debates on committee reports, and bringing sharp closure changes to committee. It was a shocking set of ideas to think about. Since it was less than a year since we had witnessed the Motion No. 6 fiasco, it was sadly par for the course with the government. The primary driving force for the Prime Minister has been to alter the balance between the opposition and the government by taking away the protections that the rules offer.

The Globe and Mail in an editorial at the time called out the Prime Minister on his ideas and I quote:

[The] government considers the opposition’s limited arsenal to be “tactics which seek only to undermine and devalue the important work of Parliament,” and which “sow dysfunction” and are not “rational” or “defensible,” according to a discussion paper....

Those contentions are cynical bunk. The...government is hawking a utopian vision of Parliament, in which members from different parties politely discuss the government’s proposed legislation on a schedule set by mutual agreement, and there are cheers all around when the House enacts laws that are a perfect reflection of the selfless compromises agreed to in a collegial fashion on committees and in the House....

There are just sunny ways passing beneath crisp rainbows.

They are sunny ways indeed. Had this discussion paper simply been just that when it was published, it would have been read, critiqued, and actually discussed with the flaws being pointed out and the interesting ideas build upon. However, that is not at all what happened.

Later that afternoon, the government House leader's colleague gave notice of motion at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to have the discussion paper studied, with everything wrapped up and recommendations made by June 2. Had the motion at committee simply been a proposal to add the discussion paper to its study of the Standing Orders, it would have been a natural idea and hard to object to. However, that is not what happened. The writing was on the wall. All of the ideas in the discussion paper, which coincidentally all were to the benefit of the Prime Minister, would be rammed through.

Let us fast forward to the procedural and House affairs committee on March 21. The Liberals wanted to pass their motion right away. The hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston offered an amendment to observe the longstanding tradition around here of using all-party consensus to change our rules. The Liberals, to their credit, quickly signalled their disagreement with that perfectly reasonable amendment.

We were faced with a completely transparent plan from the Liberals to ram these awful ideas through the House. We simply would not allow this to happen. As a result, we had to stop this reckless Liberal power grab from getting rammed through, so we used one of the very few tools available to opposition parties, the one that the Liberals actually had wanted to remove, and that is the ability to filibuster. Over some six weeks with more than 80 hours of committee meetings, opposition MPs led the fight against the Liberal discussion paper.

I have to give credit to the three Conservative MPs who are members of that committee, the hon. members for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, Banff—Airdrie, and Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock. However, it was not just them; this really was a team effort, and 29 Conservative members of Parliament participated at that committee.

In parallel to the committee proceedings, the NDP House leader and I offered a constructive alternative to the government. We suggested that the House set up a special committee with one member from each party, chaired by our impartial Deputy Speaker, to work on a consensus basis in reviewing our procedures and proposing improvements.

What we proposed was hardly revolutionary. Pierre Trudeau's government set up the Lefebvre committee, which recommended several changes to the Standing Orders, such as bringing in the first time limits to bell ringing, which were adopted unanimously.

Brian Mulroney's government set up the McGrath committee. That group tabled three reports, all adopted unanimously, on a whole range of topics, such as giving our standing committees permanent mandates to study topics on their own initiative.

Under Jean Chrétien, a special committee on the modernization and improvement of the procedures of the House of Commons was created. That committee codified the pattern of goodwill to its rules with an express requirement for reports to be adopted unanimously. Far from that being a veto—and remember that this was back in the days of five recognized parties—the committee managed to adopt six reports.

Most recently, Stephen Harper's government followed the tradition of the unanimity approach, not bringing in permanent procedural amendments with out all-party support.

Those governments proved that reforming Parliament can be done with a co-operative approach. The results were substantive, and they significantly strengthened the role members play in this place.

Indeed, I know the procedure and House affairs committee would have been up to that task. From following their debates, and from joining them for a night, I know that the members from all parties handled the task in front of them with civility and good cheer. They would have handled such a review in a professional and capable fashion.

Sadly, it was quite clear that the Liberals on the committee were under firm instructions from the Prime Minister's Office not to let their members' own better judgment carry the day. Indeed, far from being co-operative and far from her repeated claim to have an open door, the government House leader left the other House leaders hanging. For weeks on end, our letter to her went unanswered.

In addition to a committee filibuster and good faith proposals from the opposition parties, here in the chamber the opposition parties used many of the tools available to us to register our unhappiness and our frustration. The Liberal government desperately tried to get back on track, even shutting down a privilege debate and preventing it from coming to a vote. The hon. member for Perth—Wellington called out the government on this, and the Chair ruled that what the Liberal government had done was entirely without precedent. The Speaker wisely and bravely ruled, allowing the privilege debate to start anew.

Finally, admitting that the Prime Minister was staring at the risk of a total paralysis of his parliamentary agenda, the government House leader finally answered the letter that the hon. member for Victoria and I had sent her. In that letter she indicated that the Liberals were backing away from their discussion paper, but would be pressing ahead regardless of the opposition parties' thoughts with items referenced in the Liberal election platform.

The opposition cannot claim complete credit for the Liberal backdown. I suspect the Liberal House leader may have been under considerable pressure from her own caucus colleagues. Though caucus meetings are confidential, I believe that we witnessed the tip of the iceberg when the hon. member for Malpeque, a veteran of this House, offered this in debate on April 11:

...this place is called the House of Commons for a reason. It is not the House of cabinet or the House of PMO. Protecting the rights of members in this place, whether it is the opposition members in terms of the stance they are taking, is also protecting the rights of the other members here who are not members of cabinet or the government. We talk about government as if this whole side is the government. The government is the executive branch. We do need to protect these rights.

Here we stand today debating government Motion No. 18.

First let me talk about something that we all expected to be in this motion. The headline proposal in every Liberal statement this spring about the Standing Orders was that there was going to be a dedicated Prime Minister's question period. We heard a lot about that.

The Prime Minister was gung-ho and looking forward to having to show up to work for just 45 minutes every week. The Prime Minister was going to show us just how well he could memorize his lines and put on a Broadway-worthy performance with dramatic delivery. He may even have put his hand on his heart a time or two.

We all saw how that experiment unfolded. The Prime Minister quickly saw that his glib platitudes did not give satisfying answers on the concerns of Canadians, the problems facing our economy, or his ethical lapses. It quickly became crystal clear to everyone that the Prime Minister failed to perform and bombed terribly.

Remember the Wednesday when the Prime Minister was asked 18 times if he had met with the Ethics Commissioner? That was May 10.

Although I cannot and I will not refer to the presence or absence of a member, I can say that the House did not hear another Wednesday answer from the Prime Minister until June 7.

John Ivison wrote just this past Thursday about the most recent Prime Minister's question period, noting that the Prime Minister“...did not look like he was having fun Wednesday, when he was pummelled for the entire Question Period on topics ranging from the big issues of the day—Chinese takeovers, rising debt levels—to more arcane subjects like potentially illegal activity at Shared Services Canada and autism funding.”

It is obvious that Liberal bigwigs decided that their leader's performance was actually a liability to the Liberal Party. His performance in question period specifically was a liability to the Liberal Party. If anything, the Liberals' last-minute withdrawal of this proposal only highlights the fact that the government's approach to procedural reforms has been guided solely by Liberal partisan interests. They only want to do it if it is in their interest. That has been made very obvious by their rather rapid withdrawal of a Prime Minister's question period.

Of course, the Prime Minister's good friend, Gerry Butts, was on Twitter Friday claiming that there would never be standing order amendments to create a Prime Minister's question period. To further his alternative facts, the PMO principal secretary then claimed that the Standing Orders were entirely silent on question period. I guess he obviously had not read Standing Order 37, for example, with the big headline above it of “Oral Questions”.

Setting that aside, in her response to written Question No. 1022 tabled Friday afternoon, the government House leader said, “The motion will refer to the commitments made in the platform during the election in relation to...increasing accountability in question period.”

The House leader also testified on Thursday afternoon at the procedural and House affairs committee, where she again reiterated that the Prime Minister's question period would be in the motion. Just a few hours later, though, her words did not match up to her notice of motion, with the Prime Minister's question period being noticeably absent.

We can only conclude that this was a very hasty, last-minute change of heart from the Liberals, likely following last Wednesday's flop by the Prime Minister.

Now that I have spoken about what is not in this motion, let me turn to what actually is in government Motion No. 18.

On prorogation, the Liberals wanted to prevent governments from abusing this routine constitutional procedure. One way to do that is to promise not to abuse it and then follow through on that promise. That would be the good, old-fashioned approach of integrity.

Instead, the government proposes that after prorogation, the government would be obliged to table its reasons, or its excuses, when Parliament reconvenes. Basically, that means that from this time forward, governments can table the press release that it puts out when it announces prorogation. That is really all this change will do.

This amendment makes no sense. It is meaningless. The Prime Minister should be embarrassed to put it on the Standing Orders.

With respect to the Liberal pledge on omnibus bills, we see something even more ridiculous and absurd. The Liberal proposal to end omnibus abuse exempts budget bills, the very bills the Liberals used to complain about. When we look at Bill C-44, which just passed, we see that it is little wonder the Liberals are trying to have their cake and eat it too.

On the other hand, for the few bills the rule might possibly apply, really nothing will change at all. There will be a few extra votes in the House, but no more debate would be held.

The real concern is that the Prime Minister will become more aggressive with omnibus bills. Sheltering under this half-baked reform, omnibus bills will be encouraged. The Liberals can claim that they will be absolved of any fault, because they have changed the rules. This is absolute rubbish. It is not hard to imagine the Liberals taking us to a place where we will soon see things like a throne speech implementation act, with everything thrown into one bill and just a lot of votes to follow. It is actually very worrisome.

However, we should not worry; they say there will be three votes instead of one.

In short, the proposals on prorogation and omnibus bills are so cynical that they are just jokes, plain and simple.

The next item is not as cynical, and it may even have some merit. However, to be successful, it requires the Liberal cabinet to follow through on a promise. Given their record on keeping promises, I have my doubts.

Without getting into a lot of technical detail, government Motion No. 18 tweaks a number of aspects about the scrutiny process for the main estimates. For Canadians not familiar with what the estimates are, they are the proposals that lead to Parliament's authorization for government spending.

The government wanted to achieve a better alignment of the budget and the main estimates. As a matter of principle, Conservatives do not object to this idea. However, the challenge lies in implementation, especially the timing.

Essentially there are two ways to address the timing issues: budgets could be presented earlier or the estimates could be presented later. The government wants flexibility in when budgets are presented, given fluctuating events. That is fair enough, since the previous Conservative government also insisted on the same thing when similar proposals were floated by committee five years ago.

However, last fall the President of the Treasury Board published his own discussion paper on this very issue. He called for a permanent change to the Standing Orders that would reduce the three months currently available to study the main estimates down to 30 days. The Treasury Board president had been promoting this reform, effectively saying that it would give us great documents—so great, apparently, that there really would not need to be time for parliamentary oversight.

Well, hold on. While recognizing the merits of aligning budgets and estimates, the Conservative Party does not want to sacrifice the time available for scrutiny of spending proposals, because we all know how much the Liberals love to spend.

Last fall the Liberals were quite itchy to get these changes through the government operations and estimates committee, but we managed to put the brakes on these hasty, bad changes. For that, I want to recognize the good work of our Treasury Board critic, the hon. member for Brantford—Brant, and his colleagues on that committee, the hon. members for Beauport—Limoilou and Edmonton West.

We were hardly doing this just be stubborn or obstructionist. Outside observers, including none other than our parliamentary budget officer, pointed out concerns with the government's optimistic plans. In November the parliamentary budget officer published a report explaining the promise of the President of the Treasury Board. The PBO had this to say:

With respect to delaying the main estimates, the Government indicates that the core impediment in aligning the budget and estimates arises from the Government’s own sclerotic internal administrative processes, rather than parliamentary timelines.

He went on to say:

This example [of last year's supplementary estimates] shows that it is unlikely that delaying the release of the main estimates by eight weeks would provide full alignment with the budget.

His predecessor, Kevin Page, penned an op-ed in The Globe and Mail, which also poured cold water on the Liberal plan. Kevin Page said:

How does that improve financial control? ... If you start from the perspective of financial control, Parliament should see the fiscal plan...before April 1.

Therefore, this is not just us expressing concerns. There were a number of other esteemed individuals who expressed concern with the government's plan.

More recently, the PBO, in reviewing the spring supplementary estimates, offered this skeptical take, noting his analysis:

...demonstrates the [Treasury Board] Secretariat is further away from its goal in 2017-18, rather than closer to it. This raises a significant question of whether the Government's proposal to delay the main estimates would result in meaningful alignment with the budget.

Basically, the Liberal government was saying to trust them on improving the estimates and wanted Parliament to agree to this change up front, while the evidence of the government's ability to do its part was completely unconvincing.

By standing firm through tough negotiations over the winter and spring, Conservatives reined in these Liberal efforts to slash accountability.

The amendment set out in government Motion No. 18 is now a two-year experiment, providing two months of committee study, twice the amount that the Treasury Board president had originally proposed. By insisting on a sunset clause for this change, Conservatives have ensured we can take an evidence-based decision after the 2019 election on whether the information made available to parliamentarians truly does improve leading to a reasonable trade-off with losing a month of scrutiny.

The ball is now in the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board president's court. Given the government's record, I am not holding my breath.

Finally, there is the amendment that will prevent ministers from sitting on committees. However, it will allow parliamentary secretaries to be ex officio members of committees, with all privileges except the ability to vote or to constitute quorum. They may participate at in camera meetings, question witnesses, and travel. Parliamentary secretaries will maintain practically every tool, except an actual vote, to shape and steer committee work.

Liberal parliamentary secretaries have continued to attend committees, and in some cases strive to shape the committee's work and decisions. This proposal would only further entrench their ability to do this, while claiming to honour platform commitments. How very clever.

If the Prime Minister has concluded that parliamentary secretaries are important to committee work, the Liberals should just admit that and assign them Liberal seats at committees.

The Liberal caucus has dozens of backbenchers with multiple committee assignments. This arrangement may work in the current majority context, but in a minority situation it could become quite an unsustainable burden on any government backbench when 70 or so office-holders would go without any committee assignments and 50 to 80 MPs would have to cover 24 standing committees, plus two joint committees and any special committees. I do not know if the government has thought this through, especially if it does find itself in a minority situation at some point.

A similar arrangement whereby parliamentary secretaries could not sit on committees that were related to their department was implemented in 1986, but it was later scrapped in 1991. We should not be surprised to see another U-turn in the years ahead on this particular change.

As I said in my opening remarks, this has been a long road that we have travelled down. At the beginning, I was not sure whether the Liberal House leader's approach to this whole issue was aggressively ambitious or just very naive, but over the subsequent months, the answer has become increasingly clear.

Shortly after the parliamentary battle launched in March, Andrew Coyne wrote a piece entitled, “Renewed attempt to rewrite House rules confirms Liberals are not to be trusted”.

The article stated:

The [first] 18 months of the...government have been an education in cynicism. Every time you think you have plumbed the depths, every time you believe you have pierced the many veils of their duplicity, you are delighted to discover still another con wrapped inside the last—usually delivered by some smiling minister tweeting variations on “Better is Always Possible” and “Diversity is Our Strength.”

Later the article says:

The latest chance to refresh our acquaintance with how deeply cynical the [Prime Minister's] people are—not have become: are—is the clutch of grubby expedients the government is now trying to stuff down the opposition’s throats, in the name, prettily, of “parliamentary reform.” Scholars of the [Prime Minister's] style will recognize the expression “reform,” like “merit-based appointments” and “evidence-based policy,” as a tell that some kind of humbug is afoot, and this is no exception....

We had an early foretaste of this with the infamous Motion Six... That alone ought to have signalled how sincere [the Prime Minister]’s frequent protests of his devotion to democratic accountability are: as calculated, as fake—and as useful!—as his feminism.

Well now the Liberals are back, with a new, more attack-proof House Leader...

That brings me to the current government House leader.

I truly believe the hon. member for Waterloo is very well-intentioned, but she has been set by the Prime Minister for failure, as a rookie parliamentarian, in taking on the important role as House leader and all that it entails, while at the same time picking this fight.

Veteran parliamentary observer Chantal Hébert recently penned her observations on a pattern of, as she said, “Rookie ministers turned into cannon fodder”. I will read from her recent column. It is extremely relevant and a very clear example. She has articulated very clearly what we are seeing the Prime Minister do with his rookie MPs, specifically women MPs, sadly. The article stated:

[The hon. member for Waterloo] is the first woman to occupy this strategic government position [House leader]. She also brings to the role less hands-on experience in the Commons than any of her predecessors.

To be able to read the mood of the House is an essential skill for one in [her] position. It is also a skill usually acquired over time.

As parliamentary neophyte, [she] would have had her hands full just keeping the government’s legislative agenda on track. Yet, shortly after her appointment she was tasked with implementing a controversial set of parliamentary reforms. Included in the government’s unilateral wish list were measures that would have curtailed some of the few procedural tools at the disposal of an opposition minority.

[The government House leader] might as well have set out for a stroll across a minefield. She pressed on with the plan until a predictable procedural war threatened to bring the House to a grinding halt. At that point she beat back in retreat — at cost to her credibility.

Even veteran Liberal Warren Kinsella reached this conclusion when he tweeted last week, saying that if she was forced to do yet another climb-down, her position would become untenable.

The passage from Chantal Hébert's column was about a broader point: the fact that our self-proclaimed feminist Prime Minister has put a number of earnest, well-intentioned, but inexperienced young female ministers into senior roles where they become political roadkill. As a female politician myself, it angers me when I see what the Prime Minister has done with his cabinet and those with immense professional potential. These are young people with huge potential in the Liberal caucus, and they are being put in these positions just to benefit his cynical feminist brand.

Basically, we are seeing some Liberal MPs being prematurely promoted into roles and responsibilities ahead of having the necessary experience to assume such weighty offices and then being asked to do the impossible for the Prime Minister. Some would call this the “glass cliff”.

I recognize that some of this could be inevitable when a party goes from being a third party straight into government. However, we have seen a pattern with the Prime Minister, which has been made much worse by a prime minister who is far more concerned with snappy sound bites and click-bait pictures than actually doing his own members right and putting them in positions where they have experience and are not doomed to fail. He simply does not have his eye on competent management and professional development within his own government.

As Ms. Hébert suggested, these young rookie ministers could well have become formidable forces in Canadian politics. I wish them well in their future, I honestly do. They would have been formidable forces in Canadian politics if they had a chance to mature in their career paths, but instead they have seen their potential sacrificed for the sake of some re-tweets and trending hashtags.

Speaking personally, I know the value of taking one step at a time on a career path. When I was first elected, I did a stint on the backbench and then I got to chair a committee. After that, I worked for a while as a parliamentary secretary and then was promoted into the ministry. Today, I find myself the opposition House leader, a role I am very privileged to hold.

Even though I am learning new things every day, it is not basic principles I am learning. I have had the benefit of adding my lessons to a base of experience and knowledge that I have acquired over almost nine years. Regrettably, for the hon. member for Waterloo, I do not think she has enjoyed the same benefit of incremental growth and development. However, the fault for that lies not at her feet but with the Prime Minister.

What is the lesson to take out of this whole episode from the March discussion paper through to today's government motion?

In a column entitled, “Liberals forced to swallow humble pie — again — on parliamentary rule changes”, John Ivison stated, “the Liberals have learned the hard way that the rules governing this most precious of institutions can only be amended by consensus, not by parliamentary cosh.”

We have long said that the rules of the House belong to all members from all corners of the House. Changes should enjoy consensus support before being implemented. The Liberals have learned this the hard way. Ideas for discussion and debate are to be welcomed. A prescriptive list of proposals strapped to a rocket for rapid implementation rightly rouses suspicions.

However, the government continually demonstrates its contempt for this institution and its history. Most recently, in his proposed nominee for Clerk of the House of Commons, we once again saw the Prime Minister dismiss the consultation process and bypass the established non-partisan professional development practice for career advancement with our procedural experts. There are some very serious and valid concerns with respect to how the nomination of the Clerk has come about.

Prime ministers, even those with majority governments, should not pick a fight with the House of Commons in a bald-faced power grab to neuter what tools this House has. After all, the core constitutional role of the House of Commons is not to pass bills but to hold the government to account.

Barely a year in office, the Liberals found this reality to be a pesky inconvenience. They tried to eliminate this, to remove the distraction from a government built on platitudes and selfies. The government has created a distraction, falsely called our calls for consensus to be a demand for a veto. It was not a demand for a veto; it was our right. There is a significant gulf between a demand for a veto and a consensus.

Negotiations and horse-trading inevitably lead to a result where one has to give up something to gain something. However, that is not how the government chose to approach the Standing Orders. It should not have ended up this way. It chose to provoke a procedural war in an effort to get its own way. As in every case throughout the centuries when power-hungry kings and governments sought to curb Parliament's powers, the House of Commons fought back. Just as in the past, the elected House won. We are grateful for that, and will keep fighting the government and doing our job.

Infrastructure

[Michel Boudrias, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, not a single soul in Quebec supports the federal government on this. Not one expert agrees with the Liberals. The Quebec National Assembly is unanimous. Is that clear enough?

The Liberals do not have any friends in Quebec when it comes to Bill C-44. The entire agricultural industry is opposed to it. The government is on its own on this issue, with the exception of the 40 phantom MPs from Quebec who are being irresponsible about this.

Will someone on the other side of the House stand up, just once, and say that they will not allow Quebec to be at the mercy of bankers?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is another meaningless answer. Through the infrastructure bank, the Government of Canada can exempt the financial world from the laws of Quebec. Environmental protection, farmland, city planning: nothing is sacred. Quebeckers are being put in their place. Toronto is making the decisions. For weeks, the Liberals have been telling us that this is not their intention. If the Canadian government does not intend to deliver Quebec up to Toronto bankers, why does it not amend Bill C-44?

Transportation Modernization Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and add my remarks to the debate on Bill C-49.

Before I begin, I would like to take a second to acknowledge a very poignant moment today in the House. I was here when the Clerk, Marc Bosc, arrived for his last shift here in the House of Commons as Acting Clerk of the House, as we have heard from a number of sources.

Mr. Bosc was the person who welcomed the members who had been newly elected in 2015 to the House. It was a very emotional time for us. To us, Mr. Bosc is the Clerk of the House, because he is the only one we have ever known. Mr. Bosc has always been there for us and has always shown the utmost professionalism. He was respected by all, at least by everyone on this side of the House. Mr. Bosc has always served with enormous professionalism, and we have always respected him.

For me, Mr. Speaker, it was a very poignant moment to see him enter the chamber this morning and take his place before us, to begin his final sitting day in the House of Commons. I trust that Mr. Bosc will always hold a place of honour here in Parliament.

In closing, we found out about this rather suddenly. I would have liked the opposition parties to be consulted more on the process to replace the Clerk. No offence to the incoming Clerk, but I just wanted to take a few moments on behalf of my colleagues, myself, and my family, who shared in all the emotion that we experience when we first arrive here, to acknowledge Mr. Bosc's excellent work.

Mr. Bosc has been here much longer than I have, but like me, he has seen his share of governments and their different approaches to ensuring that their bills get passed.

Bill C-49 is another example of the government using closure to prevent giving the opposition opportunities to speak to this bill or criticize it. By the minister's own admission, this bill is quite complex, and it will make significant changes to Canada's transportation industry. Even so, we will have just a few of hours of debate to discuss it and raise what I think are some very important points.

Why is this especially troubling in the case of Bill C-49? It is because this bill does not amend just one or two sections or one or two acts. It amends 13 pieces of legislation.

For the past two days, I have been listening to the arguments given by the Minister of Transport who says that the opposition is overreacting, since 80% of the changes proposed in Bill C-49 will amend just one law, and therefore the opposition has no reason to protest so loudly. What? How is that an argument? It is as though one section of an act were more important than another. If the 20% of Bill C-49's clauses that amend 12 other laws are not all that important, why bother including them? Why are we talking about them? If they are not that important, if everything is focused on just one law and the opposition is outraged, why keep the other 20% of the amendments? Why not remove them and create another bill with those amendments and consider it separately? It does not matter, because everything is in the same bill.

Clearly, this argument simply does not hold water. It is particularly troubling. As members know, I have been a member of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities since I arrived in this place. Obviously, transportation affects all Canadians in every field. Transportation has an impact on the daily lives of all Canadians, whether we are talking about the transportation of goods or people.

They say this is a complex bill, that they will not give the opposition much time to talk, and that, since 80% of it is specific to one act, there is no need for us to protest so loudly. I think the minister should go back to the drawing board, take another look at what is in his bill, and think carefully about the repercussions that each amendment in Bill C-49 will have on the day-to-day lives of all Canadians.

Here is the lowdown on Bill C-49. The Liberals' omnibus transportation bill will establish a new air passenger rights regime; liberalize international ownership restrictions for Canadian air carriers; enable the Minister of Transport to consider and approve joint ventures by two or more airlines; update the Canadian freight system; require railways to install audio-video recorders in locomotives; expand the Governor in Council's powers to require major railway companies to provide rate, service, and performance data; and amend the Canada Marine Act to allow port authorities to access Canada infrastructure bank loans.

However, there is nothing there. According to the Minister of Transport, a few hours of discussion are enough to address all of these issues, since he did not think that the opposition had anything relevant to say during the first hours of this debate. Why would the government want to continue listening to opposition members provide supposedly irrelevant information when it can simply expedite the process by muzzling them? At least, that is what the minister seems to think.

Since when are opinions that differ from the government's irrelevant? The big problem with the Liberals is that, when we do not agree with them, on this or any other issue, they feel threatened and under attack. They think that anyone who does not share their opinion and does not think like they do is irrelevant, and so they have no reason to take any interest in what those people have to say in the House. That explains a lot.

It explains a lot, such as Motion No. 6 and the many time allocation motions that have been imposed on us since the beginning of this session. It explains the infamous discussion document that the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons tabled to supposedly improve the way the House operates. When we read that document carefully, we learned that the Liberals' intention was once again to avoid hearing what the opposition parties had to say.

It is not complicated. When things do not sit well with the government, it decides to muzzle dissenting voices that cast grey clouds over Liberal sunny ways. Well, I have news for the Liberal government. The official opposition and all the other opposition parties, I am sure, have no intention of staying quiet. We have no intention of letting changes slip through. We have no intention of completely agreeing with everything the Liberals put in front of us. We have no intention of being the people who enable the Liberal Party to push through their entire election platform. That is not our role here. Our role is to present criticisms.

As an aside, let us talk about the Liberal platform. It did not take long for the Liberals to realize that much of what they wanted to do is simply impossible. They promised big spending and small deficits. They kept only one of those promises. They are spending big, but they have come to realize that that requires huge deficits. That is something the government does not want the opposition to criticize. They would like us to keep quiet and just watch them and applaud them because they really like applause. That is not what we are going to do. That is not our role.

Let us come back to Bill C-49 because it seems like we are off topic, that we just keep providing an overview, and that we keep talking about everything but Bill C-49. Let us talk about Bill C-49 and what it amends. As I was saying, it significantly amends 13 different laws and has repercussions on three modes of transportation. This legislative measure will weaken legislative protections for shippers and western Canadian farmers.

We want to concentrate on proactive measures to make travel less expensive and more convenient for all travellers. This would include abolishing the carbon tax, instead of the Liberals’ plan to establish reactive compensation that will benefit only a small segment of the population.

This bill provides very little detail about the proposed air passengers’ bill of rights, and it does not have the support, in its current form, of many passengers’ rights advocates. Also, port authorities and their wholly owned subsidiaries will have access to loans and loan guarantees from the Canada infrastructure bank. There is an inconsistency here. That does not make any sense to me, since this bank does not exist yet. It remains a proposal for now, and it is held up in another house, for very good reasons.

Like us, the senators think that the infrastructure bank warrants its own bill, given the impact it will have and the $15 billion that the government intends to provide to it. That is $15 billion from Canadian taxpayers to be given to a board of directions to manage on our behalf without any accountability to Parliament.

These points alone justify our opposition to the passage of Bill C-44, which is currently being studied on the other side in its current form and includes all these budget measures as well as creating the infrastructure bank. I hope that people will get the message.

In Bill C-49, they already assume the outcome. Port authorities are being given approval to access loans from the non-existent infrastructure bank. What I do not understand is that the government, ever since it began telling us about the infrastructure bank, keeps saying that it will be an independent bank. As an aside, the process to find the president for this non-existent bank has already started.

Therefore, the infrastructure bank, which does not exist, will be made up of a so-called independent board of directors who will manage the money given to them by the Liberal government. At the same time, these supposedly independents will be told that they have to invest $1.3 billion in Montreal’s Réseau électrique métropolitain and provide loans to port authorities. To sum up, here is an independent infrastructure bank that will not be independent and does not yet exist. However, we are being asked to approve a clause of the bill that will allow port authorities to secure loans from this infrastructure bank that will be created in the near future.

It is clear that something is not working, that they are improvising, and that the minister wants to move quickly. We do not understand why he insists on moving so quickly. Some will tell us that it is because they want to settle the matter of Bill C-30 before it expires on July 31 in order to protect western grain producers in their rate negotiations with the railways. That could be the case, but that is not what is going to happen, since even if Bill C-49 is rushed through today or Monday and is referred to committee, the committee meetings are scheduled for September.

The committee was prepared to meet in July if the government agreed to hive off all the measures concerning Bill C-30. That would have allowed us to study them quickly in order to avoid having a legal vacuum for western grain producers. These meetings could have been held before August 1. The committee was prepared to meet in the middle of summer, during vacation—at least, the opposition members of the committee were. That would have been a major sacrifice for some of us to show up and study a bill to help western grain producers.

Why was the official opposition prepared to do that? Because we get that this is important. Right now, grain producers are concerned about what is going to happen this fall if there is a legal vacuum. We do not know exactly how the market will react. These people are negotiating right now.

We see another problem here. I myself am not a grain producer. However, several of my House of Commons colleagues represent western Canadian ridings, and they know a lot about grain production. From what I understand, grain producers usually harvest their crops in the fall. What time of year is busiest for grain producers? The fall, when they are bringing in the harvest.

The government is going to ask grain producers to testify on Bill C-49, which will have a major impact on their future, in the fall. The government is going to ask them to leave their machinery and their fields so they can come testify in Ottawa in September. That is when they should be in their fields doing their work, doing what we support them doing, and making their contribution to Canada's economy by producing and working. This makes no sense.

That is why the opposition was prepared to agree to move quickly on that part of the bill. We were prepared to let many things slide in order to move quickly. Why? Canada's grain producers are far more important to us than adding another number to our legislative record. The farmers need us to come to Ottawa to protect them, stand up for them, and help them succeed. That is our role.

If we are not taking extraordinary measures to get Bill C-30 passed before the deadline, then there is no urgency to justify speeding up the process and muzzling the opposition. The government probably does not want to let the opposition speak because it does not want to hear arguments like mine in defence of western grain producers.

I want to talk about another initiative that was very well received by the public, I admit. This was the main point in the message from the Minister of Transport. Indeed, he wants to create an air passengers' bill of rights. This is urgent. Like all of us, all Canadians who have flown over the past few months have seen the coverage of some of the dramatic incidents that have taken place in the U.S. Since the bill announced the creation of an air passengers' bill of rights, we thought we would get some information. We thought we might be told what to expect, but no, all the minister did was mandate the Canadian Transportation Agency to begin consultations that will eventually lead to regulations and, at some point, the air passengers' bill of rights.

Do we really need a bill to ask the Canadian Transportation Agency to begin consultations on a bill of rights? It makes no sense. There is no need for urgency when it comes to Bill C-49, apart from the legislation protecting western Canadian grain farmers; on that, we agree.

We believe that the only way to go and the only explanation or justification to make this measure acceptable, to make this gag order acceptable, would have been to split the bill and immediately pass the measures in Bill C-30, in order to make certain temporary measures permanent. We were ready to go ahead with that, but everything else could have waited; there is no need to panic. The only emergency here for this government is to silence the opposition. The government is not ready. It is improvising and presenting measures that just do not make sense.

For all these reasons, and despite a few good measures in the bill, the official opposition cannot support Bill C-49.

Infrastructure

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

Mr. Speaker, that answer is a real letdown for our artists.

Many constitutional experts, a unanimous National Assembly, and now the Union des producteurs agricoles have all appealed to members of the House of Commons.

What they want is simple: divide Bill C-44 to ensure that the infrastructure bank will be subject to Quebec laws, especially the Act Respecting the Preservation of Agricultural Land and Agricultural Activities.

The government has ignored our National Assembly. Will it now listen to Quebec farmers, yes or no?

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

Mr. Speaker, continuing with the infrastructure bank, the government's arrogance is on full display yet again. The two chambers have not even completed their study of Bill C-44, but the Liberals have already advertised the position of chairperson.

Today the Prime Minister announced that an independent bank that does not yet exist could potentially invest $1.3 billion in Quebec, thereby replacing a federal investment. I think it is time to press the pause button.

Will the Prime Minister split Bill C-44 and finally allow parliamentarians to have their say on the bank the Liberals are setting up for their friends?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Bill C-44 is the budget implementation act, which has gone to the Senate. When it comes to budget legislation and the definition of “omnibus”, budget legislation is often seen as omnibus. When it comes to the budget implementation act, every measure in the BIA was in the budget. There was nothing added to the BIA that had not already been approved by Parliament in the budget that was introduced.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

My next question is on this idea of themes in omnibus bills. This seems to be the direction that the government wants to go in and that you want to go in.

I'm a little concerned about that, because in looking at Bill C-44, for example, a valid argument can be made that something like the infrastructure bank fits into a theme of the budget, but when you're talking about arguably the most fundamental change in how we fund infrastructure, certainly that merits its own legislation. While it might fit into that omnibus bill and your vision of how that legislation should work, is that not an argument against trying to prescribe how omnibus bills are used and for just simply outright getting rid of them?

Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1

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

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will be voting against Bill C-44.

The House resumed from June 9 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 third time and passed.

Taxation

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, thanks to Bill C-44, we will continue to move forward with our plan to improve the lives of Canadians.

It is true that Bill C-44 includes a way to collect a tax that keeps pace with the rate of inflation. That is our goal, and it is very important. We know that it is crucial to make important decisions for the future of our country and our economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-44 features some foolish legislation, including one that is particularly underhanded. I am speaking of the so-called tax escalator. We know that the government decided to raise taxes on alcohol, but oddly enough, this tax will continue to automatically increase year after year. This is known as a tax escalator.

Why is this government so greedy when it comes to Canadian taxpayers' wallets?

Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-44, our budget's implementation act.

The best way to draw a nice picture is that this a continuation of last year's budget 2016, where we are seeing a focus again on the middle class and those working hard to join it. It is impressive to see the new jobs as the economy continues to grow. It was announced just this morning that there were another 50,000-plus new good-paying jobs for middle-class Canadians. That is extremely impressive.

I would also like to say that many Canadians will benefit from budget 2017. I know that across Nova Scotia and my riding of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, the youth, seniors, veterans, tradesmen, and new Canadians will benefit. Canadians all across this country will benefit.

I want to talk about budget 2016 and the two things that were essential and will continue to benefit Canadians. The first one is the child care benefit—

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today I will be sharing my time with the member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook.

As the member of Parliament for Markham—Thornhill, I am honoured to stand in this House today to speak in support of the budget bill, Bill C-44, which, if passed, would see important measures for helping the government meet the commitments it has made to Canadians.

First I would like to talk about some of those commitments we have already delivered on, commitments that are making a real difference in the lives of families across the country, like lowering taxes on middle-class Canadians by increasing taxes on the wealthiest 1%.

We also introduced the Canada child benefit, which is essential for helping families with the high cost of raising children.

I am enormously proud that our government is represented by a gender-balanced cabinet.

Budget 2017 is the next step in our long-term plan. Over the last couple of months, I have talked to and met with thousands of families in Markham—Thornhill, and I have heard their concerns and aspirations for our community. They talked to me about how hard it is to commute for hours a day and how they want to see a transit plan that meets the needs of families. They told me about the balance and the expense of caring for their young children while at the same time caring for their elderly parents, and making sure that our seniors have what they need to lead a good quality of life.

I also heard about my constituents' ambitions, the ones that have propelled Markham ahead to making it one of the most diverse, dynamic, and fastest-growing communities in Canada. The riding of Markham—Thornhill is a leader in innovation, with GM's new autonomous and connected car centre, or IBM's Innovation Space – Markham Convergence Centre that is helping businesses take their new technologies to global markets. There are also Canadian companies, like ICON Digital Production's state-of-the-art visual production facility, and Pond Technologies' commercialization of its research to fight climate change. These multinational Canadian headquarters and SMEs stand to serve as an example of the potential and ambition in Markham—Thornhill.

Now, at a time when changes in the economy, both here at home and around the world, present incredible opportunities for the middle class and those working hard to join it, with its strong focus on innovation, skills, and partnerships, budget 2017 takes the next steps to supporting Canadians as they acquire the knowledge and skills to build a more prosperous future for Canada. One of those steps is making big bets on sectors of the economy in which Canada can be a world leader. This includes areas where Canada already has world-leading expertise, like artificial intelligence.

Artificial intelligence is an emerging and promising sector with huge potential to transform technologies.

The Government of Canada's advisory council on economic growth identified artificial intelligence as a platform technology that will impact almost all sectors of the economy. Thanks to the investments by the federal government and to the pioneering work done by outstanding Canadian researchers, Canada is a global leader in AI research and development. However, we are not alone. Other countries also recognize the strategic importance of AI technology and are investing in research and innovation in this area. As a result, Canadian talent and ideas are in demand around the world. In order to fully harness the benefits of AI, we need to ensure that activity remains here in Canada. That is why, through budget 2017, we have dedicated $125 million to launch a pan-Canadian artificial intelligence strategy.

In addition to AI, our government is showing strong support for business-led innovation, with an investment of $950 million over five years in superclusters. In key sectors such as digital and clean tech, superclusters have enormous potential to accelerate economic growth. Our new strategic innovation fund would attract, support, and grow Canadian businesses in dynamic and emerging sectors through an investment of $1.26 billion over five years. In the face of national opportunity and growing global competition, this is a strategic, focused, and bold investment in the future of our economy.

Our government is also working hard to make significant unprecedented investments in infrastructure. We have more than doubled our infrastructure commitments to meet Canada's most urgent needs.

Our infrastructure plan provides for investments in projects that will transform communities for the 21st century. We are aware of the risks and costs associated with underfunding of infrastructure. Those risks and costs are significant. That is why our budget is the next step in our plan to make wise investments that will promote the growth of our economy and strengthen the middle class.

We believe that decisions made at the local level are very important and we want to support municipalities so they can meet their infrastructure priorities.

Beyond investments in infrastructure, one of the issues raised most frequently by residents in my riding is public transit. We know that public transit is the lifeblood of a thriving city. Whether it is widening the GO train from Milliken to Union Station, or taking the Viva, or connecting to the TTC from Markham transit, fast, efficient, and reliable public transit is essential. That is why budget 2017 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 the people in Markham—Thornhill and across our country.

I am also very proud to be a part of a government that believes in the necessity of effective and high-quality care for Canadian seniors. We recognize the need to address the issues of seniors, and have taken action to improve the quality of life for our seniors. Budget 2017 includes important investments in supports for an aging population to help our seniors and to give them the respect they deserve. I know how important this is for my riding and for the people in Markham—Thornhill. That is why we are improving access to home care by investing $6 billion over 10 years so that Canadians can stay in their homes well into their retirement.

We are also investing $2.3 billion over two years to provide more affordable housing options. This investment will improve housing conditions for seniors, especially senior women living alone. This builds on the work already done by our government to increase the guaranteed income supplement top-up benefit to boost support for our most vulnerable seniors.

In addition, this budget would also help improve the lives of new Canadians. 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. However, many times 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. 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. 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. This ambitious program would break down the barriers that bright new immigrants face in fully contributing to our economy.

Finally, our government has shown that it recognizes the importance of young Canadians. With this in mind, I look forward to forming a youth council to bring together the diverse and talented youth in Markham—Thornhill. Our government understands that the path to a brighter future begins by giving all Canadians the tools they need to learn, retrain, discover, and embrace the future.

Budget 2017 supports the facets of our country that make us unique and strong. The investments in innovation, infrastructure, transit, and seniors provide the tools for our country to be successful in the future. This is a forward-looking budget, one that I think we could all get behind. I am proud to support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Elmwood—Transcona for speaking to Bill C-44. Unfortunately he is the only NDP member who will have the opportunity to speak to the Liberals’ budget implementation bill.

They had promised not to misuse omnibus bills, but then they gave us a 300-page bill that amends 30 pieces of legislation and limited debate on it twice. This makes it an antidemocratic bill in its form and in the way it is debated. It is despicable.

The member showed us in his speech that the health negotiations, pension plans, and improvements to the employment insurance program are broken Liberal promises.

The Liberals also focussed on young people to get elected, but what are they doing for them? By 2030, just over 10 years from now, 40% of jobs are going to be automated. What do the Liberals have to say about precarious employment? They are telling young people to get used to it.

They promised to give a tax credit to small businesses that were going to hire young people, but is that in the budget? Not at all. Are jobs with benefits being created for young people? No. There is no old age pension for young people either. It is all just hot air.

This budget does not provide any compensation to farmers. On top of featuring none of many things that were promised and dangled in front of us, the budget only contains measures for the rich and does nothing for the middle class.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about Bill C-44, which reminds us of all the things we will not get and shows that the Liberals break their promises.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to highlight some of the NDP's objections to Bill C-44 at third reading.

As we analyzed the bill, it became clear that we do not oppose the actions of government because it is made up of Liberals, but we oppose the Liberals because of their actions. The legislation is rife with things that would not take the country in the right direction and it fails to live up to the very commitments made not by us in the last election campaign but by the Liberals themselves.

I want to highlight some of those problems and also suggest other ways that the government might have proceeded that would have helped to attain the goals it says it wants to attain.

Let me start with housing. No money was allocated in the budget proper for a national housing strategy this year, and that is unfortunate. There is some money promised for down the road, but this is unfortunate because for all the words that come from a government, statements on positions and everything else, it is really where a government spends its money that we learn its priorities and we see what it is serious about. It was not a promising sign to see no money right away.

We in the NDP support the idea of the development of a national housing strategy but it would have been nice to see in the budget implementation bill some legislation that would create ongoing statutory funding for housing. That is because reliable, stable funding, year over year, is the basis for a well-functioning and reliable national housing strategy that could put a meaningful dent in the dearth of affordable housing and social housing that we currently have in Canada.

Putting money in the budget would have been one way the government could have signalled its seriousness about a national housing plan. Instead it is left to the ad hoc decision-making of government year over year.

The NDP has proposed in the past, through private member's bills, legislation for a meaningful and permanent national housing strategy, including provisions for how to consult and develop that plan so that decisions would not just be made at the cabinet table. Everyday Canadians would have the opportunity on an ongoing basis to feed information from their own lived experiences and those of their friends, neighbours, and family, into that ongoing strategy that would have reliable, multi-year funding going forward.

I raise that as an example of how the government in the legislation could have signalled and solidified its commitment to a national housing strategy. It was disappointing not to see that. Instead, we have the word of the Liberals that the money will come.

We have their word on a lot of issues. It is hard to believe that the Liberals will be able to achieve all of their goals given the current state of the country's finances and the choices that they have made in terms of not seriously going after, for instance, large tax offenders and in terms of not raising the corporate tax rate. I will have more to say on that later.

The other thing in the bill that is an important priority for me and for the NDP is the health care funding. What was promised in the election campaign by the Liberals and by the Prime Minister was promised on the basis of a criticism of the previous government and Stephen Harper's plan for health care funding that would cut the regular increases by the federal government for health spending from 6% to 3%. That was roundly criticized by Liberals in the last campaign and there was a clear promise in their platform and by the Prime Minister that not only would he not adopt the Stephen Harper funding model but that he would change the way the funding model was decided. The Prime Minister said he would convene a meeting of premiers to talk about a new national health accord.

After the election the premiers took the Prime Minister at his word and asked to have that meeting. On a number of occasions they held joint press conferences calling on the Prime Minister to convene a national meeting of premiers to discuss a new national health accord, but they never had that meeting. The legislation is the outcome of that broken promise by the Prime Minister to convene that meeting and to meaningfully include premiers in deciding the structure and the framework of health funding in Canada going forward.

Instead, the Liberals adopted a divide-and-conquer strategy where they went to each province separately and made side deals, the gist of which in all cases was to get provinces to sign on to the very same Harper model of funding health care that they had opposed during the election. That is what is represented in the bill.

On the additional money the Liberals promised during the election for home care and mental health, instead of flowing to the provinces out of the commitment made by the Prime Minister and Liberals in the last campaign, it became a condition of their signing on to the Stephen Harper model. This money was used instead as a threat and as a coercive tool to get provinces to sign on to a funding model that they had roundly criticized and that the federal Liberals had roundly criticized.

Therefore, it was a serious switch of priority and strategy by the federal government, and I think a serious broken promise on one of the most important issues of public policy in Canada. That is what the bill represents in its current form. I think that is shameful, and I cannot but draw attention to the fact that now, frankly, we do not really have a national health accord, because 10 side deals, and we are not even at 10 yet but nine out of 10, do not a health accord make.

This was the opportunity. After the Harper government reneged on the idea or passed up the opportunity to create a new national health accord after the health accord of 2004 expired in 2014, there was a moment to bring the provinces together to negotiate a new health accord in the way that former prime minister Paul Martin did in 2004. There was a moment to be able to do that again, and it certainly seemed like the federal Liberals were posturing to fill that role, which would have been good. They ought to have done that, but they passed it up and adopted the Harper ultimatum, although they gave themselves a bigger stick with the promises of home care and mental health money.

Now it is an open question as to when we are going to get that opportunity again. It is on the current Prime Minister's shoulders that we may lose the opportunity to have a meaningful national health accord for a generation. I think that is seriously shameful and something that I hope Liberals across the way who ran on the idea of having a new national health accord appreciate that they are complicit in, having Canadians miss out for a generation on a meaningful national health accord, because that is not what the funding arrangement in the legislation before us represents.

This includes not having a national pharmacare plan, for instance. It would be wonderful if in this budget implementation act we saw the legal provisions necessary to institute a national pharmacare plan. A national pharmacare plan would allow us to provide more equitable drug coverage to Canadians across the country so that it would not matter where one lived in Canada, one would get good access to the prescription medication one needed. It would allow Canadians to do this at a lower out-of-pocket price for the portion they would be responsible for. It would also allow governments to provide better service at a cheaper rate, and there have been all sorts of estimates. If we triangulate the lowball estimates and the higher estimates, it is quite reasonable to think that we could be saving Canadian taxpayers in the neighbourhood of $7 billion annually if we had a national pharmacare plan.

This was something the Liberals promised in 1993, if members can believe it, and here we are today. However, as we did prior to 1993, consistently after 1993, and are doing today, the NDP will continue to advocate for a national pharmacare plan until we have one.

I think it is shameful to think that after all those years, 25 years after Jean Chrétien got elected with a compelling majority and a clear promise to have a national pharmacare plan, we still have to be here talking about it. We are not talking about the details of it, whether it is working well, or how it could save Canadians more money if we modified the plan this way or that. We are still talking about establishing one at all, which I think is a great shame.

We had promises from the Liberals as well to restore lifetime pensions for veterans, but that is not anywhere in the act. When we talk about commitments made and how those get followed through on where it really counts, which is where the money gets spent, we see another promise coming up empty.

We still hear repeated promises from the Minister of Veterans Affairs and that we should just wait, that it is coming. However, the government has continued with the court case it promised to stop against Equitas and Canadian veterans. It is saying that there is no sacred covenant between Canada and its veterans. It has money to spend on that, money that would be better spent on veterans who, through their service, have earned our respect and deserve to live with dignity. The government should be doing that with the money.

It is the same when it comes to first nations. The government is continuing to spend money it promised it would not, fighting first nations in court. It could be flowing the money, money that the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal and many other bodies have said is owing to first nations people as an important piece of the reconciliation process. It would help get first nations people in Canada back on their feet and address the endemic problems in their communities, so they could become full participants in all the wealth, resources, and quality of life that Canada has to offer. They have been excluded from that for far too long. Nothing in the legislation addresses that.

On my point about veterans, they have said clearly that lifetime pensions have to be restored. The Liberals clearly said that as well. The New Democrats have been advocating for that. One would assume there would be wide support. There certainly would be support on the NDP benches for restoring lifetime pensions, yet it is nowhere in the legislation.

The Liberals talk big about spending priorities, but the recent release of the defence review is a very good indication of what it means to be a Liberal spending priority. It means money announced for 2026, 2027, 2028. By the time our grandkids are adults, they will start spending money on this serious priority.

It is frustrating to see large numbers being thrown about, including on infrastructure, knowing that many years and a number of elections will have to occur before the time arrives to spend that money.

This means we are not having a serious debate in Parliament about our priorities. Instead, we are playing a game of make belief with Monopoly money. The Liberals can announce all sorts of money for 2035, but they will never have to deliver it. The circumstances will have changed so many times and in so many ways, in ways we cannot predict. When the time comes to spend that money, it will have been re-budgeted, reallocated, and changed many times over. It is convenient for the government to talk now about what it wants to do in 2027, 2030, 2040, or 2050. I think 2055 is when the government says it might balance the books.

This is not a real debate. It does a disservice to this place and Canadians for a government to pretend that by announcing money 10 years into the future, it is doing a real thing. This is really indicative of its priorities. People in this place deserve better and the people we represent deserve better. Therefore, I make no apologies for focusing on the next few years and what the government announced in spending, because the rest has yet to come.

On my point about housing, if the Liberals were serious about long-term funding, they would have included it in the legislation. It is the case sometimes that five-year or 10-year plans are required to address something, which is certainly true when addressing the shortage of affordable and social housing. However, the bill does not include a national housing strategy and funds for that strategy. Statutory funds for that strategy is the way to do it.

At the very least, it appears to be a sign of insincerity when governments talk about the need for a long-term plan, but do not want any accompanying legislation that would mandate the money and lay out the consultation process for that kind of long-term spending. Long-term spending like that ought not be done willy-nilly. If a 10-year plan is required, there should also be a corresponding structure, which is appropriate to lay out in legislation, and provide a legislative guarantee of those funds. We do not see that in the bill.

However, what we see is a guarantee for a structure going forward, not just for 10 years but indefinitely. Canadian taxpayer money is going to be used to pad the pockets of corporate Canada. That is shameful. When we talk about legislating priorities in the budget implementation bill and putting one's money where one's mouth is, the Liberals are doing that.

The Liberals are talking about a $35 billion fund that will be used to privatize infrastructure and make it easy for large corporations, not even large Canadian corporations, but large international corporations, to own Canadian infrastructure and dictate to Canadians what they will pay to use a highway or cross a bridge, so they can make money on that. Then, when it is not making money anymore, if the plan is ill-conceived and it does not generate the 7% to 9% return they thought it would make, they will walk away from the project, and Canadian taxpayers will pay the bill.

We see the Liberal priorities the bill. Unfortunately, they are not the priorities the Liberals espoused during the election campaign.

The government talks about openness and transparency. We have very good reason to doubt the sincerity of that. Yesterday we heard that the Liberals' record on access to information requests, which is a very reasonable measure of openness and transparency, was worse than the Harper government's was in its last year.

The embarrassing appointment process, now the non-appointment process, for Madeleine Meilleur to the position of Commissioner of Official Languages was far from open and transparent. The Prime Minister still will not admit that it was a mistake to think that such an overtly partisan person could be seen as independent enough to occupy the position of an independent officer of Parliament. There is nothing open or transparent about that.

Canadians have every right to worry, with a proposal like the infrastructure bank, that they cannot expect the kind of openness and transparency one would need in order to evaluate whether it was getting value for money.

It may well be true that more things get built as a result of the infrastructure bank, but they are not getting built for free. No one is building it out of charity for Canadians. The Saudi investment authority is not going to come to Canada because of the infrastructure bank and say that it got a letter from the bank, it heard we needed a major bridge, it would build it for us, do it cheaply and it would be a nice quality bridge, and not ask for payment. Canadians are going to pay. If we are building more infrastructure, we are paying more. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

To hear the Liberals on one hand espouse and call on some of their members' experience in business and finance and say they are smart managers, then on the other hand pretend that somehow Canadians ultimately will not pay for every bit of infrastructure that is paid under the bank, and in fact pay more, is farcical. Those investors will demand a higher return than the banks the government could borrow from, which was its promise in the election. It has been an ongoing insult, frankly.

When we talk about getting money to build more infrastructure by borrowing at 2%, the Liberals like to say the NDP was going to balance the budget, so we would not have built any of that stuff.

First, the stuff on the infrastructure bank is stuff for which they are borrowing money and they are borrowing it at a higher rate from other investors. The idea that this is not a deficit that Canadians are incurring is factually wrong. The Liberals can play with the books, put it on the books of the infrastructure bank, or private investors, or whatever, but at the end of the day it is the Canadian taxpayer who will pay for that. The Liberals are not fooling anyone on this side of the House.

The other thing is this. The Liberals are not pursuing revenue streams, or ways of saving money. When I talk about a national pharmacare program, that is a way to save substantial amounts of money. If they were borrowing at 2% to build infrastructure instead of 7% or 9%, they could build a lot of bridges and roads for $7 billion a year.

The Liberals voted for an NDP motion telling the government to take meaningful action on closing tax havens and loopholes. A black and white commitment of the Liberals was that they would close the CEO stock option loophole. They passed that up. That is almost $1 billion a year, and substantially more when we start addressing the issue of tax havens and tax cheats. Some have estimated that to be as high as in the order of $50 billion to $60 billion annually. That is a lot of money. Therefore, the idea that somehow there is no money to be found to advance these important priorities is false. It is a question of political will and a government willing to follow through on its commitments.

When we take all of that into consideration, it is clear that, not only when we talk about the infrastructure bank, for instance, this is not the way to go for Canada. This is not the way to build infrastructure. It is not value for money for Canadians. There are better ways of doing it. I have tried to highlight some of those. Not only is this not the right direction, but it does not even get us in the direction the Liberals promised they would go in the last election. On all counts, Canadians should stand opposed to the bill. I know we will.

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 third time and passed.

Intergovernmental Relations

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to Bill C-44, I am pleased to inform the member that infrastructure projects in Quebec and every other province will comply with all applicable laws, in this case, Quebec's laws. That is important to us, and the projects will comply with the law at all times.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister blows hot and cold when it comes to Quebec. After telling Philippe Couillard to take a hike, he now wants Quebeckers to feel more at home in Canada. The last time a Trudeau risked his neck for change, he sent the Quebec nation into exile.

Will the Prime Minister finally respond to the Quebec National Assembly's unanimous resolution asking him to respect Quebec's laws and change Bill C-44?

Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance for her speech. I am not sure that people in her riding of Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe are happy with the budget. Contrary to what she claims, this budget does not do anything for the ordinary Canadians who work hard every day and keep this country going. This budget helps the interest groups that make up the Liberal Party of Canada's electoral base.

I find it ironic that the parliamentary secretary thanked the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance for its hard work in analyzing the 2017 budget implementation bill, since it is quite likely that the other place will ask that the infrastructure bank provisions be removed from this omnibus bill. We have many questions and concerns about the infrastructure bank, questions that have gone unanswered during question period and in committee.

The infrastructure bank protects the investments of private investors to the detriment of Canadian taxpayers. That is ironic since private companies pride themselves on taking risks. Entrepreneurs are the ones who have the moxie to take risks. They have the expertise, the ideas, the innovate spirit, and the courage needed to do things that way. Canadians are already paying taxes to keep the country running. It is not their responsibility to protect private sector investments. That is one of the things that we find worrisome about this bill.

What is more, the government has taken $15 billion away from community infrastructure projects to fund this new bank, a measure that my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent has decried before. He has said that the communities in Quebec's regions will not get any support from the infrastructure bank because it deals only with projects worth over $100 million. Rimouski or Baie-Comeau cannot afford a $100-million arena.

In reality, this bank will serve only the interests of big cities and those that have been especially selected on the basis of the votes for the Liberal Party in 2015. That was my opening statement.

The parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance had the audacity to say that it was a budget for people, for Canadians, when it is the complete opposite. Bill C-44, like the 2016 budget, targets Liberal interest groups, “post-national” interest groups that have very specific goals and that resort to the Supreme Court to argue their political positions instead of going through the House. This time, they certainly have the government’s ear, and their political demands are being heard loud and clear, because this budget does nothing but meet their needs.

There is something else that makes me extremely uncomfortable. The title of the budget is “Building a Strong Middle Class”. What it should have been is “building a strong country for everyone”.

Of course we want a strong middle class; I understand that, but I put myself in the shoes of millions of Canadians who are going to look at their pay and wonder whether they belong to the middle class. It is an open secret in Canadian politics that the Liberal government always talks about the middle class because most people want to be able to feel that the middle class includes them, even if they may not really be part of it, based on their income. It is a trick, a catch-all, but people subconsciously hear that the Liberals are working for the members of one class only, and not for all Canadians.

In my opinion, Bill C-44, which would implement budget 2017, does not really reflect Canada’s structural needs, both current and future. It is a bill that amends certain measures and sprinkles money here and there. There is really no overarching vision when it comes to the direction the country is going in. It is really an ideological, vote-seeking budget plan. What it actually offers is deficits and highly targeted expenditures to please a few interest groups. I will name some of them. I note in passing that these interest groups have all the right in the world to exist, but they should be not be the priority in a budget. The priority should be all Canadians in general.

This budget focuses on NGOs, groups that generate media interest, various civil society groups, and academic elites—the number of research chairs has grown. All universities are receiving incredible amounts of money. That is fine for research, but here again, that is not what helps average Canadians.

Next are the urban and financial elites, the environmentalists, the “post-nationalists”, who pretend that there is no culture or common ground in Canada, that French Canadians do not exist, and that they are just one group among many.

Then there are the civil liberties groups. The groups of litigants who have been going to the Supreme Court since 1982 to get preferential rights, to circumvent the House, to get faster decisions that change the course of Canadian politics in their favour. There are the anti-globalists, the social engineers who think that by changing social policy they will be able to make things better. They are doing it for purely ideological reasons without really stopping to think about the potential consequences of their actions, which are based on a world view rather than on rational facts and most importantly on a desire to help all Canadians.

What I am essentially saying is that Bill C-44 does not meet Canada’s continental challenges, the North American challenges we face on the economic, military, and social fronts. The bill also fails to meet the international economic, military, social, and even environmental challenges we are facing.

Since the end of the 1990s, we have been living in a highly competitive world. More than ever, the west, including Canada, is slowing down. We are seeing the emergence of new world powers, the BRICS we all know about, namely Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. There is also Nigeria, with the largest population in Africa and an economy that is increasingly important in Africa and the world.

With their economic growth, their increasing military importance, and their now enormous populations—the countries I named easily represent half of the world’s population—these emerging countries want energy resources. In spite of what they may say in their speeches at the United Nations, they want cars, they want to be consumers, they want oil, they want to be mobile, and they want a western lifestyle. For the last 20 years, and this is certainly a good thing, we have seen a growing transfer of wealth from north to south. This is undoubtedly a consequence of the decolonization of the 1950s and 1960s. It is to be expected and it is a good thing.

However, we need a government like the previous Conservative government that understands international geopolitics and understands the major economic challenges that lie ahead. The economic crisis of 2007-08 was undeniably terrible and was perhaps the harbinger of other things to come.

There is a certain impoverishment happening in Canada, perhaps not so much for people, but in terms of infrastructure. For example, our icebreakers are completely obsolete, our highways in the Maritimes need repair, and our ports and airports should be updated, particularly Beauport 2020 in Quebec City, which really needs investments.

Sometimes I get the impression that Canada does not realize that it is losing ground in terms of its international role as an economic and diplomatic driver.

There is also the North American context. The United States is suffering from the emergence of the BRICS countries. That is one of the reasons why the current president was elected. Americans are extremely worried because 20 million people are unemployed in the U.S. Isolationism is taking hold again. The media talks about this as though it were a new phenomenon, but on the contrary, isolationism re-emerges in the U.S. roughly every 50 years.

In this isolationist context, there will be major tax cuts in the United States for businesses and individuals. This political context is reactionary on economic, social, military, and diplomatic levels. It is not up to us to decide whether this is good or bad. The Americans will develop their economic isolationism.

I see that in Bill C-44, which would implement budget 2017, the Liberal government does not seem to explain how we are going to deal with this new North American reality or how we are going to make sure that Canadian companies are competitive in the face of American isolationism and a less porous border that allows for less trade. Trade between Canada and the United States is worth $2 billion a day, so that is pretty significant. These isolationist American reactions, which will last at least three years and a few months, are going to have very significant effects on Canada, but we are not hearing the Liberals talk about this.

We are also seeing a Canadian context taking shape before our eyes. The economic health of the federation has been going downhill for two years. For example, we are astonished to see that the Liberals never talk about the significant loss of economic growth in Alberta and the major job losses for Albertans. They also do not talk about the employment problems in the Atlantic provinces. They do not talk about the importance of Montreal and Quebec City. Simply put, we are not hearing them really talk about the role of each province in our country’s economic unity.

For example, we have been telling them for several months now that it is incomprehensible that there is no free trade between the provinces in Canada, when it is right there in the Constitution. That is why we have asked them to make a reference to the Supreme Court to have the judges interpret the Constitution as it is written, and give us a definitive judgment that sets out, in black and white, that we should have free trade among the provinces. That would certainly help our businesses everywhere in Canada.

There is a real need to complete major projects for the next 100 years. Once again, this budget tell us about building a strong middle class, but it does not contain any major projects that will ensure there will be even more wealth creation in 50 years. All the interest groups that the Liberals favour in their platform and their budget are systematically opposed to any long-term major projects.

I always like to take the example of the premier of Quebec, Mr. Bourassa, who created gigantic hydro-electric projects in the 1970s, dams such as had never been seen in the history of humanity. Recently, the record was topped by a dam in China, but until very recently, we had the biggest dams in the world in Quebec. That means that today, we in Canada and Quebec are the ones who pay the lowest prices for electricity. That is one of the few things that we pay the lowest prices for, but because of that, we have a healthy welfare state in Quebec and services that are overall quite adequate.

What is there in Canada at present, however, that guarantees that in 50 years—I will still be here if I am lucky—our children and grandchildren will enjoy rising wealth? There is nothing in this bill that guarantees us that, because it focuses only on the present moment and aims simply to please vote-getting groups that make up the Liberal voting base, which is slowly but surely crumbling.

According to my own and my Conservative colleagues’ analysis, Bill C-44 shows that the Liberals are working for the financial elite of the infrastructure bank of Canada and the social elites who want to make major policy changes, not to create jobs, but to suit their own world view. There is nothing there for working people, however. That is why the Conservative opposition has a moral and political obligation to be the voice of taxpayers in the House.

As I said in the House yesterday, we might be better off talking about the responsibilities of citizenship, the Canadian Armed Forces, and how we can serve our country. Instead, we have no choice but to talk about the importance of lowering taxes and creating jobs because those two things are in peril under this government.

Taxes keep going up. This year alone, Canadians' tax burden is going up by nearly $5 billion. That includes taxes on public transit, carpooling, beer and wine, also known as the Friday and Saturday night tax, medication, child care, small business owners, oil and gas companies, which represent millions of jobs in Canada, and tourism. That is a very long list of taxes, and the government is breaking one promise after another.

Worse still is the $29-billion deficit, which has nothing to do with economic conditions. Unlike the deficit at the time of the 2007-08 economic crisis, this deficit has nothing to do with a need to stimulate the economy and create jobs. This deficit exists because the government wanted its budget to cater to the needs of the interest groups I mentioned at the beginning of my speech. Plus, these deficits have no end date.

This is the first time that we have a Canadian finance minister who is incapable of answering a simple question: when does he plan to eliminate Canada's fiscal deficit? Will it be in 2017, 2018, 2020, 2030, or 2040? He has no idea. He does not take the economy as seriously as he should.

It is important to remind Canadians that the deficit has exploded over the past two years. Through words and actions alike, the Liberal government is creating budgets to take money away from taxpayers and spread it around to certain special interest groups, rather than all Canadians. The government is trying to divide Canadians by saying that it is working for the middle class, and not for everyone else. It has no overall vision for Canada, particularly when it comes to continental and international challenges. In addition, it keeps introducing outdated bills in the House, like the one to raise the salary of ministers of state.

They should be focusing on more important matters. I am sure you are also concerned about this, Mr. Speaker, but you can rest assured. Until 2019, we will continue to stand up for Canadian taxpayers every day, until midnight if necessary, and we will make sure that this government does not win another term, so that 60 years from now, Canada will not reflect this terrible mismanagement.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, again, I thank my colleague for the question and its sub-questions.

I want to address the question of the omnibus bill. First, in our campaign platform, in 2015, we were clear that we would not use omnibus bills excessively. All the measures included in Bill C-44 are tax measures, measures that are very important for Canadians. We in no way took advantage of the bill to hide other bills that we wanted to introduce. That is my answer to the first question.

Second, the infrastructure bank will help Canadians across the country. Many communities will be able to use it for transformative projects. As far as the smaller municipalities are concerned, they will have access to money that is invested, that is set aside for these projects.

Again, the previous government under-invested in infrastructure for a decade. We are making historic investments to secure these projects, an investment of over $180 million over 12 years.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague that the Liberals roundly criticized the Conservatives when they introduced omnibus bills that contained many bills in one. On top of that, the Liberals have imposed a second time allocation motion to cut the debate short. My Bloc Québécois colleague pointed out again this morning how appalling it is that so few members have an opportunity to speak. Only one NPD member will be allowed to speak today on the most important bill of the session, Bill C-44 on the budget. This is completely undemocratic. The Liberals used to scream till they were blue in the face about how undemocratic this is.

Here is my question. The member said that this bill will help the middle class. In addition to the 30 acts that it will amend, this bill also creates an infrastructure privatization bank. Municipalities like the ones in my riding of Salaberry—Suroît, municipalities like Rivière-Beaudette, Elgin, and Ormstown, will not be able to afford infrastructure projects worth $100,000 or more and will therefore not have access to this privatization bank. Projects that are supposed to be for communities, for the middle class, but are funded by private companies that want to turn a profit will never be within their reach.

How can the hon. member say that this is for the middle class, that it is good for everyone, and that it is democratic?

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak today about the budget implementation act, also known as Bill C-44. Passage of the bill would implement the next chapter of the government's plan to strengthen the economy and grow the middle class. It would allow the government to continue making the necessary targeted investments that would create jobs, grow the economy, and provide more opportunities for Canadians.

A strong and growing middle class is the engine of our economy, and truly it is our highest priority.

When we were elected, we promised Canadians that we would make middle class families our priority and that is what we have done. We began by asking the wealthiest 1% to pay a bit more so that we could give a tax cut to the middle class. We then introduced the new Canada child benefit. This non-taxable benefit is much simpler, more generous, and better targeted to those who need it than the former system, the universal child care benefit.

We then reached a historic agreement with the provinces to help people retire with more dignity, by strengthening the Canada pension plan. We went even further to support Canadian families by investing $6 billion over 10 years for home care and $5 billion over 10 years for support for mental health initiatives. With the passage of Bill C-44, the government would provide funding for the first year for home care and mental health services to provinces and territories that have accepted the federal offer of $11 billion over the next 10 years.

The steps we have taken to date are having a real, positive impact on our economy and on Canadians as a whole.

The steps we would be taking through Bill C-44 would have a positive impact on our parliamentary budget officer, also known as the PBO. Our government is committed to openness and transparency. That is why we have taken steps to strengthen the PBO in ways to make the office truly independent. Bill C-44 would recast the head of the PBO as an officer of Parliament, supported by a team that was separate from the Library of Parliament, with the authority to report directly to Parliament. It would expand the PBO's right to access government information and would give the office a new mandate to provide costing platform proposals during elections so that voters could make informed decisions based on an independent financial analysis.

The government believes that the work of the PBO is fundamental to Parliament's ability to debate and to consider the economic and fiscal considerations of the day. That is why we listened and took action when we heard that more could be done to further strengthen the PBO's independence. The government took action by introducing 12 amendments to Bill C-44 at the House of Commons finance committee that would further strengthen the mandate of the PBO. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the members of the committee, in both this place and on the Senate side, for the work they did and also for the collaboration in improving this legislation. It was through their efforts and those amendments that were brought forward that we found broad support. In fact, The Globe and Mail reported that “The government has placed Canada’s PBO on strong legislative footing.”

I want to turn now to some major elements of Bill C-44, starting with a priority I know members of this House broadly support. One of the best ways we can bring confidence back to the middle class is by investing in public infrastructure to build stronger communities.

These days, governments around the world are facing a challenge. They have to figure out how to finance and build huge public works projects that are efficient, dynamic, affordable, and, most importantly, long-lasting.

This is why the government has laid out a historic plan to invest more than $180 billion in infrastructure over the next 12 years. This investment will be unprecedented in Canadian history and will come at a time when we need it most. However, no level of government can accomplish this ambitious infrastructure goal alone. The Government of Canada will invest in a historic infrastructure plan, so we set our sights on a new kind of partnership, the kind that can leverage the strength of private sector investors and put their skills, talent, and capital to work for Canadians.

Bill C-44 would enact the Canada infrastructure bank act, which would establish the new Canada infrastructure bank as a crown corporation. The bank would amplify federal investments by bridging private sector and institutional investors at the table. Through this new bank, we would work with our partners to build world-class infrastructure that would transform communities, create good jobs, and build a stronger and greener economy. By establishing a new organization capable of working with the private sector where it makes sense, public dollars would go further and be used in a smarter, more targeted manner, transforming communities with projects that would not otherwise be built without the bank. To this end, the bank would only make investments in infrastructure projects that were in the public interest. I have to underline that. The bank would work with partners to determine whether projects were suitable candidates, including whether project sponsors were willing to consider robust revenue models and partnering with private investors in a new way. As a result, we would see more innovative approaches for large and transformational types of projects, and we would build more of them.

The bank would also have strong governance protocols for accountability and risk management. The bank would be structured as an arm's-length corporation.

Despite being at arm's length, the Canada infrastructure bank will be accountable to the government and Parliament through an appropriate minister. The bank will be required to seek government approval for its business plan every year and submit its annual report to Parliament. It will also be accountable to the Auditor General and a private sector auditor, which is the highest accountability standard applicable to crown corporations.

In addition, the minister responsible and Parliament will undertake a five-year review of the bank's enabling legislation and its implementation.

The government would be responsible for setting the overall policy direction and high-level investment priorities. In addition, the bank would work with all orders of government as well as investors to identify the pipeline of potential projects and potential investment opportunities.

With the Canada infrastructure bank, Canadians will enjoy the advantage of transformational infrastructures built to meet their needs and that help their communities thrive.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Senate for its thorough prestudy of Bill C-44, which the government followed with close interest, particularly as it pertained to the Canada infrastructure bank. I would like to thank Senator Harder and the government representatives in the Senate, as well as Senator Woo, the independent senator sponsoring this legislation. They have done tremendous work.

The scrutiny and the in-depth study that the Senate applied to Bill C-44 has been an important element in our parliamentary process. Their work has informed our deliberation by providing us with the benefits of independent legislative review during the course of the House proceedings. Senators, including independents and Senate Liberals and Conservatives, raised issues that the government has, as a result, given additional consideration and careful consideration.

In the case of infrastructure bank, the Minister of Finance was pleased to appear on May 31 to answer questions from the Senate Standing Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce. I would like to recognize the work of this committee, and its members as well, who went above and beyond to study this legislation. Once again, it was a job very well done.

Again, I would like to thank the Senate for the benefit of its prestudy, and note for the record that this scrutiny has informed the government's deliberation in advance of Bill C-44's passage.

Beyond all of the bricks and mortar, people really are at the heart of our plan. Last year, the government held broad-based consultations on how to improve the labour market transfer agreements, including the labour market development agreements.

One of the main messages we heard during the consultation is that these agreements have to be more flexible and do a better job of taking into account the diverse needs of employers and Canadians.

That is why we are planning to reform these agreements together with the provinces and territories.

This reform will ensure that more Canadians get the assistance they need to find and keep good jobs in the new economy, and build better lives for themselves and their families. We want to help Canadians get the training they need so that their first job is a great job, and their next job is an even better one. That is why we are taking steps to help working parents, who must balance the demands of raising a family while managing their own career needs in this time of transition.

Bill C-44 would allow parents to choose to receive El parental benefits over an extended period of time, up to 18 months, at a lower benefit rate of 33% of the average weekly earnings. It also proposes to do more to provide greater flexibility to pregnant working women, giving them the option of claiming El maternity benefits up to 12 weeks before their due date, expanded from the current standard of eight weeks, if they choose to do so.

Budget 2017 also takes action to support those who have put their lives on the line to make Canada a safe and secure place to live. Our women and men in uniform deserve a successful transition to civilian life.

First, we will create a new education and training benefit. This benefit will provide more money for veterans to go to college, university, or take a technical course at a technical school after they complete their service. Under the program, as of April 2018, veterans with six years of eligible service would be entitled to up to $40,000 of benefits, while veterans with more than 12 years of eligible service would be entitled to up to $80,000 of benefits. That is tremendous. This legislation will also facilitate the redesign of the career transition services program.

This program will equip veterans, Canadian Armed Forces members, survivors, and veterans' spouses and common-law partners with the tools they need to successfully navigate and transition to the civilian workforce. The services offered would be expanded to include coaching and job placement, starting in April 2018, all of which would be provided through a national contractor.

Finally, Bill C-44 will provide very generous assistance to family caregivers in recognition of the essential role they play in helping ill and injured veterans. This tax-free monthly benefit will replace the existing family caregiver relief benefit and will be paid directly to family caregivers.

I want to stress that we understand that the job is not yet done and more needs to be done.

Veterans and stakeholders have told us that the existing suite of programs is complex and difficult to navigate, and that is simply not good enough. We intend to take additional action to streamline and simplify the system of financial support programs currently offered to veterans over the coming months. This is certainly a priority for this government. That will include fulfilling our commitment to re-establishing lifelong pensions as an option for injured veterans, so that veterans and their families can decide for themselves which form of compensation works best for them.

Also, recognizing that all families, military or not, must sometimes become caregivers to their relatives, the government has announced a new Canada caregiver credit program. Bill C-44 proposes to simplify the existing tax support for caregivers by replacing three credits with a single new credit.

This new non-refundable tax credit will provide better support to those who need it. It will go to family caregivers regardless of whether they live with the family member they care for, and it will help families with caregiving duties.

The new Canada caregiver credit will provide tax relief of an amount of $6,883 in 2017 in respect of care of dependent relatives with infirmities, including persons with disabilities, which includes parents, brothers, sisters, adult children, and any other specific relative. It will be $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.

To conclude, the bill before us has concrete measures to move Canada forward, grow our economy, and create good jobs.

However, we can do more, and we will do more to help the middle class and those working hard to join it. We will ensure that economic growth helps all Canadians, not just the wealthy, and we will help families build a brighter future for their children and grandchildren.

I urge all members to support this bill and to work with us on those portions of it that could benefit from our own views and ideas, so that at the end of the day we meet the high standards and expectations that Canadians have put on us.

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

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 third time and passed.

Rights of Non-Recognized Parties

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today we begin our last day of debate on Bill C-44, and all we have left is two hours and fifteen minutes.

We will not have an opportunity to speak at third reading because we are 34th in line at the eleventh hour of debate. I therefore submit to you that my parliamentary privilege has been violated. What had not yet happened three days ago is happening now. Time allocation is preventing a political party from speaking on a bill.

I would like to remind you that, last month, I raised a question of privilege about the government's plan to use more closure motions, thereby preventing members of non-recognized parties from participating in debate, stifling diversity of opinion, and basically bypassing the views and interests Bloc Québécois voters in what looks an awful lot like democracy denied.

In your ruling of June 6, 2017, you recognized that my concerns were legitimate:

The privilege of freedom of speech is undoubtedly the most important right accorded to members of this House.

However, you refused to fully endorse my arguments:

As the member's claims are more speculative in nature at this point, it would be premature and presumptive for the Chair to rule based on assumptions of what might transpire.

Well, now we are no longer speculating. Things that had not yet transpired three days ago are happening today. The Bloc Québécois will not be able to speak to Bill C-44, the budget implementation bill, the most important bill of the parliamentary session. However, the Bloc Québécois is the only party that caught one worrisome aspect of the bill.

By giving the infrastructure bank the status of agent of the crown, even on projects that are entirely private, Bill C-44 puts the financial sector above Quebec's laws. With the infrastructure bank, after an order of the government, agricultural zoning, environmental protections, and municipal bylaws will no longer apply. This raises serious constitutional issues.

For a private construction project to be exempt from Quebec law, an old colonial-inspired power must be invoked, namely, declaratory power, but that needs to be done by Parliament on a project-by-project basis. Bill C-44 therefore invokes the government's power over public property to federalize the bank's projects. However, we are not talking about public property. We are talking about private investors. Bill C-44 may be unconstitutional. The Quebec National Assembly is unanimously opposed to this bill and the Government of Quebec is prepared to challenge it in court.

I know what you are thinking, Mr. Speaker. You are thinking that I am raising a point of debate. You are partly right. This issue definitely deserves to be debated, but that debate will never happen because the Bloc Québécois, the only party to raise this issue, would not be able to participate because of the discriminatory rules of the House.

In your June 6 ruling, you said that you cannot go against the will of the House. I find that unfortunate, but I understand. That being said, it is not time allocation motions alone that exclude the Bloc Québécois and the Green Party from debate. It is time allocation motions and the fact that we are relegated to 34th place in the speaking order.

Mr. Speaker, the hypothetical question that was asked three days ago has become a reality today. I am asking you to find that my parliamentary privileges have been violated. I am asking you to review the speaking order for debates in the House to ensure that all points of view can be heard, despite the repeated gag orders. That is the basis of our democracy. I am asking that all parties, recognized or not, be able to speak in the House in the first round of speeches.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we will continue the debate we began this morning on the NDP opposition day motion.

This evening, we will return to Bill C-24, an act to amend the Salaries Act and to make a consequential amendment to the Financial Administration Act. Following that, we will begin second reading of Bill C-50 on political financing.

Tomorrow will be dedicated to debating Bill C-44 on the budget.

As for next week, our hope is to make progress on a number of bills, including Bill C-6 concerning citizenship; Bill C-50 respecting political financing; Bill C-49, transportation modernization; and Bill S-3, amendments to the Indian Act.

Finally, next Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday shall be allotted days.

As the member very well knows, I always look forward to working with all members. I look forward to continuing our conversation.

Infrastructure

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

Mr. Speaker, what do the former parliamentary budget officer, the former president of the Business Development Bank, the Quebec National Assembly, KPMG's internal report, and all members on this side of the House have in common? They have all spoken out against the infrastructure bank.

Will the Prime Minister and the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities finally make the right decision and remove the infrastructure bank from Bill C-44?

Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Pursuant to an order made on Tuesday, May 30, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions on the motions at report stage of Bill C-44.

The question is on Motion No. 1.

The House resumed from June 5 consideration of Bill C-44, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measures, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

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

Thank you very much.

Marc, first, I want to clear the record. You noted something about the GIS and the first time there was an increase in it. I know there have been multiple budgets prior to this budget where there have been increases, as well. So, I just want to clear the record on that.

I want to go back to looking at old age security and where the future is going to be. I fully recognize that our seniors need support now. We need palliative care. We need home care. We need a variety of cares for them, but we also need to look into the future.

Last night when I was speaking in the House of Commons regarding Bill C-44, I was talking about the debt servicing we have to do. Back in 2015-16, more than $62 billion was spent on servicing our debt. We know with the current government that there's going to be continuous debt loading on here, so we are going to see an increase, of course, in that $62.8 in 2015-16.

I recognize that there were many concerns about the increase of the age of eligibility for old age security from 65 to age 67. That is one thing that your government campaigned on and had people believe that this was the best thing. From my own experience, people of this generation thought their old age security was going to be taken away from them, although the changes to it wouldn't have started until 2023. They would still have had an impact on older sister, nonetheless, who is just 55 years of age now.

Let's look at the fact that we have to service all of this debt, spending out over $62.8 billion just in 2015-16. We know that in the future it is speculated that the ratio of seniors to workers is actually going to be two workers for every senior. How are we going to be able to continue to prioritize and have good services for all Canadians—education, health, etc.—without studying the impact of the old age security and looking at reviewing the age eligibility once again?

Is that something that you would consider in this study, knowing that a 2:1 ratio is expected in the next 12 to 15 years, and knowing the enormous debt we'll have in this country? I'm asking for the 46-year-olds of this country, like myself and Wayne.

I'm giving you a call-out there, Wayne. We know you're not 46.

I'm asking for future generations.

When we're looking at this, we have today's generation, but we also have future generations of seniors. What are you willing to do in this study? Are you willing to look increasing the old age security eligibility, knowing that these ratios are also going to be diminishing?

[André Léonard, Committee Researcher]

I'm not aware of it, but I know that under Bill C-44, the threshold that you were talking about is going to increase from $800 million to $1 billion. For transactions over that threshold there has to be a review by the Minister of Industry.

I've done some research on that before. Since the act has been in existence, only one demand that was over the threshold was refused, and I think that was in 2009.

Taxation

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise tonight to speak on a related issue to Bill C-44 that we spoke about today in the budget discussions. Tonight I want to speak specifically about the deferred cash ticket purchase system that farmers in western Canada have used for generations to help manage their affairs. This was tucked away in the Liberals' latest budget in the early pages. It is one of those areas where they said they will not do it immediately, but they would have some discussions as to whether they should take it away. I am raising this issue, as I did in question period six weeks ago, because it is a management tool that farmers can use.

The current cash purchase ticket system helps farmers to stabilize their income from year to year. It means that if they can sell a product at harvest, they can defer that income into the next fiscal year and thereby help them in their tax planning. It looks upfront that the only person who would benefit would be that farmer, but that is certainly not the case. I used this management tool for all the years that I farmed and it was available. By balancing out the type of income that the farmers have on an annual basis, it helps to have a cash flow in a whole community. Therefore, it helps farmers to manage their time in regard to when they would hire, the purchase of fertilizer, purchasing their farm inputs, and perhaps even making decisions in regard to the necessity to hire others to help them take off their crop, depending on the weather.

No one wants to store grain in a damp condition, so they would hire a custom combiner, as an example, to get that into the bin in a dry state. That is important. If we take away the deferred cash tickets, some of this grain being forced to be held instead of being sold upfront might deteriorate to the point of spoilage in the bins. I think that is something that the government has not taken into consideration in making this decision. It has looked at a bottom line item and decided it needs to cut somewhere. This is a change that is not going to impact the government. From a tax perspective, they will still get the same amount of tax every year, it is just that they may not get a whole lump sum this year and then have a smaller amount next year. This helps to level that out. It is a management tool that the government could use as well, in its tax preparations and in the budget for Canada.

It is a win-win for everyone. The government puts dollars into things like crop insurance and other areas of growing forward on a regular basis anyway. This is one that it does not have to support very much, and it does not really impact the government at all. If it is not broken, why try to fix it, is the analogy that many farm groups are talking to me about in this regard. This is at a time when we are already discussing what growing forward 3 will look like as an agricultural program for safety to the future of our farm community.

Government also helps by putting trade on the line, and having trade agreements that help to even out the flow of our products. One of the roles that the government could play is to make sure that we have trade opportunities. This is important in this area because at times a particular grain company may require a certain kind of grain and—

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-44.

“Pleased” is perhaps a bit of an exaggeration because I do not really know where to begin talking about Bill C-44, which is 290 pages long and affects about 30 different acts and some 450 sections.

As the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance, I have had the privilege of spending several hours examining the bill and even doing a clause-by-clause study. I would have liked to speak to the House about several aspects of the bill, but I will focus on just a couple. I will speak about those aspects I believe are the most important ones to address in today’s debate. I will be trying to persuade my colleagues on all sides of the House to support the amendments proposed here at the report stage. These are mostly to remove some of the bill’s provisions that we believe are bad.

We are not alone in thinking this; sometimes, even the Conservatives agree with us on this. The Bloc Québécois and the Green Party also proposed amendments at committee, and once again, at the report stage, they have tried to improve, if that is possible, Bill C-44 by removing some of the more highly problematic parts that witnesses repeatedly brought to the committee’s attention. I will therefore speak to the House about some of these issues.

First, although I decry the length of the bill, I must say that I am very disappointed, as the national revenue critic for the NDP. I myself have asked the Minister of National Revenue several times in the House about combatting tax evasion. I have urged her to act on the issue of combatting tax evasion. Unfortunately, Bill C-44 would have been a good opportunity to introduce a few meaningful measures to fight tax evasion, measures that were even in the motion we recently put forward, I believe in March. This motion, which aimed to more effectively combat tax evasion, received the Liberal government’s support and was adopted by the House.

After the vote that took place on March 8, I think, one could have hoped for a follow-up on these commitments in the budget, on March 22, especially through a cap on stock options for corporate CEOs. It would have been a good way, through this bill, to combat tax evasion and make sure that each and everyone pays their fair share. Nevertheless, it was completely excluded from the bill, and I was very disappointed when I first read Bill C-44. It is a missed opportunity to do more on that front.

While the government refuses to act against tax evasion in Bill C-44, it is cancelling the public transit tax credit, although this is in no way a means of tax evasion. A total of $250 million went back to the 1.5 million Canadian taxpayers who benefited from the public transit tax credit. Public transit users kept their receipts and, at the end of the year, applied to the government for a refund of part of their transit costs. Although Canadian public transit users—and therefore not the wealthiest—were getting back 250 million dollars, they were told that, since the tax credit was not important, not meaningful, and dit not meet its objectives, it had to be cancelled. On the other hand, tax loopholes for corporate CEOs are being kept. I saw that as completely nonsensical.

I have not even mentioned the increase in numerous fees and taxes contained in the bill. Because I will run out of time, I will mention only the increase in excise duties. I know my colleagues talked about it earlier today, but I want to point out that witnesses all agreed that the increase in excise duties is simply excessive.

Not only are they unfairly increasing them in the budget, but what is more, they will increase each year based on the consumer price index indefinitely. This was condemned by industry stakeholders who obviously see that as a danger for their industry. This is understandable, because it will never stop. Raising excise duties means higher costs for microbreweries, microdistilleries, and vintners of all sizes.

This is certainly something that should be removed from the bill, and the Liberal members will soon have a chance to do so, when we vote later on amendments, at the report stage. I encourage them to remove this aspect from the bill.

I am also asking them to remove another aspect of the bill that has gone somewhat unnoticed, but was also raised in committee, which is the elimination of the exemption for insurers of farming and fishing property. They were eligible for a tax exemption for good reasons, because in the past, farming and fishing businesses had trouble getting their property insured. That is why mutual insurance companies were created. These companies were entitled to an exemption if they kept a certain number of policyholders, who were fishers and farmers.

However, once again, the government is saying that this tax exemption is not significant and absolutely needs to go. However, I will point out that this bill leaves CEOs' stock options untouched.

This is in addition to the changes concerning the parliamentary budget officer, whom I had the chance to talk about a little earlier. We have to admit that the government completely missed the mark on this one. People came to committee to testify about it. There was the current parliamentary budget officer, the previous parliamentary budget officer, Mr. Page, and other subject matter experts. They all condemned the amateurish approach of the government, which introduced woefully inadequate amendments regarding the parliamentary budget officer.

Thank goodness the Liberals saw the light and passed a few amendments even though they rejected all of the opposition's amendments, as usual. At least they admitted to a bad job. The public servants who testified before us had a hard time defending the bill and justifying why they did not consult anyone before introducing it, not even the current or former parliamentary budget officer. It was very clear that they did not consult anyone before moving the amendments and that they had to pick up the pieces in committee. What a fine example of Liberal amateurism. What came to us in committee was a fait accompli, a poorly thought-out and poorly written bill condemned by those it affected most. In this case, that was the parliamentary budget officer.

The other subject that captured the committee's attention was the infrastructure bank. I know that several of my colleagues mentioned this in their speeches, but the infrastructure bank and its mission are ill-conceived. We are talking about revenue-generating infrastructure. The Liberals never mentioned this before. I asked a departmental official what it meant, and he clearly said that it meant tolls and user fees. How else is infrastructure supposed to make a profit? We are going to see tolls popping up all across Canada.

In committee, I moved a motion to include wording about the infrastructure bank from the Liberal Party platform in the budget implementation bill, but my motion was rejected. The Liberals did not approve their very own words about the infrastructure bank's mission. This is clear evidence that the Liberals cannot keep their promises to Canadians. The infrastructure bank is a good example of that because the only people who are going to benefit are the Liberals' friends.

Since my time has expired, I will be very glad to answer questions from my colleagues on anything which might be of interest to them in Bill C-44.

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-44, budget implementation act, 2017, No. 1.

We have heard from many members in this House about the numerous issues with the bill. When we have a bill that is over 300 pages long and amends 30 pieces of legislation, we really need to have a substantial amount of debate on these issues.

Unfortunately, the Liberals have been intent on ramming through this legislation without proper consultation and the discussion it deserves. There have been only four days of debate on Bill C-44 at second reading. There have been only six meetings of the finance committee on this legislation and just under two hours of consideration at the Standing Committee on Transport and Infrastructure. Now here we are at report stage, one of the final stages of the bill that amends 30 pieces of legislation, and the Liberals have moved time allocation again. This is simply not enough time to do our due diligence when it comes to making sure that we are passing the best piece of legislation we can.

I want to speak to one part of Bill C-44 in particular that really highlights the need for discussion and debate, and that is division 18, which creates the infrastructure bank of Canada act.

As the official opposition critic for infrastructure and communities, I have been following the Liberal process of creating their infrastructure bank since November 2015. I have raised concerns about the design of the bank, the need for the bank, the functions of the bank, and who will be benefiting from the bank. While Bill C-44 offers new details about the structure and the financing of the bank, it also introduces a multitude of new questions. I was looking forward to really beginning to drill down into this piece of legislation to make sure that the $35 billion of taxpayers' money spent to finance this bank would be spent in a way that would ensure that Canadians and communities were getting the critical pieces of infrastructure they need.

Unfortunately, the Liberals allowed only two hours of study of this legislation at the Standing Committee on Transport and Infrastructure. I know that when they were questioned by the media as to why there was so little time given to members to study such an important piece of legislation, the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities told the media that the committee could hold more meetings if it chose to and that the minister and the PMO were not involved in telling the committee what to do.

A motion was put forward at the transport committee to add two more meetings on this legislation and to bring in more expert witnesses who could speak to the development of the legislation and its impact on the future of Canadian infrastructure and communities. The Liberal MPs voted that motion down and blocked any further study of this legislation. The committee discussed a $35-billion bank in under two hours. That is 3.42 minutes per billion dollars. We called for this section of Bill C-44 to be separated from the rest of the bill to allow the House more time to debate it, and of course, the Liberals voted that down as well.

The Senate is now considering separating the legislation from the rest of the bill, because it too recognizes that this bank will have a significant impact on Canadians and has serious issues that really do need to be addressed. As Bill C-44 comes before the Senate, I really hope that the upper chamber will do what this House refuses to do, and that is to separate the legislation for the infrastructure bank so we can give it the proper study and discussion it deserves.

I also want to highlight some of the issues surrounding the bank. The Liberal infrastructure bank will use $35 billion of taxpayers' money to underwrite loans and provide loan guarantees to private and foreign investors.

These investors are looking for significant returns. J.P. Morgan put out a list, and depending on the project, it ranges anywhere from a 7% to 20% return on the investment. That means that investment will only occur for large, lucrative projects. Few municipalities in Canada will have their projects built through this bank.

Another troubling aspect of this legislation is that executives from BlackRock, the world's largest investment firm, were invited to be directly involved in the development of the legislation and to preview the minister's speech before the bank was pitched to their clients. That is a blatant conflict of interest.

This legislation gives the Liberals the power to provide loan guarantees to investors. We already have PPP Canada, which has been in operation since 2009. This crown corporation was specifically designed to leverage private sector dollars to build infrastructure. From the initial investment of $1.3 billion, it has leveraged over $6 billion in infrastructure in an open, transparent, ethical, and effective way.

If the Liberals had actually put the $35 billion into PPP Canada and expanded its mandate, PPP Canada could have leveraged $170 billion in infrastructure. In fact, in the KPMG report, which was commissioned by the Liberals, it advised them on setting up the infrastructure bank. It stated that putting the bank under an existing agency, like PPP Canada, would have been cheaper, more efficient, and less bureaucratic than setting up a whole new crown corporation. However, the Liberals ignored that expert advice and decided to set up a new institution that has significant conflict of interest issues surrounding it.

Furthermore, pension plan investors, the very same ones the Liberals claim are supportive of this bank and will benefit from this bank, are also raising concerns. The Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan board told the Senate banking committee last month, on May 18, that their biggest concern with this bank is that they do not know who they should be negotiating with. Are they negotiating with the bank or are they negotiating with cabinet?

The minister and cabinet underwrite the loans, appoint the board of directors, and approve the CEO. They can fire these people without cause, and according to the Minister of Finance, will have the final say over which projects get built and which do not.

We simply need to have more time to debate these issues. Canadians have questions for this Liberal government about this bank and its relevance, about how the legislation was written and by whom, and about who will truly benefit. It is obvious that the Liberals do not want these questions to be answered, because they have rammed this legislation through the House and committee with minimal debate, and today they have just moved time allocation to shut down third reading debate as well.

This legislation has not been passed yet, and the Liberals are already advertising job postings for the CEO and board members. I truly urge my colleagues to stop and think, because we need to be putting Canadians first and making sure that our communities are getting the infrastructure they need, not focusing on making sure that private investors are getting their 20% returns at the expense of Canadian taxpayers.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here tonight to debate Bill C-44, the budget implementation act. I thought I would start my speech by laying out a little context, at least from my perspective, about how the finance minister and the industry minister have it wrong, and how some other members I have heard speak here tonight have it wrong. They talked about economic growth. They talked about their last two budgets, their plan for the economy and how it is working so well, and that they have this terrific economic growth.

One thing we would agree on is that the economy is growing. What we would disagree on is why that economy is growing. In a $2 trillion economy, the budget they have put forward and so heavily back loaded has not moved the dial at all. What has moved the dial for the Canadian economy is a strong U.S. economy, a low Canadian dollar, and strong consumer spending, basically around the housing industry, which is by and large completely financed by debt.

If we read any economic publication about economic growth, we would see no mention of the Prime Minister nor the finance minister's plan, and definitely nothing about the Liberal Party of Canada. Those are the facts. We are lucky. We all root for a good economy, but we have to be realistic about why we have strong economic growth.

The other points where I would like to lay out some context is that in spite of that strong economic growth, the numbers have been revised from where they were before. They were pegged around an annualized rate at 4.1%, which is way up from a couple of years ago, and certainly since last year, but they have been revised down to 3.7% annualized.

Other possibly troubling pieces in these economic numbers are inventories being back loaded, which they are currently, and that exports to the United States have slipped mildly. The annualized rate now, which everyone is projecting realistically to be 2.2%, not surprisingly, is behind the United States in economic growth.

Everyone in this room should know that when the U.S. economy goes well, we do well. When the U.S. economy goes bad, we do not do so well. There are 75% of our exports going to the United States, so it is no surprise. Exports to the United States were up 5.4% in April, and we will see where it goes for the rest of the year.

Another troubling fact that all parliamentarians should have, and Canadians in a broader sense should have, is that if we compare the deficits that we experienced in 2009, 2010, and 2011, for example, it was in the midst of the worst economic downturn since the great depression. With the deficits that we have and the debt we are going to be accumulating over the next four years, for sure to 2019, but if the Liberals somehow manage to get re-elected in 2019, which is looking more doubtful every day, we are trending towards 2055 for deficit and debt repayment.

My point is that the deficits we are adding today are at a time of economic growth, at a time where the economy is actually moving well in the U.S. and here. It is a little less well with the other G7 countries, but it is not too bad. If we compare that to the times of 2009, 2010, and 2011, those were terrible times. It is never a good idea to accumulate debt while times are good. It is never a good idea to accumulate debt at any time.

I am from Ontario, and we have another big problem. Her first name is Kathleen. We have some problems. We have a lot of instability with some of the policies she has put forward. Her cousin Dalton caused us a lot of trouble too. We have had 13 years of provincial Liberal government in the province of Ontario. They have accumulated more debt than all the other provincial governments combined. They might get out of deficit at some point, but they have sold the furniture to pay off the short-term financial issues. We have electricity rates that are absolutely ridiculous, that businesses cannot afford, seniors on fixed income cannot afford, and low-income Ontarians cannot afford.

The province that I live in has the same leadership, with Gerald Butts and Katie Telford guiding the Prime Minister's ship in the same direction that the Province of Ontario has been going for the last 13 years. The only thing that is saving us at this point in time is the U.S. economy. We are thankful for its strength and we are thankful that it continues to buy our products. We are also thankful that our dollar is low relative to the U.S. dollar.

The minister of industry talks at great length about his superclusters and all the other stuff he is doing, but it has not moved the needle. The three western provinces are going to show the best growth and the best strength for our Canadian economy, and that is basically led by the oil and gas sector. As much as the Liberal government considers the words “oil” and “gas” as two dirty words that they do not like to use, the reality is that our economy is still successful with the sector, and as we heard from many of our colleagues, it is the most ethically produced oil and gas in the world.

Other members have talked about companies like Procter & Gamble that have announced it is going to be leaving Ontario. That is 500 good-paying jobs in a small city of 30,000. That is a devastating blow at a time when the U.S. is going to reduce taxes, is cutting regulations, and has a number of infrastructure announcements coming out this week that will lay the foundation for its growth.

Contrast that to what we are doing here in Canada where we are adding taxes. We heard about the excise tax. The government is adding other levies and fees. We are revisiting the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. We heard the Minister of Transport talking today about the navigable waters act. These are all things that will slow our progress, slow our growth. If the Liberals are in government long enough, we will once again be doing environmental assessments on cedar benches in national parks, which is what we were doing before we made those changes.

This has been brought up already, but if I heard it once in the last election, I must have heard it 500 times. I am talking about how the Liberals said they would never do omnibus bills. They said, “Not us, if we ever get in.” Bill C-44 that we are looking at tonight is as prolific as any omnibus bill before it. I am sure that if a student in political science anywhere across this country wanted to have a good look at what an omnibus bill is, that student need look no further than this piece of legislation.

The government House leader has said that everything in this legislation is about money. I guess at the end of the day, everything is about money, but that is not what the Liberals were talking about in the last election.

Another topic we have heard a lot about in the House of Commons, and which is a continuation of the anti-rural policies that the Liberals have, is the investment bank. The overall arching sweep of infrastructure money is $181 billion over the next 11 years. The slap in the face to rural Canadians, which I am one of, is that only $2 billion over 11 years is specifically allocated to rural Canada. It is pretty much a given that not $1 in the $35-billion infrastructure bank will go to rural Canadian towns and municipalities.

Canadians should also be concerned about the wording with respect to the infrastructure bank. I apologize if someone else has brought this up today, but it is that the investments may be made in Canada or “partly in Canada”. This basically means that our Canadian tax dollars, which should be going into building infrastructure in this country, can go toward building infrastructure in China, India, and many other places. That is not what Canadians view as an infrastructure bank when they are talking about it.

In addition, other parts in the briefing that was presented are with regard to a significant portion of the risk. The bank could take on debt that allows other debtors to be paid first in order to provide a loss buffer. Those are not words that Canadian taxpayers want to hear, and they are not words we want to hear, especially when Liberal cabinet members are the ones who will be picking the projects.

I have many more pages to go over here, so hopefully the Liberals will ask questions that pertain to what I have in the rest of my speech.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her contribution to the debate on Bill C-44.

I would like to touch on one of the first points she raised about higher excise taxes for wine makers, brewers, and distillers, which will certainly have an impact, as we learned in committee. All of the witnesses were unanimous on this, and it is rare to see unanimity on any issue in committee. All the witnesses agreed. They all said it would hurt the industry, especially since inflation will continue to rise and put added pressure on the industry.

Can my colleague tell us what impact this is having in her riding? Wine makers, brewers, and distillers are all doing their best to source local products. As everyone knows, land in the riding of Saint-Hyacinth—Bagot is very fertile.

Can my colleague comment on the impact this may have on farmers who supply the raw materials for the production of beer, wine, and spirits across Canada and especially in her riding?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his work on the Standing Committee on Finance. It is always a pleasure to work with him.

One of the subjects that he did not talk about but may wish to do so, is that of the parliamentary budget officer. At committee, we saw the minister and his officials defending the changes that affect the parliamentary budget officer. They seemed to have a hard time defending the various clauses of Bill C-44 that amend the mandate of the parliamentary budget officer as an institution. At committee, they even had to do some stopgap adjustments and damage control, if I can use that expression. All the Liberal members had a very hard time defending the bill's contents.

I would like my colleague to comment on how Bill C-44 was drafted and how hastily it seems to have been prepared. Unfortunately, this has resulted in a bill that is poorly written and poorly put together, and that had to be corrected by the Liberals.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in this place and speak to Bill C-44, the budget implementation act. They say that all politics is local and it is important as members of Parliament to look at budgets, as specifically tonight we are debating that, and how they affect local communities. I want to tell members about Battle River—Crowfoot, about the people, the problems, and perhaps the policies that are creating some of those problems.

My riding is predominantly a rural riding. Our largest centre has around 18,000 people, but it is just under 45,000 square kilometres of agriculture and a lot of natural resources. Gas and oil are abundant in the riding. Because of that, it is quite obvious that much of the constituency is hurting right now. Communities are hurting. We know what the oil prices have done, so these communities are legitimately hurting. Many of the people calling my office work in the oil patch, some even part time. Some are farmers who in the wintertime work with welding crews, service trucks, and service companies dealing with it, and there has been no work for many of them over the last number of years.

Let me also say that when we come to a point in time after a long winter, typically people understand that the time around a new budget should be a time of optimism, a time where we say how the government is going to address our current circumstances. After we toured our constituency before the last budget, people asked what I thought the budget would have that would affect our communities, so we sat and we explained and we waited. Sadly, when the budget came down, people realized there was very little for rural Alberta, very little that would help the oil and gas sector.

We had a Prime Minister and a provincial premier who said that the one initiative they could put forward would be a new carbon tax, a new level of taxation, a tax on everything. Wherever I went in my constituency, I did not hear any people say that this was a positive measure that would help them in their circumstances.

I want to tell members about two communities in my constituency, the community of Hanna and the community of Forestburg, two communities that are situated in a special part of Alberta. In one case, Hanna is right around the special areas. These communities have pasture and grain. It's cattle country, but it's also gas and oil country. The other interesting thing about Hanna is that it has a coal generating power plant. This is a community that has been told it will lose over 200 jobs because of the imminent closure of the Sheerness coal power plant.

Home prices are already being affected. Councils, mayors, and people are asking what to do next. What should they expect from the government? What are the alternatives they could bring in to help sustain their communities? There is nothing in the budget that will help sustain them and nothing coming from the province. There has been very little as far as alternative types of ideas for those communities.

The other one is the Battle River power plant in the community of Forestburg. People work there from all over the county, a number of counties, Paintearth, Flagstaff, undoubtedly Camrose. Again, a smaller community of about 800 people is being negatively affected, and very little in this budget will help them.

I stand in this place and I say that if politics is local, then they forgot a great amount of my constituency of Battle River—Crowfoot. They have no idea how to replace the hundreds of jobs in those communities, and they will be lost. Even if we went to natural gas generation instead of coal, the difference is over 200 jobs compared with 40 jobs.

There are problems. Let me say this. All through most of the time I have served, we have had an unemployment rate in my constituency of around 3%. It would go down to a little bit under 3% then go up to a little bit over 3%. Even during the recession it was remarkably low compared with other parts of Alberta and across the country. My constituency right now has the highest unemployment rate in Alberta. In the month of March, it was 9.9% unemployment. The statistics coming out for April say that we are down to 9.7%, but still, there are a lot of people unemployed who want to work.

What initiatives do we have? We have a government that tells us not to worry; it will help with EI. Yes, it will increase the premiums on employers and employees, but it will also see what it can do to help EI. The answer to these problems is not in more social programs or programs to help keep people on unemployment. It is to get people back to work, to help create jobs.

In the other part of my riding we have agriculture, which is under a large cloud since last fall, with crops being left out in the field over the winter. I can recall when I was about five years old going out with my dad in the spring just to combine a few acres of wheat that had been left out. I remember how bad that was and how sick it made us feel over those winter months knowing that we would be going out in snowdrifts or maybe in the spring.

Thousands or maybe tens of thousands of acres in my constituency were left out. What does the budget say about that? The budget says we will do a consultation to see if we can take away the cash deferral that farmers use. That means if they sell their grain in the fall, they can defer the payment for it until the spring or after January 1. It helps them manage a little bit their income for the year. It also helps with storage on their farm, and typically we have problems with delivery.

These are issues. It seems as though every time there is a problem in Alberta and in my riding, the answer to the gas and oil industry is a new carbon tax. The answer to the agriculture crisis is taking away cash deferrals. This budget does not talk about the things that the Conservative budgets talked about, like being balanced, like lowering taxes, like more support for small businesses. When we have more revenues than expenditures, that is a surplus. That would be included as a balanced budget, but the government today has failed to deliver that.

In fact, when the Liberals came into power, they said that they would cap their spending at $10 billion, and it went close to $30 billion. They said they would balance the budget: “Have no fear, Canada, we will balance our budget by 2019.” Now it is 2055.

The level of optimism is over. The level of optimism by the Canadian people is over. Balanced budgets, lower taxes—these are the bedrock of a strong and growing community. Unfortunately, this budget does none of these things. For the second year in a row, the Liberals have blown by their $10-billion deficit pledge. They are raising taxes on everything from public transit to Uber. The government plans to nickel-and-dime Canadians to pay for its spending, and what has its spending accomplished? Nothing substantial. The last budget failed to grow the economy, failed to create the jobs the Liberals had promised, and it failed to deliver to a large degree the infrastructure they had promised. This budget is no different.

The Liberal government does not understand how to grow an economy. It does not understand that small businesses are the engine of our economy, representing over 90% of Canadian businesses and employing two-thirds of all Canadians. There was another broken promise. All political parties in the last election said they would reduce the small business tax rate from 11% to 10.5%, to 9.5%, to 9%. The Liberals immediately attacked the small business community and said, “No thanks.” Once again, it is a promise broken.

This side of the House is holding the government to account. Conservatives are holding the Liberals to account, but make no mistake, Liberals simply believe that big government is the answer to everything.

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

Madam Speaker, if I were my hon. colleague, I would not be so quick to mention the Liberal Party website, since it still says that the 2015 election will be the last under first past the post. I am not sure that people can really believe what they read there.

I would like to point out to my hon. colleague that, in committee, we proposed an amendment to Bill C-44 using the exact words found in the Liberal Party's election platform but that the Liberal members of the Standing Committee on Finance refused to add their party's own words to the bill. That is a prime example of Liberal consistency.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to talk about Bill C-44.

I would like to start with a quote by Pope Francis, who stated:

And every man, every woman who has to take up the service of government, must ask themselves two questions: “Do I love my people in order to serve them better? Am I humble and do I listen to everybody, to diverse opinions in order to choose the best path?” If you don’t ask those questions, your governance will not be good.

When I came to Parliament only 19 months ago, I was faced with choices, choices about who I will serve and who I will be working for day in and day out. For me, one thing that guided me throughout that time is that parliamentarians are here to serve all citizens, everyone. I am sure everyone in the House agrees that we must serve both rich and poor alike, but we also have a duty to remind the wealthy to help the poor, to respect them, to promote them, and to build them up. I am reminded of that every time I am in Winnipeg Centre. I am reminded of that when I look at my family and friends and when I am in my riding when I am not here.

A few months ago, on April 16, I was called by Radio-Canada. The journalist was asking questions and wanted comments about the flooding going on in Manitoba and what the federal government's probable response would be concerning those floods. I said I would certainly talk about the first nation communities affected. It was a Sunday and my wife goes to a soup kitchen every Sunday. It is her form of going to church. She does not enjoy the service so much when she goes to church, but she enjoys going to a soup kitchen run by St. Euclid church in North Point Douglas.

She goes there with about 50 other people who help serve the poorest of the poor of Winnipeg: people who sniff gas, young families, and people who have very little to call their own. She takes my two oldest children, who are 12 and 10 years old, Xavier and Jacob, and I am left to look after the three younger children, who are eight, six, and five years old. I told the journalist that I would love to do the interview on Sunday, but I have to look after my children, so I asked if we could meet somewhere in my riding downtown, to which he said, “Of course.”

My wife dropped me off on the south side of the Manitoba Museum. As we were doing the interview, a gentleman walked by. He was not dressed in an extremely rich way and did not look wealthy. As the interview was taking place, he asked very quickly if he could have a word with me once I was done the interview. He waited patiently until the interview was completed, my kids waiting patiently with him, and then we had the opportunity of speaking. He has been homeless for a number of years and has been forgotten for a number of years. People do not seem to have cared about him or his wife. They sleep under a bridge in Winnipeg. He told me about how many foster families he had been in throughout his life. He had been in 70, if anyone can believe it. He had been in 70 foster families throughout his life. He was taken by the government and thrown from family to family, with really no one to care for him. Imagine the type of individual who creates a sense of connection with others when no one, even as a child, really and truly wanted him.

He asked me what the federal government was doing for him. He said he did not read the newspapers and asked what it was doing for him. I was proud to say that in budget 2016, $69.7 million were given to the provincial government in Manitoba for social housing and infrastructure. I told him that funding is not yet on the ground to build the housing, but I am trying to work with the provincial government to see if it can get to that place to get him housed, get him something. He asked me to please not forget about them and that he voted for me. He said he had picked up beer bottles and managed to raise $10 to buy an ID card so he could vote in the election because it was so important to him. He said not to forget about him and his wife.

When I looked him in the eyes and saw the tears, I sensed at the same time that he is a little ashamed because he is homeless. One has to ask who we are here to serve. I asked myself what I am doing in Parliament and who I serve. I am reminded time and time again about that in my riding when I do meet and greets or go to the local Tim Hortons or Portage Place mall. The Portage Place mall had some racism issues. It was kicking indigenous people out of the mall about a year and a half ago when I was first elected, because they did not look right and were not welcome there.

We seem to have fixed that problem. I do my meet and greet there, so people who are poor and do not look quite right can go into the mall and sit down at the food court, and maybe I will buy them a cup of coffee. I get to hear their stories and what is going on in their lives.

I remember a young lady from an indigenous northern community, who on a Friday afternoon at 3:30 sat down in front of me, and—this is the troubling part—she smelled like she had been doused in kerosene. She was obviously a gas sniffer and had some addiction issues. She had the smell of alcohol on her breath. She had glassy eyes and she said, “Robert, help me.” She had been two weeks on the streets—

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, I have heard the phrase “omnibus bill” used quite often in this debate. I am looking forward to the first NDP provincial budget in B.C., where a budget is presented clause by clause in the legislature and the members vote one at a time on over 200 or 300 pages.

A bill is not an omnibus bill when all the measures are budget measures and they are all tied together as part of a complex and large budget. It is an omnibus bill when a government slips in changes to the environmental assessment process and attaches that to a re-profiling of legislation that governs a federal port, for example, and adds to that a change in the definition of what constitutes a federal embassy, whether it should be land owned by the Canadian government or some other department. That is an omnibus bill. Bill C-44 is a budget bill.

The issue that was raised and spoken to specifically by the member had to do with this notion of a debt. In light of the fact that we inherited a $150-billion debt from the Harper government, largely supported by every vote from the other side, what is their strategy for retiring that debt? Why have they not given us a strategy to retire that debt? When will that strategy be presented by the other side?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-44, budget 2017, better known by its working title: the “how to stick it to the next generation, offloading $120 billion in debt on them to pay off in the future, oh, and at the same time pay off or look after the tsunami of seniors coming down the road, but hey, the Prime Minister has cool socks so don't worry about it” bill.

This bill is a train wreck, both for today's working people and for our children. The current government's own projection for this historic spending spree is a mere 1.7% annual growth in GDP.

Those listening on CPAC at home should find something else to watch, because there is better news than this, but they did hear it right: it is 1.7% GDP growth per year. That is all they get for $120 billion of debt. There is all this historic infrastructure spending, this historic investment in superclusters and in innovation, and we get a less than historic 1.7% growth. I am just waiting to hear the government boast about how it is helping superclusters and those clusters working hard to join the superclusters.

We all know about the current government's broken promises. Liberals kill off promises quicker than George R. R. Martin kills off characters in Game of Thrones. Will they balance by the end of the mandate? Sure; as long as we do not have another election until 2052, that might just work out. Of course, with the Liberals' open disdain for Parliament and their fondness for changing the rules without unanimous consent, maybe that is their plan, so they can say in 2052, “We accomplished that.”

The Liberals promised just small deficits of $10 billion a year for three years. We are now looking at about $80 billion. The promise of the tax cut for the so-called middle class and those working hard to join it was going to be revenue neutral through the tax on the wealthy. Oops: it turns out that was wrong, and the middle-class tax cut would be paid for by—wait for it—borrowing. It will mean billions of dollars of borrowed money. I cannot wait to see the looks on the faces of the so-called middle class who are getting a full buck or two extra per day right now under the current tax cut. I cannot wait to see the looks on their faces down the road when they realize that it is all going to have to be paid back, either with higher taxes or with cuts in services. Is anyone ever wondering where the oft-promised $3 billion in palliative care funding went? Maybe it went here.

The Liberals have admitted they do not even know how to define the middle class and those working hard to join it, but maybe that is their excuse.

The government has blown past its debt projections and changed the storyline by saying it will just commit to a lower or stable debt-to-GDP ratio. This is starting to sound like the Britney Spears song Oops!...I Did It Again. That excuse died again. I am starting to think Liberal debt promises are the Sean Bean of the financial world, getting killed off each and every time.

The Financial Post said:

Less than two years into the government’s mandate, it’s increasingly worrying the number of times it has discarded its fiscal anchor when the discipline it is meant to impose becomes inconvenient. With the unceremonious discarding of...promise [after promise, and maybe Sean Bean] it’s clear that federal fiscal policy is being set without any fiscal anchor at all.

Ths budget betrays the young, it betrays the middle class and those working hard to join it, and it betrays Alberta. We hear again and again that the current government consulted this group and that group in historic numbers of consultations across Canada with Canadians from coast to coast to coast. I would like to hear who from Alberta said, “Things are tough right now, and yeah, unemployment is skyrocketing to the highest level since Pierre Trudeau was in power, but now that you ask, we could really use a higher tax on oil and gas exploration.”

I would also like to hear what our four Alberta Liberal MPs were doing when the government wrote into the budget how it would use the tax system to reduce emissions and greenhouse gases, targeting the oil sector. I would invite these four Alberta MPs to stand here and tell us why they sat idly by and allowed this to happen, but at the same time happily agreed to a taxpayer bailout of the Liberal-connected super-rich owners of Bombardier. There are hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars for energy-guzzling, greenhouse-gas-belching planes, and tens of millions in bonuses for wealthy Liberal Bombardier insiders, but does Alberta get? We get a tax system geared toward attacking energy jobs.

Great. Let us fail the oil industry and funnel taxpayer dollars into industries that make planes and cars that run on gas. At the same time, we are going to give subsidies to the Ontario automotive sector.

Sometimes I feel my head is going to explode in trying to understand Liberal logic.

I would like to turn my talk now to one of the more hypocritical and odious parts of this omnibus bill, and that is the attack on one of the most respected institutions here in Ottawa: the parliamentary budget office.

In defending this disaster of a budget earlier this evening, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance expressed her shock and outrage of our opposition to the budget, and to its reforms to the PBO, in particular.

The PBO has done amazing work. I do not think a single person of any party has ever stood in the House and disagreed with that. We have seen the PBO do amazing non-partisan work. We saw it bring to light issues with the F-35. Again, when we were in power, this was brought forward and the PBO was allowed to run with it, even though, argumentatively, it damaged our position. Recently it came out with a study on shipbuilding costs, stating how every month the process is delayed is going to cost an extra $30 million for taxpayers. Just this morning, another report came out that the shipbuilding is being delayed by the government another two months, which is another $60 million wasted.

However, the point is that none of this would have come out without the hard work of the PBO.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance said that PBO's reforms were lauded. She must have been listening to those same phantom Albertans who told the government to attack the energy industry, because I have not heard anyone else who has lauded these attacks on the PBO.

The government said it would make the PBO an independent office of Parliament. That is a great idea. It is one that I support, and I am sure my colleagues do. However, let us see what the PBO himself says. He says, “clause 128 [of the BIA] also contains elements that will undermine the independence and non-partisanship of the PBO and that will undercut the PBO’s ability to support Parliament. These are concerning and deserve the Senate and House of Commons’ careful scrutiny.” The PBO also drew particular attention to “the degree of control that the Speakers of the Senate and the House of Commons will be expected to exercise over the office of the PBO”.

Let us think about it. This eliminates the ability of the PBO to react because under this plan all of the studies have to be approved in advance by the Speakers of both Houses. Some of the best work that has been done has been in response to queries from members of the House, such as the F-35 and the, hopefully, approaching Super Hornet issue. These would not be approved in the future under the Liberal plan.

We have seen committees being blocked by the Liberal majority into studies of shipbuilding and the Super Hornets. This is just one more step down that way to stop the opposition from bringing to light spending issues or other issues.

The PBO continues with his concerns. He comments on “the limits on the PBO's ability to initiate reports and members' ability to request cost estimates of certain proposals” and also “the restriction on the PBO's access to and disclosure of information and the lack of an effective remedy for refusals to provide access to information.”

Just two days ago, when presenting the PBO's report on the shipbuilding, one of the members of the PBO stated that he has more access to information on procurement from our Five Eyes allies than he does from DND here. If we muzzle the PBO, we stop him from investigating spending, out-of-control spending, and other issues. It is ridiculous to muzzle the PBO and allow him less powers than he has going to Australia and investigating their procurement practices.

Has the government addressed these concerns and made subsequent changes to the legislation? No, of course not. I have to ask the government why not. How can the government claim its reforms are broadly supported when the institution that it wants to reform does not like the changes? I have to ask where the legitimacy is with this. I do not think there is any. With what authority is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance claiming that their reforms are broadly supported?

In response to our, the NDP's, the Green's, the PBO's, and the public's concerns about these reforms, the government House leader cheerfully says, “Let's have a conversation and we'll welcome the amendments.”

Why do we have to bring amendments to stop the government from damaging and muzzling the PBO to begin with? It is an attack on the PBO, clear and simple. It is an attack on transparency. It is an attack on our ability to have a functional oversight of government spending. The government has disgracefully brought in Motion No. 6 in the past. It tried to reduce the oversight of committees by changing the estimates process. It tried to change the rules by which we operate in the House just to make things easier for itself.

This blatant attack on the independence of the PBO belongs right up there with those other items in the Liberal government hall of shame. These actions are not good enough for parliamentarians and they are not good enough for Canadians. That is why I will not be supporting the Liberal omnibus bill.

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, today I want to talk about the proposed measures in Bill C-44, budget implementation act, 2017, No. 1.

These measures are part of our government's ambitious plan to grow the economy and the middle class, support sustainable development of the economy and the environment, and ensure that no one is left behind in our society.

Today I will focus on how budget 2016 and budget 2017 build on our commitment to reduce the gender wage gap, to raise greater workforce participation among women, and to help combat poverty and violence. Our government is providing more and better support for women as workers, as caregivers, as mothers, and as seniors. Canada succeeds when women and girls also succeed.

Let me start with some good news about recent trends. In recent decades we have seen more women getting a post-secondary education and more women in the workforce, which has helped boost incomes and the economic well-being of Canadian families. Canadian women are now among the most educated in the world. Nearly three-quarters of working-age women in our labour force hold a post-secondary certificate or degree. More women are working now compared to 30 years ago. Today women account for 47% of the labour force, compared to just 38% in 1976.

All this is good news, good news for our economy and good news for women, but there are still real challenges for women at work, including a persistent wage gap between women and men. This wage gap has narrowed over the last few decades, but we have a long way to go.

Causes of the gender wage gap are complex, though we can single out two as being particularly important. First, women and men still tend to work in different occupations. Jobs that have been traditionally dominated by women often pay less. Second, men are represented much more than women in the highest-paying jobs in Canada. A contributing factor is that women in general work fewer hours each week in paid employment, partly because they still do more unpaid domestic labour, such as caregiving for children and relatives.

Our government is putting in place concrete measures to support women in the workplace and to help close the wage gap: pay equity legislation, measures to increase female representation in senior management, more grants and loans for working women who want to continue their education, changes that make work hours more flexible, and early learning and child care.

Now I would like to move beyond the workplace and talk about employment insurance benefits. Our government is also increasing support to women by improving employment insurance to provide better caregiver, parental, and maternity benefits.

No two Canadian families are alike, and parents have unique needs when it comes to balancing their work and family responsibilities. To better help them deal with the challenges of raising a growing family, we announced, in budget 2017, measures to make employment insurance special benefits more flexible.

Budget 2017 announced the creation of a new caregiver benefit, which will help women in particular and give them more support when they need it. Statistics show that women are more likely to be family caregivers and that they devote more time each week to caring for sick family members.

Our government will also allow those who choose to do so to extend their parental benefits from 12 to 18 months. Right now, women use 86% of the total number of weeks of parental benefits. The proposed amendments will allow parents who are caring for a newborn or newly adopted child to choose the type of parental benefits that best suit their family's needs.

Parents can choose to receive parental benefits for a longer period of up to 18 months at a reduced rate or for a period of 12 months at the current rate.

This flexibility will help families who need it.

What is more, in budget 2017, we propose to allow pregnant women to claim employment insurance maternity benefits up to 12 weeks before their due date, which is up from the current standard of eight weeks. This will give families and future mothers more latitude when they need it.

In that respect, I would like to acknowledge the hard work and determination of my colleague, the member of Parliament for Kingston and the Islands, in pushing forward the much-needed changes to EI maternity benefits to address the issue of women being under-represented in the skilled trades. We must ensure that we level the playing field so that women have equal opportunity to participate in all sectors of the labour force.

Our government is also recommitting to invest in child care and early learning. This will help women in particular because they are more likely to work, to find and keep a high-paying job, if they have access to affordable, high-quality child care. Child care also contributes to reducing the wage gap, because it facilitates continuous, full-time participation in the labour force. It also helps improve career opportunities for women.

Taking gender equality seriously also means taking child care seriously. In budget 2017, we are following through on our commitment to invest $500 million, as promised last year. We are also proposing to invest another $7 billion over 10 years to create affordable, high-quality child care spaces across the country.

I am currently working with my provincial and territorial counterparts to create a national early learning and child care framework. We will also create a separate framework for indigenous early learning and child care in collaboration with our indigenous partners, in order to take into account the specific cultural needs of first nations, Métis, and Inuit children across the country.

The homelessness partnering strategy is another way that we can help women. Through that strategy, we have approved 587 projects that help women, including 266 that are specifically targeted to assist women who are fleeing domestic abuse.

Budget 2017 renews that strategy, with a total investment of $2.1 billion over the next 11 years, therefore doubling the funding that had been planned by the previous government.

This funding will ensure that every year for the next 10 years about 50,000 Canadians will be lifted from homelessness or prevented from falling into it. That means 500,000 Canadians who would otherwise find themselves on the streets will sleep in dignity under a roof.

Our work is far from over, but it it clear that budget 2017 is an important step in our government's long-term plan to improve living conditions for women, create jobs, and strengthen the middle class, while helping those working hard to join it.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I only wish I had something to be happy about this afternoon, but Bill C-44 is a major disappointment.

We all remember that the Liberals were elected on a promise of modest deficits. That was something everyone in the House could agree on, because both Conservatives and New Democrats had pledged to manage taxpayers' money responsibly. The first disappointment came last year with a budget that went well beyond the so-called modest $10-billion deficit that the Liberals promised all the way to a $23-billion deficit.

We hoped the Liberals would come to their senses this time around. I should point out that they were elected by a minority of Canadians and that one day, it will be time to pay the Liberals' piper.

Unfortunately, the forecast deficit in the budget is $28.5 billion for this year. That is in addition to the previous deficit, so the total deficit for the past two years is over $50 billion. As they say, when it rains it pours, and indeed, the Liberals are determined to remain in this downward spiral of reckless spending, so much so that the parliamentary budget officer says it will be decades before we can even start to talk about balancing the budget again.

I am asking this government and this Minister of Finance why they are being so irresponsible toward future generations.

On this World Environment Day, we are reminded of the fact that sustainable development is a social, economic, and environmental responsibility. Obviously, the Liberals have done nothing on the environment to date, except choose natural resource development projects based on questionable, political criteria.

It is not very clear where the Liberals are going on the social front, and if I may say so, their budget plan is basically a descent into hell with recurring deficits that will place a tremendous burden on future generations. As my grandmother so aptly put it, “He who pays his debts grows rich.”

The problem we have right now is that the government is racking up shameful amounts of debt and, unfortunately, it is spending money on frivolous things. Now, it has introduced an omnibus bill, a Chinese buffet of sorts that has a little bit of everything but that does not balance the budget, far from it. That is another thing that the Liberals promised not to do.

That is the big problem with this budget and that is why I, like my colleagues who also spoke today, am opposed to it. That is why it represents a betrayal by the Prime Minister and the Liberals. It represents more of the government's broken promises to Canadians.

When the Liberals were elected, they promised to run only a small deficit and to balance the budget by 2019. However, that is not what is happening. As I mentioned, the government has already racked up over $50 billion in debt and is heading toward chronic deficits. Why chronic deficits? First, because the government is in a spending frenzy.

On the weekend, I spoke with a contractor in my riding who is doing work in downtown Lévis, near the ferry terminal. He said he was working on a major construction project and that he had asked the mayor where the money was coming from. The mayor said that it was from the gas tax. Therefore, it is not new money from the Liberals; the money that is being invested is coming from measures that our former Conservative government implemented.

Unfortunately, what we now see is that the Liberals talk a good game, but they are not so good when it is time for action. Not a lot of big projects are moving forward. It is quite the contrary: promises are sprinkled here and there, but the money is not flowing. Contractors and municipalities are waiting for that money for infrastructure projects.

Now, not only has the government decided to wake up and make sure that the money flows to the municipalities, but it also intends to take some of that money to put it in a new infrastructure bank scheme that seems to be completely arbitrary.

In Quebec, people are very worried that the Liberal government could infringe upon provincial and municipal jurisdictions. People are also worried about cronyism, because Liberals will be Liberals. We heard about patronage appointments this afternoon during question period. So that scheme will certainly be good for the Liberals' friends, but not so much for the municipalities and the communities that need water systems and other infrastructure.

That is one of the measures in the budget plan. A gigantic $30-billion organization will be created and middle-class taxpayers will bear all the risk, while the Liberals' wealthy friends will pocket the profits. That is what this infrastructure bank is all about. The problem is that costs are socialized while profits are privatized, and all taxpayers get is the short end of the stick.

This is the kind of Liberal approach that requires close scrutiny. However, the Liberals are steamrolling the House and insist on passing this budget bill that completely betrays the Liberal government's commitments to Canadians.

My colleagues also talked about the parliamentary budget officer, who will be more or less scrutinized, when he should be accountable to the entire House. The government appears to want to meddle in how the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer operates. Naturally we are opposed to this, since it has to do with the sacred principle that links the legislative and executive powers. This kind of interference undermines the ability of the legislative branch to keep a close eye on this Liberal spending orgy.

I talked about the infrastructure bank, but that is not all of it. The Liberals still want to create a new scheme. This time I am talking about Investment Canada, which aims to attract foreign investors to this country. However, the Liberals seem to be completely neglecting the resources we already have at our disposal. We have consular and embassy services, and the whole economic branch of Global Affairs Canada. The government is making a complete mockery of the commitments made over the past few years by creating another body that will only generate more red tape without necessarily producing any results.

These are some of the measures contained in this bill, which are all being added to the deficit; as we have seen over the past few days, there is a lot of frivolous spending. These are in stark contrast to the budgetary measures we had gotten used to under Minister Flaherty and Minister Joe Oliver. Look at the 180 cuts we made in previous budgets.

Sadly, yet again this Liberal budget includes hidden tax hikes. It is a shame that the government is attacking the average family that it claims to want to protect, including parents whose children take figure skating lessons or piano lessons. The Liberals are taking away the tools we had given to families and taking more money away from them. The same goes for businesses and people who take public transit or use Uber. In fact they are taxing beer and wine and imposing additional charges on SMEs. It is an utter fiasco.

The theme of the budget is innovation. Well, the Liberals have certainly been innovative in their art of misleading the next generation with their syrupy words.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Madam Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Fredericton, I have the pleasure to rise today to speak in support of this budget bill, Bill C-44, which, if passed, would see important measures come to fruition, important measures that would help the government meet commitments it has made to Canadians and further strengthen the middle class and those working hard to join it.

These measures build upon important investments made in last year's budget, budget 2016, and this year, measures include increased supports for health care for an aging population, greater supports for veterans and their families, and a focus on job creation and economic growth through support for innovators right across the country.

These measures will have a tangible and positive impact on the lives of Canadians, New Brunswickers, and above all, my constituents in the riding of Fredericton, which includes the cities and towns of Fredericton, New Maryland, Oromocto, and the Grand Lake region.

In budget 2017, we are committed to investing in the health and well-being of Canadians. My home province of New Brunswick has one of the fastest-aging populations in Canada. This demographic reality is not unique to our province, but it represents an opportunity and a potential for New Brunswickers to lead in healthy aging and health care innovation as we seek out the solutions to these challenges.

New Brunswick has already proven itself as a leader in scaling up health care solutions. For instance, just last week here on the Hill, the Canadian Foundation for Healthcare Improvement, in partnership with the New Brunswick Association for Nursing Homes, spoke about the launching of the New Brunswick Appropriate Use of Antipsychotics Collaborative as a way to improve dementia care in our province. CFHI's original pan-Canadian collaboration, upon which the collaborative was built, saw a reduction in the use of antipsychotic medication by 46% of the residents at Fredericton's York Care Centre.

This is just one example of how innovative approaches are leading to better health care outcomes for patients and better peace of mind for their families. It is a reflection of the potential that New Brunswick offers to serve as a living lab in the demonstration and implementation of innovative health care solutions.

In addition, the demographics of New Brunswick are an excellent reflection of Canada's diversity, and this allows for greater innovation in health care.

We are French, we are English, we are indigenous peoples, and we are immigrants. We live in urban and rural communities that are well connected and in close proximity to one another.

When it comes to health care and health care supports, our government has stepped up. First we reached a deal with the Province of New Brunswick and then with the other provinces to see an investment of $11 billion over the next 10 years in health transfers, including in New Brunswick an additional $229.4 million for better home care and mental health supports. That is $125.1 million dedicated to better home care delivery in our province, including critical home care infrastructure requirements, and $104.3 million to be allocated in support of mental health initiatives.

These investments will allow seniors and people aging in our communities to live longer, healthier lives in their homes, reducing the financial and administrative burdens on our already overstretched health care system.

Furthermore, wait times for access to mental health services will be greatly reduced, allowing those experiencing mental health challenges better access to the care and treatment they need and deserve.

Our government is making the necessary investments to support the well-being of Canadians, and New Brunswick is well positioned to be a leader in the area of health care.

Veterans and families deserve our unwavering gratitude and support for their sacrifice and service to our country. Those who serve in uniform do so with bravery, honour, and dignity, protecting the values that we cherish most and doing so with their lives.

In budget 2016, our government invested $5.6 billion over six years to deliver greater financial support to veterans with injuries or illnesses incurred during military service.

In budget 2017, we continue to fulfill our commitments to veterans by focusing on the financial security for ill and injured veterans, investing in education and career development in order to help veterans transition into post-military life, and by supporting families.

To provide more financial security for veterans, their families, and caregivers, budget 2017 commits $187.3 million over six years to create the caregiver recognition benefit, which provides $1,000 each month to the caregiver of an ill or injured veteran and better recognizes his or her vital role. We are also increasing the support we provide, and recognizing caregivers directly, by replacing the family caregiver relief benefit with this caregiver recognition benefit. This new tax-free benefit, again of $1,000 a month, will be paid directly to the veteran's caregiver, providing him or her with better financial support.

In order to better support servicewomen and servicemen in their transition to civilian life, budget 2017 will invest $133.9 million over six years to create the new veterans education and training benefit. This will provide up to $80,000 to veterans in support of their pursuit of post-secondary education. This new benefit will provide veterans with the funding for college, university, or technical education of their choice. Veterans with six years of service may be eligible for up to $40,000, and veterans with at least 12 years of service may be eligible for up to $80,000, to cover tuition, course materials, and some incidental and living expenses.

To recognize the vital role played by families of veterans living with physical or mental health issues as a result of their service, budget 2017 proposes to invest $147 million over six years starting in 2016-17, and $15 million per year, ongoing, to expand access to the military family resource centres for families of veterans medically released from April 2018 onward. This would increase the availability of the military family resource centres for medically released veterans from seven locations under the current pilot to 32 locations across Canada.

Since taking office, our government has had an unparalleled commitment to innovation and the development of a skilled workforce. This commitment is no more apparent in my region of the country than through the Atlantic growth strategy, a whole-of-government strategy led by the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, along with the four ministers from the provinces in Atlantic Canada, and our four premiers. Further, this strategy has the buy-in and active engagement of all 32 members of Parliament from Atlantic Canada represented here in this House.

It is an honour to serve as part of a government that understands, as proven by its actions, the importance of Atlantic Canada and its place in our Canadian identity and our economy.

Our government is focused on growing the economy through innovation, and more specifically, it is promoting Atlantic Canada's capabilities through its economic growth strategy.

Over the past several months, I had the privilege of chairing an innovation subcommittee of our Atlantic growth strategy, which tabled a report on May 15, culminating in five core recommendations, as a product of a pan-Canadian consultation tour engaging stakeholders from across the region.

I would like to sincerely thank everyone who contributed to the process through their participation, as well as all the members who took part in the tour of Atlantic Canada.

Another area of priority for our government is amplifying the voice of young Canadians. Youth are leading progressive initiatives for change in our communities, and as we celebrate the 150th anniversary of Confederation, I know we are well placed with young people in our communities to look ahead to the next 150 years. This includes the rolling out of youth councils across the country, on which I had the pleasure of working with 18 young people in Fredericton.

Our government is ambitious in our economic growth agenda, and I look forward to continuing to support Canadians right across the country as well as those in my home riding.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise to contribute to the debate on Bill C-44, which would implement certain provisions in budget 2017.

We have heard members canvass some of the specific investments that we would make through the budget. What I would hope to do over the course of my remarks is offer a more personal twist, given my experience as someone who represents small towns and rural communities in Atlantic Canada.

I will hit on a few themes over the course of my remarks, but I would like to explain very briefly why I ran for politics and how this budget will help remedy some of the problems I saw.

I grew up in a family with six kids. Both of my parents were teachers. If the kids in my family had been asked 10 years ago what we wanted to do, we all would have said that we wanted to stay in Pictou County and make our lives and our careers there. Ten years later, when I was thinking about running for office, not one child in my family was living and working in the area we called home while growing up. There is a problem with that scenario, and it is not unique to Pictou County, Nova Scotia. It spreads throughout Atlantic Canada. This is a focus for me, and will be for the entire time I hold this job.

I see measures in budget 2017 that will help create a robust economy in Pictou Canada, the rest of Atlantic Canada, and the country as a whole. This is something our Prime Minister gets as well.

Recently, during a visit to the Nova Scotia Community College campus in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, he indicated that gone were the days when the only option was to move out west to find work. If we provided the skills and education to young people, they could grow up and raise a family on the east coast in the hometowns where they had always lived. This is inspiring to me. I know the last prime minister referred to Atlantic Canadians as living in a culture in defeatism. This difference in attitude makes a difference. However, these are not empty words; they are followed with unique actions.

I do not have time to highlight all the things I would like to, but I will point to a couple of programs that have led to projects in my riding.

We have invested in infrastructure, including post-secondary education infrastructure. Nova Scotia is unique in its number of universities. It has 10 universities and many more Nova Scotia community college campuses. Just next to my hometown is the Nova Scotia Community College campus. We are contributing to a new trades innovation centre. The principal of that campus, David Freckelton, has worked his tail off to turn this project into a reality. However, it was only made possible with the investments of this government in our communities' infrastructure. This will create jobs in the short term, but, more importantly, in the long term this will ensure that the friends I went to East Pictou Rural High School with and my neighbours in New Glasgow still will be able to fill those positions that open up in machine shops throughout rural Nova Scotia. We will be educating the skilled trades people for the next generation.

In addition, programs at St. Francis Xavier University have recently been announced through infrastructure funding to create a new centre for innovation and health. Given the health care challenges in Nova Scotia, knowing we have more seniors per capita than any other province in Canada, this centre will pay dividends for generations.

We have also seen a contribution to the Institute of Government, which will help inspire people from different walks of life to take part in political leadership. I note specifically that program has included a leadership program for women as well, which is a tremendous contribution to our community.

It is not just infrastructure investments and post-secondary education. We are investing in the kind of infrastructure that makes a difference in the communities I represent. Small craft harbours provide an excellent example. I have basketball teammates from home who are fishing out of communities like Lismore. If we are investing in the wharves along the Northumberland Strait and the eastern shore, we are not just creating jobs in the next few years but we are securing a safe place to harvest what has become our nation's second-most valuable export. At the same time, we are pursuing export strategies to help bump up the price of our marquis seafood product in Nova Scotia, lobster, to ensure we are sustaining rural economies for years to come.

We are also partnering with municipalities to a degree that we have not seen before. Over the past few days, I have had representatives from my riding of Central Nova here for the FCM conference. They have been lauding the 2017 budget as a game changer. This has allowed projects like new water and waste water systems in a community like Plymouth. Friends of mine who grew up just down the road and have worked for great construction companies in my community say that this is the time of year that they are normally laid off. However, because there is a project going ahead, they are not only able to find work and contribute to the economy, but also build a project that is going to help the community grow. These are smart investments and I throw my full support behind them.

There are also key transportation pieces of infrastructure that need investment, and this is where the budget is going to come through as well. We have one of the deadliest stretches of highway running right through my community. There have been 15 deaths since 2009 alone. Knowing that we have a partner in the provincial government that is willing to pursue a twinning project to help improve safety is a wonderful thing, but it is also going to create a phenomenal number of jobs in my community over the next seven years.

Local business people have been coming to my office since the beginning of my term as a member of Parliament advocating for the P.E.I.-Nova Scotia ferry connection to be funded, but also to set up a framework for long-term funding. This is something that was announced recently with a focus on transportation infrastructure that will allow producers, like Scotsburn Lumber, to make a long-term plan to get its products to market. It will allow trucking companies to perhaps get three trips instead of two to the island in a day. It will contribute to the local economy for years to come.

There is another issue I would like to hit on in the limited time that remains, and that is the fact that the budget has applied a gender lens to a degree I have never seen in Canadian politics.

It has been one of the great professional honours of my career to date to serve as a member of the status of women committee. Over the course of our nation's history, women have been suppressed and excluded from full participation in Canadian society and the Canadian economy. That is not the result of chance. That is the result of decisions that have been made over the course of a generation. However, the budget has considered specifically how the policies identified and, hopefully, adopted through this legislation will make a difference, not just in the lives of Canadians en masse but also specifically how they will impact women differently.

Some of the programs we are seeing rolled out are investments to the tune of $100 million to develop a gender-based violence strategy. I have to thank the champions in my community who have been working on issues like this. I was so pleased to serve on a panel when we announced funding for the bystander intervention project, launched in partnership with different communities in Antigonish, including the campus community of St. FX; Lucille Harper, who has been an absolute champion for women's rights in the community over the course of her lifetime; and other tremendous panellists who served and told the stories of their experience living in the nearby first nations community, or generally, in the community, and how a lack of bystander awareness and intervention has contributed to social problems like gender-based violence.

We have also seen funding allocated for gender and diversity training for judges in the budget. I would like to thank the former interim leader of the official opposition for her work. We were able to collaborate on the status of women committee to ensure that judges have the training materials they need, which would be provided through this budget, to make sure they understand the unique considerations that might come before a court, for example, in a sexual assault case. We do not need another statement like the boneheaded ones we have seen in the cases of Justice Camp, and more recently, Judge Lenehan in Nova Scotia. Quite frankly, those attitudes are outdated, and if we can do something in the House to prevent the injustices we have seen in sexual assault cases in our communities, that is the least we owe women living in Canada today.

In the remaining minutes I have, I will shift my focus to a few social programs that are funded under budget 2017, which I fully support.

We have seen tremendous investments in health care. As I mentioned, with the large proportion of seniors we have in Nova Scotia, one of the long-term solutions to our demographic woes needs to be enhanced in-home care. While there are some improvements being made, the system does not work as effectively as it should. Budget 2017 would implement the accord between the Province of Nova Scotia and the federal government, which would see not only the largest transfer from the federal government to my home province for health care, but in addition, funds have been earmarked for in-home care to the tune of $157 million, and $130 million for mental health.

This means that people who need quality care in their homes will have CCAs, who put up with incredibly difficult working conditions and schedules, to provide quality care at a better price in their homes, where our seniors would rather be. We do not need to be financing people to the tune of $1,000 a day for long-term hospital stays if that person can receive appropriate care in his or her home.

My grandfather, who is a veteran, has had tremendous benefits and has been able to stay in his home because he has had in-home care, supported by the Department of Veterans Affairs. We should apply what we have learned with our veterans to the rest of our community and ensure that all Canadians have quality access to in-home care, so that our seniors can retire with dignity and remain in their homes as long as they are able to.

I could go on for days about the virtues of budget 2017 and the priorities of our government, but as I am running out of time, I would like to say thank you for the opportunity, Madam Speaker, and I will be supporting this piece of legislation.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament for the area of Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, and also as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, it gives me great pleasure to speak today about the budget implementation act, better known as Bill C-44. Passage of this bill implements the next chapter of the government's plan to strengthen and grow the middle class. A strong and growing middle class is the engine of our economy and our highest priority.

I would be remiss if I did not thank the House of Commons finance committee for its hard work on this bill. Its careful study of the legislation has helped to provide members in this place with a clear sense of its intent. In particular, I would like to thank it for its work in ensuring that the legislation helps our government achieve the goal of a truly independent and transparent parliamentary budget officer, also known as the PBO.

Our government is committed to openness and transparency. That is why we have taken steps to strengthen the PBO in ways to make it truly independent. Bill C-44 recasts the head of the PBO as an officer of Parliament, supported by a team that is separate from the Library of Parliament and with the authority to report directly to Parliament. It would expand the PBO's right of access to government information and give the office a new mandate to provide costing of platform proposals during elections so that voters make informed decisions based on an independent analysis.

The government believes that the work of the PBO is fundamental to Parliament's ability to debate and consider economic and fiscal considerations of the day. That is why we listened and took action when we heard that more could be done to further strengthen the PBO's mandate and independence.

The government took action by introducing 12 amendments to Bill C-44 at the House of Commons finance committee that further strengthen the PBO's mandate. I would like to take this opportunity to once again thank the members of the committee for their hard work and collaboration and for improving the said legislation. It was with their efforts that those amendments have found broad support.

In fact, The Globe and Mail reported that the government has placed Canada's PBO on a “strong legislative footing”. That is why I was stunned that the opposition members seemed to oppose the changes. In fact, they have moved to delete every clause of Bill C-44. Blocking openness and transparency is not the only consequence of this ridiculous proposal. The proposed deletions will also have an impact on the ability of Canadians to live, work, and get around in their communities.

Our government is working hard to make significant and unprecedented investments in infrastructure. We have more than doubled our commitments for infrastructure under our plan. We are meeting Canadians’ most urgent needs when it comes to infrastructure.

We knew that the infrastructure deficit had been caused, in part, by the lack of stable and predictable funding. Our partners across the country told us that they had major needs, not just for new projects, but also for repairs and modernizing.

Our infrastructure plan provides for investments in projects that will transform communities for the 21st century. We are aware of the risks and costs associated with underfunding of infrastructure, and those risks and costs are very significant. That is why the 2017 budget is the next step in the government of Canada’s plan to make wise investments that will promote the growth of our economy and strengthen the middle class.

That is why, under our plan, funds will be allocated in three different ways: the funds will be paid out following negotiations for signing bilateral agreements with the provinces and territories, under programs offered by the federal government that are based on merit, and through the new infrastructure bank of Canada.

The budget implementation bill includes provisions to establish the infrastructure bank of Canada, which I would like to talk about now. When our government was preparing the long-term infrastructure plan, we met with numerous people all across the country. We met with our provincial, territorial, and municipal partners, with representatives of the aboriginal nations, and with various stakeholders and partners, and we listened to their views.

When it came time to design the infrastructure bank of Canada, we took the same approach. We consulted everyone: the mayors of cities all across Canada, and also international organizations such as the World Bank and the IMF.

We also met with representatives of investment groups such as the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board. Thanks to the invaluable comments we received from those people and those groups, we were able to prepare the bill that is under discussion today.

The federal government has proposed to create the infrastructure bank of Canada because it believes that this is an opportunity for us to attract investments in infrastructure from the private sector and to establish partnerships with the leading players among the institutional investors on the international stage, in order to carry out more large infrastructure projects all across the country.

Subject to Parliament’s approval, the bank will finance projects that would produce benefits for the public, but that might not have received funding otherwise because they are too expensive or because of competing priorities in a particular sector.

These are projects that could play a transformative role if they received support, but that have not been funded under traditional infrastructure programs.

The bank will invest up to $35 billion in new infrastructure focusing on growth all across Canada. The kinds of projects that are envisioned and that could receive support from the bank include public transit in big cities, energy corridors, and many more.

An amount of $15 billion for the bank would come from a long-term infrastructure plan. Additional funds of $20 billion would be made available to the bank for making investments that would result in the bank holding assets in the form of equity or debts.

If the bank is approved by Parliament, its mandate would be to invest in infrastructure projects that would generate revenue and that would be in the public interest. The bank would seek to attract private sector investment by institutional investors for those projects, which would help cover the cost of transformative infrastructure projects across the country.

The bank would also be a centre of expertise that would work with other levels of government to gather and share data aimed at guiding future investments. Once operational, the bank could provide added value through its work, to help governments make evidence-based decisions regarding infrastructure investments.

The bank would be a new means of helping our financial partners finally meet their urgent infrastructure needs. If they want to use it, this new tool would help our partners, the provinces, territories, and municipalities, to create the infrastructure Canada needs.

I would like to reiterate that the bank is another tool that we could offer to our partners. We would not impose this tool on our partners.

By using the bank for large-scale projects, we would have more public funds to create more public infrastructure. Private capital would be used to carry out new projects that might not have been carried out otherwise, and federal funds will continue to support the achievement of municipal, provincial, and territorial priorities.

Our government believes it is important that decisions be made at the local level and it wants to support municipalities in achieving their priority objectives on infrastructure. Community representatives are the experts, and they are in the best position to know what is best for their community.

The Canada infrastructure bank was designed to leverage public funds to carry out more infrastructure projects for Canadian communities.

The investments we make today will create benefits for years to come, clean and sustainable economic growth, stronger and more inclusive communities, and more good jobs for Canada’s middle class.

I call on all members of the House to support Bill C-44 and join us in helping build a brighter future for Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I speak to you today because, just 15 minutes ago, the Liberal majority in the House of Commons voted in favour of time allocation on Bill C-44, a major bill to implement the Liberal government's budget. It is, however, much more than that. It is also an omnibus bill that affects a whole range of things. That is why my speech will focus on the omnibus nature of this bill and the problems it causes as well as the fact that the budgetary measures it implements are bad.

First of all, let us talk about the omnibus bill. I remember that the Liberal Party was elected by claiming that it would never present omnibus bills as we had done at other times, it seemed to say, when we formed the government. This again shows that the Liberal Party said one thing during the election campaign and is doing exactly the opposite now that they are in power.

Furthermore, every time the previous administration tabled a bill that might include some distinctive elements, the Liberals would tear their hair out, saying it was the end of the world, that it did not make sense, and that the rights of parliamentarians had been infringed. Well, then, these people are doing exactly the same thing today. This is what makes people cynical, unfortunately.

Let us now look at the fundamental elements that, in our opinion, make this an omnibus bill. First of all, it literally provides for the creation of the Canada infrastructure and investment bank, and even brings major changes to the nature and mandate of the parliamentary budget officer. Let us examine these elements one by one.

The parliamentary budget officer is a fundamental institution of our Parliament. He is the person who ensures that the management of funds is carried out rigorously. However, this government, in the initial version of Bill C-44, is proposing, suggesting and imposing on the parliamentary budget officer a new obligation to report on his game plan for the year, which must be approved by the Speaker of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Commons. This makes no sense, and I would even say that it is a denial of democracy.

Why? First of all, the parliamentary budget officer must draw up his plan for the year, and if a particular event occurs during that year, he will not be able to analyze the plan. This is the first mistake. Worse, however, is that he will become a figurehead who can be manipulated by the Speaker of the Senate, someone who is not elected, but rather appointed by the Prime Minister and the Speaker of the House of Commons, who is appointed by all political parties.

This is exactly the opposite of what should be taking place. The parliamentary budget officer must be absolutely protected from any political intervention. With Bill C-44, the government will hold the parliamentary budget officer hostage, to some extent, to the decisions of the House of Commons. This is not acceptable.

I would now like to talk about Investment Canada. This is another invention of the Liberal government to attract foreign investment to Canada. Has the member for Papineau and new Prime Minister just invented this? Does he think no foreign investments have ever been made in Canada? Does he think that as a result of Investment Canada, the whole planet is going to discover that Canada exists and they can invest here? I would remind him that snow fell before he was born. If he has any doubt, I would remind him that when he was born, his father was the prime minister of Canada. He should know that Canada has favoured foreign investment for more than 150 years. Some might even say that it was the backbone of the creation of our country 150 years ago, since foreign investment was welcomed at that time.

Why, then, create Investment Canada, when our economic development agencies and our embassies have been doing the same job for decades, if not 150 years? We have institutions in Canada that work to attract foreign investment. Why, then, have another Liberal invention, other than to please some pals and create another administrative structure that will make the apparatus of Canadian government more complex? We do not need it; the job is already being done very well.

The same applies to the infrastructure bank, which is by no means a small matter. We are talking about hundreds of billions of potential dollars that are to be managed by that institution, when this kind of tool already exists: PPP Canada allows for investment of foreign capital and private capital to develop our infrastructure.

What does the Liberal government find fault with in PPP Canada? Does it think it is physically not a good thing and it has to oppose it because it was created by the Conservatives? If that is the case, what a poor approach this government is taking. We must admit that this is surely is the case because that party denounces everything we did, although it is doing exactly the same thing as us today.

In the case of the infrastructure bank, it is no small thing. They want to create a bank that will use $35 billion of taxpayers’ money, $15 billion of which will be used immediately to create the operating fund. That means there will immediately be $15 billion less in the economy, at a time when people need it.

Then they are going to set that money aside to attract foreign investment, but on what terms? First, it will involve only projects of $100 million and over. Already, they are leaving out almost three-quarters of the Canadian population, because few cities can afford the luxury of having $100-million infrastructure projects.

Last Friday, I had the extraordinary privilege and honour of representing my leader at the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. I addressed an audience of about 1,000 people. There were municipal politicians, councillors, wardens, mayors, and even reeves, the term I learned that is used for the mayors of rural communities in English Canada. I asked those people whether, in their municipalities, they had ever carried out projects worth over $100 million. Only three people raised their hands, in an audience of about 1,000 people.

That is clear proof that this does not affect Canada’s rural communities, or even Canada’s semi-urban communities. They are part of the backbone of the Canadian economy, but this government is snubbing them by allocating only $2 billion out of the $180 billion to investments.

Need I point out that we Conservatives are in favour of investment in infrastructure? Under the leadership of the member for Lac-Saint-Jean, we put in place the most impressive infrastructure budget, the difference being that we did it while balancing the budget and not by creating compulsive gigantic deficits as the present government is doing.

The infrastructure bank will mean that private and foreign investors will only rake in the profits, leaving Canadian taxpayers to assume all the risks. That is why it should not be. Virtually all observers agree that the clauses of the bill relating to the infrastructure bank should be withdrawn so they can be studied properly. This kind of thing is not something to be created by snapping your fingers. It deserves our attention.

This bill also implements this government’s unfortunate budget measures. First, let us talk about the deficit. The Liberals got elected by saying they would run a small, $10-billion deficit, but they are now at $30 billion. They also said there would be a return to balance by 2019 when, in reality, it will not happen before 2055. I am not the one saying it; the information comes from the none other than the finance department.

Let us also not forget that these people are attacking families and the middle class by inventing new taxes on tobacco, on alcohol, Friday night beer or Saturday night wine, and by eliminating the tax credits for sports and arts activities and school textbooks, which helped families directly.

What is even worse is that this budget, in the form of Bill C-44, eliminates the tax credit for public transit that had been instituted by the Conservative government. Of the 200 or 300 tax credits we have, if someone had told me that the Liberals would eliminate the public transit tax credit, I would never have believed it, because they are always going on and on about their fine, ecological principles. Here they are, however, doing away with the tax credit for Canadian taxpayers who take the bus to work every day.

For these reasons, we vigorously oppose this bill and we hope that the House of Commons will defeat it.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat ironic to rise to speak to Bill C-44 just as a Speaker's ruling concludes, which cites the previous Speaker turning down an application for revisiting the treatment of members who belong to parties with fewer than 12 MPs. It remains a source of concern, and the more I dig into it, the more I discover we are the only Westminster democracy that has this system of two tiers of MPs from larger and smaller parties.

However, I do digress, because I have the opportunity now to speak on the report stage of Bill C-44. I appreciate that my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois and I share this distinction of being in an “all MPs are equal, but some are more equal than others” problem. We will continue to work on it.

I now have the honour of debating the omnibus budget bill, Bill C-44, at report stage. I find this so ironic, because I truly believed that the era of the omnibus budget bill would end when the new Liberal government took power. In fact, the new government promised that it would not use this strategy to cram several measures into one bill.

I want to start in this debate by setting out some of the background around the category of omnibus budget bills, because much has been said and only some of it, in my view, actually captures the problem that we have.

It needs to be said that omnibus budget bills were not offensive in the period of time before 2006. If we go back, we find that between 1994 and 2005, the average budget bill was 73.6 pages long. However, it is ironic—I am using the word “irony” a lot today and I apologize for that, but it does seem to be the appropriate word—that back in 1994, the then Reform Party MP and backbencher Stephen Harper objected vigorously to the 1994 omnibus budget bill put forward by former prime minister, the Right Hon. Jean Chrétien. The Reform MP, as he was then, said:

Mr. Speaker, I would argue that the subject matter of the bill is so diverse that a single vote on the content would put members in conflict with their own principles.

...there is a lack of relevancy of these issues. The omnibus bills we have before us attempt to amend several different existing laws.

...in the interest of democracy I ask: How can members represent their constituents on these various areas when they are forced to vote in a block on such legislation and on such concerns?

Now, that was referring to the omnibus budget bill of 1994. I would love to ask members here if they could guess how many pages it was, but I am not sure it would be proper form to ask members to shout out answers. However, I doubt that on a pop quiz members here assembled would guess that it was 24 pages long. Yes, Stephen Harper was complaining in 1994 about an omnibus budget bill of 24 pages.

The longest omnibus budget bill we had in the history of Canada, until Mr. Harper became prime minister, was when the Right Hon. Paul Martin was prime minister in the spring of 2005. He put forward the longest omnibus budget bill in Canadian history to that point. It was 120 pages long. I remember Stephen Harper complaining about it, because one of the measures the government was going to take in that omnibus budget bill was to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to ensure that greenhouse gases could be regulated under CEPA.

The Liberals defended it as a budget measure by saying that so much of the budget was their plan to reduce greenhouse gases that therefore this measure to amend CEPA was all right. In fact, in response to the vigorous criticism from opposition parties, the government of the day backed down and took that section out of the budget bill of 2005.

We began to see the use of omnibus budget bills a significant way in 2009 and 2010. The 2009 omnibus bill topped 580 pages, and the 2010 omnibus bill topped 883 pages, leading professor of political science and professor emeritus at Queen's University Ned Franks to write that the use of omnibus budget bills “subvert and evade the normal principles of parliamentary review of legislation.”

The use of them in a minority Parliament made sense, because how else could a governing party that had the minority of the vote force Parliament to accept measures that it would clearly, if given the opportunity, defeat? Since budgetary measures are confidence measures, and parties for one reason or another did not want to have an election quite yet, there was always a sort of propping up of the Conservatives in minority, and big changes were made to the Navigable Waters Protection Act and to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. They were pushed through because it was a minority Parliament, and putting them in a budget bill was a very clever device.

The fact that Stephen Harper continued to use them in majority had a lot to do with the fact that when the Conservatives had the majority, they moved things through very rapidly and precluded proper study at committee. We had the double-barrelled omnibus budget bills Bill C-38 and Bill C-45 in 2012 that basically dismantled Canadian environmental law, from the Fisheries Act to the Navigable Waters Protection Act to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act to the National Energy Board Act itself.

What makes omnibus budget bills offensive? It is not solely because there are many bills or many measures all in one bill. The point of an omnibus bill, which is not offensive in and of itself, is that every measure relates to the same purpose or to an overriding theme. There is much that has been written and decreed by Speakers, going back to former Speaker Lucien Lamoureux, who was the first to rule on this in the 1960s. He said that they were moving in a direction where a government could say here is our bill, and it is all the legislative work of an entire session, but it is omnibus.

We have to be careful about omnibus bills. This one has too many measures that should not be in it, although it is a far cry from the abuse we saw in the 41st Parliament.

These are the measures that should not have been included in an omnibus budget bill, because they are not receiving proper study. One is a change to the Board of Internal Economy. It is very welcome that the Board of Internal Economy meetings would be made public, but back to the position of members of Parliament and parties with fewer than 12 MPs, we would not be given any more access to the Board of Internal Economy than the public would get. In other words, the larger parties could still decide that this should not be open to the public and close the meeting of the Board of Internal Economy, and those of us who are members of Parliament would not get any new access to the Board of Internal Economy, any more than the public would get. I find that unacceptable.

Second are the sections relating to the parliamentary budget officer. I provided numerous amendments at committee. My amendments were defeated. There were government amendments to try to deal with what has become very controversial. The Liberals promised in the platform that the parliamentary budget officer would be made an officer of Parliament and given independence, although they promised no more omnibus budget bills either, which they described in the 2015 platform as “undemocratic practice”. Many of the sticky ropes put around the parliamentary budget office, particularly in the first draft of this bill at first reading, reduced the independence of the PBO. Some of those have been improved, but not enough. We still have work plans the PBO has to file. They can make changes as situations change, but it is certainly not the independent officer of Parliament we expected to see.

As my time is running out, I will now turn to the infrastructure bank. If ever there was a piece of legislation that should have been stand-alone to be properly studied, it is the Canadian infrastructure bank. Given the lack of detail and precision, it still might not be as dangerous as it appears to be in some aspects, but we do know that the Auditor General in Ontario found that using privatization schemes for projects, so-called P3 projects, actually boosts the cost. The Ontario Auditor General found an $8 billion increase for the 74 projects studied.

In my last 10 seconds, I will merely say that at third reading, Bill C-44 is moving through this place too quickly. It is not as damaging an omnibus budget bill as the ones we saw in the 41st Parliament, but I urge the Liberal government to be far more cautious and to set a better standard on budget bills.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Repentigny concerning an amendment presented in committee to Bill C-44, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017, and other measures.

The member raises two key points in this question of privilege: the first relates to the admissibility of the amendment she presented in committee, which she has resubmitted at report stage; the second issue she raised has to do with her status as a member from a non-represented caucus in committee proceedings. In so doing she is asking the Chair to select her report stage motion, Motion No. 87, for consideration during the report stage debate of Bill C-44.

The member argues that the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance wrongly ruled that her committee amendment was inadmissible because it required a royal recommendation. The member stated that her amendment altered the qualifying weeks needed to claim maternity leave benefits for newly or suddenly unemployed mothers of newborns. She maintained that it did not represent a new or extended charge against the consolidated revenue fund, which would require a royal recommendation. The member simultaneously argued that the employment insurance fund was separate, and that, therefore, additional payments from the EI fund could not be seen as a new charge against the CRF.

On that specific point, I would like to direct the House's attention to a ruling by Speaker Milliken on November 10, 2006, at page 5027 of the Debates. He said:

Although contributions to the employment insurance program are indeed made by employers and employees, appropriations for the program are taken from the consolidated revenue fund and any increase in such spending would require a royal recommendation.

Accordingly, I cannot agree with the member’s view that a royal recommendation is not required. The ruling by the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance was procedurally sound and appropriate. Without a royal recommendation forthcoming for Motion No. 87, I cannot acquiesce in her request that the motion be considered during the report stage of Bill C-44. The Assistant Deputy Speaker indicated on June 2, 2017, that the motion would not be selected as it required a royal recommendation, and I see no reason to go back on that finding.

The member also argued that, because of her status as a member of a non-represented caucus, she did not have the ability to appeal the decision of the chair with respect to the admissibility of the amendment she presented in committee, as permanent members of the committee could.

The member is correct in her assertion that she is not able to participate in precisely the same way as permanent committee members, specifically in this case because committees’ practice is clear that only permanent members can appeal the ruling of a chair. That is not to say, however, that the member for Repentigny has been excluded in all ways from participating in the proceedings on this bill.

My predecessor, in a ruling on a similar question of privilege on June 6, 2013, at pages 17795 to 17798 of the Debates stated:

Turning to the issue of the rights of independent members, the Chair can only observe that the decision of the finance committee permitted them to do something they could not do before: namely, to have their amendments considered in the committee and, indeed, to be granted, pursuant to Standing Order 119, an opportunity to speak in committee. This is something that was not open to them before. In that sense, they succeeded in obtaining a form of participation in committee proceedings, as imperfect as it may have been in their eyes.

In the matter currently before us today, the member may not have been able to participate exactly as other members, but the process did afford her the ability to participate. In fact, she has had the opportunity at report stage to present her case as to why her amendment should have been admissible and the Chair has delivered its findings on that matter. Based on the substance of the member’s complaint, I cannot conclude that she has been impeded in the performance of her duties nor can I find, accordingly, that the Standing Orders or practices of the House have been breached.

I would like to thank all hon. members for their attention on this matter.

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 Vancouver East, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship; the hon. member for Brandon—Souris, Taxation; and the hon. member for Montcalm, Air Transportation.

The House resumed from June 2 consideration of Bill C-44, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measures, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Bill C-44—Time Allocation Motion

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we believe it is very important that we have the opportunity to study the contents of Bill C-44. However, we think we have had enough time to do so. Fortunately, I am certain that we will improve the lives of Canadians with this bill.

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, those numbers are available. We believe that our responsibility, and what we are absolutely committed to doing, is moving forward continuously on a program to grow the economy and to create more jobs. The good news is that it is working, and it is working across the country. It is a situation we need to remain focused on so that we can ensure that we are having results all across the country. I can assure the member that when we have economic growth that is 3.7% in the first quarter, when we see parts of our country that had a pretty big challenge last year, like Alberta, that are going to have higher growth this year, we start to realize that there are going to be opportunities for people across the country, and that is positive. We are going to stay on it. In this bill, Bill C-44, the good news is that when the members opposite decide to vote for this, what will happen is better job opportunities in their ridings.

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we believe that a good number of people have had the opportunity to speak. Fifty-four members have spoken. Debate is important, but we think that 12 hours and 25 minutes is enough. We must now do what we are here to do in the House, which is improve our economic growth. That is the goal of Bill C-44. That is what we want to do, and the time is now.

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, certainly there are significant figures. What I can say in this regard is that we had economic growth of 3.7% in the last quarter. That’s very significant.

In our opinion, the situation and the economic growth rate will improve as a result of the measures contained in Bill C-44. There is another very important figure, and that is the unemployment rate in our country. It is very important to create jobs for Canadians. That is exactly what we have done, with a much lower unemployment rate than before. Moreover, an additional 250,000 jobs have been created over the past seven months. This is very significant, and most of these jobs are full-time.

Time allocation is the only tool the government has to prevent indefinite delays in passing legislation. We do not take this kind of decision lightly, and we remain committed to ensuring that members on all sides of the House are given reasonable time to debate bills. We believe it is time to pass Bill C-44 to create a better future.

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, we think we have had enough time to examine Bill C-44. We had a debate that lasted 12 hours 25 minutes. It is very important. Moreover, if we measure it in days, the debate lasted 4 days. We had 10 committee meetings, and 70 witnesses appeared. Finally, in the House, 54 members had the opportunity to speak on this issue.

In our opinion, we have therefore had enough time to examine Bill C-44, and we would like to pass the bill in order to make things better for Canadians.

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat that our objective truly is to have a well-functioning House of Commons where all parties agree to work together and study legislation in the best interest of Canadians.

What do we want to make sure we achieve? We want to make sure we achieve outcomes for Canadians that really help them and their families. This is what the program we put in place and our plan is doing. By lowering taxes on Canadians and by putting in the Canada child benefit, we helped families get more disposable income. By the way, this helps our economy as well. What we have seen as a result of those measures and other measures is a reduction in unemployment. It means more people are employed, and that, of course, is what we are really trying to do for Canadians. When we say that we are really proud of what has happened in economic growth, it is not just because of economic growth on its own but because of what it means for job opportunities and for the families of Canada in the future. This is what we are trying to achieve.

We know that putting forward Bill C-44 is going to make a real difference for Canadian families. That is why we are looking forward to moving forward with the kind of measures that will help make sure that this progress scontinues.

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that Bill C-44 contains only budgetary measures that affect our economy. That is why we tabled Bill C-44 in the House.

We know that time allocation is the only tool the government has to avoid indefinite delays in passing legislation. We do not take this type of decision lightly. We remain committed to ensuring that members from all sides of the House are given reasonable time to debate bills.

We continue to carry out our plan to improve our economy and have a significant growth rate. That is why Bill C-44 must be passed for Canada and for Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, we sometimes talk about groundhog day, an expression that brings to mind the famous movie in which history repeats itself day after day. The least we can say is that nearly every three days, the government introduces a motion to limit parliamentarians’ right to speak.

That is unfortunate, particularly when it comes to Bill C-44, an essential, foundational law for our democratic process, since it implements the measures announced when the budget was tabled by the Minister of Finance. Need I point out that this is an omnibus bill that includes many other items that deserve much closer attention than simply introducing a bill that we see every day?

Some of the things this bill addresses are Investment Canada, the mandate of the parliamentary budget officer, and, most importantly, the infrastructure bank, which will be created entirely from scratch. On that point, almost all analysts and politicians agree that this is something that should be taken out of the bill so that it can be properly studied at a later date.

As well, our government has decided to use members' speaking time to table motions that, of course, only serve their interests. This morning, was the motion regarding the environment and the Paris accord tabled by the Prime Minister or the Minister of the Environment? No, much to our surprise, it was tabled by the Minister of Finance.

Does that not prove that the Paris accord means just one thing to this government, namely the Liberal carbon tax?

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

Mr. Speaker, I love the math skills of the finance minister. There has been twelve and a half hours for debate on Bill C-44. That is a half hour for every billion dollars of deficit in budget 2017. He did not mention the less than two hours in committee to talk about the $35 billion of infrastructure bank money that is coming from of taxpayers. That is not even four minutes for every billion dollars. Is he in such a hurry to spend taxpayer money that he does not want any scrutiny on what is being done?

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of things in the member's question that I would like to respond to. First and foremost, we made a commitment that we would put in our budget bills things that were related to the budget, to spending, not things that were extraneous or not related in any way. That is exactly what we have done in Bill C-44. That continues to be what we want to do in order to make sure the measures that involve spending in the government are actually in the budget bill. That is the case here.

With respect to what we are trying to do, we know that parliamentarians have a responsibility to properly scrutinize legislation and a duty to vote on different pieces of legislation, and we look forward to this bill going to committee. At that stage, we know it can be studied further and we can hear directly in that way through Canadians and experts in a public forum. That is what we are looking forward to doing.

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, a place to start might be to consider the amount of time that Bill C-44 has actually been considered in this House. The total length of debate in hours was 12 hours and 25 minutes. The total length in terms of days was four days. The number of committee meetings was 10, and the total number of witnesses heard was 70.

As we think about the total number of speakers, we have had 54 speakers in this House, and I would like to go through who has had the opportunity to speak. There have been 17 members from the official opposition, eight members from the New Democratic Party, one member from the Bloc Québécois, and, of course, members from our side of the House.

We believe we have had a good amount of time to review this, and we are looking forward to this bill going to committee so that we can scrutinize it further.

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

Mr. Speaker, here we are again seeing this government shutting down debate on important pieces of legislation like Bill C-44, the budget implementation act, a bill that has so many pieces that have unanswered questions. I am thinking about specifically the infrastructure bank and the fact that Canadians are going to be on the hook for any losses that might be incurred by investors who want to apparently invest using this infrastructure bank. The bank has not been explained, the risk to Canadians has not been explained, and, if anything, the government is trying to gloss over it by putting it into Bill C-44.

Now we are being told we cannot debate Bill C-44 and ask these important questions. All the while, and this is even more egregious, the government has just introduced and is making us debate two motions, one around the Paris accord, and one tomorrow around foreign affairs issues, both of which are absolutely needless. All the Liberals seem to want is to have someone tell them that they are doing a good job and doing the right thing. They have to use up time in the House of Commons to do that while making us sit here until midnight every single night, though we have no problem with hard work, and using time allocation and shutting down discussion on important things like the infrastructure bank.

This is unbelievable that the Liberals are doing this again and have completely mismanaged this House. How can they defend that?

Infrastructure

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

Mr. Speaker, we tried, but once again, this government is determined to ignore Quebec.

In the current wording of Bill C-44, the infrastructure bank can be made an agent of the crown, allowing it to circumvent Quebec statutes and regulations. This even includes expropriation powers. If that was not its intention, it needs to amend the bill. Otherwise, this will be just one more example of Ottawa walking all over Quebec.

This is the last chance. Will the government remove this power to give the infrastructure bank crown agent status, a power that goes too far?

Bill C-44—Notice of time allocation motion

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise that agreements could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-44, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017, and other measures.

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

Infrastructure

[Simon Marcil, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the members across the aisle told us simply not to worry. This is hard to say with a straight face. They said that just because they gave wealthy foreign investors the right to expropriate does not mean they will use it. In Mirabel, we have seen what happens when the federal government uses its power of expropriation. Indeed, 97,000 hectares were seized by a previous Liberal government.

Through Bill C-44, they want to give their bank the right to disregard agricultural zoning and do whatever they want with our lands. Does anyone over there understand that no one is interested in their privatization bank?

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

Mr. Speaker, I call on the Minister of Justice. Bill C-44 makes it possible to grant private investors in the infrastructure bank the same privileges as the government itself. Simply put, that means that the financial sector will be above Quebec laws and municipal regulations.

The Minister of Finance can say all he wants that this is not his intention, but that is what his bill says. Constitutional experts agree with us, and the Quebec National Assembly is unanimous on the subject. The finance minister is all alone.

I call on the justice minister to act, since she is responsible for ensuring compliance with our laws. Can she intervene and set things straight?

Motions in amendment

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent comments. I appreciate his question.

Our party denounces the fact that this is an omnibus bill. Since the Bloc is not a recognized party, we have to do a lot of work and research. The Liberals are not keeping their election promises, and that is fuelling cynicism. We have found two instances where they are trying to give their Bay Street friends improper gifts. That needs to change.

The Minister of Finance said that he had no intention of passing bills that would circumvent Quebec laws and municipal regulations, but that is exactly what this bill does. However, we have not heard what the Minister of Justice thinks about this.

I call on the Minister of Justice. I would like to know her opinion and her interpretation of Bill C-44, since the infrastructure bank and the projects that will go through it may be given crown agent status by order of the government.

Does she agree with the Minister of Finance, or does she agree with the five legal experts, including four constitutional experts, that we consulted?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Speaker's Ruling

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

There are 113 motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-44.

Motion No. 87 will not be selected by the Chair as it requires a royal recommendation.

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

Motions number 1 to 86 and 88 to 113 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 86 and 88 to 113 to the House.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-44, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measures, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Bill C-44

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, during the Standing Committee on Finance's clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-44, I presented an amendment that the committee chair ruled inadmissible. Since the Standing Orders do not recognize us as members of the committee, I was not allowed to dispute the chair's ruling. I was not even able to ask the committee to overturn the ruling. That is how our parliamentary rules treat members of non-recognized parties.

The chair of the Standing Committee on Finance justified his decision on the grounds that it would have broadened the scope of the bill, thereby extending the charge on the public treasury. We disagree. Here is why. The employment insurance fund is no longer part of the consolidated revenue fund. It is managed at arm's length, so there is no burden on the treasury.

Furthermore, my amendment would not broaden the scope of the bill or the benefits. It is not a new benefit. It merely extends the qualifying period, much as Bill C-44 does anyway.

Bill C-44 makes it possible to go back further than 52 weeks when it comes to sick leave, preventive withdrawal, or compassionate leave, but not in the case of parental leave. This bill makes changes to the employment insurance program regarding maternity leave and seeks to increase the number of weeks a woman is eligible for benefits during her maternity leave. What happens, though, when the mother loses her job during her maternity leave or just a few days later? She will be penalized.

The current EI system penalizes women who lose their jobs right after giving birth. This government, which claims to be a feminist government, has been aware of this situation for at least a year, and yet it does nothing. It continues to allow women who lose their jobs to be penalized by the EI system, which it refuses to change.

Our amendment has only one purpose, that is, to protect mothers and children when the moms lose their jobs. Imagine a single mother who has just had a baby and then loses her job. That is truly heartbreaking.

I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to allow me to debate this amendment today on behalf of women. I am sure you understand how difficult it can be for women who find themselves in these situations, but I also understand that it is not up to you to change the rules of the House.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we will continue debate on the Conservative's opposition motion. This evening, we will proceed with Bill C-45, the cannabis act, at second reading.

Tomorrow morning, we will commence report stage of Bill C-44, the budget. In the afternoon, we will return to Bill C-45.

Our hope for Monday and Tuesday is to send Bill C-45 to committee, and also to deal with report stage of Bill C-44. Other bills for next week include the Senate amendments to Bill C-6, the Citizenship Act; and Bill S-3, provided the bill is passed by the Senate.

Should time permit, we would also like some debate on Bill C-49, transportation modernization; and Bill C-24, to amend the Salaries Act.

We have had a conversation among House leaders. I look forward to continuing those conversations, and I will do my best to report to this House the information that I have, and we will do our best to work well together so that all members can do the good work that we are sent here to do.

Finance

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 17th report of the Standing Committee on Finance 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. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

I want to thank all members from all parties who did the work at committee in studying Bill C-44, the staff, the clerk, and all those involved. I believe many people have no idea of the many hours the finance committee met to go through the clause-by-clause study of the bill and to hear witnesses before that.

Cannabis Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to support this bill.

First, I would like to congratulate the Minister of Justice and her parliamentary secretaries, especially the hon. member for Scarborough Southwest, for all their work on this bill.

Bill C-45 is important legislation that delivers on a core commitment of our government, to introduce legislation to legalize and strictly regulate cannabis in order to keep it out of the hands of youth and to keep profits from gangs and illegal elements of society.

Bill C-45 would move Canada forward in addressing the health and social harms that result from the current failed approach to cannabis. It would help reduce the role that organized crime currently plays in the production and distribution of cannabis in Canada. In addition it would place our government in a better position to protect the health and safety of Canadians, particularly youth.

Last spring, our government established the task force on cannabis legalization and regulation. The task force was given a mandate to consult broadly across Canada with experts in law enforcement and public health, as well as with community groups and ordinary Canadians. Over 30,000 responses were received by the task force through an online consultation. In its final report, released this past December, the task force was clear that the current approach to cannabis was simply not working.

Canadians, both youth and adults, use cannabis at high rates. Many do so without fully understanding the associated risks. They obtain their cannabis illegally, to the benefit of organized crime. The products they obtain are often produced in dangerous environments, without any regard for quality or the health of the consumer.

The science is clear: there are risks associated with cannabis consumption. Although some people use cannabis for therapeutic purposes, it can pose a serious health risk, especially for young people.

We know that these risks notwithstanding, a portion of the Canadian population chooses to consume cannabis just as they engage in other behaviours that can be detrimental to their health.

The question for us, then, as parliamentarians is how best to mitigate these risks and better protect the health and well-being of Canadians.

Our government believes that the answer is not in continuing to criminalize the possession of small amounts of cannabis. Such a policy would only serve to compound its public health and safety risks. Instead, Canadians will be better served by adopting a public health approach. Such an approach would involve a controlled and strictly regulated system, with clear standards and requirements and backed with appropriate oversight and strong public education efforts. It is precisely this type of framework that Bill C-45 sets out to establish in Canada.

I will repeat that the consumption of cannabis is not without risks.

These risks have the potential to increase significantly, depending on a number of factors, including age at which use begins, frequency of use, duration of use, and the amount used. For example, youth are especially vulnerable, as their brains are still developing, and this health risk increases when they begin to use cannabis in early adolescence.

Particular health risks are also posed by illegally produced cannabis. Criminals do not worry about producing cannabis in a clean environment so that it is not contaminated with mould, bacteria, or heavy metals. They do not label their products to clearly communicate information about potency. They only care about making a profit and not getting caught.

Our government is serious about mitigating the risks and dangers of cannabis consumption. That is why an education campaign about cannabis for the general public is already under way.

Our government has adopted a proactive approach to education and public awareness by using social media to convey messages about drug-impaired driving and by inviting parents to have conversations with their children about drugs.

Through this public education campaign, our government is also addressing the issue of addiction. We want to enhance the knowledge that the public has about addiction to help Canadians understand the risks associated with cannabis use, especially for youth and other vulnerable populations. Our government also wants to provide Canadians with the information they need to make informed decisions about the choice to use cannabis.

Minimizing the harms and risks associated with cannabis use is also why Bill C-45 includes a number of powers that would allow our government to regulate the legal market. Under the bill, the Minister of Health would have the power to set regulatory requirements to address a broad range of health and safety issues. This includes requiring that cannabis be produced in a clean and sanitary environment and that it be appropriately packaged, with clear information on the label with regard to product potency and important health information.

Until now, my comments have focused on the effects of cannabis on health, and I explained how a public health approach would be better for mitigating those risks.

However, I now want to talk about how the existing approach to cannabis poses a unique threat to public health and safety. The existing approach aggravates the risks of cannabis because it creates a dynamic in which Canadians who decide to use cannabis are forced to do business with criminals, some of whom may have ties to organized crime. That exposes Canadians to the risk of violence and other criminal activities, including illegal drugs that are even more harmful than cannabis.

There is also a danger posed by large illegal grow operations, including those that are found in suburban neighbourhoods. This underground illegal activity can result in serious public health and safety issues, including explosions, fires, and damage to property.

Concern about these public health and public safety risks is shared by many Canadians, which is why our government is moving forward with its commitment to legalize and strictly regulate cannabis within a co-operative framework with the provinces, territories, and municipalities.

By introducing Bill C-45, our government is making Canadians' health and safety a top priority, as demonstrated by the fact that the very essence of this bill is based on a public health approach.

The regulatory measures set out in Bill C-45 are consistent with the recommendations made by the working group. They seek to better protect Canadians from the health and safety risks associated with marijuana, restrict access to cannabis, particularly for young people, and reduce the profits generated by the black market.

Bill C-45 would put strict rules in place across the entire commercial supply chain for cannabis production, distribution, and retail sales. It would provide the government with the ability to strictly regulate the safety and quality of cannabis products and to place limits on its promotion, packaging, and labelling in order to reduce its appeal to youth.

With this bill, our government will also put in place a seed to sale tracking system in order to monitor cannabis products as they pass from one stage to another in the supply chain, from the growing of marijuana to its retail sale. This system will prevent cannabis from being diverted to an illicit market and prevent illegal cannabis from entering the legal supply chain. The system will also make it possible to order the recall of products and remove them from the market.

Bill C-45 proposes a comprehensive approach for the oversight and control of cannabis that would provide Canadians with access to a legal source of cannabis that is strictly regulated for safety and quality. As with all products regulated in Canada, including food, medicine, and consumer products, Canadians should be able to have access to cannabis that they know meets minimum standards for safety and quality.

Colleagues, by establishing a robust regulatory framework for legal access to cannabis, supported by a strong public education and awareness campaign, Bill C-45 provides an opportunity for Canada to significantly reduce these risks and to better protect its youth.

My three children are 20, 18, and 16, so I deal with this challenge every day. I sincerely believe that this science-based, evidence-based bill is the best way to regulate and control cannabis.

Motion that debate be not further adjourned

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the House leader's availability here. She mentioned Bill C-44, the budget implementation act. That just came off the finance committee. Liberal members did not even defend their own legislation as amendments were put up by opposition members.

She said that we are all here to represent our communities. We are actually all here to hold the government to account, and if we are not members of the executive of the government, then it is our job to come in and talk about the issues of the day. By not allowing opposition days, the ability for us to hear from their backbench on what they think the issue is, she is actually not just demoting the opposition's ability to raise issues; she is actually diminishing the ability of her own members. Does she not recognize that by giving us less time than government business she is actually hurting her own members' ability to stand up and talk about a record that she may or may not have?

Does she agree that by not allowing an equal amount of debate, she is not allowing her own members of Parliament to stand up in this place and enter debate?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member confirming for the record that all members work hard in this place and that this place belongs to Canadians. That is exactly who we are here to represent. That is exactly the commitment we made to Canadians. That is why we encourage meaningful debate, and that is why we encourage all members to share the views of their constituents so that we can ensure it is good legislation that is advancing.

In the previous Parliament, when the government decided to extend sittings in June 2014, Liberal members supported that motion. None of us are strangers to hard work. We know that Canadians work hard, and we need to work hard for them.

Let us talk really quickly about some of the important pieces of legislation that we will be advancing by extending hours. We are talking about Bill C-44, which implements our budget 2017. The bill is about creating good middle-class jobs today while preparing Canadians for the jobs of tomorrow. I am sure the member will agree that is important work we all need to do together.

There is Bill C-25, which encourages federally regulated companies to promote gender parity on boards of directors and to publicly report on the gender balance on boards, and Bill C-24, which was referred to earlier and seeks to formalize equal status among the ministerial team and level the playing field to ensure a one-tier ministry, that a minister is a minister, recognizing the important work they do.

The list goes on, but I will respect that other members have questions to which I look forward to responding.

Infrastructure

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

Mr. Speaker, hiding small sentences that weaken Quebec in mammoth bills is becoming the Liberal government's specialty.

Paragraph 5(4)(d) of the part of Bill C-44 on the infrastructure bank says that the government can order that the bank be an agent of the crown.

Why give a private investment fund the power to circumvent provincial and municipal laws? Are wealthy Bay Street investors more important to this government than Quebeckers?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Many strange things happen in government.

Is there any further discussion? We have unanimous consent to vote on clauses 451 to 457 as a block. Are there any further questions on any of those sections?

(Clauses 451 to 457 inclusive agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)

Thank you, Mr. Ermuth and Ms. Meilleur. You can get back to us with that information, if you would. Thank you.

In Bill C-44, shall schedule 1 carry?

(Schedule 1 agreed to on division)

Shall schedule 2 carry?

(Schedule 2 agreed to on division)

Shall the short title carry?

Electoral Reform

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak to this issue.

I want to thank the government for letting us know that this debate was taking place. It would have been nice, however, if the party that actually initiated the debate, the NDP, had given us the information. I suppose they can try to do better next time.

That being said, the current system poses a significant problem in that it gives rise to a major discrepancy between the votes that are cast during the election and the degree of power obtained by the parties and the proportion of members from each party who are then elected. That is why it should go without saying that the electoral system should be reformed to make it more proportional.

The current system worked very well when we were a two-party system and alternated between the two parties represented in the House. That is why the House is set up the way it is. We do not sit in a semi-circle, which would promote greater collegiality. Rather, there are rows of benches on both sides and people face off against each other. This was designed around a two-party system.

However, that is no longer the reality we are seeing today. There are five parties in this House alone. The current system is outdated, which is why, when I read the Liberal Party's election promise to reform the voting system, I assumed right away that the reason for that was to deal with the situation, because it had to be done. That goes without saying.

That is also why the Special Committee on Electoral Reform was established. Thanks to the NDP's initiative, the member of the Green Party and one member from the Bloc Québécois were able to sit on the special committee. The House agreed, and I applaud that initiative. I had the opportunity to be on the committee during the tours, and I can tell you that we worked hard. We did not sleep much, because we had a very full schedule and it was very intense. There were a lot of trips and meetings. We learned a lot from that experience. The consensus that emerged from the consultations was the desire to reform the voting system in order to reduce the gap between the percentage of votes cast and the percentage of seats obtained. That must be done, because there truly is a consensus on that.

The committee worked hard on this matter and was thus able present a very interesting brief. What really surprises me, however, is that the Liberal Party members on the committee were opposed to it. It is rare for there to be such cooperation, but it is still a fundamental question. We received approval from the Conservative Party, NDP, Green Party and even Bloc Québécois members. In fact, there was such agreement regarding the committee’s report, that we did not even prepare a dissenting report. Throughout the consultations, the Liberal members seemed to support the direction we were taking, which is why I was so disappointed to see them reverse their position.

During consultations, the Minister of Democratic Institutions stated that she trusted the committee, that she was confident that it would produce a good report, and that we would move ahead. Every time we asked her a question in the House about her desire to reform the voting method to add an element of proportionality, she sang the same old tune, that is, until she saw the direction the committee was taking with its report. She then began speaking harshly of the committee’s work. She apologized later on, but by that time the cat was out of the bag: things were not going the way the Liberal Party wanted. They were in line with its election promise, and that would not do.

That is when the government disavowed the report. The Prime Minister shuffled his cabinet and appointed a new minister, who disavowed everything—the promise as well as the report's findings. This great deception can only fuel the public’s cynicism.

In the House, voters who vote for small parties are discriminated against, because the proportion of elected members from the small parties is smaller than the proportion of votes that they received. I would like to note another discrimination against people who vote for small parties.

The discrimination is two-fold. Voters who vote for those small parties are not as well represented in the House. They often make strategic choices to not vote for the small parties because they tell themselves that, although the small party represents them better, the voting system means that their candidate is less likely to be elected.

The other type of discrimination concerns the fact that there are two types of members in the House. Indeed, parties with fewer than 12 elected members in the House, like my colleague from Saanich–Gulf Islands's Green Party and my own, fall into a second category, one that is truly discriminated against and in which members have fewer means to do their work than those from a recognized party. Discriminating against us in this way amounts to a breach of the rights of the voters who voted for us. In my opinion, that should be changed as soon as possible. Our current system goes against the very principles of democracy. I would therefore qualify it as undemocratic.

Allow me to give some examples. First, as members who are not part of a recognized group, we are excluded from committees. However, that is where the real work of improving legislation takes place. We can only take part at the very end of the process, to propose amendments that are quickly debated before being rejected or not. If the chair finds our amendments to be out of order, we cannot respectfully tell him that we disagree with him, as we do not have a right to speak. We thus have fewer means of presenting the concerns of our fellow citizens. For example, the Bloc Québécois addresses matters and interests of Quebec, and we would like to be able to promote them in the House, as we find that they are not properly addressed by the other parties in the House. That is our specific task, and yet we cannot perform it.

The committee is currently finishing up with Bill C-44, a mammoth 308-page bill that affects several departments. We cannot be heard in the way other parties can. The committee analysts stated that it was a very complex bill, and they undertook a major, clause-by-clause analysis. We requested access to their report, but it was refused because we are not on the committee.

We are not on the committee and we do not have access to documents prepared by the analysts, which further pushes us aside. As well, since we are not a recognized party, we are not given the funds to hire researchers. Clearly, the government has access to civil servants in all departments, which gives it quite an advantage. The official opposition more than $10 million a year to hire researchers to conduct analyses. Ten million dollars is a good amount of money. The second opposition party, I believe, is entitled to $4 million. We are not entitled to anything. We do not even have access to committee reports. Our evenings, nights and weekends are spent poring through documents.

When it tables mammoth reports and bills, the government breaks another of its election promises. That gives us more work. It is quite hard to get through all that and find all the hidden elements. One element of Bill C-44 aims to eliminate private members’ access to the parliamentary budget officer. As tabled in the House, Bill C-44 would no longer allow us to submit requests to the parliamentary budget officer regarding subjects of general interest. Once again, we are facing further discrimination, which discriminates against voters who voted for a third party.

Fortunately, I presented an amendment to that effect this morning in committee. The process is nearing its end. We found a complete aberration in Bill C-44, one that would make the Infrastructure Bank and, even worse, all private projects that go through it, agents of the government. What an extremely regressive measure. Until now, the government had to use the notwithstanding clause, as in the case of the Champlain Bridge, to exempt infrastructure from Quebec laws, such as the Act respecting the Preservation of Agricultural Land and Agricultural Activities and the Environment Quality Act, among others. Now, projects will get green lighted on the government's say-so. That is serious.

We were handed this 308-page bill but were not given the documents made available to the recognized parties or any funding for research. Even so, by dint of hard work, we came up with something pretty good, and we are not through talking about this yet.

As second-class MPs, we are always the last to speak to bills before the House. We are 34th in line. In many cases, when the government uses closure, we get no speaking time at all. This is an extreme prejudice because we bring a perspective that nobody else here does. We represent the interests of Quebeckers. Every now and then, we get a chance to speak just before closure. This time, my Green Party colleague and friend from Saanich—Gulf Islands is the one being left out. This is a discriminatory measure.

During question period, we are always last. After 45 minutes, students and other people attending question period have heard enough, and since there is often a lot of commotion in the House, they leave before we even ask our questions. The same goes for journalists. We are yet again victims of discrimination.

Again, I want to point out that, because of the current voting system, the percentage of seats that went to small parties is much lower than the percentage of votes cast for those parties. That is one way we are discriminated against. The 12-member rule is another way we are discriminated against. We are second-class MPs.

I sincerely hope that these rules will be rewritten, especially because this convention is based on a house rule that says if a parliamentary group has at least 12 members, party officers, which means the leader, the House leader, the caucus chair, and the whip, get a bonus.

We do not care about bonuses. That is not what we are after. We agree that parties of fewer than 12 members should not get them. What we do want is to have the same opportunities as other members to properly defend the interests of our constituents.

This is especially shocking when you look at what they do in the rest of the world. This kind of thing does not happen anywhere else. For instance, at Westminster, only two members are needed to be recognized as a party and to have access to all the tools we are asking for. In Quebec, for example, Quebec Solidaire is given research tools. Actually, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois on his win yesterday. To my knowledge, Canada is the only democracy in the world where such discrimination exists against the elected members of minority parties and therefore their constituents. That really needs to change.

As I was saying, what we want is respect for people who vote for smaller parties. I think the Liberal Party really cares about this principle, too. If we look back at the written works of John Stuart Mill, for example, the ideology of liberalism is very British and Anglo-Saxon. Ultimately, maybe the smaller groups are right and we should let them speak. This was a value that was held dear by the Liberal Party, and I hope it makes changes to reflect that.

As a final point, another absurdity in the Parliament of Canada is the fact that the other place is made up of individuals who are not elected, but rather appointed by the government, which only reinforces its power. While the upper chamber could serve to better represent the regions, instead it only reinforces the government's power. When I talk about the other place, of course I mean the Senate. As of a few years ago, we can now say the name of that chamber. I will end on that note.

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

The much-touted reports that will be tabled, be they the reports on plans and priorities or the performance reports at the end of the fiscal year, will be tabled by the President of the Treasury Board. So we will find that among all the documents submitted by the president for all the departments and all the departmental agencies.

If I may, it will be sort of buried in all that documentation submitted by the President of the Treasury Board. However, with my proposal, there would be a completely separate report, tabled in the House by the minister on the 15th day after that report was received.

In my mind, the objective is to make this even more accessible to the public rather than making it part of a report on the performance of the Department of International Trade, among all the President of the Treasury Board's performance reports. That was the objective. I think it's important to see how my amendment is different from the usual procedure for agencies such as the one created by Bill C-44.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is a golden opportunity for the Liberals. A little earlier, I said that they had a unique opportunity. This time, the Liberals have an incredible opportunity to add this to their discussion points: they will be able to say that they supported an opposition amendment to the budget bill C-44.

Actually, this amendment is not controversial at all. As you can see, in terms of clause 442 of the bill under our consideration, I propose that we add section 24 to the new Invest in Canada Act. The purpose of the amendment is to require that the Invest in Canada agency submit an annual report to the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development. The minister will be designated by the government. The minister will receive Invest in Canada's annual report and submit it to Parliament.

My amendment is as simple as that. It seeks to add the obligation of reporting to the minister every year on the agency's activities, as is the case for many institutions that report to Parliament every year through their minister. So it makes sense for this organization to prepare an annual report that will be tabled in the House and that will report on what it did the previous year. The report will then be available to parliamentarians and the public, who will be able to become familiar with it and study it. It is as simple as that.

So I don't see why my Liberal colleagues on the committee could reject the idea that Invest in Canada should do as many other federal agencies and table a report in Parliament every year to describe its activities from the previous years. That makes perfect sense. It's just an obligation similar to that of many other agencies. So I don't see why an amendment like that would be rejected.

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

Thank you, Ms. Block.

I want to thank the witnesses for being here.

I want to take another look at an issue that's very important to me. I know the witnesses spent a lot of time preparing their appearance before us. However, I need to follow up on a situation that occurred here the week before the break. The issue is as important as the one we're discussing today. I'm talking about the Canada Infrastructure Bank. The issue, which we studied here for only an hour and a half, involves $35 billion in public funds. That's taxpayers' money.

Madam Chair, I'm following up on the issue because, when I talked about it, you weren't here, unfortunately. I think you were directly linked to my dissatisfaction regarding this issue. I can take the opportunity to summarize the situation.

On Thursday, May 4, you received, on our behalf, a letter from the Standing Committee on Finance. The letter indicated the following:

The Standing Committee on Finance is currently studying the subject matter of Bill C-44, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measures. Please find attached a series of motions adopted by the Standing Committee on Finance on Wednesday, May 3 ...

I'll skim over this part of the letter. It went on to say the following:

The motions that were adopted also invite your Committee, if it deems appropriate, to provide us with recommendations ...

Madam Chair, I want to specify that I'm currently talking about the motion I tabled. My colleagues across the way closed the debate on this motion, and I want to resume it. As the clerk explained, the second part of the motion was admissible.

Do people still need a copy of the letter?

If not, may I continue, Madam Clerk?

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

Mr. Chair, my colleague will have the opportunity to respond to the arguments presented by the NDP member for Sherbrooke.

I would like to remind the committee that, in our view, Bill C-44 is not a good bill. Some of its elements would be worth discussing outside an omnibus bill. Invest in Canada is one of those elements.

It goes without saying that we Conservatives do not object at all to foreign investors in Canada, as long as they comply with our regulations, of course. What we are challenging in this approach is the creation of another structure, another agency, another stage—some will say another “thing”—that will make the process more cumbersome.

For decades, we have been engaging in international trade successfully. In fact, we have been welcoming foreign investments for centuries. So there's no problem with that. But the creation of another crown corporation and all the ensuing steps will weigh down the system. The government is trying to suggest a way of doing things that we feel is not right.

Let's allow the free market to do its job and the foreign investors to come here, as they have done up to now and as Canadians do abroad. We always have to strike a balance. When our entrepreneurs invest abroad and acquire new businesses for the benefit of Canadians, we applaud enthusiastically. Now it should be the same the other way around. We cannot, on the one hand, welcome the fact that Canadians invest abroad and, on the other hand, be angry when foreign nationals invest in our country. We have to maintain a balance.

Mr. Chair, we will therefore oppose all the clauses that follow. Please take note that we will be asking for a recorded vote for each one.

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

Thank you.

I hear what my colleague is saying, but I am not sure that we are talking about the same thing.

Bill C-44 seeks to exempt a whole host of applications under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act from the Service Fees Act. My amendment, which seeks to restrict that exemption, simply reads: “application for a temporary resident visa, work permit, study permit or extension of an authorization to remain in Canada as a temporary resident.”

As you can see, the current bill lists various kinds of applications that could be exempted from the Service Fees Act, applications that are listed in proposed paragraphs 89(1.2)(a) to (h) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. When people renew applications, or apply for work permits when they have study permits that are still valid, I am not sure that a link needs to be established. As I see it, the fees still apply.

If people apply for work permits in Canada when they have study permits already, do the work permit fees apply?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Amendment BQ-8 may seem rather technical but, in our view, is fundamental.

As far as the creation of the infrastructure bank is concerned, Bill C-44 brings about a major change, one that is totally absurd and has gone without mention. Amendment BQ-8 seeks to correct that.

The infrastructure bank would be the agent of the crown for all projects specified by the government. Paragraph 5(4)(d) of the proposed act stipulates that the infrastructure bank would be the agent of the crown whenever the government sees fit. That means the bank would be considered the representative of the federal government and enjoy all of the privileges and immunities that go along with that status.

Further in the new act, it is clear from subsection 18(c) that the privilege would extend to wholly private projects submitted to the infrastructure bank. According to the provision, the bank may “acquire and deal with as its own any investment made by another person”.

First of all, that gives private investors an unlimited loan guarantee. We are talking not just about the $20 billion that was announced but, rather, about an unlimited loan guarantee. That is ridiculous.

Second of all, that shelters those private investments from the jurisdiction of Quebec and municipalities because, under the new act, the investments and infrastructure projects are the federal government's. Unlike with the Champlain bridge project, for example, the government will no longer have to use its declaratory power to consider an investment as being exclusively under federal jurisdiction. That is a huge change that has gone overlooked and a terrible injustice, in our view.

What this change does is exempt investors from Quebec's laws and municipal bylaws. Quebec's environmental legislation will no longer be taken into account. TransCanada's energy east pipeline project could be approved without any BAPE hearings, as long as the investments are made through the infrastructure bank. Quebec's Act respecting the preservation of agricultural land and agricultural activities would also be tossed aside. Roads and every other type of infrastructure could be built in green areas. The change flouts Quebec's laws: city plans, land-use plans, and zoning bylaws. It is, in all likelihood, unconstitutional.

I don't understand why this change appears in Bill C-44. If the government persists in creating this infrastructure bank, it must, at the very least, do what we are asking and eliminate these abusive powers by removing subsection 5(4) of the new act. I hope my message came through loud and clear.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Page 178 of Bill C-44 deals with the new Service Fees Act, specifically in relation to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. It lists the applications that will be subject to the Service Fees Act. It will apply to the processing of applications for a temporary or permanent resident visa; for a work permit or study permit; for an extension of an authorization to remain in Canada as a temporary resident; to remain in Canada as a temporary resident; to sponsor a foreign national as a member of the family class; to make the request referred to in subsection 25(1); for a travel document issued under subsection 31(3); and for a permanent resident card. All of those situations will be subject to the Service Fees Act. My colleagues no doubt remember quite well that the proposed service fees legislation was the subject of extensive debate, to my surprise, and included an adjustment for inflation. That means that all of the applications I just listed, which appear in subclause 304(1.2) of Bill C-44, will be subject to the Service Fees Act.

I think that's a bad idea. I believe that even the people from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada said that the changes in cost for some of these applications would likely have the biggest impact on a vulnerable clientele, specifically.

All my amendment would do is specify that only an “application for a temporary resident visa, work permit, study permit or extension of an authorization to remain in Canada as a temporary resident” was subject to the Service Fees Act. The act would apply only to those cases and not to all the other categories.

I hope my colleagues will support my amendment; that would give parliamentarians greater reassurance that the other fees covered by clause 304 would be subject to more diligent scrutiny. If the fees go up, the minister will have to take responsibility for the decision to raise the fees for these applications, and I think that should be the case. It is therefore my hope that my colleagues will support this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you, Madame Pauzé.

Yes you are correct. I will rule the amendment as inadmissible, and I'll explain why.

Bill C-44 seeks to amend the Employment Insurance Act to increase flexibility in the provisions of caregiving and parental benefits. The amendment would result in higher benefits being claimed beyond those that the bill provides for. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, states on page 767 and 768:

Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge in the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.

In my opinion, the amendment would extend the charge on the public treasury. Therefore, the amendment is inadmissible. The amendment was for new clause 235.1, so we do not need to deal with that.

There are no amendments for clauses 236 to 244. Is there consent to deal with them as a block?

(Amendments 236 to 244 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 245)

We now have NDP amendment 17.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning everyone.

The amendment in front of you seeks to extend the qualifying period. Through Bill C-44, the government is making changes to maternity leave under EI and increasing the number of weeks a woman is able to receive maternity benefits. That's wonderful. The government is recognizing that helping women better integrate into the workforce and economy is beneficial to all aspects of economic life. That's the good news.

As for the not so good news, believe it or not, a mother who loses her job during, or immediately following, her parental leave does not qualify for employment insurance. It would therefore be extremely difficult for mothers who took maternity or parental leave to collect employment insurance after losing their jobs. That is already a problem in Quebec, and we have repeatedly alerted the minister. No meaningful action has been taken, and that's why I am here today. Our amendment would plug that hole in the legislation.

Let's take a closer look at the problem. Currently, in order to determine whether someone is eligible to receive EI, the government relies on the number of hours that person has worked during the last year. Even if the government extends the benefit period, however, Canadian women will experience what women in Quebec have been dealing with since parental leave was introduced: if they lose their job while on parental leave, they will not have access to EI because they won't have accumulated the number of hours required to qualify.

We need to do remedy this, because Bill C-44, which seeks to do something positive by giving women an additional right, does not extend that right to those who lose their job while on leave. They will be penalized for having lost their job and will therefore have one less right.

A government that describes itself as feminist should care about protecting women who are at the mercy of an uncertain job market. It's hard enough when one person in a couple loses their job. Imagine how hard it is for a single mother who loses her job and is left with no income.

It is outrageous for a woman to lose her job and have no income simply for having a child. That indirectly discriminates against women, and the government has an obligation to do something about it.

I fear I will be told that the amendment broadens the scope of the act and is therefore out of order. As a member of a non-recognized party, I do not have the right to a second turn in order to convince you. I therefore call on another member at the table to appeal the decision if my amendment is ruled out of order. It does not broaden the scope of the act or change the nature of the benefits. It does not create a new benefit.

All the amendment does is clarify the nature of the new benefit that Bill C-44 introduces. It is simply adding a definition, and the act already allows for this kind of thing. It is possible to go back further than the last 52 weeks in the case of preventive withdrawal, sick leave and compassionate leave. The government has made an exception in those circumstances, but not for parental leave.

The sole purpose of the amendment is to protect mothers who lose their jobs, as well as their children.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to welcome the witnesses joining us.

The amendment pertains to EI parental benefits. As the witnesses explained to the committee, the changes in Bill C-44 would make it possible for parents to extend the parental benefit period while receiving the same amount. If I'm not mistaken, they would have a choice between taking 12 months or 18 months, so rather than collecting 55% of their salary, which is already quite low in the NDP's view, they would collect just 33% over a longer period. In that sense, the measure isn't particularly helpful.

That said, in order to respect the bill's intent, I propose that the decision be revocable, and that's what amendment NDP-16 seeks to do.

It's fairly short, so I'll read you part of it:

(1.4) An election made under subsection (1.1) or 152.05(1.1) may be revoked by a major attachment claimant or an individual, as the case may be, and a new election made, in which case it is binding on the claimant, on the individual, on both claimants or on the claimant and the individual.

In that case, if the claimant's situation changed along the way and it was possible for them to return to work sooner, they could. They would still be entitled to receive the amount equivalent to 55% of their salary over 12 months. If, however, they could return to work, circumstances permitting, the period would be shortened.

I asked whether that scenario would be possible, and the answer wasn't no. Would it make things be a bit more complicated from an administrative standpoint? Of course.

Nevertheless, I don't think the administrative complexity is a major hurdle, given that the measure would give claimants greater flexibility. I think we can deal with a bit of complexity in order to do right by Canadians, whose situations can vary from claimant to claimant.

That is the purpose of amendment NDP-16. I hope my colleagues will support it. Even though the measure isn't perfect, it could help by allowing for a bit more flexibility.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We'll come to order and start where we left off at division 8, clause 192 of Bill C-44.

The amendment BQ-6 is inadmissible because it's contrary to the principle of the bill established at second reading. However, you can speak to it.

We will not deal with it as an amendment, but you do have the right to speak to your amendment. If you want to make your point, go ahead.

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

Mr. Chair, in the same vein, you could rule the amendment out of order. I don't really see the connection with Bill C-44 and its scope. I don't know where my colleague's comments are coming from. So I would like to see you rule on the admissibility of the amendment.

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

To reply to my colleagues, I would say first that we, the members of unrecognized parties, cannot table motions in committee.

However, we can make direct requests to the PBO and I would like to verify with Mr. Sutherland the circumstances that will allow us to continue to do so. We can ask him for help when we table private members' bills, but this won't be possible otherwise, according to the other provisions of the bill. That is not what we want.

To answer my Conservative colleague on the fact that the PBO is free to chart his course, I will give you an example. We asked for an analysis of Muskrat Falls regarding the word “doit”, or “shall”. He told us that he could do that, but that it was not among his priorities and that it would not happen for a year and a half, but that he acknowledged the request. As things stand, the PBO is free to set his own program; we want him to remain free. According to the wording in Bill C-44, he will remain free, because he must manage his priorities; however, second-class members will become pariahs, and we don't want that to happen.

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

Mr. Chair, I want to clarify something.

In Bill C-44, it's already saying “shall”. I don't know if you noticed it, but the amendment of my colleague doesn't change the word “shall”. It's already in Bill C-44, on page 81, proposed section 79.2(1)(c). That's what the amendment is proposing to change, but he's not proposing to change the word “shall”, as it's already in the bill. I don't know why we're debating the word “shall” here.

I just wanted to say a few words to support my Bloc Québécois colleague on this, because this is in keeping with what I was saying earlier. We want to broaden the powers of MPs regarding requests they may make to the PBO concerning any topic of public interest under federal jurisdiction. I just wanted to mention that I support his amendment.

As for the restrictions imposed on the parliamentary budget officer, earlier I proposed an amendment that would list the reasons why the PBO could refuse a request. These are very specific reasons that concern very particular circumstances. This also answers my Conservative colleague's question on this.

I support the amendment and I hope that my colleagues here today will support it as well.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I said earlier, I'm going to discuss amendments BQ-3 and BQ-4 together since they are in the same spirit, although the amendments are made to different provisions of the bill.

This concerns the PBO. We are concerned by the curtailment of the independence of his research. This is also mentioned in other amendments. In this regard, I wish to congratulate my colleague Greg Fergus of the Liberal Party for the excellent interview he gave to the newspaper Le Devoir last weekend. Consequently, I believe I will have the support of Liberal members for this amendment, which concerns the possibility members have of submitting study requests to the PBO.

As you know, until now members could submit any request or ask any question of the parliamentary budget officer. Bill C-44 eliminates this possibility. The purpose of amendments BQ-3 and BQ-4 is to restore it.

There are two categories of members in the House of Commons: those who are members of a recognized party and those who are members of an unrecognized or independent party. There really are two categories of members. As members of an unrecognized party, we do not have research budgets. The Liberal Party, which forms the government, has access to all public servants. The members of a recognized party have access to millions of dollars to do research. We have nothing, and we have to make do on our own. When we have to study an omnibus bill like this one, it's very cumbersome. We also don't have access to analysis reports that are presented to the committee. We asked to have access to the point-by-point analysis of Bill C-44 prepared by the analyst, but this request was denied since we are not a part of the committee. We have to do all this work on our own. We can only count on our own means. At least we still could rely on the parliamentary budget officer, but now Bill C-44 removes that possibility. I implore you to restore this.

I deplore the fact that there are two categories of members in Ottawa. Being placed in a second category of members is one thing, but I would like to avoid being made a pariah.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

Yes, Mr. Chair.

The amendment is to page 81 of Bill C-44.

First of all, the amendment defines the mandate of the parliamentary budget officer, who will be able to provide, on his or her own initiative, independent analyses of the topics mentioned previously.

In addition, the amendment states that the reports are not an exhaustive list and that the PBO may prepare other types of reports.

The amendment also removes a provision which alluded to the approval of the Speakers of the two Houses, a change that is extremely important to us.

The amendment also specifies that members may directly submit to the PBO requests on the financial cost of any proposal that relates to any matter over which Parliament has jurisdiction, rather than strictly requests concerning measures the member is considering submitting to the House or the Senate.

It was made clear in discussions with witnesses that appeared before this committee that because of the wording of Bill C-44 with regard to the changes concerning the position of parliamentary budget officer, it would be more difficult for members and senators to submit requests to him regarding studies or cost assessments. Amendment NDP-10 resolves this problem. Indeed, the wording of the bill is an issue, since it limits the power of MPs and senators—senators must be included in the conversation—to submit requests to the PBO. The problem has been pointed out. This amendment aims to ensure that parliamentarians may make requests on any topic they have in mind without this being necessarily directly related to a measure they intend to propose.

With regard to my friendly amendment, I repeated the statements the PBO himself made in his draft bill.

I hope to obtain the support of my colleagues so that the mandate of the PBO can be broadened as much as possible, and so that members and senators may submit requests to him on a range of topics. The idea here is to not limit the requests members and senators could submit to him.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Chair, the goal of my amendment is simply to ensure that the French version matches the English version. I move that clause 128 of Bill C-44 be amended by replacing lines 8 and 9 on page 78 of the French version with the following:

tant sur les politiques macroéconomiques et budgétaires — dans le but d'améliorer la qualité des débats parle-

That's what I want changed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Could we deal with clauses 115 through to 127? Does anybody have any problems with that?

(Clauses 115 to 127 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 128)

Thank you to the witnesses for coming forward.

We have an amendment, LIB-1. I would say first that if LIB-1 is adopted, the question cannot be put on NDP-1 due to line conflicts in the budget bill.

Who is moving this? Mr. Fergus.

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

We do have in the act now that the minister shall cause to be tabled in Parliament within three years of when this section comes into force.... The minister is already going to do that. What we're saying is that when the minister reports to the House on how these new reviews of borrowing authorities are working, one of the things the minister will report on is the consultations with other parties in the House.

There's no downside here, honestly. As I said, it doesn't give any party in the House a veto, but it does create more of a role for the leaders of parties in the House to speak to the question of whether we think this is working well. There's nothing more fundamental for Parliament to review than how much in debt we're getting as a government. It's an attempt to make sure that this section that we're passing today—I assume we'll pass it in Bill C-44—is responsive to how parliamentarians feel this is working.

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

I want to ask the witnesses here a question.

Clause 66 of Bill C-44 seeks to repeal subsections 69(3) and 69(5) of the Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1.

I didn't fully understand the interpretation. Can you shed light on the subject?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to echo what my colleague said, to inform my colleagues across the way that the witnesses were perfectly clear on this issue. The experts disagreed on other issues, clauses or parts of the bill. However, in this case, their opinions were aligned. The witnesses were clear and specific. If my memory serves me correctly, the five witnesses before us all disagreed with these increases, particularly the increases that will be adjusted based on inflation.

I'm talking about clauses 42 and 43, which seek to increase, in line with inflation, the excise duties on beer. I'm talking about both clauses. My colleagues can support an increase in excise duties on beer once, on this occasion only. However, I urge them to reject clauses 42 and 43, which seek to adjust the increase in excise duties based on inflation.

I think this will be extremely harmful to the industry. It's not only my opinion. I'm echoing what the witnesses told the committee, in particular the beer industry representatives, who are obviously directly affected by clauses 42 and 43. Later, we'll talk about wines and spirits, which are covered further down in part 3 of the bill.

I want to point out that the witnesses were unanimous, especially when it came to the increases based on inflation. I implore my colleagues to reject this component of Bill C-44, because it will clearly harm the industry. It will impose tax increases indefinitely, for an indeterminate number of years. It will also create a constitutional issue, as indicated by the beer industry representatives. They said,

no taxation without representation.

This measure seeks to increase taxes indefinitely in future years, and Parliament won't even need to approve the increases each time. If we approve this measure today, the excise duties will keep increasing indefinitely. The parliamentarians will never again have the opportunity to vote on the matter, unless other amendments are made to the Excise Act, 2001. Therefore, I implore my colleagues to reject this indefinite increase. Their desire to support a relatively small increase in excise duties is understandable. However, the increase should be made only on this occasion. Please don't support an indefinite increase.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I do like to put on the record at every occasion when I am compelled by the motion passed by this committee to appear here that this actually reduces my rights as a member of Parliament and prevents me from making substantive amendments at report stage. By the use of identical motions in every committee, the rights I have under our current Standing Orders are reduced. I'm here at your insistence; otherwise, I couldn't put forward these amendments.

Parti vert 1 is dealing with a perverse subsidy, which is the mining income tax credit. It's being extended under this legislation. We in the Green Party don't believe that it should be extended. It will cost $30 million to the federal treasury to provide a tax credit. This tax credit was initially put in place before the previous administration under Stephen Harper, back in the year 2000. It essentially encourages junior mining companies to conduct exploration in places where there is less likelihood of actually discovering minerals. It's damaging to the environment.

It's also been found by other observers that on the investor side it really is used more for tax planning purposes, as a benefit for high-income taxpayers. It's been also seen administratively to have very high administrative and compliance costs.

In 2015 Maclean's magazine had a review on this. It suggested that this tax credit primarily benefited tax lawyers and accountants. My main reason for opposing it is it encourages mining activity for exploration in places where you don't have good geology but where you do have a good tax advantage. It's disrupting sensitive environments for purposes of a tax credit.

In the first amendment, Parti vert 1, we essentially delete the sections that you find on page 13 of Bill C-44 in clause 23. We delete the extension, which means that the tax credit would end in the year 2018, because the extension would not be brought forward.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I hope our intention is clear.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I believe that ends all our divisions, so we can start on Bill C-44, the budget implementation act.

We will ask officials to come to the table. There are quite a number of officials here from Finance and other departments. If members have questions for officials at any time on any of these clauses, fire away.

Welcome and thank you, folks, for coming.

We will postpone clause 1, the short title, until we complete clause-by-clause.

On part 1, amendments to the Income Tax Act and to related legislation, we are looking at clauses 2 to 34. I would note there are no amendments to clauses 2 to 22. We would need unanimous consent to group clauses 2 to 22.

Do we have unanimous consent to group them? This will happen several times. No? You want to go through them one by one, Pierre.

(Clauses 2 to 5 agreed to on division sequentially)

(On clause 6)

Mr. Dusseault, the floor is yours.

[Duncan Shaw]

Once the EI Act gets amended through the budget implementation act, the government, in order both to extend the new funds announced in the federal budget and to also then have the new eligibility in each province and territory, will need to sign amendments to those labour market development agreements.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I will call the meeting to order and thank folks for their patience while we were in camera for a few moments.

We're under the order of reference of May 9 on Bill C-44, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measures. We're here to hear witnesses on various divisions that we didn't get through yet.

At our last session, we hadn't completed our questioning of those who were here from the office of infrastructure of Canada and the department: Mr. Campbell, assistant deputy minister; Mr. Fleming, chief, infrastructure, sectoral policy analysis, economic development and corporate finance branch; and Mr. Grover, senior policy analyst at the Canada infrastructure bank transition office.

Gentlemen, I think you had given a presentation and we were already into a series of questions, unless, Glenn, you have anything you want to add to start off.

Canada Infrastructure Bank—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on May 10, 2017, by the hon. member for Victoria concerning the government’s advertisement of job opportunities at the proposed Canada infrastructure bank.

I would like to thank the member for Victoria for having raised this matter, as well as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader , the member for Perth—Wellington, and the member for South Surrey—White Rock for their interventions.

In presenting his case, the member for Victoria explained that the government had publicly launched the selection process for various positions at the proposed new Canada infrastructure bank before the bill creating the bank and its governance structure, Bill C-44, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measures, had been passed by Parliament and received royal assent. In fact, he noted that the bill had passed only second reading in the House. Arguing that all new activities and the appropriation of associated funds require the authorization of Parliament before being acted upon, he considered the actions taken by the government to recruit for these positions to be a contempt of the House and a grave attack against the authority of Parliament.

In response, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader agreed that the Canada infrastructure bank being proposed by Bill C-44 could not be established nor any associated funds spent until such time as the bill has been passed by Parliament. However, he added that the member for Victoria was making an assumption that the government was seeking to proceed prematurely, when, in fact, the government was simply proceeding with planning for the potential establishment of the bank. As proof of this, he cited the news release posted on Infrastructure Canada’s website which stated that the selection processes in question were subject to parliamentary approval.

As the charge being made by the member for Victoria is one of contempt, it is important to understand what constitutes contempt and, in doing so, what distinguishes contempt from privilege. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, at page 82, defines contempt as:

…other affronts against the dignity and authority of Parliament which may not fall within one of the specifically defined privileges.

It continues, and I quote:

Thus, the House also claims the right to punish, as a contempt, any action which, though not a breach of a specific privilege, tends to obstruct or impede the House in the performance of its functions; obstructs or impedes any Member or officer of the House in the discharge of their duties; or is an offence against the authority or dignity of the House, such as disobedience of its legitimate commands or libels upon itself, its Members, or its officers.

I might add, as many of my predecessors have, that it is possible to categorize the privileges of both the House and the individual privileges of members which are limited, whereas contempt cannot be catalogued and defined categorically.

It is within that framework that the Chair must now determine if, in advertising prospective positions at the proposed Canada infrastructure bank in advance of Parliament having authorized its creation and funding, the government committed an offence against the authority or dignity of the House. Did it, to quote the member for Victoria, discount “the need of this House to pass legislation before it rolls out appointments for this institution”. It is a serious question, one complicated, in some sense, by the need for the Chair to carefully measure precedents against the inability to either enumerate or categorize cases of contempt.

The Chair therefore examined thoroughly the evidence presented, including the news release on Infrastructure Canada's website, as well as the proposed selection processes in question on the Privy Council Office's website. In particular, as Speaker, I was looking for any suggestion that parliamentary approval was being publicized as either unnecessary or irrelevant, or in fact already obtained. Otherwise put, I was looking for any indication of an offence against or disrespect of the authority or dignity of the House and its members.

Madam Speaker Sauvé specified on October 17, 1980, at page 3781 of the Debates, that in order for advertisements to constitute contempt of the House, “there would have to be some evidence that they represent a publication of false, perverted, partial or injurious reports of the proceedings of the House of Commons or misrepresentations of members”.

The Chair’s review also looked for such evidence. In doing so, the Chair found that, in the news release on the Infrastructure Canada website, the words “subject to parliamentary approval” were clearly there, as the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader had indicated. In addition, the Chair notes that there is no reference to a starting date of employment. Thus, there were not any specific details found indicating that any position at the Canada infrastructure bank would be filled in advance of the enactment of the enabling legislation.

The Chair must also take into consideration the assertion of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons that the advertisement was but a preparatory measure for a proposed initiative, in addition to his clear acknowledgement of the role of Parliament. In keeping with established practice, the Chair must take the member at his word.

However, as noted by the member for South Surrey—White Rock, the relevant job postings found on the appointments-nominations.gc.ca website maintained by the Privy Council Office lacked any reference to parliamentary approval. On this point, the Chair notes, with some disquiet, that this was changed after this matter was raised in the House. The advertised positions are now listed as “anticipatory”, and a disclaimer has been added in each case. It reads, “An appointment to the position will only be made once the legislation to create the Canada Infrastructure Bank has been approved by Parliament and receives Royal Assent.”

The member for Victoria has noted that Bill C-44 has passed second reading only: this leaves the House and its members still able to determine its outcome. As Speaker Fraser indicated in his ruling of October 10, 1989, at pages 4459 and 4460 of the Debates in a case with some similarity to the present one:

In order for an obstruction to take place, there would have had to be some action which prevented the House or Members from attending to their duties, or which cast such serious reflections on a Member that he or she was not able to fulfill his or her responsibilities.

The Chair has carefully considered that ruling, which had to do with a misrepresentation of Parliament’s role in government communications respecting the proposed goods and services tax in newspaper advertisements, because of its relevance to the current circumstance. It is interesting to note that in it, Speaker Fraser, in reference to the clarity of advertisements, reminded the public service that the role of Parliament needs to be acknowledged and respected.

Members are aware however that, in the end, Speaker Fraser did not arrive at a finding of prima facie contempt. The honourable member for Perth—Wellington may be right: had he been confronted again with such a case, Speaker Fraser may have ruled differently as he indicated he would. We will never know, as Speaker Fraser was not again seized of a matter of that kind.

Thus today I must assess the facts of this case on their own merits. In applying the strict procedural confines of contempt, the Chair must conclude that the question raised does not constitute a prima facie contempt of the House, and thus there is no prima facie case of privilege as there is no evidence to suggest that the House was obstructed in its legislative authority nor that members were obstructed in the fulfillment of their parliamentary duties.

I thank all hon. members for their attention.

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin my contribution to this debate by reiterating what we have heard from a few members. I do not think the issue is that members mind sitting longer to accomplish important work. We were sent here to do that work. If there are things that need to get passed and we feel they are of value to Canadians, we are willing to do the work to get it passed. The issue is that sitting longer does come with real consequences both in terms of costs to the House by not just having MPs here, but all the staff that make debate in this place possible and that support this work. Having them come in to work overtime has a real cost. There is a productivity cost that may be incurred for some of us who stay up past midnight and then get up for eight o'clock meetings that will not get pushed back. That is fine, and it can be a reasonable choice to make. Sometimes we just have to get things done, which means staying later. Putting in some overtime is not a problem. However, the question is why we are in a situation that we have to do that.

It is important to understand how we got here. I do not think anyone would disagree with the claim that this is not ideally how one would run things around here. To ask MPs, or staff on the Hill, on relatively short notice, to stay until midnight, and then be back again every morning is not the ideal way to run the House of Commons. That is why it is exceptional and not usually done. I have not heard anyone today suggest it should.

Part of how we got here is simply. The government has been inept for a number of months. That ineptitude manifested itself when the government brought what it called a discussion paper to change the Standing Orders. It then, at the procedure and House affairs committee, where that would properly be dealt with before coming to this place, decided to move to close down that conversation. The opposition parties rightly reacted for a number of reasons. One was that it did not seem to be a good faith discussion when the government had said it wanted to have that and then moved to close it down. Therefore, it did not feel like the government was acting in good faith on that. However, the opposition members also rightly objected because all they were asking for, in order to embark on that conversation in good faith, was that the government would agree in advance to seek all-party agreement before moving ahead with changes to the Standing Orders. This was not some cockamamie scheme that the opposition parties of this Parliament came up with. It is a long-standing parliamentary tradition, which has worked to bring in significant parliamentary reform.

I grew up hearing stories of the McGrath committee at the dinner table. My father sat on that committee. It brought forth changes for the Speaker to be elected by secret ballot. That was a huge change. It also made private members' business votable, not in the way it is currently. It was the beginning of ensuring that at least some private members' business would be voted on.

These were just some of the substantial reforms that were made in the House via all-party agreement. Therefore, the idea that somehow we would never get all-party agreement, and it was just a pipe dream, is completely false. There are ample examples of that. The hon. official opposition House leader has outlined a number more, in fact, some dating back to the 14th century in Britain. Certainly, there are a number of cases where we have seen good reform come out of all-party work.

Therefore, the opposition said it did not think it acceptable for a government to unilaterally change the rules of this place. This place is meant to serve Canadians, not the government, and the interests of the government are not always the same as the interests of Canadians. Not wanting to depart too much from debate on the motion, the creation of the infrastructure bank is a good example of where the interests of the government do not align with the interests of Canadians. However, I will not get into that.

The filibuster that happened and some the time that was spent in the House, and there was a lot, was spent rightly. People were standing up to a government that thought Parliament was here to simply do whatever it wanted. We have seen that in Winnipeg with the call for an inquiry into the building of the new police headquarters. Because that project got out of hand and went way over budget, there are questions about whether the CAO of the city and the former mayor were involved or accepting money. Those questions are out there, and people are asking for an investigation. What people are rightly asking is whose hand was on the wheel, who was overseeing this and if it was not the job of backbenchers and opposition politicians to provide appropriate scrutiny.

That is what these tools of Parliament allow us to do. Standing up for those tools is part of that job. The “just trust us” attitude of the government is not sufficient. The government is not only saying “just trust us, we are doing a good job”, but it is talking about changing the rules of Parliament so we have no choice but to just trust it.

If the proposals in the discussion paper did not do that automatically, that was certainly the thrust and direction of them. The Liberals' way of doing it would set the principle and the precedent that a majority government could unilaterally change the rules of the House.

It is not our job to just trust the government. It is not our job to just help the government get legislation through the House. It is the government's job to get legislation through the House. By refusing to honour a long-standing parliamentary tradition of seeking all-party consensus, the government was at the root of the delay that happened in the House. As a result, it could not get its legislative agenda through. It is not even a very big legislative agenda, and that speaks to the magnitude of the Liberals failure as a government to work collaboratively with opposition parties.

As my colleague rightly pointed out, that was something the Liberals committed to doing. They made it a cornerstone of what they wanted to do. They said they wanted to work collaboratively and take the work of committees seriously.

How is the government taking the work of committees seriously when it presents a discussion paper on changes to the Standing Orders then moves to shut down the debate? How was it a sign of respect for the work of committees when the special committee on electoral reform came out with a proposal on how to advance the government's own election commitment? Even in the face of challenge and even though we said that we on this side of the House disagreed substantially on how we should or should not change our electoral system but nevertheless here was a path forward that we we could at least agree on, a general outline of what the process would look like, the government threw it back.

When we hear the government House leader today say that the government wants committees to do their great work and it wants more debate in the House, as if somehow we are to believe that this is really the motivation of the government, it is a challenge. It is a challenge on this side to take the Liberals at their word on those things because of what happened at PROC, because of what happened with Motion No. 6, because of what happened on democratic reform, and now with what is happening with this motion.

The government, essentially after botching its job, which is to guide legislation through the House and to work with other parties to do that, is now asking its backbench to make up for the mistakes, instead of looking at its cabinet, asking what has gone wrong, why has it been unable to advance its legislation through the House and what is that saying about the quality of the government's leadership.

These are questions the Liberals should be asking instead of asking all of us to put in extra time at the last minute to help them get through an agenda that they say is going to be positive for Canadians. That is fine. I do not believe that for a minute. Getting Bill C-44 through the House is not an important priority.

I would love to see the committee get to work on the infrastructure bank. When we proposed to separate that from the omnibus bill, the Liberals said no. They then had the audacity to stand here and say that they valued the work of parliamentarians and committees. Why not let a committee study that? The government House leader even went so far as to say that the government had the power to call witnesses and do an in-depth study. That was our point about the infrastructure bank, and the Liberals shut it down. For the Liberals to ask us to take their word that this is being done in good faith is a little much.

There are other aspects of this that would be useful to get into, but we are pushing up against the clock, not the least of which is the reforms that the Prime Minister has made within the Senate.

We have a chamber full of unelected people who are accountable to no one and it is sending bills like Bill C-4 back to the House. This is after two-thirds of Canadians voted for parties that said they wanted to see the anti-labour legislation of the last Parliament repealed. People who are accountable to no one have sent the bill back and have refused to pass it.

That has to get done. It should have been done a long time ago. It speaks volumes to the ineptitude of the Liberal Party that it has not already been done. It is a straight up repeal. It was a matter of getting it through the House and then getting it through the Senate. The Liberals failed to do that in a timely way. It is just an indication of how broken the Liberals are as a government that they cannot get such a fundamental piece of legislation passed. Granted it does not enjoy consensus because there is one party in th House that does not support legislation, but every other party in the House does, even the unofficial parties.

Four out of the five parties that won seats in the last election support the legislation, and the government still cannot get it passed. It does not even do anything new. It just restores labour law to what it was in 2012.

I will defer to questions and answers.

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

Mr. Speaker, the committee went on to table three reports, all unanimously. McGrath and Lefebvre proposed ideas that enhanced private members' business, strengthened the powers of committees, and enfranchised members with the selection of our Speaker by secret ballot, to name just a few.

The Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections recommended in a report tabled on December 6, 1990, important amendments that transformed private members' business. These rule changes were again adopted unanimously.

Under Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, and this was the specific one that we recommended, a Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons was created and chaired by then Deputy Speaker Bob Kilger. One of the rules of the committee was “That the committee shall not adopt any report without the unanimous agreement of all the Members of the committee”. This unanimity requirement did not deter the special committee. It tabled six reports to the House and the House adopted five of them. The committee made significant changes, such as allowing all items on the order of precedence of private members' business to be votable.

The Stephen Harper government also followed the tradition of the unanimity approach, bringing in reforms to improve private members' business and broadcasting rules for committees.

I would be remiss if I did not point out that not 100% of all changes were unanimous. Some required a vote. However, since the very beginning of Parliament these incidents were rare, and whenever more broad-based changes to the Standing Orders were adopted, the time-honoured practice of this place was to do so through unanimous consent.

That being said, there exists a very small and exclusive club, if one wants to be a part of it, of forgotten House leaders who rammed through changes, such as the closure motion in 1913, time allocation in 1969, and Standing Order 56(1) in 1991. I am at a loss to understand why the government House leader would rather join this group than be associated with the likes of McGrath, Lefebvre, and Bob Kilger, but I suppose that would not be inconsistent with her government's track record.

Members will recall that we had an electoral reform issue, the efforts of another minister, who turned that reform exercise into a fiasco that led to a full retreat and the firing of that minister from her post. Then there was Motion No. 6. The minister who gave us that doozy has disappeared from that job as well.

Let me take a few minutes just to remind the House of what Motion No. 6 was. Simply put, Motion No. 6 proposed to legislate by exhaustion. It offered unstructured, open-ended debate, potentially sitting 24 hours around the clock all summer long. The motion targeted the opposition and would have hamstrung its ability to hold the government to account. Essentially, it violated one of the fundamental principles of Parliament, a principle described in Beauchesne's, sixth edition, citation 3, “More tentative are such traditional features as respect for the rights of the minority, which precludes a Government from using to excess the extensive powers that it has to limit debate or to proceed in what the public and the Opposition might interpret as unorthodox ways.” That is what Motion No. 6 was and we know what the outcome was of that.

I want to speak briefly about another change that has not been talked about extensively in the House, but it is one of the changes to the Standing Orders that the Liberals are trying to ram through. It is an idea that has been proposed by the President of the Treasury Board in regard to the estimates.

Page 12 of the document says, “For parliamentary committees, the proposed approach trades off the longer period of time now available to study an incomplete Main Estimates...for a shorter time to study a complete Main Estimates”. That all sounds good. It sounds like there is going to be shorter time to study complete, thorough, and accurate estimates rather than having a longer time but with inaccurate estimates. The President of the Treasury Board should know that the House will always insist on full and accurate information and will never attach any such conditions to that right.

In its role in the supply process, Parliament would be foolish to voluntarily clawback two months of its ability to hold a ministry to account in exchange for flawed, unenforceable promises. Even though the paper says it would be accurate information, there is nothing incumbent on the government to provide that accurate information, which is why it is so important that the opposition has as much time as possible to look at those estimates and to scrutinize them.

Let me explain this by first putting forward this historical context. On page 114 of Josef Redlich's The Procedure of the House of Commons: A Study of its History and Present Form, it says:

The whole law of finance, and consequently the whole British constitution, is grounded upon one fundamental principle, laid down at the very outset of English parliamentary history and secured by three hundred years of mingled conflict with the Crown and peaceful growth. All taxes and public burdens imposed upon the nation for purposes of state, whatsoever their nature, must be granted by the representatives of the citizens and taxpayers, i.e., by Parliament.

Pages 404 and 405 of the fourth edition of Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure and Practice, published in 1916, state:

The cardinal principle, which underlies all parliamentary rules and constitutional provisions with respect to money grants and public taxes is this—when burthens are to be imposed on the people, every opportunity must be given for free and frequent discussion...[and] whenever the government finds it necessary to incur a public expenditure...there should be full consideration of the matter in committee and in the house, so that no member may be forced to come to a hasty decision, but that every one may have abundant opportunities afforded him of stating his reasons for supporting or opposing the proposed grant....

With respect to delaying the main estimates, I will quote from the parliamentary budget officer's most recent report, “Considerations for Parliament in Reforming the Business of Supply”. It states, “With respect to delaying the main estimates, the Government indicates that the core impediment in aligning the budget and estimates arises from the Government’s own sclerotic internal administrative processes, rather than parliamentary timelines.”

It says right there that it is about administrative processes, not parliamentary timelines. The report goes on to state:

PBO notes that the Government’s Supplementary Estimates B, tabled on 3 November, contained 51 measures that were originally proposed almost seven months earlier in Budget 2016.

This example shows that it is unlikely that delaying the release of the main estimates by eight weeks would provide full alignment with the budget.

That was in the PBO's report.

This is a lot of “inside Ottawa” and really diving deep into the estimates. However, the bottom line is that Parliament needs to be able to look at the government's estimates and should not have its time shortened. The President of the Treasury Board cannot ask us to trust that the government's estimates will be more accurate and that we will have a third of the time to study them. That is wrong. It is one of the issues that has not been talked about a lot, but is creating a lot of problems. As former PBO Kevin Page said, “This legislation creates the facade of independence…but on the other hand it completely takes it away.”

The other change the Liberals want to make and have done it in the omnibus bill, which is indicative of what they do, is to take away the power of the parliamentary budget officer. The former PBO stated:

The Government asserts that Parliament does not play a meaningful role in financial scrutiny. PBO disagrees with this view....

We note that notwithstanding the Government's performance information of admittedly poor quality, and their inability to reconcile the Government's spending proposals, parliamentarians have performed a commendable job of asking pertinent questions in standing committee hearings, Question Period and Committee of the Whole.

We know that even the parliamentary budget officer would disagree with those changes and has questions on them. We know the Liberals are currently trying to make changes to the ability of the PBO in Bill C-44, and on that he said:

The proposed amendments impose significant restrictions on the way the PBO can set its work plan and access information. Those restrictions will undermine PBO’s functional independence and its effectiveness in supporting parliamentarians to scrutinize government spending and hold the government to account.

In her remarks to you, Mr. Speaker, after your election to the office of Speaker, the then leader of the opposition and member for Sturgeon River—Parkland, the former interim Conservative leader, talked of the interrupted history of the office of Speaker, which began in 1376 when Sir Peter de la Mare presided over what is known as the “Good Parliament”. She pointed out that the title of “Good Parliament” was not due to the performance of the administration of the day but a reflection on the efforts of the members of that parliament to keep the government in check.

There was a significant principle developing in that parliament, a principle that should apply to this and to all parliaments. In Philip Laundy's book on the office of the Speaker, published in 1984, he had this to say about the Good Parliament:

Parliament was greatly concerned at the abuses in the administration which were threatening the welfare of the realm—

That sounds familiar.

—and encouraged by the support of the Black Prince it set itself to the task of correcting them.

Which is what the opposition wants to do. He continued:

After lengthy debates...the Lords and Commons again assembled in the Painted Chamber before John of Gaunt to give answer to the financial demands which had been made of them. Speaking on behalf of the Commons Sir Peter de la Mare boldly refused to grant supplies until the nation's grievances were redressed.

That was over 600 years ago, but it is still one of the cornerstones of our proud parliamentary democracy. We have made improvements in our approach over the years, but diminishing principles of accountability is the farthest thing from modernizing the procedures of the House. The Liberals keep saying they want to modernize the House, but all they want to do is take away the time-honoured and proven ways that we can hold governments to account. One day very soon, when we are back in government, the opposition is going to want us to be held to account, and the Liberals need to think about this.

During the remarks addressed in the Speaker's election, the member for Sturgeon River—Parkland referenced the “Bad Parliament”, but she did not get into the details of why that parliament's style was bad. We were at that point beginning the era of sunny ways, and who were we to spoil the mood? We were hoping it would be sunny ways.

As members know, as soon as that slogan was out of the box, it collapsed under the weight of dark clouds of arrogance and entitlement, and now serves to give a modern context to the story of the Bad Parliament that sat in England between January 27 and March 2, 1377. The Bad Parliament undid the work done by the Good Parliament, which brought in measures to reduce corruption in the royal council. The Bad Parliament approved reversals of the Good Parliament's impeachment of a number of royal courtiers. It also introduced a new form of royal taxation.

That sounds familiar too, does it not?

In addition, the Bad Parliament was forced to accede to the fact that the King could renege on political promises. Unfortunately, that does sound away too familiar to what is playing out in this Parliament.

I have one more parliament to reference. An even earlier parliament to the Good and Bad Parliaments was the “Mad Parliament” that met in Oxford on June 11, 1258. In Philip Laundy's book at page 11, he suggested that the Mad Parliament set itself against the tyranny of the court and owes its derogatory designation to those whose abuses it sought to check. If the government uses its majority to force through the changes proposed by the government House leader, the official opposition will be fighting its own form of tyranny. I assure members that the language used to describe the 42nd Parliament will be much stronger than just “mad”.

On a more positive note, though, I would like to reference a few distinguished parliamentarians, coming from all sides of the political spectrum. The Right Hon. John Diefenbaker, in an address to the Empire Club in 1949, had this to say, “If Parliament is to be preserved as a living institution His Majesty's Loyal Opposition must fearlessly perform its functions.... The reading of history proves that freedom always dies when criticism ends.”

In an address to the Canadian Club of Ottawa, January 27, 1959, Lester B. Pearson said:

In national politics during the years when I was in the government, I watched the Opposition perform their duty vigorously and industriously, with courage and determination. They rightly insisted on their right to oppose, attack and criticize, to engage in that cut and thrust of debate, so often and so strongly recommended by those concerned with the vigour and health of Parliament and the health of democracy.

In an address on March 21, 1957, New Democrat Stanley Knowles said:

The opposition has only the rules for its protection, hence the authorities on parliamentary procedure emphasize the greater importance to the opposition of the only protection it has, the protection of the rules. Only by according such rights to the opposition is it possible to achieve anything even approaching equality of strength between the two sides....

Finally, I would like to make reference to a more recent elder statesman, and I use the word in a very positive way. A respected senior member of this House, the hon. Liberal member for Malpeque, said on April 11, 2017:

However, this place is called the House of Commons for a reason. It is not the House of cabinet or the House of PMO. Protecting the rights of members in this place, whether it is the opposition members in terms of the stance they are taking, is also protecting the rights of the other members here who are not members of cabinet or the government. We talk about government as if this whole side is the government. The government is the executive branch. We do need to protect these rights.

I think those are very wise words, and we would like the government, the backbenchers to think about that in terms of this motion. We are fine sitting later hours. We know it will be long days for all of us, but let us do it. As my hon. colleague says, let us do the good work that Canadians have asked us to do.

However, we ask two things: allow us to have fuller opposition days, just like the Liberals are having full government days, and do not shut down the debate on the Standing Orders.

Mr. Speaker, I believe there have been consultations. I hope you will find unanimous consent of the House to propose an amendment. The amendment would restrict the use of closure on any motion proposing to change the Standing Orders during the period outlined in Motion No. 14, and would propose to treat opposition motions on allotted days the same as other government business.

Therefore, I seek the consent of the House to amend Motion No. 14 accordingly. I move that Motion No. 14 be amended by deleting all the words in paragraph (j) and substituting the following: “A motion pursuant to Standing Order 57 shall not be admissible for any motion dealing with amendments to the Standing Orders or changes to the practices of the House.”

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

moved:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, commencing upon the adoption of this Order and concluding on Friday, June 23, 2017:

(a) on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, the ordinary hour of daily adjournment shall be 12:00 a.m., except that it shall be 10:00 p.m. on a day when a debate, pursuant to Standing Order 52 or 53.1, is to take place;

(b) subject to paragraph (e), when a recorded division is demanded in respect of a debatable motion, including any division arising as a consequence of the application of Standing Order 61(2) or Standing Order 78, but not including any division in relation to the Business of Supply or arising as a consequence of an order made pursuant to Standing Order 57, (i) before 2:00 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of oral questions at that day’s sitting, or (ii) after 2:00 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, or at any time on a Friday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of oral questions at the next sitting day that is not a Friday;

(c) notwithstanding Standing Order 45(6) and paragraph (b) of this Order, no recorded division requested after 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 22, 2017, or at any time on Friday, June 23, 2017, shall be deferred, except for any recorded division which, under the Standing Orders, would be deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on Wednesday, September 20, 2017;

(d) the time provided for Government Orders shall not be extended pursuant to Standing Order 45(7.1) or Standing Order 67.1(2);

(e) when a recorded division, which would have ordinarily been deemed deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on a Wednesday governed by this Order, is demanded, the said division is deemed to have been deferred until the conclusion of oral questions on the same Wednesday;

(f) any recorded division which, at the time of the adoption of this Order, stands deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on the Wednesday immediately following the adoption of this Order shall be deemed to stand deferred to the conclusion of oral questions on the same Wednesday;

(g) a recorded division demanded in respect of a motion to concur in a government bill at the report stage pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(9), where the bill has neither been amended nor debated at the report stage, shall be deferred in the manner prescribed by paragraph (b);

(h) for greater certainty, this Order shall not limit the application of Standing Order 45(7);

(i) no dilatory motion may be proposed after 6:30 p.m.;

(j) notwithstanding Standing Orders 81(16)(b) and (c) and 81 (18)(c), proceedings on any opposition motion shall conclude no later than 5:30 p.m. on the sitting day that is designated for that purpose, except on a Monday when they shall conclude at 6:30 p.m. or on a Friday when they shall conclude at 1:30 p.m.; and

(k) when debate on a motion for the concurrence in a report from a standing, standing joint or special committee is adjourned or interrupted, the debate shall again be considered on a day designated by the government, after consultation with the House Leaders of the other parties, but in any case not later than the twentieth sitting day after the interruption.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to government Motion No. 14. For the benefit of members, the motion would extend the sitting of the House until we rise for the summer adjournment.

We have much to accomplish in the coming weeks. Our government has an ambitious legislative agenda that we would like to advance in order to deliver on the commitments we made to Canadians in the last election. Let me reflect on our recent legislative achievements before I turn to the important work that lies before us over the next four weeks.

In our last sitting week, the House and Senate were able to reach agreement on securing passage of Bill C-37, which would put in place important measures to fight the opioid crisis in Canada. I would like to thank members of the House for the thoughtful debate on this bill and for not playing politics with such an important piece of legislation. In particular, I would like to thank members of the New Democratic Party for co-operating with the government to advance this bill when it was in the House and for helping us dispense with amendments from the Senate. This was a high watermark for the House and I hope that we can take this professional and courteous approach forward. I would also like to thank senators for their important contributions to this bill.

I would also like to point out the passage of two crucial bills related to trade. The first, Bill C-30, would implement an historic trade agreement with the European Union. The second, Bill C-31, would implement a trade agreement with Ukraine, a country that is dear to many members.

I am proud that our government continues to open the doors to trade and potential investment in Canada to grow our economy and help build a strong middle class.

In looking forward to the next four sitting weeks, I would like to highlight a few priority bills that our government will seek to advance. I will start with Bill C-44, which would implement budget 2017. This bill is about creating good middle-class jobs today while preparing Canadians for the jobs of tomorrow.

I will provide some examples of the initiatives that will contribute to building a strong middle class. The budget makes smart investments to help adult workers retain or upgrade their skills to adapt to changes in the new economy and to help young people get the skills and work experience they need to start their careers.

The budget also provides for investments in the well-being of Canadians, with the emphasis on mental health, home care, and health care for indigenous peoples.

Bill C-44 would provide financing to the provinces for home care and mental health care. It would also create leave for those who wish to care for a critically ill adult or child in their family. These initiatives help build stronger communities.

I would also like to point to initiatives in the budget that deal with gender equality. The first-ever gender statement will serve as a basis for ongoing, open, and transparent discussions about the role gender plays in policy development. Our government has other initiatives that aim to strengthen gender equality. For example, Bill C-25 encourages federally regulated companies to promote gender parity on boards of directors and to publicly report on the gender balance on these boards.

Another bill, which I will discuss in greater detail later in my remarks, is Bill C-24, a bill that would level the playing field to ensure a one-tier ministry. The bill has a simple premise. It recognizes that a minister is a minister, no matter what portfolio he or she holds.

Our government has committed to legalizing and strictly regulating the production, distribution, sale, and possession of cannabis. I look forward to the debate on this important bill tomorrow. I will note that the bill would provide strong safeguards and deterrents to protect young people from enticements to use or access cannabis.

The government has taken a responsible approach in seeking to legalize cannabis by ensuring that law enforcement agencies have approved methods to test the sobriety of drivers to guard against cannabis use while operating a motorized vehicle. This afternoon, the House will continue to debate this bill, which, I will happily note, has support from all opposition parties in the House. I hope that we can agree to send this bill to committee on Wednesday.

Now I would like to return to our government's commitment to improving gender equality. Bill C-24, which stands in my name, seeks to formalize the equal status of the ministerial team. This bill is very straightforward in its nature. It is fundamentally about the equality of all ministers. We strongly believe that the Minister of Status of Women should be a full minister. We believe that the Minister of Science and the Minister of Democratic Institutions should be full ministers.

I am disappointed that the Conservatives do not share this fundamental belief in equality. I think we should send this bill to committee for a detailed study of what the bill actually does.

I would like to draw members' attention to another piece of legislation, Bill C-23, regarding an agreement with the United States on the preclearance of persons and goods between our two countries.

This bill is currently being studied by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. The principle of the bill is simple. It is about ensuring a more efficient and secure border by expanding preclearance operations for all modes of transportation. This will increase the number of trips and the volume of trade, which will strengthen both of our economies.

As members may know, preclearance operations currently take place at eight Canadian airports, and immigration pre-inspection is also conducted at multiple locations in British Columbia in the rail and marine modes.

Once that bill comes back from committee, I hope that we can work together to send it to the other place.

In our last sitting week, our government introduced comprehensive modernization of our transportation systems. A strong transportation system is fundamental to Canada's economic performance and competitiveness. Bill C-49 does just that. The bill would enhance the utility, efficiency, and fluidity of our rail system so that it works for all participants in the system. Freight rail is the backbone of the Canadian economy. It moves everything from grain and potash to oil and coal, to the cars we drive, the clothes we wear, and the food we eat.

I would also like to draw to the attention of members provisions in Bill C-49 that would strengthen Canada's air passenger rights. While the precise details of the air passenger rights scheme will be set out in regulations, the objective is that rights should be clear, consistent, transparent, and fair for passengers and air carriers.

Finally, our government committed to creating a national security and intelligence committee of parliamentarians. Bill C-22 seeks to accomplish two interrelated goals, ensuring that our security intelligence agencies are effective in keeping Canadians safe, while at the same time safeguarding our values, rights and freedoms, and the open, generous, inclusive nature of our country.

I appreciate the work that was done in the House committee to improve the bill. The bill is currently before the Senate national security committee, and I look forward to appearing before that committee with my colleague, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

Sitting a few extra hours for four days per week will also give the House greater flexibility in dealing with unexpected events. While it is expected that the Senate will amend bills, it is not always clear which bills and the number of bills that could be amended by the Senate. As we have come to know, the consideration of Senate amendments in the House takes time. This is, in part, why we need to sit extra hours. I know that members work extremely hard balancing their House duties and other political duties. I expect that extending the hours will add to the already significant workload.

I wish to thank members for their co-operation in these coming weeks. As I reflect upon my time as government House leader, there were examples where members of the House came together, despite their political differences, and advanced initiatives that touched directly upon the interests of all Canadians. I hope that over the four remaining sitting weeks before we head back to work in our ridings, we can have honest and frank deliberations on the government's priorities and work collaboratively to advance the agenda that Canadians sent us here to implement.

In the previous Parliament, when the government decided to extend the sittings in June of 2014, Liberal members supported that motion. We knew then, as we know now, that our role as legislators is a privilege, and we discharge our parliamentary functions in support of our constituents.

There will be initiatives that the government will bring forward over the coming weeks that will enjoy the support of all members, and there will be issues on which parties will not agree. Our comportment during this time will demonstrate to Canadians that we are all in this together, despite our differences, for the good of this great country. Let us not lose sight of that.

I believe the motion before the House is reasonable. I hope opposition members can support sitting a few extra hours for four days a week for the next few weeks to consider important legislation for Canadians.

Infrastructure

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, the finance committee is currently studying the budget bill, Bill C-44, but this omnibus bill contains the Liberals' so-called infrastructure bank. We have had several witnesses appear before committee who have studied this scheme and are testifying that this bank is being set up to invest in high-risk projects.

My question is for the Minister of Finance. Why is he gambling with $35 billion of hard-earned taxpayer dollars?

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

Do you think something should be done about that?

It seems to me that the government, or at least the Liberal Party, had pledged to eliminate interest charges on student loans. Do you think that's something Bill C-44 is missing, something we should perhaps address later in our discussions?

[Angella MacEwen, Senior Economist, Canadian Labour Congress]

Thank you very much.

I'd like to thank the committee for the opportunity to appear before you today.

The Canadian Labour Congress is Canada's largest labour central, bringing together Canada's national and international unions, along with provincial and territorial federations of labour and 130 district labour councils. We represent 3.3 million Canadians who work in virtually all sectors of the Canadian economy, in all occupations, and in all parts of Canada.

The 300-page budget implementation act, or Bill C-44, which was introduced on April 11, implements a variety of commitments contained in budget 2017. There are too many that are relevant to workers in Canada for me to comment on them all. I want to briefly highlight a few concerns.

Bill C-44 strengthens the Special Import Measures Act in several areas, as Canadian steel producers and unions had urged, but disappointingly, no mention is made of improving the standing of trade unions and establishing their right to bring trade complaints, which was promised in the text of budget 2017.

Division 11 deals with amendments to the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code maternity and parental leave and benefit changes announced in budget 2017. We have argued consistently that the best way of expanding real options for working families, and women in particular, is for the federal government to commit to long-term, stable funding for universal, affordable, high-quality child care across Canada. I want to emphasize that the changes to EI parental benefits that are proposed in the bill are no substitute for concerted action to address the child care crisis in Canada.

Division 18 of part 4 would 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. In our pre-budget submission, we suggested that the federal government could accomplish this in several ways.

The government could issue green bonds in order to fund projects, such as the electrification of transportation, electric vehicle charging stations and networks, smart grid technology and transmission lines for renewable energy, and renewable energy storage. The government could also facilitate and fund innovative financing arrangements to ensure that financial institutions and utilities guarantee loans to municipal governments for property tax-based and utility-based “on-bill” financing for retrofits. The government could also develop a plan to re-establish postal banking through the Canada Post Corporation, and use this to finance green investments and spread local renewable energy generation in Canadian homes and small communities. The federal government could simply take advantage of its ability to borrow at remarkably low rates in order to provide low-cost access to capital for public infrastructure projects.

As many observers have pointed out, the case for the infrastructure bank, as it is described in budget 2017 and in this budget implementation bill, is not compelling. Yields on a 30-year Government of Canada bond currently sit at around 2%, which means Ottawa can borrow at much lower rates than those available in the private sector.

We agree there is a need for improved financing tools, but there is no case for a Canada infrastructure bank, which is simply a vehicle for massive and costly privatization.

There is further concern that the stated needs of pension funds for returns in the 7% to 9% range would mean increased user fees, which would be untenable for already expensive transit operations in most large urban centres.

Finally, infrastructure investment that is driven by the need for high returns would put socially useful investments in environmental infrastructure or affordable housing on the back burner for cash-strapped municipalities.

As CUPE economist Toby Sanger phrases it, “No homeowner in their right mind would commit to a...mortgage at a rate of 7 per cent or more when they can borrow at 2.5 per cent—especially when it involves locking in over 10, 20 or 30 years, and paying close to twice as much in total costs.” So, why would the federal government make the Canada infrastructure bank rely only on higher-cost private finance to fund what will have the public sector holding the risk if it fits, or if the right projects don't get funded?

Thank you very much.

[David Shepheard, Director, Vancouver Film Commission, Vancouver Economic Commission]

Thank you very much, Chairman.

I'm pleased to be here today on behalf of the Vancouver Economic Commission and our CEO, Ian McKay. He sends his direct apologies, but the Prime Minister is in Vancouver today and he's hosting him at some events, so I'm here on his behalf.

The Vancouver Economic Commission is the economic development platform for Vancouver. As many of you are aware, for several years now Vancouver has led the nation in GDP growth and in job growth, and it has the most diversified economy in Canada. In that context, we're delighted to speak in support of Bill C-44.

While most of my comments today will focus on division 20, on the invest in Canada act, I'd like to quickly address some of the components of the bill.

Regarding division 5 on the creation of a pan-Canadian artificial intelligence strategy, we support this initiative unequivocally. At the same time, to be clear and on the record, Vancouver and British Columbia boast some of the best world-class capacity in AI disciplines at the University of Victoria, UBC, and Simon Fraser University, as well as globally recognized clusters of quantum computing companies such as D-Wave and 1QBit. Vancouver is well positioned to lead the country in groundbreaking innovation in the quantum field, but most importantly from a national perspective, it's imperative that Canada continue to develop and retain some of the world's best researchers in the field of AI.

In the brief coming on division 8, on increasing the threshold of significance for the review, we support this measure. It's in line with previous practices, and is moving at a rate in line with GDP.

On division 20 regarding the invest in Canada act, the creation of a Canada-wide investment hub comes at a time when Canada's brand as a destination for global capital flows is at an all-time high. Political stability, fiscal strength, globally recognized post-secondary educational institutions, and a multicultural population have created a platform for 21st century innovation that is among the world's best.

Canada's ability and capacity to attract a bigger share of foreign direct investment must be a major priority for the Government of Canada, and the investment hub must demonstrate to the international investment community that Canada is a clear, cohesive, and comprehensive value proposition to attract further FDI.

While Canada's brand will undoubtedly open the door to conversations with investors from all over the world, the federal government's investment hub needs to be structured and resourced in a way that recognizes that investment capital lands in cities, regions, and communities across the country, and in most cases it is these local ecosystems and the regional clusters that make the investment possible. In that sense, Canada currently has 13 mini investment hubs, the big cities economic agencies alliance, and I know you just heard recently from Mike Darch, the president. Vancouver, through our CEO, who is the current chair of the CCCA, Consider Canada City Alliance, works closely with the trade commissioner service at Global Affairs Canada to brand Canada to international investors through our city-based platforms. It's a great partnership and a model that needs to be expanded and improved in the new investment hub.

In my own personal experience, I recently relocated from London to Vancouver to take on the role as its inaugural film commissioner. From that perspective, we're seeing how Canada's global brand value, equally weighted by Vancouver as a destination, is experiencing high levels of investment attraction from across the globe in the digital entertainment and technology sectors, based on big infrastructure projects and investment in companies.

VEC, through its daily work, is witnessing some of the same factors across all the main economic sectors that are part of the strategic focus for the city. The ongoing work of the city economic development agencies is delivering daily on what will surely be some of the key targets and outcomes for the investment hub. From that respect, it will be a valuable strategic partner for the success of this initiative.

Thank you very much for your time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you all for coming.

As you know, we're dealing with the budget implementation act, Bill C-44.

We have presentations from five groups during this round. If you could hold your presentations as close to five minutes as possible, that would be helpful.

We'll start with the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Brakel, senior director for economic, financial and tax policy.

Welcome, Mr. Brakel.

[Henry Wegiel]

Thank you very much for the question. I apologize, I can't answer in French due to my limited French abilities.

The purpose of Bill C-44 is to address unfair trade. Steel or other goods that come in are dumped and subsidized and distort the market and injure Canadian industry. From a procurement perspective and what you're referring to as the Buy American provisions in the United States, that is a completely different issue, which Bill C-44 doesn't address. If we discuss that a bit, Canada does have procurement provisions; and if we're going to be spending the billions of dollars that we indicate we are, moving forward into the future here in Canada, then we should be looking at potential Canadian preferences. This is particularly given the nexus now of what we're talking about from a trade standpoint and from an environmental standpoint, which is now becoming more critical for Canada.

To give you an example, Canadian steel used in Canada has one-third of the carbon footprint that steel from offshore does. When we put forward a procurement policy here in Canada, we should be looking at that and saying if both of those are important to us, the environment is important to us, then we should be looking at what products we are actually using in our procurement policies, and from where, to reduce that overall carbon footprint. In a nutshell, if you buy Canadian steel, you get a discount of two-thirds on the carbon footprint, and that is something that is being elevated now after COP21, and everything else in Paris, the impact of carbon on the environment and on Canada's procurement policies. We're very hopeful in working with the government on those sorts of measures that would help the economy and help the environment.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, for the work you do in your different organizations and for enlightening us on your thoughts on Bill C-44.

I come from the Okanagan. The interior of British Columbia has a lot of opportunity to offer in tourism, so I'm going to start with Ms. Bell.

I find she has written down, conveniently, that there are 742 tourism operators in my area as well as just under 8,500 people who work in the industry. I appreciate your raising that today.

You have raised some legitimate concerns about our competitiveness. I was at the industry committee this morning. The minister responsible for small business and tourism, Minister Chagger, was there, and the question was brought to her about competitiveness. She said that one thing they needed to do was look at other jurisdictions and make evidence-based decisions. Do other jurisdictions that have a value-added tax or a goods and services tax have a similar provision for offering a rebate when you're trying to bring in business from out of the country?

[Charlotte Bell, President and Chief Executive Officer, Tourism Industry Association of Canada]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chair, committee members, on behalf of the Tourism Industry Association of Canada, I am very pleased to be here today as part of the committee's study on Bill C-44.

TIAC is the only national voice representing the interests of all sectors of the tourism industry in Canada. This includes accommodations, transportation, destinations, and attractions. Our members range in size from small businesses, including many tour operators, to some of Canada's largest hotel chains, national airlines, rail services, destinations, and iconic tourist attractions from coast to coast to coast.

Tourism is a top economic driver for Canada, which last year generated $91.6 billion in revenues, surpassing forestry, agriculture, and fisheries combined. It also employs in excess of 627,000 Canadians and is considered a top employer of Canadian youth.

The first thing I'd like to do is reiterate our gratitude for the support received by the Minister of Small Business and Tourism, as well as the Minister of Finance concerning a number of positive commitments in the last budget. Specifically, we were pleased with news that Destination Canada, Statistics Canada, and indigenous tourism will receive much-needed funding to support tourism marketing, data collection, and indigenous tourism development. These are important initiatives that will reap significant benefits for the Canadian economy and job creation in the long term, and will help strengthen one of the primary growth industries in this country.

This said, changes to the foreign visitor tax rebate program, the FCTIP, and their proposed implementation have created a wave of concern and alarm within the tourism industry. As we try to obtain an interpretation from CRA as to how the changes will be implemented, there continues to be anxiety. While the stated goal of this proposed repeal is to eliminate inefficient tax measures, it may very well create financial hardship for a number of small tourism businesses across the country and will also make Canada even less cost competitive than it is today.

While tourism has seen important gains in international arrivals in the last couple of years, and especially last year, it's important to recognize that, globally, Canada is in 18th position in terms of international arrivals, falling behind countries like Saudi Arabia. For perspective, in 2000 Canada ranked eighth in the world, so we've lost some ground.

In terms of our cost competitiveness relative to other countries, Canada now ranks 97th out of 141 countries measured annually by the World Economic Forum. While the $50 million per year savings outlined in the supplementary budget documents may seem small and inconsequential, in reality the change is cause for concern. While the GST/HST rebate may have appeared to be underutilized, it was widely used as a competitive tool to attract international travellers to Canada by lowering the cost of tour packages to make them more affordable.

In the absence of this rebate, many businesses, including significant numbers of small and medium-sized tourism operators, will be left absorbing significant additional cost and in some cases eliminating their profits. Further, tour operators are also impacted, as travel packages can be pre-sold up to two years in advance and sometimes even longer. The rebate is usually built into the price of packages offered internationally, but actual payment doesn't occur until well after the travel has occurred. In fact sometimes it can be as late as three months later.

We understand that the proposed repeal is meant to apply in respect of supplies of tour packages or accommodations made after budget day. This implies that contracts made prior to budget day would still be eligible for the rebate. Given that the business cycle operates up to two years in advance, many contracts have been solidified well into 2018, with secondary agreements made under this umbrella. The fact that we don't yet know whether those secondary agreements will benefit from the current rebate is cause for concern.

The Minister of Small Business and Tourism unveiled a new tourism vision last week during Canada's largest travel trade show in Canada, which is Rendez-vous Canada. The minister set out bold goals for tourism growth in the coming years and recognized the importance of this sector to Canada's economy and to its job creation.

So do we. We fully support and embrace growth and intend to work closely with the minister and others to see those goals become a reality, but in order to get there, Canada must address its cost competitiveness. Every new tax, every new levy, every new additional fee chips away at our ability to compete internationally and grow the sector. Tourism remains the only export sector in Canada that's not zero rated. The GST/HST rebate, while perhaps imperfect, was at least one very small way of lowering costs, but now that, too, will be gone.

As I said at the opening, Canada's tourism is a $91.6-billion sector, and we want to see that grow to $125 billion, but we need to address our cost competitiveness if we're going to increase overall tourism numbers by 30% in the next few years. Otherwise the numbers may very well go in a different direction.

Thank you very much for your attention.

[Mike Darch, President, Consider Canada City Alliance]

It is my pleasure to address you today to give the support of the Consider Canada City Alliance to the Invest in Canada Act and its implementation. My name is Michael Darch. I am the president of the Consider Canada City Alliance. With me is Blair Patacairk, who is the chair of our government relations committee, as well as the managing director for investment and trade here at Invest Ottawa.

I intend to address three points today: the support of the CCCA and its members for the investment hub to be established by Bill C-44, the benefits and relationships that would be established between our members and the hub, and activity already under way to ensure that the economic opportunities presented by the establishment of the hub are quickly and effectively achieved.

First, I will give you a short introduction to the CCCA. Seven of Canada's large cities came together in Calgary in 2007 to explore common challenges in attracting foreign investment to Canada. That collaboration continued with the invest in Canada bureau within Foreign Affairs. In 2012, we incorporated as a not-for-profit organization. Today, the CCCA includes 13 of Canada's largest municipal investment promotion agencies, stretching from Halifax to Vancouver. Together, the economic influence zones of the members encompass all or part of 14 of Canada's census metropolitan areas that represent 59.6% of Canada's population, 65.1% of Canada's GDP, and 83.4 % of Canada's GDP growth between 2011 and 2016.

The mission of the Consider Canada City Alliance is to contribute to a sustainable and globally competitive national economy built on the collective strength of the ecosystems in each member region.

The members of the CCCA were therefore delighted with the announcement in the fall economic statement in 2016 of the intent to create the invest in Canada hub. The members of the CCCA view the creation of the hub as a significant commitment by the Government of Canada to the importance of foreign direct investment as a generator of wealth and to the creation of jobs across all demographics. It will be an essential stimulant to the innovation economy in Canada. The proposed invest in Canada act contained in Bill C-44 translates that intent into reality.

The members of the CCCA welcome the opportunity to contribute to the success of the investment hub and to assist in optimizing the overall effectiveness of both the hub and municipal efforts to attract investors to Canada. We do not minimize the complexity and challenge of the endeavour to create the hub. We would offer whatever assistance we can to ensure the success of the project.

We agree with the following assertion in the fall economic statement:

Around the world, leading companies are looking for stable places to invest and grow their businesses. Smart countries are mobilizing to take advantage of the opportunities and jobs that go hand in hand with global investment. Canada cannot afford to be left behind.

We look forward to the hub's becoming the single window for investors looking to invest in Canada. It is our hope that the hub will become the single access point for municipalities to the Canadian government for matters relating to investment attraction.

Therefore, it is our aspiration that the hub would have the capacity to assist, advise, and champion on matters such as immigration policy and processes, federal incentive programs, federal economic development strategies, policies with respect to investment promotion, the development and marketing of the Canada brand, and lead generation and client servicing.

Similarly, the municipalities will ensure that each designates a contact for the hub on matters related to investment attraction matters within their jurisdiction. Furthermore, should the decision be made to place hub officers in locations across Canada, we strongly recommend that the officer be co-located with our respective member.

Finally, we would welcome the role of the hub in coordinating team Canada missions in support of trade and investment.

It is our hope that the operating relationship be founded on the principles of collaboration, complementarity, and consistency.

Already the CCCA and its members are working to make the hub a success. Each member already has a concierge service for incoming and existing foreign investors, which will be available to the hub. A close working relationship has been established with the hub implementation team, and meetings are held regularly. All members participated in the KPMG outreach, led by the Privy Council Office, on attracting foreign direct investment to Canada. All members have been invited to be referral partners for the new, dedicated service channel being established by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. The CCCA chair participated in a deputy minister level consultation round table on the development of the hub. We are working with the Trade Commissioner Service to ensure that the 15 new investment officers expected to be hired this year under the hub program are fully aware of the services, capabilities, and value propositions represented by each of our members.

In summary, the CCCA, one, fully supports the invest in Canada hub and the legislation contained in Bill C-44 to bring it to reality; two, is fully committed to the economic advantages to be gained by Canada through the provision of a single service window for foreign investors, which integrates the resources of all levels of government; and three, is actively working with the hub implementation team and its federal partners to ensure that Canada reaps the maximum economic benefit from the global opportunities available today.

I thank you for your time. I look forward to any questions you may have.

[Henry Wegiel, Vice-Chair, Trade and Public Policy Committee, Canadian Steel Producers Association]

Thank you.

Good afternoon, honourable members of the committee, and thank you for the opportunity to present today on behalf of the Canadian Steel Producers Association, or CSPA, as regards Bill C-44, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017.

The CSPA is the national voice of Canada's $14-billion primary steel production industry. Canadian steel producers are integral to the automotive, energy, construction, and other demanding industrial supply chains. CSPA seeks to work with governments and industry partners to advance policies that enable a globally competitive business environment for its member companies and various supply chain stakeholders.

As committee members are aware, the global steel industry is at an inflection point as the result of growing overcapacity and direct state intervention in the sector. Canadian producers are not immune to or sheltered from the truly unprecedented international challenges that currently face the sector. The steel industry has, on a worldwide basis, seen a significant increase in market distorting dumping and circumvention practices, both from China directly and from a host of other global producers whose home markets have also, in many cases, suffered because of unfair Chinese competition.

To put that in perspective, the root cause of our issue is that there is 700 million tonnes of global excess capacity in a steel market of 1.6 billion tonnes. Out of that 700 million tonnes of excess capacity, over 400 million tonnes is in China.

Simply put, that steel has to go somewhere. The price deterioration and the market instability associated with the illegal steel trade have contributed significantly to our industry's challenges and are hurting middle-class Canadian families. As a direct result, investment in Canadian facilities, capacity utilization, and employment are under threat throughout Canada's steel production and manufacturing sectors.

With that in mind, the CSPA welcomes the Government of Canada's budget 2017 commitments to improve its ability to remedy dumped and subsidized imports by implementing measures that effectively modernize the Canadian trade remedy system.

Specifically, the CSPA appreciates the amendments in budget 2017 to the Special Import Measures Act, or SEMA. These four major amendments provide for the following: first, the ability to expand a trade remedy measure to address circumvention of dumping duties; second, more transparent and predictable enforcement of trade remedy measures; third, the ability to address market distortions in the country of export when establishing dumping margins; and last, the ability for unions to now participate in trade remedy proceedings.

With these changes, taken in conjunction with the changes that were implemented in budget 2016, the Canadian government has taken meaningful, substantiative, and timely steps to modernize Canada's trade remedy system.

Almost as importantly, these trade defence mechanisms also send an important signal to our closest trading partner, the United States, that Canada remains a partner equally committed to battling and addressing unfair trade.

In this regard, in 2015 and 2016, the U.S. implemented their own trade remedy modernization via their trade enforcement act and the Leveling the Playing Field Act. Now Canada and the United States are on equal footing from a trade remedy standpoint.

However, recently the U.S. has initiated processes such as the ongoing section 232 investigation on the effect of imports of steel on U.S. national security, and a consultation concerning construction of pipelines using domestic—that is, U.S.—steel and iron.

As we work to seek exclusions from future U.S. findings or actions, it will be essential to remind the U.S. administration of both our existing joint efforts on steel enforcement and our renewed legislative commitments to combatting unfair steel trade in North America.

In closing, I would remind this committee that unfairly traded goods pose a clear and present threat to the livelihoods of over 22,000 middle-class Canadians, together with their families, employed directly in steel production and the additional 100,000 Canadians whose employment is indirectly impacted by the sector.

Steel production in Canada involves significantly advanced manufacturing processes, and Canada's steel workers are well educated, highly skilled, and trained throughout their careers.

With this in mind, I urge this committee to recommend the passage of the amendments in Bill C-44 related to strengthening Canada's response to unfair trade and to encourage the government's quick implementation of the related regulations. This will allow our industry to take advantage of these new legislative tools to defend against the well-documented and corrosive impacts of global overcapacity and unfair trade in steel.

I thank you for your time, and I'm happy to take any questions that members may have.

[Brian Kingston, Vice-President, Policy, International and Fiscal Issues, Business Council of Canada]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, and committee members, thank you for the invitation to take part in your consultations on Bill C-44. I have some very short opening remarks. I will give you the general overview from the Business Council's perspective on the budget, and then I'll specifically talk about infrastructure and investment.

The Business Council of Canada represents the chief executives and entrepreneurs of 150 leading Canadian companies in all sectors and regions of the country. Our member companies employ 1.7 million Canadians; account for more than half the value of the Toronto Stock Exchange; contribute the largest share of federal corporate taxes; and are responsible for most of Canada's exports, corporate philanthropy, and private sector investments in R and D.

In the council's pre-budget submission, we urged the government to adopt a laser-like focus on competitiveness as the key to generating long-term economic growth and ensuring a better life for all citizens. We believe that Canada needs a focused strategy to encourage new business investment, attract international capital, and enhance Canada's ability to compete in a global economy.

Among other recommendations, we called on the government to streamline the approval process for private sector infrastructure projects, develop a comprehensive plan to broaden the tax base and bring down rates, and set out in detail a fiscally sustainable path to balanced budgets with a commitment to an explicit debt-to-GDP target. Acting on these recommendations would, among other things, help position Canada as a global trade and investment hub, and we believe this is increasingly important in the face of protectionist and competitiveness threats.

So, we welcome the government's efforts to establish the Canada infrastructure bank to attract private sector and institutional investment to new revenue-generating infrastructure projects. Targeted spending on productivity and trade-enhancing infrastructure projects would bolster Canada's long-term competitiveness. In our view, the infrastructure bank should be designed to stimulate, through open and competitive bidding, the development of infrastructure projects that would not otherwise be pursued by federal, provincial, or municipal authorities.

But importantly, injecting new capital alone will not improve infrastructure. The federal government can lay the groundwork for new, major infrastructure projects by ensuring the regulatory approval processes are transparent, predictable, fact-based, and capable of rendering decisions in a very timely manner.

Turning to foreign investment, another important element of Bill C-44, the Business Council has long called for the creation of a single window to attract major investments to Canada, and for that reason we welcome the proposed invest in Canada hub. Canada's ability to attract foreign investment has diminished. In the early 1980s, the stock of inward foreign direct investment, FDI, as a share of GDP was higher in Canada than in countries such as Australia, Norway, Sweden, and the U.K. Today the situation is reversed. Canada lags behind all four of those countries as a destination for foreign investment, and over the same period our country's share of the global FDI stock has fallen from 8% to just below 3%. According to the “World Investment Report 2016”, compiled by UNCTAD, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, Canada does not even rank among the top 15 prospective host economies for multinational investment in the 2016-18 period. That's a drop from the 11th destination last year. This is based on a survey of multinational executives, and we find that quite a worrying ranking.

We believe that the proposed investment hub will help Canada reverse these worrying trends and bring new investment into Canada. Finally, we believe that foreign investment is beneficial to Canada, except in very unique circumstances. For that reason, we support raising the Investment Canada Act review threshold to $1 billion in Bill C-44.

With that, I conclude my remarks and look forward to questions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I should make note that at the conclusion of the letter, Ms. Sgro, the chair of that committee, said: “Please note, I invited Committee Members to contact the Parliamentary Counsel and Legislative Clerk assigned to Bill C-44 should Members wish to draft amendments on their own initiative and to submit them directly to the Clerk of the Standing Committee of Finance before Friday, May 19, 2017 at 5 p.m.”

I assume you've seen that, Luc.

I have Mr. Dusseault and then Mr. Albas.

Mr. Dusseault.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you, Mr. Berthold.

The letter may have come in this morning. I am just now reading it. As you're well aware from the letter I wrote to your chair on behalf of this committee, we farmed out certain sections of Bill C-44, the budget implementation act, to other committees. This one that went to the transportation committee was, I believe, dealing with the infrastructure bank. It was our intention that this committee....

We had meetings this morning with those witnesses, or was it yesterday?

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, fellow members.

I'd like to talk about something that happened in the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

This week, we had the pleasure of hearing from witnesses on Bill C-44. We spent two hours discussing the bill. My fellow members on the committee did not think that was anywhere near long enough.

When the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities met this morning, we were shocked to learn that the chair of the committee had sent a letter to the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance yesterday. We didn't even know about the letter. As you probably know, Mr. Chair, the letter is dated tomorrow. I'm not sure what that mistake might mean. It may have something to do with the chair's haste to respond without the consent of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

We discussed the matter at length this morning. The members of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities asked for more time to study Bill C-44 in order to make recommendations to the Standing Committee on Finance.

I wanted to make everyone aware of the situation. The letter was sent to the Standing Committee on Finance without the knowledge of the members of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

What's more, we never even got the letter. I had to ask the chair of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities to give us a copy. None of my colleagues in the opposition, the NDP, or even the government party had received the letter.

For me, that raises questions about the procedure used and about what the Standing Committee on Finance intends to do with the letter, knowing that the committee it came from did not have the opportunity to discuss it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We'll call the meeting to order, as we continue this afternoon with our further panels. Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, May 9, on Bill C-44, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, we have two panels this afternoon for the next hour and a half. We will start with the Business Council of Canada.

I understand, Mr. Berthold, there is something you want to say before we start the panel.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you very much.

I do appreciate where members of the opposition are coming from, and I do admit that there's some ambiguity, specifically with the date here. I'd like to suggest that this is not some grand scheme or anything intentional. Like you, Ms. Block, I was not familiar with this letter before today.

I think the paragraph that seemed to give Monsieur Rayes some real concern was the one about the committee's not having recommendations. I think that could be taken to mean that the chair hasn't received them. We had set aside a meeting because of the time constraint to get this to the finance committee for the 19th to deal with it. I assume the chair has included language to that effect, because she didn't receive recommendations on behalf of the committee.

If members of the opposition do have proposed amendments, I would encourage them to send them to the parliamentary counsel and legislative clerk, as is outlined in the final paragraph.

I know this is a contentious piece of legislation. We've heard witnesses here. We've had the minister here. We've debated the infrastructure bank specifically for one full day in the House as the result of an opposition motion, and it's come up a number of times over the course of the debate on BillC-44.

Although there may be disagreement, and I understand there is disagreement, I've heard evidence in our committee and argument in the House that convinces me that this infrastructure bank belongs in the budget implementation act, and I'm personally supportive of it.

Although there is a procedural difficulty with the dates in Mr. Rayes' motion, the motion is a request to add time to conduct the study. I personally don't feel that extra time is necessary because I feel we have on the table what we need to satisfy me that this is a good idea that is going to help the communities I represent.

I do appreciate that this is a point of disagreement, but I would ask, as a sign of good faith, that we don't take this letter to be some piece of malfeasance by our ordinary chair because I sincerely do not believe that was her intention.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

The second part of the motion, which, in my opinion, is still very valid and which I would like the committee to support, proposes that our committee write a letter to the Standing Committee on Finance to request that more time be dedicated to the study of the Infrastructure Bank of Canada. In reality, this directly contradicts the chair's decision to send, on our behalf, a letter yesterday—a letter dated tomorrow, I might add—stating that the committee has no amendments or recommendations on this issue.

With respect to this letter to the Standing Committee on Finance, I would like to remind the committee of this:

The Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities recommends that your Committee permit more time to study the design and implications of the proposed Infrastructure Bank by removing Part 4, Division 18, and other references to that Bank, from the rest of Bill C-44.

In reality, it's about splitting Bill C-44 to remove the part concerning the Infrastructure Bank of Canada.

I would like to point out that it is not sufficient to examine an issue this important, which affects all Canadian taxpayers, for an hour and a half. Important questions were asked concerning the interests of this bank, the real benefits relative to other existing financing options, and even the evidence supporting its creation.

In order to believe in the merits of the proposed bank, we must be able to further examine the issue. I remind you that we are talking about money belonging to all Canadians, which is not to be taken lightly. We are talking about $35 billion that will line the pockets of businesses, investors, and firms. Who will incur the risks associated with this money? Canadians will.

As someone representing Canadians, I find what is happening unacceptable. An attempt was made to muzzle us by stating, on our behalf, that there were no recommendations to be made. To imagine for a second that we would not make a single recommendation in the report on the study the committee is currently undertaking, one would have had to be oblivious to everything that was said during the question and comment period and to what the witnesses who came here told us. I am speechless. It is the first time that I see such a situation. I am furious. We are talking about our fellow citizens. We were elected to gain their trust.

An attempt is being made to put one over on us, as they say. This is too big. It's like trying to push a train through a mouse hole and thinking that we wouldn't notice. A letter dated tomorrow—because that's the deadline—was sent yesterday on our behalf. I'm not sure whether you realize. It said that we would have the opportunity to have our say, but that's false.

I do not know how we will deal with this, but it is clear to me that we must, at the very least, contact the members of the Standing Committee on Finance and ask them to give us more time to study the issue so that we can get to the bottom of it. If this bank is to be created, it will not be because the Liberals used their majority in the House to push it through under our noses, unbeknownst to Canadians. What we are experiencing is completely ridiculous.

I hope that the government members will at least be embarrassed by this situation and agree to this motion so that we can have more time, especially because we have a letter speaking on our behalf.

I don't know how to react to all of this. I sincerely hope that everyone will agree and that members across the table will support this motion. We would then have more time to ask questions, as we should, and to make recommendations so that the government can make the best decision possible, without smuggling this under our noses.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

Therefore, I will keep the end of my motion, as it is the only part that is still valid: “That the committee write a letter to the FINA Commitee to request additional time to conduct its study of the Infrastructure Bank.”

Allow me to explain this request.

I have, in my hands, a letter which is curiously dated tomorrow, Friday, May 19, 2017 but was sent yesterday to the Standing Committee on Finance. Does everyone have a copy of this letter? It is signed by our chair, who, unfortunately, is not present. What a shame, because I would have liked to hear what she has to say about this.

The letter reads as follows:

Upon your request, the Standing Committee of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities undertook the consideration of clauses 403 to 406 (Division 18, Part 4) of Bill C-44. In doing so, the Committee heard testimony from the Canadian Electricity Association, the Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy, the Canadian Union of Public Employees as well as officials from Infrastructure Canada and Finance Canada.

So far, everything is true.

The problem is when the chair speaks on our behalf and says the following:

I am pleased to inform you that the Committee has no recommendations….

I would like for the clerk to confirm whether we all made this decision together, as a committee. To my knowledge, this is not the case, and I do not believe I have missed any discussions about this subject.

The letter continues as follows:

… or suggested amendments for clauses 403 to 406 of Bill C-44.

I don't know whether my fellow members across the table will have the courage to confirm my statement, but I find this very peculiar. This is the first time since I became a member of Parliament that I have experienced such a situation, that someone speaks in my name, sends a letter two days before the date indicated on the letter, which is already a peculiar way of doing things, and decides for me, in the name of all the committee members, that there will be no amendments.

The letter continues:

Please note I invited Committee Members to contact the Parliamentary Counsel and Legislative Clerk assigned to bill C-44 should Members wish to draft amendments on their own initiative and to submit them directly to the Clerk of the Standing Committee on Finance before Friday, May 19, 2017 at 5:00 p.m.

I have searched all of my emails and letter mail without finding anything in writing in either official languages offering me this possibility.

The letter concludes:

Yours sincerely.

The Infrastructure Bank is a big issue. Many witnesses were of the opinion that such a bank was premature. I will repeat what the Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy official said: we are putting the cart before the horse.

I want to make clear that we are talking about $35 billion. That's 35 billion taxpayer dollars that will be used to enrich investors, for the most part foreign investors, to the detriment of Canadians. This is simply a way for the government, and therefore taxpayers, to secure the investments of these businesses or foreign investors.

Our committee chair, a Liberal member, is speaking in my name, in a letter dated tomorrow and sent yesterday, to announce that our committee will not propose any amendments. I just cannot believe it. I hope that our discussion is on the record and that it is not taking place in camera. Are we in camera? No, we are not. I want to try to highlight the inconsistency in which we find ourselves.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to go back to the remarks made yesterday by members of a group representing veterans. They said that significant amounts will be allocated to the training program to help people who have left the Canadian Armed Forces return to school.

I asked how many people could use the program, and I was told the details, meaning the regulations, could cause problems. Even though there are new provisions, clause 5.93 of Bill C-44 states in part:

5.93 The Governor in Council may make regulations: (a) prescribing how the length of service in the reserve force is to be determined for the purposes of paragraph 5.2(1)(a); (b) respecting what constitutes honourable release for the purpose of paragraph 5.2(1)(b); (c) providing for the periodic adjustment of the maximum cumulative amount referred to in subsection 5.2(2); (d) defining “educational institution” for the purposes of paragraph 5.3(1)(a); (e) prescribing the education or training that may or may not be approved by the Minister under section 5.5;

Therefore, everything will be established through regulations. As we were told yesterday, the regulations could cause difficulties in terms of whether veterans can use the program, for example.

Can you tell us when the regulations will be made and when the details on eligibility will be released so that veterans can know whether they're eligible for the program?

As parliamentarians, we can also determine the program's effectiveness.

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

Okay.

I'll refer to a question I asked the Minister of Finance. He didn't give me a detailed answer.

The purpose and functions part contains section 6 of the Canada Infrastructure Bank Act, which establishes the Canada Infrastructure Bank. The section refers to infrastructure projects that will generate revenue. It's not clear to me how infrastructure can generate revenue.

Can you provide an example of how infrastructure, such as a bridge or road, generates revenue?

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

Madam Chair, I have some questions for you.

I apologize to the witnesses, but it will take only 30 seconds.

You know that I will be in the chair for the last hour, so I would like some clarification on two questions, Madam Chair.

First, we had unanimously agreed to invite representatives from Aéroports de Montréal and the Service de police de la Ville de Montréal for our study of aviation safety. I have had an opportunity to speak with representatives of Aéroports de Montréal. They told me that they were prepared to come here, but today's date did not work for them. However, they were interested in appearing. Is it possible to plan an additional meeting so we can hear from them? I think it would be useful, for the purposes of our study.

Second, I have learned from my colleagues on the Standing Committee on Finance that you had sent a letter concerning the response of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities to Bill C-44. Unfortunately, I do not have a copy. In the letter, you stated that the members of our committee have until May 19, that is, tomorrow, to inform the Standing Committee on Finance of their recommendations. How do you want us to make recommendations to the Standing Committee on Finance if the members of this committee itself have not been informed that this possibility was open to them?

I would like some clarification on those two questions, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I call the meeting to order. For the record, we're continuing to deal with Bill C-44, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measures. We will start where we left off with witnesses from the Treasury Board Secretariat on part 4, division 21.

The floor is yours, Mr. Ermuth. I believe you had finished your remarks. Is that correct?

[Morna Ballantyne]

Our position—and it's set out in the brief—is that the changes that should be made are to bring the employment insurance program in line with the one in Quebec. It makes no sense that citizens and workers in one province would have superior benefits to those in the rest of the country. That is our position. We propose that your committee should recommend that in studying Bill C-44, because that is not, in fact, what is being advanced in Bill C-44.

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

Exactly. I think this also sheds light on one of the issues raised. A public servant had no choice but to recognize that one of issues is only four out of ten employees can access the employment insurance program. The public servant confirmed that, to access the parental insurance program, workers must be eligible for employment insurance. Obviously, workers have a problem.

We're currently studying Bill C-44. Do you think the removal of this aspect and the increase in payments, with a percentage higher than 55%, would be a solution? Is 55% of the salary enough?

[Morna Ballantyne, Executive Director, Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for the invitation to be here with you this afternoon. I'll try to get through this before the bell rings.

There is no longer any dispute that parents in Canada with young children are in desperate need of greater government support. High-quality child care is limited and financially out of reach for the great majority of families. Consequently parents, and particularly mothers, are forced to find alternatives. They withdraw from the paid workforce, lessen their attachment to it, or delay entry, or they turn to more affordable, lower-quality, makeshift child care arrangements. The damage to children's well-being, to women's economic equality, to family security, and to the Canadian economy is severe and well documented.

The Liberal Party of Canada's election platform promised economic security for the middle class and help for modern Canadian families. As part of this commitment, Canadians were told that the Liberal Government would ensure the availability of “affordable”, “high-quality”, and “fully inclusive” child care for all families who need it.

Neither the first or second Liberal government budget delivers on that promise. The 2016 budget gave only one year of funding for early learning and child care in 2017. The 2017 budget allocates funding in each subsequent year until 2028, and yet the sum of money to be transferred to the provinces and territories each year falls far, far short of what is required to build a fully comprehensive child care system over the next 10 years. The funding starts in 2017 at only $500 million. By 2022 it will have increased by only $50 million. That amount has to be divided up between 10 provinces and three territories. To put this in perspective, the Province of Quebec alone already spends $2.5 billion a year on its child care program.

Further, following the tabling of the budget, both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development publicly stated that the government's intention is not to help all families access affordable child care but rather to target the support to those with low and modest incomes. In other words, they are abandoning the middle class when it comes to child care. They are acting in direct opposition to the contemporary international consensus and the overwhelming research that affirms that a universal approach is more effective than a targeted one. Only a universal and comprehensive approach can generate the well-documented economic benefits of early childhood education and care, help all Canadian families and give them the choices of child care that they seek, and sustain ongoing public support.

More importantly, the research tells us that universal early childhood education and care is the best way to meet the developmental goals we wish for all children, regardless of their family's social or economic status. The direction that the government is taking on child care is not just insufficient. It also it runs contrary to evidence and actually sets us back.

This is also true of the related changes to the maternity and parental EI benefits set out in Bill C-44. During the public consultation process on these changes, the most common reason given by those who supported the government's proposal to extend the leave period to 18 months was the lack of available affordable child care for children under 18 months. However, reducing parents' EI parental benefits so that they can stay on leave longer is a bad substitute for affordable quality child care for all. What would really help working parents before and after the birth or adoption of children, in addition to affordable child care, would be easier access to maternity and parental benefits and higher benefits. As it is, too many parents don't qualify or can't afford to forfeit their regular paycheques. Changing the EI program in line with the already tested Quebec parental insurance program, the QPIP, would be a much more positive step forward.

I have provided to the clerk of your committee our organization's very short brief on the proposed changes and why we think they are wrong. I hope you will give it consideration as you debate division 11, part 4, of Bill C-44 .

Thanks for your consideration.

[Dr. Carolyn Pullen, Director, Policy, Advocacy and Strategy, Canadian Nurses Association]

Thank you. I've timed my speaking to less than five minutes.

I'm a registered nurse myself, and I'm here representing the CNA, the professional association for close to 140,000 nurses in Canada. I'm pleased to speak today about the measures related to nurse practitioners in Bill C-44. The measures are under part 4, division 11, which focuses on support for families through benefits and leaves in both the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code. As for part 1, we are pleased that the Income Tax Act now includes nurse practitioners, NPs, under the list of health care providers who can certify eligibility for disability tax credits. This measure was effective on budget day.

As our president noted on budget day, these changes are long-awaited breakthroughs for patients and nurse practitioners, and we hope they set the precedent for similar modernization of other related legislation. We're thankful that the Minister of Finance included these measures in Bill C-44. Along with the Canadian Association of Advanced Practice Nurses, we encourage members of the committee to accept the amendments that have been proposed for both the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code. The amendments formally acknowledge nurse practitioners and enable them to fulfill their important role as primary care providers, particularly for Canadians who live in rural and remote locations in Canada.

Members of the committee are also aware that the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology will be discussing a pre-study on division 11 of the bill, and we encourage them to support these amendments as well.

In order for us to have a sustainable health care system where services are accessible to all Canadians, health professionals must be permitted to practice to the full extent of their regulated qualifications. For nurse practitioners, these qualifications include the ability to perform comprehensive patient assessments and to complete related documentation. I'll give you a brief overview of the nurse practitioner role to illustrate the benefits of these amendments. Nurse practitioners are registered nurses with additional, graduate-level education and extensive, specialized health care experience. It's a protected title, and it has been regulated across Canada since the early nineties. Today, almost 5,000 nurse practitioners provide care to over three million Canadians. Within their scope of practice, they conduct physical assessments, order and interpret tests, admit and discharge to hospital, and prescribe medication. As you know, they can provide medical assistance in dying. They complete advanced practice examinations, and they must be registered with their nursing regulatory body in order to practice.

While nurse practitioners work in diverse settings, urban and rural, they are commonly the first point of contact for primary care, particularly in rural and remote communities. Like many primary care practitioners, it's not unusual for nurse practitioners to have a patient panel of over 10,000 patients. It's very broad in scope. If you just look within the first nations and Inuit health branch, the nurse-to-physician ratio for primary care in rural and remote communities is more than 26 to one. This illustrates the scale of care provided by nurse practitioners. They truly are the gateway to care.

It's clear from this how outdated legislation, drafted before nurse practitioners were recognized as a protected title and became key primary care providers.... These barriers are real, and they prevent access for many Canadians, particularly indigenous peoples, for whom the most local care is likely through a nurse practitioner. Including nurse practitioners among those who can complete documentation such as the medical certificate for employment insurance or compassionate care benefits gives patients increased access to benefits to which they are entitled. Unnecessary personal costs to individuals will be avoided. Duplication of services between nurses and physicians will be reduced. In the end, red tape will be cut. Canadians will have better access to care and better value for their tax dollars.

Finally, our expectation is that these cost-effective changes will trigger a similar modernization of legislation at the provincial and territorial levels. Similar modernization must still be made to include NPs as qualified medical practitioners under the Employment Insurance Act, specifically to include NPs in sections 54 and four sections of the employment insurance regulations. Further, five sections of the Canada Labour Code and proposed subsection 207.2(4) in Bill C-44 must similarly be amended.

In closing, I encourage members of this committee to support the bill, as its measures will improve access to care for over three million Canadians. As well, we are of the belief that the additional sections that do not add NPs must be implemented in this important bill.

Thank you to the committee. I look forward to your questions.

[Rob Cunningham, Senior Policy Analyst, Canadian Cancer Society]

Thank you, Chair and members of the committee.

My name is Rob Cunningham. I'm a lawyer and senior policy analyst with the Canadian Cancer Society.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today on behalf of the Canadian Cancer Society.

Most of my testimony will deal with clause 51 in Bill C-44 in supporting the tobacco tax increase found there, but first I would like to mention two other items in the budget.

I would like to convey our support for the investment in home and palliative care that is included in the budget. It's been estimated that 80% of those receiving palliative care are cancer patients. This will make a real difference and improve the lives of cancer patients and their families.

Second, we support the introduction of a new and more flexible employment insurance caregiver benefit. Caregivers provide assistance and key services to thousands of cancer patients every year in Canada while bearing a significant personal and financial burden. This new benefit will help and has our support.

Turning to tobacco, it remains the case that smoking causes 30% of cancer deaths in Canada. We've made progress, but more than five million Canadians still smoke. It's the leading preventable cause of disease and death. Higher tobacco taxes are the most effective strategy to reduce smoking, especially among kids, who have less disposable income, are less likely to be addicted, and are more responsive to price.

You have a handout from us. The graph shows the comparative provincial and territorial tobacco tax rates. The blue shows the rate. The mauve shows the GST and the PST, the provincial portion of the HST. We can see that in Ontario and Quebec the rate is much lower than in other provinces. The green shows budget announcements that are not yet implemented, where there's a scheduled date to come. On the far right of the graph is the federal tobacco tax, which is now lower—by quite a bit—than that of most provinces. The yellow is the 53¢ increase per carton in the budget, so it's small, but every bit helps. This just gives a bit of context for this increase.

The next page shows the trends in federal and provincial government tobacco tax revenue, not including GST, HST, or sales taxes. There are objectives to increase public revenue, in addition to benefiting public health, and we've seen an increase in tobacco tax revenue. That's the idea. The blue line shown there is after inflation, so it's not as much, but in both cases I think it's quite impressive, because there's been a decrease in the smoking public, yet tobacco tax revenue is going up.

The third page shows a newspaper headline saying that in Australia a package of cigarettes is going to be costing $40 in 2020.

The final page compares Australian and Canadian tobacco taxes. Quebec, on the far left, has the lowest tax of any province in Canada, while Manitoba has the highest. In Australia today, it's far higher at $148 per carton—the Canadian and Australian dollars are almost at par—with further scheduled increases by 2020. It's going to go up quite a lot more. Based on Australia, we haven't come close to the ceiling of what is possible. In Canada, we—

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank everyone for being here. Sorry for the interruptions.

I want to talk again about the transition from military life to civilian life experienced by many military members each year.

Bill C-44 contains new measures, in particular regarding the education and training people can receive when they want to head in another direction or maybe change careers, and regarding the transition services that will be provided for veterans so they can look for jobs, and so on. I'll focus on these issues.

What's currently available to veterans and military members in terms of education and training after military service? How will the new benefit help better meet the needs of military members and veterans? Was this program requested by veterans? Is the request being properly addressed?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We'll come to order. We're pleased to have witnesses here this afternoon for our further discussions on Bill C-44, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament.

As the witnesses know, the bells are ringing. We think that we have time to hear everybody's presentation. We will go to vote and then come back and spend a half an hour, or thereabouts, on questions for witnesses.

The first witnesses are from the Equitas Society. We have Mr. Bedard, who is the representative, and Mr. Campbell.

The floor is yours.

Government Appointments

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

Mr. Speaker, everyone in the francophonie recognizes that she was the best Liberal available for the job.

On another topic, we know that Bill C-44 is an omnibus bill that goes against the Liberals' campaign promises. This bill also provides for the creation of the infrastructure bank. The bill has not even been passed and the government is already in the process of appointing the chair of this bank.

Does the Prime Minister realize that not only is he breaking his election promises, but, more importantly, that he is flouting Parliament's authority?

[David Macdonald]

Maybe we'll see. There is probably broad agreement that the costs of the infrastructure bank should be borne by the infrastructure borrowers at the end of the day. It's a real question for this committee as to this bank's goal. Is it to reduce interest rate costs, to use the position of the federal government's low interest rate in order to reduce costs for the cities that are going to use this money? Is it a vehicle for investors to get the 7% or 9% they need to pay back the needed returns on the pension plans? It could go either way. It's the decision of this committee.

At present none of the functions as listed in Bill C-44 state that the goal of the bank is to produce rock-bottom interest rates for municipalities. Interest rates are not discussed in the functions of the bank. The investors and the needs of the investors are discussed in the functions of the bank.

[Mark Romoff, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Council for Public-Private Partnerships]

Good afternoon.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, co-chairs, and committee members, for inviting me to appear here today.

I'm pleased to speak before the committee on behalf of the council, which is a not-for-profit, non-partisan, member-based organization, with broad representation from across all levels of government in Canada and the private sector. Its mission is to promote smart, innovative, and modern approaches to infrastructure development and service delivery, through public-private partnerships. The council is a proponent of evidence-based public policy, educates stakeholders and the community on the economic and social benefits of public-private partnerships, and facilitates the adoption of international best practices to make sure we continue to be the very best at what we do.

I should emphasize that the council is not a lobby group. Rather it works as a partner with governments, to enable them to achieve the best outcomes and the best value for taxpayers from their respective infrastructure investments.

The council is pleased to speak today in support of Bill C-44, in particular the act to establish the Canada infrastructure bank.

I know committee members are well aware that, irrespective of the size of Canada's infrastructure deficit, which some estimates peg at about $1 trillion, and the fiscal challenges all governments across the country face, continued investment in infrastructure is absolutely critical, because it drives job creation, productivity, economic growth and prosperity, and global competitiveness. That's why the council has supported long-term infrastructure programs by successive governments to tackle the infrastructure deficit in this country. Notable in this regard, of course, is the unprecedented and ambitious federal investment of $186 billion over the next 12 years.

We will be the first to say government cannot do this alone. Governments at every level do not have enough money or expertise to build the world-class infrastructure needed to grow Canada's economy and improve the social well-being of our citizens. That's why the establishment of the Canada infrastructure bank is such an attractive, innovative, and timely initiative.

The bank's mission, as you know, is to deliver revenue-generating infrastructure by attracting private capital investors. The injection of private financing means government is in a position to make better use of public funding for a broader range of infrastructure projects, such as new water systems, social housing, recreational and cultural facilities, and on-reserve infrastructure.

Canada has a strong record of success when partnering with the private sector. Engaging the private sector in the design, construction, financing, maintenance, and even the operation of critical public infrastructure is not a new idea in Canada. We have a long and successful history of public-private partnerships in this country. The Canadian model has delivered high-quality infrastructure, built on time and on budget, and demonstrating exceptional value for taxpayers. This is primarily because of the rigour and discipline the private sector brings to the procurement process.

There are currently 258 P3s across Canada. Those facilities that are already in operation or under construction have a value of more than $122 billion, and include a broad range of projects, like hospitals and long-term health care facilities, roads, bridges, public transit, and water and waste-water treatment facilities. It's important to stress that these projects in every instance remain publicly owned and publicly controlled. This is in no way privatization of government assets.

The Canadian Centre for Economic Analysis has independently estimated that P3s have saved Canadians as much as $27 billion over the 25 years that they have been in play. These projects have been demonstrated to be built 13% faster than those brought to market in the traditional way, which has added a further $11 billion in value to the Canadian economy.

Most importantly, P3s are creating 115,000 jobs and generating $5 billion of additional wages on average every year. This strong track record of success has resulted in the Canadian P3 approach being recognized around the world as best in class.

Over the years, Nanos Research has shown that seven out of 10 Canadians consistently support P3s and recognize that the private sector is better equipped than government to deliver high-quality projects on time and on budget.

The Canadian P3 experience is evidence that there is no shortage of private capital waiting to be invested in Canadian infrastructure and that the private sector is willing and prepared to take on significant risk to support these projects. We have a funding problem in Canada, not a financing problem. We believe, if structured appropriately, the Canada infrastructure bank can leverage public dollars further by transferring revenue risk and reducing overall public expenditures, while ensuring projects are delivered on time and on budget and that they are well maintained over the life cycle of the asset.

When I say “structured properly”, I mean that each project that comes to the infrastructure bank must first and foremost have a strong business case, and the procurement process that follows must be competitive, efficient, transparent, and fair. It must also be recognized that not all governments have the capacity or expertise to successfully procure the large, complex, revenue-generating projects that will be the purview of the bank.

In these instances, we would urge government to establish a project preparation fund that would be available to less-experienced provinces, territories, municipalities, and indigenous communities in order to enable them to acquire the consulting services and advisers necessary to successfully take their projects to market.

The council sees the Canada infrastructure bank as another tool in the tool kit for governments to deliver more high-quality infrastructure for Canadians and greater economic stability for communities across the country. We believe the bank can draw in more private capital and build on the successful Canadian P3 model. We are the first to say that P3s are not a panacea, but when done for the right reasons and on the right projects, they deliver real results for Canadians.

Now that the location of the bank has been decided, the important next steps are to recruit a high-quality and experienced chair, a board of directors, and a CEO, who together will put the flesh on the bones of this new institution. My council is confident that under strong, capable leadership, the Canada infrastructure bank will be well positioned to continue the country down this path of success, and the council is pleased to support the act that is being considered by this committee.

Thank you very much. I'm happy to take any questions.

[David Macdonald, Senior Economist, National Office, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives]

Thank you very much, Mr. Easter, and thanks so much to the committee for their invitation to speak on Bill C-44.

With any budget implementation bill there is always something interesting to say and plenty to say about it. Briefly, I would like to commend this committee on Bill C-44 for closing several of the boutique tax cuts that have been opened over previous years. I hope this committee will continue forward and tackle several of the larger and more regressive tax loopholes later on, like the stock option deduction, or the capital gains inclusion rate.

Today I would like to focus my remarks on the proposed infrastructure bank. First, it's important to note that whatever the structure of the infrastructure bank, loans are a poor substitute for federal funding, and there has been a substantial shift in infrastructure investment and responsibility over the past century. In 1955 the federal government spent 35% of every infrastructure dollar. Today it spends 15%, and it is municipalities that have picked up this slack. They used to spend one-quarter of every infrastructure dollar in 1955. Now they spend close to half. Provincial contributions have remained roughly the same over this period.

The federal government continues to pay the lowest interest rate of any level of government, and enjoys the broadest tax base. Municipalities, on the other hand, face the highest interest rates and the smallest tax base. This cost shift leads to fewer dollars spent on infrastructure, and the costs that are shifted to this lower level of government are shifted to the level of government that is least able to pay them.

As I see it, the main functions of a properly constructed infrastructure bank are, first, to lower interest rates for municipalities, and second, to facilitate the borrowing process. Smaller municipalities, or municipalities unfamiliar with larger projects, would particularly benefit from these functions. However, neither of these straightforward functions is part of the proposed functions listed in the infrastructure bank in Bill C-44.

Municipalities do face higher interest costs than the federal government. I looked up the bond rates this morning for the City of Ottawa, which pays 2.25% on five-year bonds. Halton Region, just outside Toronto, pays 2.54% on five-year bonds. This would be compared with the federal interest rate for federal government bonds of 0.82% on five-year bonds, roughly 1.5% lower than the cities. As with a mortgage, higher interest rates mean higher costs for cities and/or higher user fees for Canadians.

An infrastructure bank could effectively lower borrowing costs close to the federal rate. For its part, the federal borrowing rate is close to a record low, given the incredible demand for federal government bonds. Put another way, investors are desperate for more federal bonds, thus driving up their price and driving down their yield. An infrastructure bank could take advantage of this and pass the savings on to cities.

However, I'm concerned that as structured, the infrastructure bank would not achieve the goal of reducing borrowing costs for cities, but in fact would do the exact opposite. The proposed infrastructure bank appears to serve the needs of investors, not those of cities. In fact, the input of any government is explicitly and oddly not necessary for accessing funds through the infrastructure bank. It appears that public-private partnerships, or P3s, and not low-cost financing will be the focus of the bank. The likely impact will be interest rates to cities of 7% to 9% on infrastructure bank projects instead of 0.08%, the current federal borrowing rate. In other words, the proposed structure will increase interest costs by a factor of 10.

As with a mortgage, substantially higher interest rates mean higher interest rate payments over the life of the project, and those higher costs will be borne by governments or by higher user fees, or both.

Municipalities are not blind to this issue, often preferring public financing due to lower costs as opposed to P3s. This is not a hypothetical problem. In 2014 the Ontario auditor general examined the 26 billion dollars' worth of P3 projects undertaken by the Government of Ontario, an amount, incidentally, similar to what the federal infrastructure bank is considering. She concluded that the P3 structure would add an additional $8 billion in costs over and above the $26 billion of the projects themselves, almost entirely due to higher interest-rate costs, and these much higher costs would be borne by the Ontario government, and ultimately, by Ontarians so that P3 consortiums could see higher profits.

I encourage the committee to refocus the infrastructure bank on driving down interest rates for municipalities while accelerating their access to infrastructure loans.

This refocusing of the bank's priorities on what cities need instead of on investors' needs will best serve Canadians by keeping costs and user fees down, while encouraging cities to use the bank due to its competitive rates.

Thank you very much for your attention, and I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Order. Could we get the members to the table?

We are going to be under a fairly tight time frame because when the bells ring we have no choice but to go, and there are seven minutes left.

As people know, we're meeting on Bill C-44 and we appreciate your coming to make your presentations.

We'll start with you, Mr. Macdonald, senior economist, national office, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

[Azfar Ali Khan, Director, Performance, Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy]

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Chair, vice-chairs, and members of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance. It is an honour to be with you today.

I'll quickly comment on Bill C-44, in particular regarding Canada's critical infrastructure.

The Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy—of which I am the director of performance, and my colleague, Randall Bartlett, is the chief economist—recently published a piece on assessing the risks and opportunities associated with a Canada infrastructure bank. The key premise underlying our piece is that a national infrastructure plan and strategy is required, supported by evidence. This should be the first priority.

Our work in this area enabled us to identify three key factors. These factors form the basis of the steps needed to develop a work plan and national strategy for critical infrastructure.

First, a thorough assessment of our current infrastructure stock needs to be performed. Specifically, is this stock delivering, or on track to delivering, the benefits expected from it at the time it was approved? A report by the U.K.'s National Audit Office highlighted the cost and challenges of delivering major projects in government, with a number of recurring issues affecting performance.

Of the 149 major projects in the U.K. as of June 2015, with a total life-cycle cost of 511 billion pounds, successful delivery of 34% was considered to be in doubt or unachievable unless action was taken. Infrastructure investments alone are not a guarantee of infrastructure outcomes.

The second step is to conduct a strategic analysis of future infrastructure needs in Canada.

This analysis would identify the economic, social, and environmental benefits expected of infrastructure investments. It would consider factors such as demographic trends, population growth, current and projected economic activity, trade corridors and future drivers of economic growth, the environment, and any significant regional variations and needs.

Finally, by understanding the condition of our current infrastructure stock and our future needs, we can identify our infrastructure gap relative to the future infrastructure needs. This is the evidence base, at a minimum, that we feel is needed to develop a national infrastructure plan and strategy.

Currently, estimates of the national infrastructure gap in Canada range from zero to $1 trillion. While estimates always come with some uncertainty, this is a wide range by any measure, and not one on which to build a national infrastructure strategy.

It's critical to understand where we are and where we're headed. Only then can we draw a roadmap to help us reach our destination.

In fairness, budget 2017 identifies an ambitious data initiative on Canadian infrastructure to provide the intelligence to better direct infrastructure investments. Further, the budget implementation act identifies the collection and dissemination of data to monitor and assess the state of infrastructure in Canada as one of the functions of a Canada infrastructure bank.

In our view, this data initiative identified in budget 2017—and the function it gives to a Canada infrastructure bank—is precisely what is required first and foremost in order to have an evidence-based national infrastructure plan and strategy. Details on this initiative are to be announced in the coming months, and we are very much looking forward to understanding the details and timelines expected of this initiative. Let us develop the plan first, and then put in place the right strategies and instruments, such as the infrastructure bank, that are tailored to best achieve that plan.

Unfortunately, these initiatives are in the wrong order. We put the cart before the horse.

Thank you for your time and the opportunity to speak to you today. I look forward to answering any questions you may have.

[Toby Sanger, Senior Economist, Canadian Union of Public Employees]

Thank you.

Thank you very much for inviting me.

I'd like to say at the outset that I welcomed this government's promise in the election and in ministerial mandate letters to establish the Canada infrastructure bank to provide low-cost financing for new municipal infrastructure projects.

I also strongly welcomed the promise to set a higher bar for openness and transparency in government and the promise to stand up for and strengthen the middle class and those working hard to join it.

I was very happy to hear the Prime Minister say that they'd end the undemocratic practice of using omnibus bills to prevent Parliament from properly reviewing and debating proposals. This is why I and others, I think, are so disappointed in these plans for the infrastructure bank in Bill C-44. They represent broken promise after broken promise.

Right from the outset, it won't provide low-cost financing for municipalities. That was the promise in the election campaign and in the ministerial mandate letters. Instead, the priority has shifted to leveraging higher-cost private sector capital. In a recent report that I wrote, I demonstrated how the higher cost of private sector finance could mean that these projects could cost twice as much. No one has disputed those figures. In fact, people have said that the rate of return on the private sector side is larger than that. This means we'll get half as much bang for our buck in terms of infrastructure—less infrastructure, not more.

The bank won't be open, transparent, or accountable to Canadians. The federal Auditor General has limited power to review the operations of crown corporations, less than direct public projects. This legislation also threatens anyone who discloses information about projects relating to proponents with a $10,000 fine and six months in jail. Investments are supposed to be in the public interest, but the legislation bars officials from being on the board.

It won't help strengthen the middle class and those working hard to join it. Yes, jobs will be created from infrastructure investments, but many more could be created if the money were to go to construction and employment and not to higher financing costs. Higher user fees associated with these projects will hurt middle and working classes the most. They'll also be bad for the economy, taking money away from other spending.

The bank was designed—as we'll find out—by a small, privileged group of financiers who stand to benefit the most from it, including BlackRock Inc., the biggest asset manager in the world, which recently hired top civil servants. As others have said, if this isn't a conflict of interest, I don't know what is. The infrastructure minister and the Prime Minister say they consulted with unions and others, but we know the design for this came from the finance minister's economic advisory council, which is dominated by CEOs.

And it's included in the budget omnibus bill.

Another concern is that the bank also won't help with the type of comprehensive national infrastructure planning that we need. Instead, private interests that dominate it will focus on what will maximize their private profits. Allowing it to entertain unsolicited proposals will mean that they'll also cherry-pick public assets to privatize for the greatest profit. It will result in a patchwork of privatized projects, driven by no other logic than private profiteering off public infrastructure. The initial $35 billion in federal public funding would just pave the way for this.

Now, I was very surprised to hear the finance minister say yesterday that cabinet would approve projects, because from my reading of the legislation—and I think that of most others—that's not the case.

Instead, the government should do what they promised and what Canadians voted for. It should establish a public infrastructure bank that provides low-cost financing—and that means public financing—for new municipal infrastructure projects. There's no shortage of financing available for the Government of Canada to borrow at low interest rates. Also, if this were done through a public bank and lending institution, such as the Business Development Bank of Canada, CMHC, or EDC, then its investments and borrowing wouldn't need to increase the deficit or net debt any more than the current proposal would.

Number two, it should also ensure much stronger accountability, transparency, and review by auditors general over the bank and its projects. It should provide full public disclosure of all details in business cases, value-for-money assessments, and contracts. It should also have public officials on the board so that it acts in the public interest. We should ensure that public infrastructure projects remain public and aren't secret deals.

You should also establish a public and transparent process, using evidence-based analysis for truly objective project planning of what should be the priority public infrastructure projects across the country. We should use this type of proposal to engage in truly sensible national infrastructure planning.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I'll call the meeting to order. We're dealing with the order of reference for Bill C-44, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22.

I apologize to the witnesses for the delay. We will try to proceed with this panel for one hour and the next panel for one hour.

To start, we have the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Mr. Sanger, senior economist.

Toby, the floor is yours.

[Glenn Campbell]

The legislation in Bill C-44 lays out very clearly the governance structure, and who would appoint the first—

[Glenn Campbell, Executive Director, Canada Infrastructure Bank Transition Office, Office of Infrastructure of Canada]

Good afternoon. I'm Glenn Campbell, assistant deputy minister at Infrastructure Canada. I'm joined by Niko Fleming, a chief at Finance Canada.

Division 18 of part 4 would establish the Canada infrastructure bank, announced first in the 2016 fall economic statement, as well as in budget 2017. For reference, the proposed amendments are clauses 403 to 406, which can be found on pages 236 to 248 of Bill C-44.

Please allow me to begin by providing some background and context around the proposed bank. Then I'll walk through the contents of the proposed legislation at a high level, and finally, we'd be happy to answer any questions.

The Canada infrastructure bank is intended to provide innovative financing for new infrastructure projects and help more projects get built, including those transformative projects that would not have otherwise been built in Canada, by attracting private and institutional investment. The proposed bank is part of the government's overall “Investing in Canada” infrastructure plan of more than $180 billion. Federal support for infrastructure would continue to be delivered largely through traditional infrastructure models. The Canada infrastructure bank represents less than 10% of the total planned amount.

The bank would be one tool that government partners, particularly municipal, provincial, and territorial, could choose as an option to build more infrastructure projects. The bank is a new partnership model to transform the way infrastructure is planned, funded, and delivered in Canada. Leveraging the expertise and capital of the private sector, the bank would allow public dollars to go farther and be used more strategically, with the focus on large transformative projects such as regional transit plans, transportation networks, and electricity grid connections, just as examples.

This is a review of the legislation. The legislation proposes the Canada infrastructure bank act and can be grouped into six main areas, including incorporation, mandate, function and powers, governance, funding, and accountability. I will address each of these in turn.

I had prepared a rather lengthy response to cover the contents of the bill, so it's up to you whether....

[Sarah Ryan, Senior Research Officer, Canadian Union of Public Employees]

Hi, my name is Sarah Ryan and I'm a senior research officer at CUPE. Thank you very much for inviting CUPE to present our concerns regarding the Canada infrastructure bank today.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees, or CUPE, is Canada's largest union, representing 643,000 workers across Canada. CUPE members work in health care, education, municipalities, libraries, universities, social services, public utilities, emergency services, transportation, and airlines.

As more details about the Canada infrastructure bank have emerged, CUPE members have expressed strong concerns that the bank is essentially a bank of privatization. They are deeply concerned that the bank could lead to the privatization of airports, ports, public transit, roads, highways, bridges, water and waste-water systems, hydroelectric utilities, and transmission grids. These are all key services that the Canadian public depends upon every day.

Bill C-44 states that infrastructure projects financed by the bank must generate revenue and promote the public interest. Revenues can only be generated in two ways: by charging high interest rates on loans, and by introducing tolls and user fees on new infrastructure projects or existing infrastructure assets.

The mandate of the bank is fundamentally contradictory. Private investors will be the clear winners, since revenues from projects financed by the bank will fall into their pockets. Canadians who depend every day on infrastructure to heat their homes, to get them from place to place, and to ensure they have safe drinking water will be the losers. The public will shoulder the costs of the bank's high interest rates and will be hit hard by added costs of living that will result from new tolls and fees.

Bill C-44 will also allow infrastructure projects to be privately pitched through unsolicited bids. This puts private investors in the driver's seat and allows them to set priorities on what gets built.

The bank gives investors unprecedented control over how infrastructure is built, operated, and structured. Infrastructure projects developed by private investors will be tailored to profit the projects' backers and risk being totally out of touch with the public's needs and interests. This eliminates the capacity of governments and citizens to decide what infrastructure their communities need and how it should be built and paid for. It severely limits the public's capacity to influence decision-making on infrastructure investments.

Minister Morneau said that cabinet will have the final say on what gets built, but to sustain a private investment in the bank, CUPE members are not confident that cabinet will be willing or able to deny investors' proposals. Furthermore, the private sector will still play a key role in shaping the project structure to maximize profits.

When governments propose, design, finance, and build infrastructure projects, the public can hold them to account. However, Bill C-44 limits the bank's public transparency and accountability requirements. It allows project information and investor deals to be kept secret from the public. This means that information about how community infrastructure is being funded, who is involved in projects, and how much investors are profiting will not be available to the public. This is bad news for Canadians who have a right to know how public monies, which will partially fund the bank, are being spent and how public infrastructure is being built.

In conclusion, CUPE offers the following recommendations.

First, the government should establish a public infrastructure bank that provides low-cost financing for new infrastructure projects, and that means public financing. There is no shortage of financing available for the federal government to borrow at low interest rates right now. If this is done through a public bank and lending institution, similar to the Business Development Bank of Canada, CMHC, or EDC, then its investments in borrowing wouldn't need to increase the deficit or net debt any more than the current proposal.

Second, the government should ensure there's stronger accountability, transparency, and review by auditors general over the bank and its projects. The bank should be mandated to provide full public disclosure of all business deals, value-for-money assessments, and contracts. The bank should also have public officials on its board to ensure that it acts in the public interest. Public infrastructure projects must remain public and not turn into secret deals with private corporations.

Finally, the government should not allow private corporations to determine infrastructure priorities, including through unsolicited bids. Instead, it should establish a public and transparent process using evidence-based analysis for truly objective planning of priority infrastructure projects.

Thank you.

[Azfar Ali Khan, Director, Performance, Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy]

Thank you, Chair, vice-chairs, and members of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. It is an honour to be with you today.

I will briefly comment on Bill C-44 as it relates to Canada's essential infrastructure.

The Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy, of which I am the director of performance, recently published a piece on assessing the risks and opportunities associated with the Canada infrastructure bank. The key premise underlying our piece is that a national infrastructure plan and strategy supported by evidence is required. This should be the first priority.

Through our work, we identified three core elements that must inform the first steps needed to build a work plan and national strategy around essential infrastructure.

First, a thorough assessment of our current infrastructure stock needs to be performed. Specifically, is this stock delivering or on track to deliver the benefits expected from them at the time they were approved?

A report by the U.K.'s National Audit Office highlighted the costs and challenges of delivering major projects in government, with a number of recurring issues affecting performance. Of the 149 major projects in the U.K. as of June 2015, with the total life-cycle cost of 511 billion pounds, successful delivery of 34% was considered to be in doubt or unachievable unless action was taken. Infrastructure investments alone are not a guarantee of infrastructure outcomes.

The second step is to conduct a strategic analysis of Canada's future infrastructure needs.

This analysis would identify the economic, social, and environmental benefits expected of infrastructure investments. It would consider factors such as demographic trends, population growth, current and projected economic activity, trade corridors and future drivers of economic growth, the environment, and any significant regional variations and need.

Finally, by understanding the condition of our current infrastructure stock and our future needs, we can identify what our infrastructure gap is relative to the future needs. This is the evidence base, at a minimum, that we feel is needed to develop a national infrastructure plan and strategy.

Currently, estimates of the national infrastructure gap in Canada range from zero to $1 trillion. While estimates always come with some uncertainty, this is a wide range by any measure, and not one on which to build a national infrastructure strategy.

Understanding where we are and where we are going is paramount. Only then can we map out the way to arrive at our destination.

In fairness, budget 2017 does identify an ambitious data initiative on Canadian infrastructure to provide the intelligence to better direct infrastructure investments. Further, the budget implementation act does identify the collection and dissemination of data to monitor and assess the state of infrastructure in Canada as one of the functions of the Canada infrastructure bank.

In our view, this initiative identified in budget 2017 and this function of the bank are precisely what is required, first and foremost, to have an evidence-based national infrastructure plan and strategy. Details on this initiative are to be announced in the coming months, and we are very much looking forward to understanding the details and timelines expected of this initiative.

Let us develop the plan first, and then put in place the right strategies and instruments, such as the bank, that are tailored to best achieve that plan.

Unfortunately, these initiatives are in the wrong order; we are putting the cart before the horse.

Thank you for your time and the opportunity to speak with you today. I look forward to answering any questions you may have.

Proposed Canada Infrastructure Bank

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to offer additional submissions on the question of privilege which was raised last week by the hon. member for Victoria and supported by the hon. member for Perth—Wellington.

In his remarks on Friday afternoon, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons quoted from one press release in an effort to exculpate the government's arrogant approach to setting up the Canada infrastructure bank while Parliament is seized with legislation proposing its creation.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer you to the job postings at the appointments.gc.ca website maintained by the Privy Council Office. Those documents are the ones any serious candidate interested in the positions would be reviewing. Nowhere on there is there any suggestion that Parliament's approval has yet to happen. A reader might be forgiven for concluding that the bank already exists, that this is a fait accompli.

Not only do these job postings suggest that the bank is a done deal, but they also treat the particulars of the bank's mandate, which are actually details buried in the government's omnibus budget bill, Bill C-44, in the same fashion. Let me quote from the job postings as found on the government's website on Friday.

On the posting for the bank's chairperson, we read, “The new Canada Infrastructure Bank is being established to initiate and invest.... ” That also appears in the postings for directors and the president.

Then, we read the following concerning the mandate of the Canada infrastructure bank:

The Bank will be mandated to invest $35 billion into projects.... The Bank will also act as a centre of expertise on infrastructure transactions...and provide advice to all levels of government in that context. In addition, the Bank will lead a data initiative to improve knowledge....

Those same phrases appear in all three job postings.

Now, if we turn to the proposed Canada infrastructure bank act, which would be enacted by clause 403 of Bill C-44, we see the following: Proposed paragraph 7(1)(e) of the proposed act would establish the bank as “a centre of expertise on infrastructure projects” . Proposed paragraph 7(1)(f) would give the bank a mandate to “provide advice to all levels of government with regard to infrastructure projects”. Proposed paragraph 7(1)(g) would authorize the bank to “collect and disseminate data”.

Proposed section 23 of the proposed act reads in part:

The Minister of Finance may pay to the Bank, out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, amounts of not more than $35,000,000,000 in the aggregate

Later in the job postings for the chairperson and directors, we see this comment: “The Board of Directors of the Bank will be composed of the Chairperson and 8 to 11 other Directors.”

Looking at the proposed act, proposed subsection 8(1) states, “The Bank has a board of directors composed of the Chairperson and not fewer than eight, but not more than 11, other directors.”

These are all details which are currently before the House of Commons and could theoretically be amended at committee, at report stage, or even by the other place, but the government treats them as final and settled, given how those job postings read.

The parliamentary secretary's defence of the government's arrogance seems to be that some other document that includes a passing reference to parliamentary approval should get them off the hook.

Speaker Milliken ruled on May 29, 2008, at page 6276 of Debates, on advertisements about pending amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. He stated:

It is with these precedents in mind that I reviewed the advertisements in question. They contain phrases such as “the Government of Canada is proposing measures”, “These important measures, once in effect,” and “These measures are currently before Parliament”. In my view, the advertisements clearly acknowledge that these measures are not yet in place. I am therefore unable to find evidence of a misrepresentation of the proceedings of the House or of any presumption of the outcome of its deliberations.

There is nothing in the job postings to suggest that Parliament has yet to approve the bank's creation or that it could, in its work, tweak the government's proposed details. The job postings most certainly presume the outcome of deliberations in the House.

Most recently, the Speaker's predecessor, the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, was also asked to rule on a procurement notice seeking audit information concerning the financial impact of scrapping the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly, a policy initiative in the 2011 Conservative platform. His ruling on September 28, 2011, at page 1576 of Debates, held:

The notice itself presents a hypothetical scenario. It does not foresee a specific timetable for legislative action, let alone presume the outcome of such action. As I see it, the notice and task force terms of reference form part of a planning process that might be expected in contemplating the possibility of the repeal of the Canadian Wheat Board Act. I know the member for Malpeque does not expect the Chair to monitor all internal processes undertaken by the government as part of its preparatory work in advance of proposing legislative measures to the House. Accordingly, I cannot agree with the hon. member for Malpeque's statement that “The government presumes that the act has been repealed, which in fact it has not”. I see no evidence of such a presumption.

In the present instance, I do not believe that the wording of the text of the notice of procurement posted on the MERX site is ambiguous: rather, in my view, it presents a hypothetical case and seeks information on the impact of such a scenario.

There is, to put it simply, nothing hypothetical about how these job postings read. Given that the appointments.gc.ca website is administered by the Privy Council Office, I can only assume that it was acting on the express instructions of the Prime Minister's Office, which would have been micromanaging the rollout of a marquee initiative of the budget.

Mr. Speaker Parent, on March 13, 1997, at page 8987 of Debates, was also called upon to rule on advertisements, and offered this piece of advice to government communications staff:

Those whose duty it is to approve the wording of communications to the public for a minister must surely be aware that the terms used in parliamentary language have a very specific meaning. Trying to avoid them or to use them for advertising purposes shows a lack of consideration for the institution of Parliament and the role of the members in the legislative process. If there is no ambiguity in the choice of terms the public will be better served and the House can get on with its work without being called upon to resolve the difficulty caused by such misunderstanding.

Unfortunately, this sound counsel was simply ignored by those in the PMO who approved the wording of these job postings. The whole episode is, sadly, yet another example of a prime minister and a government who are dismissive of Parliament, and simply find the House of Commons to be an irritant and speed bump on their path to governing.

The House of Commons is, and must always be, seen as more than a rubber stamp for the government's legislative proposals. To address this attack on the authority and dignity of the House of Commons, I urge you to find a prima facie case of privilege.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Philippe Grenier-Michaud]

Basically, the chair of the committee will write a letter to the chair of the finance committee mentioning that the committee studied the matter. We could include a link to today's minutes and transcript, so the finance committee members could take a look at the discussion, and it could be included at the end of the letter that the committee doesn't have any specific amendments to propose to Bill C-44

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Hello, gentlemen. Thank you for being here this morning.

I want to talk about some of the amendments proposed through the omnibus Bill C-44, which implements Budget 2017-18.

On August 4, 2011, we wanted to consolidate all the government's technological services and procurement, including computers, USB keys or other things of that nature. Unless I'm mistaken, I would say that clause 113 of the bill, which will replace section 7 of the Shared Services Canada Act, aims to deconsolidate what we wanted to consolidate, to a certain extent. Am I mistaken, or is that what's going on?

[Louis Marcotte, Director General, International Business Development, Investment and Innovation, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1 introduces the enabling legislation of the Invest in Canada Hub announced in the 2016 Fall Economic Statement.

This new federal body is to work globally, in partnership with federal departments, as well as with provincial and municipal investment attraction offices, to ensure that Canada makes the most of every opportunity to attract global investment.

Foreign direct investment makes a significant contribution to the Canadian economy—creating jobs, spurring innovation and driving trade. Foreign-controlled enterprises in Canada employed 1.9 million Canadians in 2015, representing 12% of Canadian jobs and 30% of manufacturing jobs. They are responsible for 49% of all of our merchandise exports and 37% of all business expenditures in research and development.

The Advisory Council on Economic Growth noted in its October 2016 report that Canada stands to gain enormously by attracting more foreign direct investment.

The enabling legislation that you're reviewing determines, first, the nature of the entity as a departmental corporation.

Second, its mandates and functions are to create the partnerships required to leverage all of what Canada has to offer; brand Canada as a premier investment location; and to provide a one-stop service to assist investors in navigating the investment landscape; and to actively pursue anchor investment projects and deliver world class after-care services.

Third, the act also determines the governance of the entity where the minister provides directions, the board of directors manages the organization, and the CEO operates it on a day-to-day basis.

Fourth, the act determines the general powers, and its specific authority of the entity over administrative policies.

Fifth, it determines its human resources regime.

Overall, the enabling legislation allows for the creation of an organization able to interact effectively with business while being subject to the necessary oversight and accountability measures.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

I don't have a formal written motion, but I think we need to ensure, when we do clause by clause as a normal procedure, that we establish parameters to make sure that we understand how long we'll be debating clause by clause.

It's my understanding that previously.... Perhaps I can get assistance from the clerk, but I've highlighted a few key points, which we could discuss, to make sure that we have parameters for our clause-by-clause study.

First is that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause examination of Bill C-44 no later than Monday, May 29, which I think is something we already agreed to.

The second is that the chair may limit debate on each clause to a maximum of five minutes per party per clause.

Next is that the committee may sit until 9 p.m. on May 29, 2017, and start again on May 30 at 8:45.

The next is that if clause-by-clause consideration has not been completed by 9 p.m. on May 30, all remaining amendments be deemed moved and the question be put by the chair.

The last would be that after completion or passage by the committee, the chair report to the House as soon as possible. I'm gathering that there would be some more technical language to ensure this scheme, but I think those are the key elements that would be normal in preparation for clause-by-clause study.

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

Thank you.

During the time I have left, I would like to discuss mutual insurance companies.

I think you were surprised by the proposal in Bill C-44; no one expected to see that, and neither did I. It seems that during the last pre-budget consultations, you had made representations to improve the situation. However, today's bill is proposing the opposite.

Can you measure the repercussions this could have on mutual insurance companies? Will this mean that they will be less competitive than their competitors? Do you see a certain risk for those businesses?

What do you have to say to the government,which claims that access is easy now that insurance companies are on the Internet, and that with the new technologies, there is no longer a need for this in remote and rural areas?

[Normand Lafrenière, President, Canadian Association of Mutual Insurance Companies]

To qualify for the tax exemption, insurers have to maintain a minimum farm/fishing premium of 25% of their total written premium. According to the Department of Finance, in 2014, some 40 companies were still benefiting from the tax exemption, 37 of which were farm/fishermen mutual insurers, most of them small mutuals.

A number of these farm mutual insurance companies report that their continued existence depends on the tax exemption.

The three non-mutual insurers benefiting from the tax exemption do so through a special tax exemption giving them an unfair advantage over mutual insurers.

Because of the evolution of the rural landscape, and the resulting effect on insurance, the average farm mutual insurance company reports doing 15% of its business with farmers and fishers. In CAMIC's pre-budget submission, we recommended that the qualifying threshold be reduced to 5% of the total written premium, in concert with the elimination of the special tax treatment given to the three non-mutual insurers. The suggested measures would have been cost revenue neutral to the federal government.

While the government has not agreed to bring about the recommended changes, we fear that the elimination of the total tax exemption, as proposed under Bill C-44,, will have a very negative effect on mutual insurers of farmers and fishers.

We, therefore, recommend that paragraph 149(1)(p), and subsections 149(4.1) to 149(4.3) of the Income Tax Act be maintained as they are currently exist.

In closing, let me point out that farm mutual insurance companies provide significant benefit to the small rural communities in which they are located. They ensure that insurance is available at all times, even when the market is tight. Mutual insurers are also significant employers in their community. They purchase locally sourced goods and services whenever possible, and participate in the betterment of their community.

Thank you for considering CAMIC's recommendation.

[Frank Rider, Chairman of the Board, Canadian Association of Mutual Insurance Companies]

Thank you. First of all, I want to thank this committee for the opportunity to appear before you.

The Canadian Association of Mutual Insurance Companies is an association of 79 mutual and co-operative insurance organizations operating in Canada. About 75 of our members are what we would call farm mutual insurance companies, i.e., smaller companies created by farmers, for farmers, mostly in the 19th century—several even before Confederation.

We are here to present our concern in relation to Bill C-44 which, if adopted, would eliminate the tax exemption for insurers of farming and fishing property originally introduced in 1954. That was at a time when farmers and fishers had little choice other than to obtain insurance from their own mutual insurance company. To this day, in some regions across the country, that need still exists. You have to remember that farm risks and fishing risks represent high values, and oftentimes they are total losses.

While it would appear that the elimination of the tax exemption will affect only the insurance companies, this is absolutely not the case. This tax relief, provided by the exemption, is not retained by the mutual insurance companies. It is passed along to farmers and fishers through lower rates and premium refunds, and it also allows us to tolerate higher loss ratios on farm and fishing risks.

Indeed, the mutual insurance companies of farmers and fishers still exist for one reason: to provide affordable insurance protection to farmers and fishers on an at cost basis, without a profit motive. The large majority of active food producing family farms and fishing enterprises across Canada continue to be insured by their small mutual insurance company. Farmers and fishers still, to this day, make up the majority of board members governing their company.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We'll reconvene on Bill C-44. I would ask the witnesses and members to come to the table.

Welcome, folks. We have Normand Lafrenière and Frank Rider from the Canadian Association of Mutual Insurance Companies; Nicholas Rivers, associate professor with the University of Ottawa; and Marc André Way from the Canadian Taxi Association. Other witnesses may arrive shortly. We'll see.

We'll begin with the Canadian Association of Mutual Insurance Companies first.

Mr. Rider, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the witnesses for being with us today.

It is rare that we see such unanimity among a group. I hope this will affect our future deliberations.

Just before question period today, the Minister of Finance admitted consulting the BlackRock firm about the creation of the Infrastructure Bank. That firm, which was extensively consulted before the creation of this bank, will certainly profit from it.

In the same vein, I would like to know if some of you were consulted before changes were announced in the context of Bill C-44.

[Joyce Reynolds, Executive Vice-President, Government Affairs, Restaurants Canada]

Thank you, Chair Easter, and committee members. I really appreciate the opportunity to speak to you this afternoon about part 3 of Bill C-44, on behalf of Canada's $80-billion restaurant industry.

This industry is a vital part of the country's economy. Canadians operate restaurants in every corner of Canada, from large metropolitan centres to remote communities. We are the fourth-largest private sector employer in Canada, with 1.2 million employees who interact with 18 million Canadians daily. A significant number of these jobs are derived from the sale of wine, beer, and beverage alcohol in licensed establishments. We are most proud to be the number-one, first-time creator of jobs in the country. We open the door of opportunity to youth, new Canadians, and those facing barriers to employment. Every dollar spent at a restaurant generates an additional $1.85 in spending in the rest of the economy—well above the average for all industries in Canada.

We indirectly employ more than 250,000 Canadians. More than two-thirds of Canada's restaurants are locally owned and operated by independent entrepreneurs. Our 95,000 restaurants, cafeterias, coffee shops, and bars are gathering spots for people from all walks of life to celebrate, to do business, to spend time with family and friends. Restaurants are also one of the top three reasons for tourists to make Canada their chosen destination.

However, you also need to know that we are an industry with razor-thin profit margins. The average restaurant in Canada takes home a mere 4.3% before taxes. According to Stats Canada, drinking places—that would be the bar and pub sector—have experienced sales declines in six out of the last eight years. Since 2000 the number of drinking places has plummeted by 40%. Beverage alcohol is an important input for restaurants and food service operators, who purchase approximately $3 billion of these products each year, but alcohol prices in Canada have reached the point of diminishing returns with stagnating sales to licensees.

What most Canadians don't know is that licensees often pay more for a case of beer, for a bottle of wine, or a bottle of spirits than consumers purchasing them at their provincial retail store. Once restaurants include the cost of service, glassware, overhead, rent, staffing—and staffing includes training on all service and responsible service of alcoholic beverages—it becomes very expensive for the average Canadian to enjoy a glass of wine, a pint of beer, or a cocktail with their meal.

You can't imagine the surprise of our members when government elected to add more taxes, not less, to alcohol, one of the highest tax commodities in the country, and to increase the tax in perpetuity. We've heard from small-town restaurant and pub operators who are struggling to keep their businesses afloat with rising labour, food, utility, and rent costs. The cumulative effect of the new excise duties will take another big chunk out of their businesses. These are real dollars that cannot be used for hiring staff, investments in innovation and refurbishing their businesses and, in some cases, remaining viable.

Last week we heard from Mr. Coulombe from the Department of Finance during his testimony to this committee. I know that restaurants were disheartened to hear that the department believed that the excise taxes would be so small that it wasn't necessary to analyze the economic impacts. A tax increase from $30 million to almost half a billion dollars in five years is not insignificant, particularly when you consider that the tax will be part of the base price to which all other fees, levies, markups, and provincial and federal taxes will be layered on. The cascading nature of provincial markups and PST, GST, or HST application will mean price increases of up to three times the amount of the federal excise tax for those who purchase alcohol.

This year's federal budget identifies agrifood as a potential growth sector, but a very broad swath of agrifood industries will be hurt by this compounding tax. The hospitality industry, together with the vintners, the brewers, the distillers, the grape and grain growers, and our related supply chain partners, is seeking this committee's support for the repeal of the annual excise duty escalator in Bill C-44 to ensure that all tax increases have oversight by parliamentarians, and that the economic impacts and considerations are factored in.

Thank you.

[Carl Sparkes, President and Chief Executive Officer, Devonian Coast Wineries]

Thank you, Chair Easter, and members of the committee.

Ladies and gentlemen, I'm here today representing my company, Devonian Coast Wineries, the largest winery in Atlantic Canada and the seventh-largest in Canada, as well as the Winery Association of Nova Scotia and its growers—in all, approximately 125 farm-based businesses. We appreciate the opportunity and invitation to share our perspective on Bill C-44.

The wine industry of Nova Scotia has been a shining light contributing to the revitalization of several rural communities in the province. The immensely positive contribution to the region is manifest across the agriculture, manufacturing, retail, and tourism sectors. Indeed, a recent study in 2016 revealed that the annual economic impact of the wine industry on the province has surpassed $216 million and is growing. That's massive for our region.

We are the newest but fastest-growing wine region in the country, attracting investment and excitement in parts of the province where agriculture and tourism had long been in decline.

With the level of upfront investment required and the long gestation period for vineyard, wine, and market development, many of our business models would be fragile if burdened with additional costs and regulation.

The decision to increase federal excise duty rates on beverage alcohol undermines the government's own objective of creating a business environment where manufacturers, particularly agrifood processors, can thrive and export abroad successfully.

The budget proposal to automatically adjust federal excise duties to CPI is a return to the failed policies of the past. Between 1981 and 1986, annual automatic adjustments to alcohol excise duties resulted in massive job losses and plant closures across this country.

We elect MPs to protect us and debate tax increases. This budget proposal takes their ability away and risks other taxes being implemented in a similar fashion.

The logic of attaching an annual increase to consumer price index is also fundamentally and particularly flawed, as this excise is an input tax and not a sales tax. This means that the real inflationary impact of applying the excise escalator on the raw material would translate into making our industry sectors' inflation rate approximately five times that of the national CPI every year going forward.

Domestically alone, this rampant indexed super-inflation would seriously damage our industry, as consumers would shift to lower-priced imports and away from Canadian-made wine. Canadian producers like our company would be faced with the choice of increasing prices to offset the input-cost increases or absorbing the increase in order to hold market share. Neither option is sustainable for any manufacturer, let alone one that deals with the inherent variability and uncertainty of agriculture. But that's far from the biggest threat to the Canadian wine industry.

International trading partner countries that have supported the 100% Canadian content exemption since 2006 are now giving notice that while the exemption is perfectly legal, if this escalator goes into legislation it, as well as other industry measures, would be challenged at the WTO level. Should the outcome be the likely reinstatement of the excise tax for 100% Canadian wine, almost immediately there would be operations shuttering, as the tax on the finished wine would be the equivalent of a 50% increase in the cost of our grapes. That is massive. Layoffs would be abundant throughout, planting would come to a halt, and the industry would end its tremendous growth trajectory.

In the case of my own companies' operations, I would likely lay off about 30% of our collective employees, terminate many grower contracts, and try to sell two of my three wineries—if there would be any buyer available under these conditions. In Atlantic Canada one of our few successful agricultural industries would be crippled. Having made a sizeable investment to enter into this industry five years ago, acquiring the largest winery in the region, we continue to invest every year and have doubled our volume in those five years.

We compete in our own backyard with global wine corporations whose governments do not tax them at home, but instead subsidize them to the hilt. At the same time our provincial monopolies' retail markups, along with the HST and excise, make us the highest domestic tax jurisdiction in the world. The only subsidy in our wine industry is coming from the owners themselves—owners like me.

The data supports the known fact that the Canadian wine industry punches well above its weight class in economic, cultural, and overall quality of life in Canada. Our growing presence abroad not only represents the best example of value-added agriculture, but it also enhances the perception of the entire Canadian brand. Our economic impact now tops $9 billion.

For our federal government to unwittingly place our industry at such risk is disturbing, to say the least; but to persist in legislating an annual indexation on our costs after learning of those risks would be unconscionable.

We ask that you repeal the indexation of the excise tax from the budget implementation act, 2017.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members, for your time and attention today.

[Murray Souter, Board Member, Canadian Vintners Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and MPs.

I am grateful for the opportunity to appear here today and present the Canadian wine industry's perspective on Bill C-44, the budget implementation act.

My name is Murray Souter. I sit on the board of directors of the Canadian Vintners Association. I am also the president and CEO of Diamond Estates Wines & Spirits, located in Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario.

Diamond Estates is the home of a wide selection of top-selling VQA wines, including Lakeview Cellars, EastDell Estates, 20 Bees, FRESH, and the wines of Canadian acting legend Dan Aykroyd.

In the few minutes I have, I want to provide you with a snapshot of our national wine industry and Ontario's economic impact within it, as well as explain what the excise duty is and why the excise duty and the CPI should not be linked.

First, let me highlight some facts at the national level. The Canadian wine industry is made up of almost 700 wineries and 1,300 independent growers, contributing $9 billion to the national economy. We produce two types of products: premium 100% Canadian VQA wines, which contribute $4.5 billion in economic impact, and value-priced international Canadian blended wines made from imported and domestic content, which also contribute $4.5 billion.

In Ontario, specifically, the economic impact of the grape and wine industry equates to $4.4 billion, with Ontario being the largest wine grape-producing province in Canada. In 2015, it generated 18,000 jobs and over $750 million in federal-provincial taxes and liquor board markup. This is up from $600 million in 2011. For every dollar spent on Canadian wine in Ontario, almost $4 in GDP is generated across the province.

Budget 2017 is sending a mixed message to Canadians. On the one hand, it draws from the Prime Minister's Advisory Council on Economic Growth, which identifies Canada's value-added agrifood industry as an engine for growth, but at the same time it proposes a 2% increase in the excise duty on one of Canada's highest value-added products, wine.

The government is proposing in the budget bill to amend the Excise Act, to legislate the annual indexation of the wine excise duty to the consumer price index, effective April 1, 2018, meaning that the rate is set to increase every year.

Budget 2017 states that “[e]xcise duty rates on alcohol products have not effectively changed since the mid-1980s.” This, in fact, is not true. The last increase was in 2006, when the excise duty increased 21%, by 10.8¢ per litre, to 62¢ per litre.

Our industry is concerned that over the next five years, assuming a moderate, 2% inflation rate, the excise rate will increase by a cumulative 11%. Since the excise duty is a cost at the front of the price chain, the impact is cumulative, with ad valorem liquor board markup, GST, and PST adding to the consumer impact. The GST already picks up inflation on the producer price. By indexing excise, the price chain would pick up double inflation and multiply it through the price chain.

The impact on domestic wine pricing of adding the excise tax at a rate of 63¢ per litre is to add 90¢ to the retail price in an already price-sensitive, highly competitive market.

This legislated annual tax increase is also too rigid. It will tie the hands of future governments, and it fails to account for non-inflationary impacts facing the industry. It does not allow Parliament to do its job to ensure that all measures are considered for all future tax increases.

Wine is among the highest value-added agricultural products in Canada, yet many of our grape growers would face economic hardship due to this tax increase.

My company, Diamond Estates, is one of only two publicly traded wine companies in Canada. As such, we depend on the public markets in order to raise capital for expansion and growth. Just six months ago, our organization was able to conclude a significant capital raise to support our winery capacity expansion. This expansion was necessary to ensure continuity of supply for our fast-growing retail and export businesses.

However, today's capital markets have both well-informed and very savvy investors, and the contemplated changes in the excise tax regime are creating uncertainty and risk. That uncertainty is jeopardizing future capital raises necessary to support the planned doubling of our business over the next five years. More importantly, it jeopardizes the jobs that accompany that growth.

Imports represent 70% of wine sales in Canada, and with import tariffs soon to be eliminated under CETA, the proposed annual excise tax escalator would seriously damage our ability to compete.

With the recent challenge against Canada at the World Trade Organization, regarding the B.C. wine sold in grocery stores, and the renegotiation of NAFTA, it is clear that imports want more of our market and are willing to challenge us on all fronts.

Our industry is rooted in Canada, literally. We simply cannot uproot and take our business elsewhere. Wine is one of Canada's signature industries, which should be supported and promoted by our federal government, not selectively targeted.

Recommendation 54 in your committee's 11th report, entitled “Creating the Conditions for Economic Growth”, presented December 7, 2016, is as follows:

That the Government of Canada support innovation in the Canadian wine sector through improved operational and infrastructure investments.

The wine industry can be a strong contributor to the agrifood powerhouse that Canada is creating, which would strengthen our competitiveness domestically and abroad. However, this escalator will put economic growth on pause.

The Canadian wine industry can help the government to create more jobs, more wealth, and opportunities, but this starts with eliminating the excise escalator tax under budget 2017.

Thank you.

[Luke Harford, President, Beer Canada]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

I really appreciate the opportunity to participate in the legislative process on behalf of the 45 Canadian beer companies I represent. My members are large and small domestic brewers from all 10 provinces and one territory.

My members have two concerns with budget 2017. First, it imposed an immediate 2% increase to excise duty rates on beer. The abruptness was very disruptive to normal business operations. The second and most serious concern is the escalator, the mechanism that will increase excise rates automatically every year with no requirement to check on the health of the domestic brewing industry. The immediate 2% increase is not helpful, but it doesn't compare to the damage the escalator will do to our domestic brewers.

I will use the few minutes I have to offer four reasons for removing the escalator from Bill C-44. First, tying the consumer price index to excise duty rates is too rigid and ignores regional economic differences. Second, the escalator bypasses Parliament's role in approving tax increases. Third, Finance Canada has acknowledged that it did not analyze the economic impact of the escalator or what effect it would have on our industry. Finally, there appears to be a large discrepancy in Canada's public accounts that would make it difficult for policy-makers to say anything about the effectiveness of excise duties.

The consumer price index reflects the cost of a fixed basket of commodities over time. It tells policy-makers nothing about what is going on in our sector or in a particular region of the country. I'm going to use Atlantic Canada to demonstrate why linking excise duty rates to the CPI is too rigid and insensitive to regional differences.

Over the last five years, the total volume of beer in Atlantic Canada declined by 3.3%, while the CPI, or consumer price index, increased by 5.5%. If the escalator had been in place, the government would have increased the tax on beer every year while Atlantic-based brewers struggled to adjust to lower demand. The escalator would have made a difficult situation in Atlantic Canada worse.

The escalator means annual tax increases on Canadians and Canadian businesses with no parliamentary oversight. The escalator will run in the background, resulting in higher beer taxes every year. Section 53 of the Constitution Act, at least in principle, should cause the government to pause on introducing a tax policy like the escalator. It requires that bills for imposing any tax originate in the House of Commons. Finance Canada advised this committee last week that it did not analyze the impact that higher excise duties would have on the domestic beverage alcohol industry. It likely did not consider the impact on the hospitality industry, either. It reasoned that the tax increase would be small on a per case or per bottle basis. The department has ignored the compounding tax-on-tax implications of the escalator and the fact that Canadians already pay the third highest beer taxes in the world.

There's a bigger point. The budget plan highlights that the government anticipates taking an additional $470 million in excise duties over the next five years because of the automatic increases. I can tell you with absolute confidence that there is no one in the domestic beverage alcohol industry that agrees with Finance Canada's forecast that the government can anticipate the status quo holding while it takes an additional half a billion dollars out of the productive use of the Canadian beverage alcohol producers.

The 2016 public accounts report that excise revenues from beer were $584 million for the fiscal year. This appears to be an under-representation of what actually is collected in excise on beer. It's like this every year. For fiscal 2016, Statistics Canada reported total beer sales for the country at 22.9 million hectolitres. With excise rates at $31.22 per hectolitre, the total revenues should be closer to $713 million, a $130 million gap from what is reported in the public accounts. Budget 2017 talks about excise rates not having increased since the mid 1980s, and it rationalizes the escalator as a way to maintain the effectiveness of excise duties.

There is no explanation of what constitutes effectiveness, but looking at the volumes of beer sold and the rates of excise in place from 1985 to 2016, the amount of excise remitted to the federal government has increased from $385 million to $713 million, an 85% hike. Over this time period, per capita consumption of beer declined from 103 litres to 76 litres, a 26% drop.

The domestic brewing community is counting on the honourable members of this committee to remove the escalator and demonstrate that by “effective” the government does not mean higher taxes at the expense of a healthy domestic brewing industry.

My plan for this afternoon was to provide the committee with four reasons for removing the escalator from budget 2017. I appreciate the opportunity to present these arguments on behalf of my 45 brewing members and, indeed, the broader brewing industry.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Order, please, members.

This is meeting number 90 of the committee. We're approaching 100. Will we get to 150?

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, May 9, 2017, our hearing today is about Bill C-44, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measures.

We have five witnesses, including Mr. Luke Harford, president of Beer Canada; Mr. Murray Souter, board member, Canadian Vintners Association; Mr. Carl Sparkes, president and CEO of Devonian Coast Wineries; Ms. Joyce Reynolds, executive vice-president, government affairs, Restaurants Canada; and Mr. Jan Westcott, president and CEO of Spirits Canada.

I know that a couple of people went out of their way to change their travel arrangements.

I believe one person was supposed to be in Spain, so we appreciate that effort, Mr. Sparkes, to get here to give your information to the committee.

Try to hold your comments to about five minutes. Then we'll go to questions.

We will start with Mr. Harford.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the witnesses for being here today.

You said that most of the clauses would come into force only 36 months after the act received royal assent, because you want to consult and, most importantly, to inform the individuals affected, meaning employers and employees.

My question is more about what was done before the changes were proposed in Bill C-44 in the way of consultations not only with employers in the federal jurisdiction, but also with employees and unions. These are relatively major changes, which will have huge repercussions.

How many consultations were there before these changes were proposed? How long has it been in the works? You certainly didn't start working on it yesterday.

[Eric Advokaat, Senior Director, Occupational Health and Safety, Workplace Directorate, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development]

Thank you very much, honourable members.

My name is Eric Advokaat. I'm the senior director of the occupational health and safety division for the labour program within Employment and Social Development Canada. I'm here with my colleague Charles Philippe Rochon, a senior analyst.

My area of expertise is really in part II of the Canada Labour Code, which is the occupational health and safety aspect of it. Charles Philippe will be able to address some of the detailed proposed changes in part III, which is really the labour standards portion of the Canada Labour Code.

Division 17 of part 4, as has been noted by the chair, is a large portion of the budget implementation act.

Number one, it proposes to amend the Canada Labour Code to update the suite of compliance and enforcement tools aimed at deterring non-compliance with occupational health and safety and labour standards requirements. This is to ensure that workers in federally regulated industries suffer fewer accidents and injuries at work, and that they receive the pay and benefits to which they are entitled. It will also consolidate the various adjudicative functions that exist under the code, under the Canada Industrial Relations Board.

There are three key changes that I'm going to speak to before I turn it over to Charles Philippe. These changes will apply both to part II, which, again, is the occupational health and safety aspect of the code, and to part III, the labour standards standards parts of the code.

These three amendments are to establish, under a new proposed part IV of the code, a system of administrative monetary penalties to promote compliance with occupational health and safety and labour standards requirements. This would include giving the Governor in Council regulation-making powers to designate violations and determine the associated penalties, up to a maximum of $250,000 per individual violation, and also setting out processes for the issuance review and appeal of notices of violation.

The second aspect is to provide authority to publish information about employers who have been found guilty of an offence or who have violated occupational health and safety or labour standards requirements. The type of information that could be published would also be spelled out in regulation after consultations with stakeholders, but could include, for instance, the employer's name, the nature of the violation or offence, and the associated penalties. Information would be published only once all review and appeal processes have been exhausted.

The third aspect of the change is to, as I've said, consolidate under the Canada Industrial Relations Board the functions of appeals officers under part II and of wage referees and unjust dismissal adjudicators under part III of the code, as well as the functions of adjudicators under the Wage Earner Protection Program Act. This entails some changes as well to part I of the code, which speaks to industrial relations, and would be necessary to adjust the board's powers, duties, and functions. We believe this measure would streamline the appeals process, better use existing expertise, enhance consistency of decisions, and promote a timely resolution of issues.

Those are the three bigger changes that apply to all aspects of the Canada Labour Code, and then there are several others that Charles Philippe is going to speak to that are proposed for part III of the code.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Minister, for being here.

I would like to continue with the Canada Infrastructure Bank, which has been the focus of much discussion since you introduced Bill C-44 and even before that, obviously, since it was already in your department's sights.

An advisory council produced a report on economic growth and advised you. You subsequently almost copied and pasted it into Bill C-44.

Of the people who participated in the report, several—one in particular—mentioned that the objective of these infrastructure projects was to provide a return of 7% to 9%.

Can you confirm that the objective of the Canada Infrastructure Bank is to give investors a return of 7% to 9%? Can you confirm these percentages, which were put forward by people with special interests in the bank?

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Thank you very much, Chair and honourable colleagues.

I am very pleased to talk to you today about Bill C-44, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measures.

The passage of this bill paves the way for the next stage of the government's plan to strengthen and grow the middle class and all those working hard to join it. It will allow the government to continue making the smart investments that will create jobs, grow our economy, and provide more opportunities for the middle class.

The steps we have taken to date are having a real and positive impact on our economy and on Canadians. Over the past year, the economy created over a quarter of a million new jobs, the large majority of which were in full-time positions and in the private sector. Forecasters are expecting Canada's economy to grow even faster over the next two years.

We understand that, despite these positive signs, people are still anxious about the future. Canadians want to be assured that their hard work will mean a better future for their children and their grandchildren.

We must show through action that their concerns are real and that we are ready to take the necessary steps to help them succeed. That's why we are here today, to study and discuss important measures in Bill C-44 and to come to a consensus about the issues that matter most, which is what Canadians expect.

Though I know that the members of this committee are very knowledgeable on the contents of this bill, I want to begin by highlighting a few measures that I know are top of mind for the committee.

First, we have taken steps to strengthen the parliamentary budget office to make it truly independent. Bill C-44 recasts the head of the PBO as an officer of Parliament, with the authority to report directly to Parliament and supported by a team that is separate from the Library of Parliament. Our plan will ensure that the PBO will have expanded right of access to government information and a new mandate to provide costing of platform proposals during elections.

Honourable members, we need to get this right.

The parliamentary budget officer's work is essential to Parliament's capacity to discuss and study current economic and financial issues. This work helps us by requiring us to meet higher standards and to enable us to focus on the facts.

I am here today to take your questions. I know that some of you have expressed concerns. We are open to your views; in fact, we depend on them.

I want to turn now to one of the best ways we can bring confidence back to the middle class: investing in public infrastructure to build stronger communities. Our government has laid out a historic plan to invest more than $180 billion in infrastructure over the next 12 years, but no order of government can accomplish ambitious goals for infrastructure alone. Investors have told us that they want to invest in Canada.

As you are well aware, our country has enormous infrastructure needs and infinite potential for the creation of world-class facilities. For this reason, Bill C-44, enacts the Act to establish the Canada Infrastructure Bank, which establishes the new Canada Infrastructure Bank as a Crown corporation.

Through this new bank, we will work with our partners to build world-class infrastructure that will transform communities, create good jobs, build a stronger and greener economy, and ensure that more of the infrastructure needed by Canadians gets built. Canadians today will benefit from good, well-paying jobs, and Canadians tomorrow will enjoy the advantages of good roads, bridges, transit, and social infrastructure built to meet their needs and help their communities thrive.

Looking beyond bricks and mortar, we really put people at the heart of our plan. I want to address a few measures of this bill that speak directly to our highest priority—the middle class and all those working hard to join it.

The government is firmly committed to helping Canadians of all ages to get the training and the skills they need to succeed in the current and future economic conditions. That is why, throughout the pages of this bill, you will find measures designed to help Canadians receive training, no matter what stage of life they are in.

We want to help Canadians to get the training they need so that their first job is a great job, and their next job is a better job. That's why we're taking steps to help working parents who must balance the demands of raising a family while managing their own career needs in this time of transition.

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. It also proposes to do more to provide greater flexibility to pregnant working women, giving them the option of claiming EI maternity benefits up to 12 weeks before their due date, expanded from the current standard of eight weeks, if they so choose.

Budget 2017 also takes action to support those who have put their lives on the line to make Canada a safe and secure place to live. After putting themselves in harm's way in service to our country, our women and men in uniform deserve a successful transition to civilian life. To help, we'll create a new education and training benefit. This benefit will provide more money for veterans to go to college, university, or a technical school after they complete their service.

I want to stress that we understand the job is not yet complete. Veterans and stakeholders have told us that the existing suite of programs is complex, and difficult and stressful to navigate, and that simply isn't good enough. Over the coming months we intend to take additional action to streamline and simplify the system of financial support programs currently offered to veterans. That will include fulfilling our commitment to re-establish lifelong pensions as an option for injured veterans so that veterans and their families can decide for themselves which form of compensation works best.

To conclude, the bill before us has concrete measures that move Canada forward as a smart and caring nation, but we can and will do more.

We continue to focus on growth, but we will not do so to the detriment of other key issues. We will ensure that all Canadians benefit from growth, not just the wealthiest, and we will help families see the futures of their children and grandchildren with more optimism.

I urge the members of this committee to support the bill and to work with us on those portions of it that can benefit from your own views and ideas so that at the end of the day we meet the high standards and expectations that Canadians have of us.

Before I conclude, I'd like to give you a preview of some of the issues we're looking to address over the coming months. Our government believes that every Canadian needs to pay their fair share of taxes, and in the coming weeks and months I'll be laying out our plan to ensure greater tax fairness. Billed-basis accounting, for example, will be brought forward as part of the next budget implementation act, which will provide the opportunity for the committee to consider in detail the legislative proposals for this measure. I know this is a topic that spurred much discussion, and I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

We're also examining tax planning strategies involving the use of private corporations. As announced in budget 2017, we will release a paper setting out the issues of this in detail, as well as proposed policy responses.

While I'm on the subject of taxation, I know members will have questions about our plans to tax the future legal sale of cannabis. Work has begun on the design of this taxation regime, and the issue will be on the agenda at the next meeting of provincial and territorial finance ministers in June. The goal will be to agree on some basic principles with the intent to move quickly on these historic legislative proposals.

Again, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to you today, and I'm happy to take your questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, May 9, we are studying Bill C-44, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measures.

We are fortunate to have Minister Bill Morneau here this morning. With him as witnesses from the Department of Finance are Paul Rochon, deputy minister, and Andrew Marsland, senior assistant deputy minister, tax policy branch. Welcome, gentlemen.

Just for the committee's information, we know that there is likely going to be a call for votes. There will be a 30-minute bell, and we will stay until there are about seven minutes left on that bell. The minister has agreed to come back, following the vote, to give us a full hour of his commitment to the committee.

With that, Minister, the floor is yours.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to respond to the question of privilege raised by the member for Victoria on Wednesday, May 10, respecting the selection process for the prospective positions at the proposed Canada infrastructure bank.

The member alleges that the government's posting of a selection process for the prospective positions of chairperson, directors, president and CEO of the Canada infrastructure bank constitutes a contempt of the House since the bill to create the organization has not received royal assent. The member is correct in his assertion that the establishment of the bank and the ability to hire staff, provide remuneration, and to cover expenses are authorized by royal recommendation that is attached to those provisions, but the spending for those purposes can only occur once the bill has been promulgated by Parliament.

Where the member's argument falls short is in his assumption that the government is seeking to establish the bank and hire staff in advance of royal assent for Bill C-44. The government is not authorized to spend for those purposes until the bill has been duly promulgated. That, however, does not prevent the government from undertaking planning for the potential establishment of the bank. That is precisely what the government is doing.

I would draw to the attention of members that the news release posted on Infrastructure Canada's website, entitled “Government of Canada launches Leadership Search for the Canada Infrastructure Bank”, states:

Subject to Parliamentary approval, the Bank would operate at arms-length from the government as a Crown corporation and would work with provincial, territorial, municipal, Indigenous, and private sector investment partners to attract pension funds and other institutional investors to new revenue-generating infrastructure projects that are in the public interest.

No member has been impeded in the discharge of his or her duties in the consideration of Bill C-44 and, in particular, the provisions relating to the establishment of the bank. The finance committee is considering the bill, and once it is reported back, it will enjoy further debate in the House and in the Senate. To suggest that the government is not able to undertake planning processes for anticipatory or proposed initiatives cannot be taken seriously. The government has been clear that it cannot authorize spending for the purposes set out in division 18 of part 4 without parliamentary approval.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

All you can do is put it on the record in the House of Commons.

Thank you, gentlemen, for appearing before us on part 4, division 7.

For the information of the committee before we adjourn, we did farm out some divisions of Bill C-44 to other committees. We have had responses back from them now.

To the citizenship and immigration committee, we farmed out division 13, and to human resources, division 14. They will not study those sections of the bill. The clerk will distribute the letters from the chairs of those two committees to members shortly.

On division 12, we farmed that out to veterans affairs; division 18, to transport; and division 4 to government operations and estimates. Those chairs have indicated they will study those sections and report back to the committee.

This means there will be three divisions that other committees will look at and report back to us.

Mr. Liepert.

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

No, I'm asking a question. With the bill we have before us, Bill C-44, are PBO costing requests more limited than they are now?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Thank you, again.

I feel it's bit unfair asking you guys to answer all of these questions when you had nothing to do with putting this in Bill C-44 to begin with. You were not consulted; it came from the Prime Minister's Office, maybe from the Minister of Finance. Wherever it came from, it is disappointing.

I'm a big fan of the PBO. I believe this is a breath of fresh air. We can go to a body that is independent, that can give the information we need in order to assist us, as parliamentarians, to be effective in everything we do. At the end of the day, we all want to serve Canada in a different and good way.

The technical question is about the changes in section 79.4. Why would the access to information provisions not allow the PBO to compel institutions and departments to provide requested information? We know that the only effective way for us, as parliamentarians, to get that information is for the PBO to have that ability to talk to different departments and to be able to enforce their way to pull some information for doing the job properly.

To your knowledge, why do you believe this change to section 79.4 was proposed?

Opposition Motion — The Canada Infrastructure Bank

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe the NDP's motion today is very important; it calls on the government to split its mammoth Bill C-44. The budget implementation bill amends 30 statutes, is over 300 pages long, and was only allotted four days of debate.

Of those four days, one was a Wednesday, when we debated for an hour and a quarter, and another was a Friday, when we had one single hour of debate. Just seven of my NDP colleagues have been able to speak to budget Bill C-44.

This bill is of capital importance and we cannot even debate it. The fact is that, the shorter the debate, the less informed the Canadian public will be about all the measures being proposed that will hit them square in the wallet. This mammoth omnibus bill, this statutory juggernaut, is undemocratic.

The Liberal Party even bragged during the campaign that it would never introduce omnibus budget bills and that it would never resort to tactics to withhold information. In fact, that is precisely what the Liberals are doing.

We are talking about the infrastructure bank, which is really the privatization bank, because that is what this is about and what it is turning into. No members of the public were consulted.

Only members of private companies, billionaire companies, were consulted. They were some of the advisors to the Minister of Finance and they came up with a scheme to ensure that these companies would reap the profits generated by these infrastructure investment projects. It is clear that there is scheming involved. They discussed it behind closed doors. No one had access to these conversations.

We are asking that this part be taken out of the bill so it can be studied separately, allowing experts to study it, and so we can study it and let Canadians know what it is all about.

In fact, $35 billion in public money will be invested in this infrastructure bank. It is really important that we be able to debate this. I hope that the government will listen to reason and support this motion. If the government has nothing to hide, the infrastructure bank project should be studied in detail in committee.

Since they started in November 2016, discussions on the infrastructure bank have been dogged by controversy. This omnibus budget bill only confirms the fears we have had from the outset. The bank will certainly not serve the public interest. My colleague from Trois-Rivières said that public infrastructure must serve the common good and the public interest, that of all Canadians.

What we now understand is that the projects submitted to the bank will have to be profitable to the companies looking to invest. That will not be in the public interest.

When my other colleague spoke, he talked about renovating a kitchen that would be used by the owner. In order to fund the project, he would have to rely on private investors and thus have to pay a fee every time he wanted to use the kitchen. That simply makes no sense, and it certainly is not in the public interest.

What does this investment bank have going for it? How come the Liberals have such a hard time telling us how it might benefit small towns and ordinary Canadians?

All we know is that this bank will benefit wealthy businesspeople. The Liberals, however, were elected on their commitment to start investing in infrastructure and communities again. That is not at all what we are seeing in this mammoth Bill C-44, where the legislation setting up this infrastructure bank was sneakily included.

What is more, we do not know what the criteria for the projects will be. The private investors' criteria should meet the needs of Canadians, but instead, they will meet the needs of the investors.

This bank was created by the private sector for the private sector. We cannot blame businesses. They want to make money. That is their whole reason for being. However, we are wondering why the government chose to get companies to build our public infrastructure, which should be permanent, sustainable, and properly used. The money spent on infrastructure should be money well spent. I would like to remind members that $35 billion in taxpayer money is going to be used for this infrastructure investment bank.

An advisory council was created by and for the Minister of Finance. Its official title is the advisory council on economic growth, not the advisory council on the development of public infrastructure.

BlackRock, an investment fund specializing in the acquisition of infrastructure, is part of that council. It is important to remember that name. BlackRock is the world's largest private asset manager, and it examined and commented on a briefing on the infrastructure bank prepared by the Minister of Infrastructure before he presented it to private clients. This company worked with the government for three months to try to promote the bank to investors in Toronto. BlackRock had three months to discuss this bank, while the House had one day, thanks to the efforts of the NPD. How is it that the government discussed this project with private investors for three months? That does not make any sense.

Internal government files show that large multinationals like BlackRock were given unprecedented control over the development of the Liberals' so-called infrastructure bank. That is another troubling fact. That is serious. There are so many conflicts of interest here. Where is the public share? What role do members play? We cannot discuss it. We are asking that an independent committee be allowed to examine this issue.

Also on that council is Goldman Sachs, one of the investment banks that contributed to the financial crisis of 2008. Other notable mentions are oil companies, including Alberta's Cenovus, one of the country's largest oil companies.

Who will sit on this infrastructure bank's board of directors? There will only be private sector appointments. Not a single representative of federal, provincial or municipal governments will get to sit on the board, which is meant to be working in communities' interests. Not a single public voice will be heard. Great job!

It also seems as though the bank will have to ensure that all information relating to developers, private companies and institutional investors remains confidential. Anyone who dares disclose any public information would be subject to prosecution. This is scary stuff. It stinks.

Mr. Speaker, I forgot to mention that, if I have any left, I will be sharing my time with the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith.

Regarding this infrastructure bank's aims, the bill states:

The purpose of the Bank is to invest, and seek to attract investment from private sector investors and institutional investors, in infrastructure projects in Canada or partly in Canada that will generate revenue [profits, in other words] and that will be in the public interest by, for example, supporting conditions that foster economic growth...

Basically, profit comes before Canadians' interests. Nowhere does the government explain where, how, and to what specific ends investment projects will be approved.

We know that highways, toll bridges, and physical infrastructure such as airports and even pipelines will be funded with public money and managed by the private sector.

Who is on this advisory council? Brian Ferguson, CEO of Cenovus, one of the biggest oil companies, as I mentioned earlier.

I do not have much time left, but we have plenty of examples of how private financing can double infrastructure project costs. I am thinking of three big ones. The Auditor General of Ontario found that public-private partnerships cost taxpayers an extra $8 billion. The Auditor General of Quebec figured out that the province would have saved $10.4 billion had it built the CHUM with public money instead of turning to a public-private partnership.

I am out of time, but I hope the Liberals will agree to split the omnibus bill and have an independent committee do a thorough study of the infrastructure bank.

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

As always, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to take the floor today, even despite the fact that we would much rather not have had to debate this issue here, in the House of Commons.

Indeed, from our perspective, the current government is making a big mistake with this infrastructure investment bank, which we do not even need since we already have at our disposal a similar mechanism that is better regulated, more appropriate and efficient. I am talking about PPP Canada.

The truth is this new scheme concocted by the Liberals will come with all sorts of roadblocks and red tape. Since its very inception, the infrastructure investment bank has shown potential as the future theme of Gomery 2.0, as the hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska so skilfully put it during question period.

Any way you cut it, this infrastructure investment bank is a terrible idea. Let us not forget that a parliamentary committee is currently studying Bill C-44. This is the bill to implement the budget, but it is an omnibus bill that also contains non-budgetary measures. It bears all the hallmarks of an omnibus bill designed to conceal certain measures not included in the budget.

Do I need to remind my friends across the way that, nearly two years ago now, alas, they were elected on certain promises? On page 30 of their platform, they said, “We will not resort to legislative tricks to avoid scrutiny”.

However, that is exactly what they are resorting to with this infrastructure investment bank. They are attempting to avoid the issue being debated in Parliament by steamrolling it through, even though we believe that this scheme is fundamentally wrongheaded and should be shut down. If they want to go ahead with their plans, more power to them, but they will have to submit to Parliament's thorough scrutiny, just as they had committed to do. This is just another of the government's many broken promises.

That is unacceptable because it is in an omnibus bill, which means that this important part of Bill C-44 will get barely two hours of debate in committee. This is a big deal. This is $35 billion of taxpayers' money, and the government is talking about attracting foreign investment. The fact is that parliamentarians, who represent the people who are going to pay for all this, will be rushing this thing through. Two hours, wrap it up, thank you, good night.

We know that the Prime Minister, as usual, is holding quick little secret meetings with people in the private sector who are interested in this idea and maybe with foreign investors too. Once again, instead of doing things out in the open and having an honest debate with the people who represent Canadian taxpayers, the Prime Minister is meeting these investors in hotel rooms behind closed doors. Nobody knows what is going on, and everything is worked out in secret, thank you, good night.

That is not the right approach. Perhaps that is the Liberal approach, but it smacks of what led to the Gomery commission. We are warning the Liberals. They are on a path towards having another huge problem on their hands. If they do this, unfortunately, it will be Canadians who pay for this bad decision once again.

It is important to understand that everything must be done properly. While the ambition to create an investment bank is being hidden in a cowardly and hypocritical way as part of an omnibus bill—and I say it is cowardly and hypocritical because they are the ones who said they would not do what they are doing—and despite the fact that this bill has not even passed the House of Commons, people are already acting as though it is a done deal. They are deciding on the location, they are appointing organizers, they are appointing officials, they are appointing managers, and they are appointing executives. Enough already.

Could they at least have the decency to respect the work of parliamentarians? No, they are already proud to announce that it will be located in Toronto, which has raised the ire of many in Quebec.

I want to clarify something here. For us, it was never about whether it was located in Toronto or Montreal. We oppose the investment bank altogether. Whether they have it Montreal or anywhere else, we think it is just a bad idea. That is why the Conservative members from Quebec are not up in arms, saying that it makes no sense for it to be located in Toronto. The whole thing makes no sense, period. There should be no infrastructure bank to begin with.

This is bad form. The government introduced an omnibus bill, there was no debate in Parliament, the Prime Minister had secret meetings with people he barely mentioned in the House, and the government made its decision when the bill has not even passed yet.

Let us talk about the substance. The government crows about fine principles and says that this will help fund infrastructure. The Liberals say that they are being nice and are investing heavily in infrastructure. Need I remind hon. members that when we were in power, under the leadership of the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean, we put in place the largest infrastructure program in Canada's history, an investment of $80 billion over 10 years? Only, unlike the current government, we did this and still managed to balance the budget.

It is easy to hand out billions of dollars left and right when you run annual deficits of $30 billion and cannot even say when we will return to a balanced budget. It is not right to increase the debt and run big deficits after getting elected on a promise to run small deficits. Life is grand. There is a limit to taking people for idiots.

Unlike the current government, we introduced our infrastructure program as part of a balanced budget. It goes without saying that we support investments in infrastructure, but we believe they must be made within our means, in other words, in the context of a balanced budget.

Furthermore, we already have a mechanism similar to the one the government is promoting to further the Liberal Party's crass commercial interests; it is totally legal and above board, and notably, it does not rely on foreign investment or require billions of taxpayer dollars to be frozen. I am talking, of course, about P3 Canada, public-private partnership. This tool, introduced by our government in 2009, allows interested private investors to invest in infrastructure programs. The member mentioned some successful projects, just as the member for South Surrey—White Rock did. The tool works as intended, I am happy to say.

To illustrate my point, with a core budget of $1.3 billion, when our government set it up in 2009, P3 Canada managed to attract investments worth $6 billion. Has anyone heard of it being involved any scandals? Did it lose money? Did it do a bad job of serving Canadians? No. The Conservative government established this crown corporation in 2009, and it is working fine.

We do not have to move forward with the Liberals' new scheme, the investment bank. We are all for private investment when it is done right and goes through PPP Canada. We also do not object to foreign investment as long as it benefits Canadians and does not just line investors' pockets.

Just a few minutes ago, my colleague clearly illustrated in a pertinent, clear, and obvious way that all the risks associated with the government's investment bank will be assumed by Canadian taxpayers and any problems will be paid for by taxpayers and not the foreign investors. This is not a reasonable approach for those who have the taxpayers' interests at heart.

The government continues to repeat that it is investing in many infrastructure projects. Need I remind members that 94% of these projects have not gotten off the ground? The Liberals can talk all they want.

Unfortunately, we cannot rewrite history. However, had Canadians once more placed their trust in us 18 months ago, billions of dollars could have been invested in our infrastructure program established under the guidance of the member for Lac-Saint-Jean. All we are doing right now is listening to the Liberals talk. Need I remind members that 94% of their projects have not materialized?

I would remind members that in order to create this bank, the Liberals are going to hold on to $15 billion in taxpayers' money, plus another $20 billion, for five years. These billions of dollars will not be available to immediately respond to the needs and requests of small municipalities.

Another thing that does not make sense is that this bank will only fund major investments of more than $100 million. This morning, the member for Richmond—Arthabaska said that Canadian infrastructure projects cost $6.6 million on average.

What cities do we think of when that $100-million figure comes up? Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto, of course. I have nothing against them, but what of every other Canadian municipality?

The government proposes to take $15 billion that should go directly to Canada's cities and towns and put it in a bank so it can cater to foreign investors, who will certainly not want to take any risks; taxpayers are the ones who will have to take the risk. It is not right.

That is why, in its current proposed form, the bank should not see the light of day. As KPMG, the firm originally commissioned by the government to assess the project, so scathingly put it, this is a disaster waiting to happen. The government must not go forward with its hare-brained, ill-conceived scheme.

[Ian Boeckh, President, Graham Boeckh Foundation]

Thank you very much for having me speak today.

My name is Ian Boeckh. I'm the president of the Graham Boeckh Foundation, a private family foundation dedicated to improving mental health services in Canada. The foundation is named after my brother Graham, who had schizophrenia and died in his early twenties from complications due to his medication. Our family felt that the system let him down badly, and that moved us to create a foundation.

Our foundation focuses on youth mental health. We have several large joint ventures with Canadian governments, provincial and federal, to create a new mental health care system for youth aged 12 to 25.

Let me tell you why I think Bill C-44 is a historic opportunity.

If you look at where we've come from, we recognize now the huge burden of mental illness. Research and statistics have pointed out both the social and the economic cost. We've made progress in reducing stigma, and huge numbers of people are now coming forward for help.

What we haven't done is create the services to help them. I think there's a possibility this bill could do it if the money is used properly. It could be a catalyst to finally having good services for people with mental health problems in Canada.

My colleagues here have talked very well about the shortcomings of the system. I think we have wonderful programs in Canada. We have wonderful professionals to help people. What we don't have is an organized system that uses our resources well and that suits people.

Our mental health care system was thrown in with other things and developed haphazardly. Nobody looked at creating a well-organized system that would be really suited to helping people with mental health problems. That's what we need to do now.

We need to take a systems approach, which you've heard my colleagues talk about here. This will be critical for making sure this opportunity is captured. Until now we've taken a piecemeal approach. The issues around mental health are complex and multi-faceted.

Minister Philpott, the Minister of Health, has talked eloquently about the need to address the issues of child and youth mental health; 70% of illnesses begin when people are children or youth or young adults. It doesn't make sense to wait for people to get really sick before we help them. So I think a focus on children and youth is really important.

In conclusion, this is a historic opportunity. It won't come again for a long time, so we can't blow it. We need to use this money from the health transfer, the $5 billion, not only to have better funding for services but also to create a system that makes sense, is well organized, and serves the people it's supposed to serve.

The federal government is going to have to work with the provinces. We hope they'll be able to work together in a constructive way to build a system. The provinces and territories are responsible for the mental health care system in this country.

One of the things people don't realize is that there is a consensus on what we need to do to improve the system, and I think you could hear that today. We need to go ahead and do it. We don't need to have endless consultations, or things like that. I think the path forward is reasonably clear, and we can get on with the job.

[Dr. Karen R. Cohen, Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Psychological Association, Canadian Alliance on Mental Illness and Mental Health]

In September 2016, CAMIMH released “Mental Health Now!”, which identified a five-point plan focused on the federal role in advancing the mental health of Canadians.

Mental illness has been a poor cousin of the health care system. Considerable mental health care is delivered by health providers other than physicians outside of publicly funded facilities like hospitals, and consequently it is not funded by our public health systems.

CAMIMH recognizes that budget 2017, and in particular Bill C-44, is an important step in meeting the government's mandate to make quality mental health care available to those who need it. Hopefully, Bill C-44 is a down payment on the greater investment we need to make in Canada's mental health. The Mental Health Commission of Canada has called for an increase in funding for mental health care from 7% to 9% of total health spending, so our work at all levels of government is yet to be done.

More can and must be done to expand the capacity of our public health systems to better deliver needed and effective mental health care. CAMIMH members are committed to this goal and stand ready to make their contributions.

In our “Mental Health Now!” document, we call on governments to provide support for the growth of innovative pockets of care that our systems currently fund, and to consider adapting mental health initiatives that have been effectively and successfully implemented in other countries. There is much effective care that our publicly funded systems need to work harder to make available. This speaks to the importance of establishing a mental health innovation fund that can support better access to care that we know works, and fund the research necessary to growing our understanding of mental illness and the effectiveness of its treatment.

In closing, mental health matters to all of us. There is no health without mental health, and in the view of CAMIMH, Canada's current and future wealth depends on its mental health.

Thank you.

[Glenn Brimacombe, Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Psychiatric Association, Canadian Alliance on Mental Illness and Mental Health]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, everyone.

The Canadian Alliance on Mental Illness and Mental Health, known as CAMIMH, is very pleased to be with you today.

My name is Glenn Brimacombe, and I am joined by Dr. Karen Cohen.

We lead associations that are both long-time members of CAMIMH. In my day job I am CEO of the Canadian Psychiatric Association and Dr. Cohen is CEO of the Canadian Psychological Association.

CAMIMH is the national voice for mental health in Canada. Established in 1998, CAMIMH is an alliance of 16 mental health groups, comprised of health care providers and organizations that represent people with mental illness, their families, and caregivers.

CAMIMH organizations came together to educate and inform by engaging Canadians in conversation about mental health and mental illness. Informed conversations create awareness, reduce stigma, and call for the services and supports that one in five Canadians need each year. Our vision is a Canada where everyone, no matter their state of wellness, enjoys good mental health. Our mission is to advocate for a Canada where all who live with mental health problems and illnesses, their families and caregivers receive timely, respectful, and effective care and supports.

Today we direct our comments to division 9 of Bill C-44. CAMIMH welcomes the $5 billion over 10 years that the federal government has committed to mental health initiatives. This is a historic investment that recognizes that Canadians need better access to mental health services and supports. In Bill C-44 $100 million has been set aside to be transferred to the provinces on a per capita basis for mental health initiatives in 2017. This represents a modest 2% of the total $5 billion to be invested over the next 10 years.

It also represents an important opportunity for governments to take the time they need to consider how the remaining 98% should be invested in 2018 and beyond. CAMIMH stands ready to work with both levels of government so that Canadians receive timely access to effective mental health services and supports.

As set out in Chart 3.1 of the budget, funding for home care and mental health will increase to $1.5 billion in 2021-22. However, we are not yet aware of how these funds can be spent. We urge governments to clarify how funding for home care and mental health services over the remaining nine years will be allocated. Doing so not only allows for accountability and transparency, but gives the provinces and territories the predictability necessary for planning and implementing complex services and supports.

It is our understanding that the federal government is currently in discussions with the provinces about where the monies could be invested and what accountability mechanisms could be put in place to ensure that the dollars are invested where there are service gaps, that the services that are implemented are evidence-based, and that metrics are in place to measure the ongoing effectiveness of the services provided. CAMIMH understands that you cannot manage what you cannot measure.

When it comes to mental health care, considerable service is not covered by our public health insurance plans, and there are data gaps in both the public and private sectors. In our view, much more needs to be done to make care accessible but also to better understand what care is received. This can be done in collaboration with the Canadian Institute for Health Information and the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association.

[Kimberly Moran, Chief Executive Officer, Children's Mental Health Ontario]

Thank you very much. My name is Kim Moran. I am the CEO of Children's Mental Health Ontario. CMHO is the association that represents over 100 publicly funded child and youth mental health centres in Ontario, providing expert treatment and support to children, youth, and families throughout Ontario.

We want to thank the government for their explicit attention to child and youth mental health, and their commitment to mental health in Bill C-44.

As a chartered professional accountant, I understand the difficulties in budgeting and in making ends meet. After working at UNICEF, where we designed health care systems around the world, I have some sense of how to make things effective as well. However, as a parent of a child with a severe mental illness, I have a strong consumer voice to add to the public policy perspective.

Every week there is another headline about youth suicide. Canada's youth suicide rate, we all agree, is much higher than it should be, and we know how to prevent suicide for the most part. Expert report after expert report all say that providing psychotherapy and other intensive treatment when kids need it can avert a crisis. However, the current provision of mental health services is almost entirely focused on waiting until kids become acutely ill to provide services.

My daughter was having suicidal thoughts, and we were told to wait until she had a suicidal plan until we could get treatment. It's like telling a kid with cancer to wait until it spreads all over the body. It just doesn't make any sense.

We do know how to reduce suicides. It requires a number of tactics, using a population-based strategy. It starts with promoting mental wellness to all kids.

The second effort is to provide easy-to-access counselling services for those kids with mild mental health issues to ensure they don't get worse. We need lots of services like these in lots of places, because there are lots of kids. We know one out of five kids has a mental health issue. Primary care doctors need to be at schools, colleges, universities, in communities, on the phone, wherever kids are.

The third effort needs to be about delivering high-quality treatment to those kids with a moderate to severe mental health issue, and provided by specialized child and youth mental health experts.

Just to be clear, these problems can be solved with three strategies. The first is to promote mental wellness. The second is to provide easy-to-access counselling services for kids with mild mental health issues. The third is to provide expert, specialized mental health treatment for kids with moderate to severe mental health issues.

Both the Canadian Public Health Association and Ian Boeckh are going to be talking later. They can talk about solving the access problems around counselling services for kids with mild mental health issues. I am going to talk today to some data that has been brought to our attention, and that's on kids who are going to hospital and are most likely to die by suicide, the kids who have a moderate to severe mental health issue. They comprise 12.6% of all kids in Canada right now.

CIHI, the Canadian Institute for Health Information, recently released new data that shows a staggering 56% increase in kids going to emergency departments, and a 47% increase over the last decade in hospitalizations of kids with mental health issues, at a time when hospitalizations for every other childhood disorder dropped by 18%. This data signals that we have a really serious crisis.

We all know that to control spiralling health care costs, investment in home and community care both to prevent and divert kids from hospitals makes good financial sense; but the data shows that the health care system is failing to provide the right services in the community. We've estimated the cost in Ontario at $175 million annually, and over the next five years it will cost us $1 billion, unless we change the way we do things.

CMHO has reported long wait times throughout Ontario for basic counselling and therapy for kids with moderate to severe mental health issues. In Ottawa, kids will wait up to 18 months. In the Toronto GTA, they'll wait up to two years. It doesn't make any sense.

My daughter was 11 years old when she rapidly became very depressed. She needed a full interprofessional team to provide care, with psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, and child and youth workers. But we couldn't get the care we needed, and from depression she rapidly became suicidal as she waited for specialized child and youth mental health treatment.

We need a long-term, intensive treatment program for those kids, and it has to be in the community. They can't access it now. There simply is not enough capacity.

We were encouraged to see the government's commitment to mental health in this year's budget. We know by investing in community care for kids like mine that we'll save about $175 million annually in Ontario, but we need your help to ensure that this money goes where it needs to go: directly to the service providers who are delivering therapy treatment to children and youth who are waiting for help.

Kids can't wait, nor should they have to, so we need your help. We know that the federal government wants to see wait times for child and youth mental health treatment go down. You've been explicit about this in your communication. Instead of simply prescribing in a bill that funding for mental health and home care services must be calculated according to provincial population, we want to see an additional calculation that ensures a proportionate amount of funding is earmarked for children and youth, and further, to ensure that the community-based agencies that deliver treatment to these kids are properly resourced to do this job and do it well.

We would welcome the opportunity to be involved in the development of indicators to ensure that happens.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We'll come to order.

Pursuant to an order of reference from the House, we're continuing our look at Bill C-44, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017, and other measures.

We have a number of witnesses here this afternoon. We appreciate your coming forward to give your views on Bill C-44.

First, we'll turn to the Canadian Mental Health Association, and Patrick Smith, the national CEO, and Teresa Gerner, the national coordinator, administration and government relations.

The floor is yours, Patrick.

Opposition Motion—Canada Infrastructure Bank

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House to address an extremely important subject, that being the Liberals’ infrastructure privatization bank. I will explain why it is absolutely necessary that it be withdrawn from the omnibus bill C-44. We must be able to debate it and to hold a vote specifically on this infrastructure privatization bank, which is completely unacceptable. The people of Drummond do not accept it. They are shocked, and even furious, to know that the Liberal government wants to privatize our infrastructures.

Before going any further, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with my excellent colleague, the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

Before taking the debate any further, I would like to read the motion that my colleague from Beloeil—Chambly has moved in the House of Commons. It is an extremely important motion. It is not something that is easy for the layperson to grasp, but when we look at it in detail, the Liberals’ plan is quite clear. It is a plan that aims to support their cronies the private investors, and not the Canadian people, the middle class and those working hard to join it.

The motion reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of the House: (a) public infrastructure should serve the interests of Canadians, not work to make private investors rich; (b) during the election, the Liberals did not reveal to voters their plans to privatize investment in public infrastructure; (c) infrastructure built by private investors will cost more than public infrastructure; (d) it is a conflict of interest to allow private corporations, who will be the largest beneficiaries of the Canada Infrastructure Bank, to participate in the planning and development of the Bank; (e) the Bank will leave taxpayers with an unacceptable burden of fees, tolls, and privatization that will only make private investors wealthy, to the detriment of the public interest; and (f) the clauses concerning the Canada Infrastructure Bank’s creation should be removed from Bill C-44, Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1, so they can be studied as a stand-alone bill.

As I was saying, the part that is totally unacceptable, scandalous even, is that the Liberal government has broken yet another promise. It promised not to draft omnibus bills like the Conservatives did. Omnibus bills are undemocratic. They prevent MPs from doing their work properly, from analyzing all of the bills up for amendment, and from sending them to the proper committees for thorough analysis.

By including the infrastructure bank in this bill, the government is preventing MPs—preventing lawmakers—from doing a proper analysis and from sending the bill to a committee where expert testimony would enable them to pick apart all the ins and outs of the proposed infrastructure privatization bank legislation and reveal all of its possible negative impacts.

By putting all of this in a mammoth omnibus bill and breaking the Liberal promise to put an end to omnibus bills, they are making it impossible for this bill to receive proper analysis. They are depriving not only the members, but also the Canadian people, of the right to have full knowledge of and properly analyze the bills to be amended here. This is extremely serious. This is another broken promise of the Liberals, in addition to their broken promise to stop the constant tabling of time allocation motions.

What are we seeing? We are seeing the very opposite. The Liberals are well on their way to matching the Conservatives’ record for time allocation motions and gag orders, the same Conservatives who broke the all-time record, the worst record ever in the Canadian history. The Liberals, who had been so critical of that, are on their way to doing the same thing. It is truly deplorable.

What is more, they recently told us to get ready, because they are going to pass even more time allocation motions. I hope that the Liberal members will tell the government Leader in the House of Commons that the time allocations must stop, that they have fought their fight and promised to be much more reasonable about this. However, that is not the case at all at the moment.

What is an infrastructure privatization bank, and what is its main consequence? First of all, the profits are given to private investors, while the government assumes all the risk and all the downside. The government is not just the Liberals. It is Canadians who are going to pay for all this, including the people in the riding of Drummond, which I represent. They are the ones who will have to pay for this ill-considered infrastructure bank.

Another consequence of creating such a bank is that the regions are forgotten, since private investors, who are looking to make profits, will invest only in projects located in the big cities, where there is far more opportunity to make a profit and where there are enough people to make it worthwhile.

Regions like Drummond have no infrastructure that can generate a big return; the infrastructure there exists to serve the population. Therefore, cities and regions like Drummond are not going to benefit from an infrastructure privatization bank. The money generated by Drummond and other regions of Canada will be taken and they will be told that it is not going to be invested locally. It is a shame.

The regions that will be able to benefit from this bank will be charged tolls and other fees. More tax pressure is going to be put on the middle class and those aspiring to join it. It really makes no sense.

The money they are going to invest in the infrastructure privatization bank could have been invested more wisely. Right now, Canadians all over Quebec and Ontario are suffering as a result of the flooding, because there has been no planning to adapt our infrastructures. We must ensure that we are resilient and can adapt to the effects of climate change, since there are going to be more and more extreme weather events.

The 2017 Green Budget Coalition has made some very important recommendations regarding investment in natural infrastructures and ecosystems. The following is an excerpt from one of the recommendations:

The Green Budget Coalition recommends that in Budget 2017 the Government of Canada allocate 30% of planned phase-2 Green Infrastructure funding for investments to protect and enhance Canada’s vital natural infrastructure...

Rather than investing that money in an infrastructure privatization bank, which will not serve Canadians or the Drummond region, it could have been invested in green infrastructure and in climate resilience and adaptation for existing infrastructure. That is of the utmost importance, given what is happening to our regions.

For instance, near Yamachiche and near Gatineau, right here, people are suffering because of flooding, and yet no planning is being done to adapt to climate change. That is in the green budget, which the Liberals unfortunately did not read. What a shame.

In closing, the part of Bill C-44 that deals with the privatization of infrastructure must absolutely be taken out, so that we may debate it properly and study all the ins and outs at the appropriate committee, where experts could show that the bank is in no way good for the Drummond region. That is why we will be opposing the bill.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the motion tabled by my colleague the member for Beloeil—Chambly. This is an important debate. I am pleased that my colleague has chosen to bring this forward, because otherwise we would not have an opportunity to even debate this important legislation, which is included in a major omnibus budget bill.

Among the 30 laws that would be enacted or amended by the omnibus budget bill is division 18, which if approved would establish the Canada infrastructure bank as a crown corporation. I emphasize “if approved” because none of the myriad measures contained in the budget bill would come into effect until the bill is deliberated at committee, receives final debate and votes, and is reviewed in the other place. The law to establish a Canadian infrastructure bank is not in legal effect.

Our first concern is that the law to establish significant reforms in the allocation of tax dollars was tabled as part of an omnibus budget bill, which is yet another promise broken. The decision to include the bill in the 300-page budget bill clearly diminishes opportunities for its thoughtful and careful review and is a concern raised by KPMG, who the Liberal government hired to advise it on whether it should proceed quickly and expediently to set this up. In fact, the government's own consultant advised to take it slowly. Then there was time allocation on debate, before the majority of members had the opportunity to even share their concerns and ask questions, and a mere one hour for committee review. It is absolutely astounding. This shows a high degree of disregard for the role of Parliament, including our very important duty to scrutinize spending, a responsibility of every member of this place.

Our party has allocated this opposition day to enable this very expanded debate to all members of this place, and we encourage all members to participate.

Second, the government has taken premature and possibly illegal actions to establish the proposed bank before the law enabling its creation is debated and approved by Parliament, let alone declared in legal effect. Bill C-44 has only just been referred to the finance committee for study.

As persuasively raised in a question of privilege presented by the NDP House leader, the member for Victoria, yesterday in this place, the government has already chosen and publicly announced a location for the yet unauthorized bank. It has already initiated a search for the board of directors, its chair, and the CEO. It has also announced on its website that the deadline for appointment is the 23rd of this month, a mere two weeks from today, and yet we are still just debating the law that would establish the bank.

These actions are beyond presumptuous. They could well be considered illegal, certainly based on past Speaker's rulings, as the enabling law is a long way from being enacted. No such actions may even be authorized by order in council. No authorizations have been issued by Parliament to establish the bank or to authorize the spending of funds to take effect. A case has been made that these premature actions may be held to be in contempt of the House and an attack against the authority of Parliament. We await the ruling by the Speaker. This is hardly a great start to the establishment of this institution.

Third, there remains a level of confusion about what is the actual purpose of this proposed bank and whose interests it is intended to serve. The stated purpose of the bank is to seek and attract investment from private sector institutional investors in infrastructure projects in Canada and partly in Canada, which I will speak to in a minute; to generate revenue, by levies and tolls—how else; and finally, to be in the public interest, adding that the definition of what is in the public interest is fostering economic growth or contributing to the sustainability of infrastructure, presumably developed by these private interests.

This provision alone raises myriad issues. What does “projects...partly in Canada” mean? What are the risks to Canadian investment if projects are partly located in the United States of America? Is the government thinking of export power lines perhaps from coal-fired power in Alberta and Saskatchewan? How does this benefit taxpayers? The law empowers the bank's board to determine what is in the public interest. Do Canadians agree with this? These are public dollars.

Who decides what is in the public interest for Canadians? It is the bank's board of directors? The law specifically precludes that the board would include any federal, provincial, or municipal government representatives. Therefore, clearly, no elected officials would have a say in what is public interest.

What happened to elected officials being held accountable for spending taxpayer monies or deciding on priority projects that serve the public interest? We have to remember that up to $35 billion of public monies are going to be given either directly to the bank to be accessed by private entities or through loan guarantees.

As National Post columnist Andrew Coyne has commented, the government appears to be relying on “the old political euphemism—it's not spending it's 'investment'”.

It is important to keep in mind that the government has committed $35 billion of taxpayers' money, including for loan guarantees, and that $15 billion of those dollars, gifted to this bank for access by private entrepreneurs, are removed from allocation for public infrastructure, including light rapid transit and green infrastructure, which the government speaks of ad nauseam.

Others have queried whether it actually qualifies as a bank. Despite the private investor board, the law mandated considerable role by government. For example, loan guarantees require approval of the minister of finance, and yet there are no clear criteria or requirements for transparency. Second, the cabinet chooses and fires the board and chair. Third, the board reports to the infrastructure minister not the minister of finance. It is not really clear who, in fact, in the government is responsible and accountable for the bank. Perhaps one minister would be accountable when it works and another minister would be held to account when we lose money.

There is concern that the bank is to be established as a crown corporation, thereby exempting it from access to information requests, so significant to the promises of transparency and accountability. Of course, we can read in the mandate letters over and over again about responsibility to ensure transparency and accountability, except for this bank.

Will it be subject to scrutiny by the PBO? It appears not. That is $35 billion that the PBO cannot even scrutinize.

Another issue that has been raised by a good number of persons is on conflict of interest. There are already serious concerns with the fact that the government sought advice and had direct guidance in establishing the bank from a number of the very entities that would most likely benefit from the bank and potentially be candidates for the board.

A proper study would include a review of any potential conflicts of interest, the impact of the bank on existing infrastructure programs, and how taxpayers would be affected if a project fails. Therein raises the spectre of bankruptcy. Canada's infrastructure minister is promising that taxpayers will not be left holding the bag should any projects funded through a proposed infrastructure bank go bankrupt. How this assurance can be given by the government is unclear if the board is to be run by its board of directors from the private sector.

The government will be left holding the bag when, under bankruptcy law, creditors have been deemed priority over government seeking recovery of costs for the cleanup of abandoned well sites. We recently had decisions of the court saying that, in the occasion that there is a problem, the creditors go first, so these private entrepreneurs will gain the money first, not the taxpayers.

It is absolutely important that all members participate in this debate on behalf of their constituents and find out what the risks are to their communities and what the projects are that will not proceed if these monies are funnelled through the infrastructure bank.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Edmonton Strathcona.

Today we are debating the government's proposal for a Canada infrastructure bank. In particular, today's NDP motion asks the House to remove the clauses concerning the Canada infrastructure bank from Bill C-44, the budget implementation act, so they can be studied as a stand-alone bill.

I would like to start with a short history of the proposal and then move on to some of the concerns I have about the infrastructure bank.

In the 2015 election, the Liberal platform stated that it would:

...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.

This was not one of those high-profile promises, like electoral reform, which the Liberals have since broken, and it seems to be an entirely reasonable promise to make: using public money wisely to build and maintain public infrastructure.

Unfortunately, the plan has changed radically. In the latest budget, the government reveals that the infrastructure bank will involve $35 billion, $15 billion of which is public money. The rest will come from private investment banks and funds that expect a sizable return on their investments and a real say in the priorities of where that money is invested.

Do we need such a private infrastructure bank in Canada? Do we need to pay more for infrastructure projects? Do we need to pay tolls and extra fees? Do we need to give up the planning control of where our money is spent on public infrastructure?

According to a study by researchers at the Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy, the federal government could build even more infrastructure simply by borrowing at preferred rates and then passing the savings on to cities and provinces. That was exactly what the Liberals promised in the last election.

The government seems to be doing this for only one reason, and that is to take the credit for infrastructure projects it has had little or nothing to do with, projects that will profit wealthy investment bankers, projects funded by taxpayers paying extra tolls and fees, all the while taking the costs off government books so its fiscal record looks better than it is.

I would like to look a little more closely at some of the concerns surrounding the Canada infrastructure bank proposal. First among these is that unnecessary added cost that it would bring to public infrastructure projects.

As the Liberals pointed out in their election promises, the federal government can use its strong credit rating to access funds to help provinces and municipalities move forward with infrastructure projects that will benefit all Canadians. Why bring in private investment firms that demand higher returns? The government is simply adding a middleman who wants a profit.

As we heard earlier in various speeches, the Liberal government recently commissioned a study by KPMG to look into the infrastructure bank idea. It obviously did not like the answers it got since it initially refused to release the report.

One of the points the report makes is that Canadians do not like paying extra fees and tolls for the use of public infrastructure, something that really should not come as a surprise, especially when those fees and tolls will not be paying back public monies used for the project, but instead paying for profits to investment bankers.

The report mentions the push back the government might get if we start charging fees for water use. It points out that private investors internationally have only taken on municipal water assets after the community has adopted full costing and metering of water use.

In my riding, water metering is already in effect in many communities, simply because water is a precious commodity in the dry interior of southern British Columbia and paying for use instead of per household is a strong incentive for water conservation. People are paying their own municipal governments, not a private corporation, for that water use. This example points to the fact that private investors are simply interested in making a profit rather than getting involved for the public good.

Every municipality has ongoing infrastructure maintenance and operating costs that they must bear every year. Small rural municipalities and regional districts already are struggling with per capita costs that are much higher than those in larger cities. It makes no sense to them to embrace an infrastructure bank that will inevitably cost their citizens even more in the long term. They need a federal government that will provide the funding they need in the form of grants or low interest loans, just as the Liberals promised in their election platform, not through a private infrastructure bank.

Small municipalities in rural Canada are also concerned that $15 billion have been taken out of the infrastructure pot and put in a bank that probably will not be that interested in funding small town projects.

In recent years, governments across the country have been undertaking public-private partnerships despite the obvious fiscal and control problems that come with them.

A couple of years ago, the auditor general in my home province of British Columbia found that provincial taxpayers were on the hook for about $31 million in extra interest rates on one project alone, the Fort St. John Hospital, representing the private equity in the project borrowed at an interest rate of 14.79%. This led one journalist to wonder if the B.C. Liberals had put the charge on their Visa card.

The amount that B.C. taxpayers pay every year for the extra interest costs of PPP projects has been calculated at $81 million.

I do not have time to go into all the other concerns about this proposal: concerns about the privatization of airports; concerns about the lack of public oversight, the lack of public input into the priorities of the infrastructure bank, the lack of public involvement in the board of the bank; concerns that the people who the Liberals are getting to design the system are the very people, wealthy investment bankers, who will benefit from it; and concerns about the rush to get this started. The jobs are already posted on the government website before the bill has been fully debated in the House, let alone passed through the House and Senate.

The KPMG study I mentioned earlier calls for careful study of the infrastructure bank proposal, but instead the government is trying to rush this through with only two hours of committee hearings. We all know what can be done at a committee in two hours, maybe hear from six witnesses who have 10 minutes each to speak and answer a few questions. This is entirely inadequate to cover the myriad of concerns about this proposal.

We are talking about a lot of money, $35 billion. The Liberals might point out that it is merely the amount of the annual budget deficit, but to Canadians it is a big number, especially with the extra tolls and fees they will be paying to fund this investment. The minister has said, “We are not hearing concerns from [those on] whose behalf we are doing this.” We are doing this on behalf of the citizens of Canada and I am hearing concerns from my constituents. I am left to wonder who the minister has been listening to and who he thinks we are doing this for.

We in the NDP feel the Canada infrastructure bank proposal needs to be taken out of Bill C-44 and thoroughly studied as a separate stand-alone bill. That way Canadians can provide some input into a major change in government policy, a change that will unnecessarily cost Canadian taxpayers a great deal of money, while at the same time giving up public oversight into how that public money is spent and which public infrastructure projects move forward.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the importance of public infrastructure and how it will help stimulate the economy and provide additional support to Canadian families.

We believe that one of the best ways to restore the confidence of Canada's middle class is to invest in public infrastructure in order to build stronger communities and build an economy that works for all Canadians and their families.

Strengthening the middle class means that hard-working Canadians can look forward to a good standard of living and better prospects for their children and grandchildren. When the middle class succeeds, we all succeed.

We know that our investments in our communities will help everyone contribute to improving our economic, social, and environmental well-being, but how can we achieve those objectives in practical terms? That is a good question.

Governments throughout the world are constantly struggling to create public assets, such as roads and bridges, that meet taxpayers' quality expectations while also standing the test of time. That is why, in budget 2016, the government announced its proposal for a historic infrastructure plan.

We are working closely with the provincial and territorial governments on making targeted investments in public transit, green infrastructure, and social infrastructure as soon as possible. Budget 2016 announced $11.9 billion over five years in support of these priorities.

In the speeches I heard today, several members talked about projects that have yet to start.

This morning, many individuals were saying that there are not a whole lot of shovel-in-the ground or shovel-ready projects. I just made a quick call to my office to find out, in the beautiful riding of Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, what projects in fact had been approved, and that we do have shovels in the ground. Again, we can totally see that the federal contribution for some projects that have been made was $84 million and project total values were $225 million.

There are some wonderful projects that we see, which I know I am very proud of and I advocated for very strongly during my campaign. One of them was the restoration of the beautiful Petitcodiac River. For those members who are not familiar with my area, the Petitcodiac project consists of replacing a causeway with a 200-metre bridge in order to achieve maximum recovery of the Petitcodiac River system. Back home, it is a project that is very near and dear to all of our hearts. Restoring the full tidal flow was expected to restore as much as 80% of the functions of the river, creating conditions necessary to restore fish passage and the unique Petitcodiac tidal bore. I can say that even last summer some individuals were out there with their surfboards, so we can almost promote tourism in a lot of ways, which is fantastic.

The first part of our plan outlined a new collaborative approach and use of infrastructure investment to make our communities stronger, but we knew that we needed to do more.

That is why in last fall's economic statement the government announced an additional $81 billion over 11 years for public transit, green infrastructure, social infrastructure, infrastructure to support trade, infrastructure for rural and northern communities, and smart cities.

In all, combined with existing funding, we will be investing more than $180 billion over 12 years in our cities, our towns, and our trade corridors to provide cleaner air and water, better neighbourhoods for our children, and smarter, more connected communities. This investment is unprecedented in Canadian history and it comes at a time when the need is great.

Our communities need to keep people and goods moving. Our most vulnerable citizens need housing. To meet this challenge, we need to think even bigger.

Finally, I will address the issue of the creation of the Canada infrastructure bank. No level of government can achieve on its own the ambitious infrastructure objectives. We must work with the other levels of government, public and private organizations, and investors around the world. Canada has enormous infrastructure needs, with a huge potential for building world-class infrastructure that will improve communities, create good jobs, and make the economy stronger and greener.

It is important to attract investment that will fund a larger number of infrastructure projects. Investors have told us that they want to invest in Canada, but that certain specific conditions must be in place. That is why we introduced Bill C-44, which establishes the new Canada infrastructure bank as a crown corporation. The bank will be run by a CEO and governed by a professional board of directors.

Through the new infrastructure bank, which is an independent institution, we will work with the provinces, territories, and municipalities to build world-class infrastructure that will improve our communities, create good jobs, and make the economy stronger and greener.

The Canada Infrastructure Bank will seek to attract investments from private sector institutions in new public infrastructure projects that will generate revenue in Canada. Simply put, it is a new way of funding transformative projects in communities across our beautiful country. By attracting new investors, we can carry out more infrastructure projects that Canadian communities need.

The bank will be entrusted with investing at least $35 billion in federal funds using a wide range of financial instruments. Through the creation of a new institution that is able to work with the private sector when it makes sense to do so, public funds will be used more wisely and more strategically. These investments will lead to better projects that will create the good, well-paying jobs that are needed to sustainably strengthen Canada's economy.

In closing, I want to say that we know that we will not overcome the challenges we are facing overnight. We know that to govern effectively, we cannot just focus on today and tomorrow. We also have to focus on the years and decades to come. We need to ensure a better future for our children. We are optimistic, knowing that we can build a better life for the next generation.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Vancouver East.

I am very happy today to have the opportunity to rise in support of the motion from my colleague, the member for Beloeil—Chambly. The motion, in my view, is very clearly worded and its purpose is also clear and concise. The clauses concerning the Canada infrastructure bank's creation should be removed from Bill C-44, the budget implementation act, 2017, No. 1, so that they can be studied as a stand-alone bill.

This is not an unreasonable ask. It is widely acknowledged that the government's proposed infrastructure bank scheme is complex. Canadians and parliamentarians should take the time to study it before it is enacted as part of an omnibus budget bill, which is precisely the type of bill that the current government used to decry and condemn as undemocratic. After all, if we are to invest $35 billion into this scheme, we should allot more than a couple of hours of study.

I am sure my colleagues would agree that this sort of spending deserves more careful scrutiny, which is why it needs to be excised from Bill C-44 and studied as a stand-alone bill. Why is the government burying such an important and expensive initiative in a 300-page bill? What is it afraid of? A government that has boasted over and over again about its pledges to be open and transparent is afraid to allow any sunlight to fall on its infrastructure bank scheme. Could it be because this scheme would benefit its wealthy friends first and foremost instead of the citizens of Canada?

What are the criteria and governance models that this bank would operate under? Already there are concerns that corporations and private investors have been given unprecedented control over the planning and development of this scheme. Where is the consultation with everyday Canadians that Liberals are so fond of? Why will the Liberals not even allow elected members of this House to study this scheme? Are they concerned that their scheme will not pass the smell test?

The government promised that investments in infrastructure would benefit Canadians, but it is difficult to see how a scheme that would pad the profits of corporations and wealthy private investors would do that, especially when everyday Canadians would be paying the price through new tolls and years of user fees with nothing to show for it in the long run. This is the oldest trick in the book, and we all know how it ends. Governments give sweetheart deals to corporations for infrastructure projects, people pay through the nose, corporations make profits, and then the crumbling infrastructure is dumped back on the public. It is not a scenario that benefits taxpayers.

How can Canadians be sure that decisions made by this bank would, indeed, be in the best interests of taxpayers? Will corporate profits always trump public good, or just sometimes? Either way, it is not acceptable to push this through without consultation, without study, and without the disinfectant of sunlight on this scheme that seems to have been concocted between the government and a few of its wealthy friends. It is just the latest example of the arrogance of the government, “Just trust us; we know best.”

It is passing strange that the consultation the government loves to trot out as a delaying tactic whenever convenient is so conspicuously missing here. When it came to pay equity for half of our population, the Liberals conveniently kicked the can for a couple of years, citing the need for consultation, even though pay equity is a human right and has been studied to death. After ragging the puck on electoral reform for months, the Liberals insisted on consultations in many forms, town halls in each riding, postcards, and even a famously incoherent and universally ridiculed online questionnaire, only to abruptly pull the plug on their promise to make 2015 the last election under first past the post. However, when there is an opportunity to help their wealthy friends get even richer off the backs of Canadians, it is suddenly inconvenient to have consultations. It must be just a coincidence.

If the Liberals think they have a case to move forward, they should not be afraid to pull the plug, just like they did on electoral reform. They should pull the infrastructure bank scheme out of the omnibus budget bill so it can be studied properly. If they acted as they claim, in the best interest of Canadians, they should not be afraid of scrutiny, and their scheme should be able to stand, or fall, on its own merits. This unseemly haste does not bode well for Canadians. If elected representatives cannot be allowed to properly study this costly scheme, one must ask again what the government is hiding. What is it afraid of?

Public infrastructure should serve the interests of Canadians. Privatizing investment in public infrastructure is not just a bad business decision for the taxpayers of Canada; it represents a blatant conflict of interest.

We do not have to look very far to find examples of boondoggles that have cost taxpayers dearly. In my home province of Saskatchewan, I can point to a couple of infamous examples. The Regina bypass portion of the Trans-Canada Highway is contracted to a foreign company that has been accused of unfair labour practices, and the cost of this project has ballooned from $400 million to $2 billion. What about the sketchy land deal known as the Global Transportation Hub scandal, particularly the revelation that the land purchased by the GTH could have been bought years earlier for a tenth of the cost? As a result of the Saskatchewan Party's GTH scandal, two businessmen, who also happen to be Sask Party supporters, took $11 million in profits out of the pockets of Saskatchewan taxpayers. Now the Sask Party government has unilaterally killed the Saskatchewan Transportation Company, STC, because it thinks that a private operator will be able to take it over. Yes, a private operator would be only too happy to buy STC's assets in a fire sale and then only offer service on routes that would be profitable. What happens to the less profitable routes that serve Canadians in remote communities who have no other means of transportation to get to cancer treatment?

Selling off profitable crown corporations like SaskTel will only lead to higher costs for consumers and an unnecessary loss of equity and revenue for the province, and therefore the taxpayers. I really do not care which party people belong to. Stories like these should make their skin crawl.

In the last 30 years, there have been many failed experiments that have exploded the myth that private business can deliver essential public services and infrastructure at less cost and with better results than the public sector. Canadians pay taxes for the common good. That includes public services and public infrastructure.

During the 2015 election campaign, the Liberals promised to establish the Canada infrastructure bank to “provide low-cost financing for new infrastructure projects”, but in 2016, they subsequently announced that the bank would be financed largely by private-sector investors. I am pretty sure that private-sector investors are not known for their pro bono work.

Projects financed by the infrastructure bank would have to generate revenues that would pay significant returns to investors, resulting in user fees, tolls, and of course, new costs to be assumed by Canadians across the country. What the Liberals are proposing is nothing short of privatization of our infrastructure. This privatization would benefit their friends: wealthy investors. It would not help middle-class Canadians, and middle-class Canadians are who the Liberals keep saying they are trying to help.

All Canadians should ask this question: If the bank's mandate would be to finance projects with income-generating potential, what would happen to essential infrastructure projects in the regions deemed unprofitable but that are in the public interest and are necessary for public safety? Based on the Liberal plan, the bank would have great autonomy in choosing which infrastructure projects were financed. Given these circumstances, who would guarantee that the decisions made by the bank's board and executive director were in the public interest, and moreover, who would have the power to prevent corruption and ensure accountability?

In fact, we are learning through the news media that there is an internal federal report that warns of a wide range of potential problems with the proposed Canada infrastructure bank, including that it would duplicate the work of provinces, slow down projects, add new layers of bureaucracy, and expose Ottawa to “public relations disasters and embarrassment”.

If the government is so convinced that its infrastructure bank scheme is in the best interest of Canadians, it should have no objection at all to severing it from the omnibus budget bill and having it scrutinized by parliamentarians and Canadians. After all, what does it have to hide?

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was delighted to hear the minister defend this bank.

First, I will be splitting my time with the member for Richmond—Arthabaska.

I want to thank the member for Beloeil—Chambly for bringing this motion forward. This is a very important issue. Many of us would agree that Canada is open for business. However, it is about what kind of business and what that process looks like. As we have seen with the development of this bank, there are some serious concerns on this side of the House. I want to give a bit of an overview of this bank.

Of a total of $35 billion of taxpayer dollars, $15 billion are being taken away from communities, but the government has announced these projects. Therefore, there is an anticipation from communities that these projects will be built in their communities. However, that is not so, because $15 billion are being taken away from communities, $5 billion are being taken away from public transit projects, $5 billion are being taken away from trade and transportation, and $5 billion are being taken away from green infrastructure. Therefore, the minister should really let communities know which ones will be affected and which projects that have already been announced will not go forward. That is the prudent thing to do. The government talks about being transparent. That is a measure of transparency.

Also, the CPP Investment Board has stated that investors will only look at projects worth over $500 million because it needs a return on its investment. However, $20 billion will be provided to the bank through equity and debt, which means it will not be on the books unless the project defaults. This is another very problematic issue.

The bank will seek out private investors and public pension funds to invest in Canadian infrastructure projects. However, if we come back to what the expectation is from investors, they want a return on their investment as high as 12%. For those who have RRSPs invested or any investments whatsoever, 12% is a really good return rate. What is missing in this is that the minister has not identified where that money is coming from. How is that being paid back to the investors? If it is through taxes, tolls, road pricing, whatever fees and mechanisms that looks like, it should be implicit in the legislation. It is not there. There is no mention of what the return on investment will look like. Again, that is very problematic.

I go back to 2009, when the Conservative government set up PPP Canada. At the time, I was the mayor of a large city of 520,000 people. We were a beneficiary through PPP Canada. We worked together and commenced the building of a biofuel facility, which is being completed now. We leveraged private sector dollars. However, the taxpayers are not paying fees to investors on that front. Therefore, the structure is already there in PPP Canada. The initial investment into PPP Canada was $1.3 billion, which leveraged $6 billion in infrastructure. The mechanisms and the tools are there.

One of the other functions of the bank is data collection. The FCM has been doing data collection for quite some time. In fact, $50 million were given to the FCM by the current government specifically for data collection. Therefore, again, it is a repetition of things that are already being done.

The infrastructure bank portion of Bill C-44 will be studied for just one hour. For something as significant as this, with $35 billion of taxpayers' dollars, to be studied at committee for one hour is absolutely not enough time. Within the motion that has been put forward today, the NDP has requested that this be brought back to the House separately so we can have a wholesome debate on it. Unfortunately, the government has invoked time allocation. It is shutting down debate and giving one hour in committee. This is absolutely unacceptable.

In a Globe and Mail article on Wednesday, May 10, the Minister of Infrastructure stated: “We are not hearing concerns from [those on] whose behalf we are doing this”. Of course there are no concerns from the people for whom they are doing this. That comment from the minister is really telling.

I want to talk about the significant conflict of interest. The Liberals gave direct control over the development of the bank to the very same private investors that will be profiting from the bank. This is a clear and blatant conflict of interest. BlackRock officials were invited by the Liberals to work directly with senior public servants, as well as ministerial staff, ahead of a closed-door meeting with the Prime Minister and ministers on November 14. This was to ensure that BlackRock clients would hear from the minister about the infrastructure bank. In fact, they even looked over the speaking notes of the minister. Documents also reveal that a member of the finance minister's advisory council, who is the president and CEO of Quebec's largest pension fund, was the lead in the policy decisions of the infrastructure bank. That is interesting, because now the pension fund is seeking a $1.3 billion contribution from the Liberal government for a $6 billion light rail transit project. Again, this is a blatant conflict of interest.

The postings for the positions on the board are closing before the end of this month, and the legislation has not even been passed.

Let us talk about the Liberal infrastructure plan. Ninety per cent of the announced infrastructure projects have failed to start construction. That means there are no jobs being created and the economy is not being stimulated. The majority of the funds in the Liberal infrastructure plan are back-ended after 2022. There are no bilateral agreements for phase two that have been signed, and no projects have been submitted by the provinces.

The PBO, the Fraser Institute, the Senate, and the C.D. Howe Institute all have serious concerns. They cannot follow the money, there is no transparency, the projects are not getting built, and there is no way they can measure progress. No wonder the government wants to muzzle the PBO.

The Liberals continue to say “historic” amounts of spending, and they are spending. They are spending $253 million on the Asian infrastructure bank, but we are going to be on the hook for $1.3 billion in loan guarantees. The Chinese government is taking the lead on that.

I would like to make an amendment to the motion. I move:

That the motion be amended by adding to part (c) after the word “investors” the following:

using taxpayer dollars while also imposing user fees on Canadians

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

Mr. Speaker, the infrastructure bank has been a long-standing issue that continues to be locked in the shadows. New Democrats had to put forward this motion today because of the lack of clarity, transparency, and accountability with respect to this bank. I believe that the most important part of today's discussion is this: If the government is so proud of the infrastructure bank, why make it part of an omnibus budget bill in 2017? Why not have this section of the bill separated out?

I believe that Canadians and municipalities deserve the right to hear, in detail, how this bank will work, especially when its creation is under a cloud of suspect behaviour, with private companies that will be the same companies making the profits from these ventures sitting in the driver's seat. This shows a clear conflict of interest. Now Liberals have cut our ability to debate this by virtue of shutting down debate.

This needs to be clear. First, the infrastructure bank was squished into an omnibus bill, creating a lack of accountability and vigorous debate in the House. Second, the debate was shortened so these issues could be rushed over by the government.

We have asked for this provision to be split from the omnibus bill, something the Liberals have yet to do. If the government is so proud, it should not be afraid and should be willing to have this discussion. I believe this would truly allow for an in-depth analysis, more hours of debate, and a specific committee to review the process, rather than one hour, as it currently stands. This provision will be reviewed quickly at committee, in conjunction with the 300 pages of legislative changes in Bill C-44. This is a lack of accountability.

It is important that all parliamentarians take this seriously. There is a general lack of clarity with respect to the infrastructure bank, and there are many alarming issues surrounding this scheme. First, many measures will have to be dealt with in future legislation. Second, the lack of transparency is troubling. The bank will be able to withhold important information from the Attorney General of Canada and the parliamentary budget officer under the guise of being sensitive commercial information. Third, the bank will have serious consequences for our public infrastructure and the lives of Canadian citizens.

As the deputy critic for infrastructure, it has been a pleasure to advocate in this role, most notably for Canadians living in rural and small communities. Too often we hear the word “infrastructure” tied to larger communities. Too often smaller centres are simply left out of the equation.

For us to quickly demonstrate how the scheme will never benefit our rural communities or the middle class, we can simply break down the nature of the beast. The bottom line is that private investors will not be joining the government's scheme for the pleasure of building infrastructure but rather will be expecting a significant financial return.

I want to be clear. It makes sense to me that these investors will want a return. Investing is for the purpose of making a return. My concern is that infrastructure is moving in this direction. I am concerned that Canadians are not having a say on this bank. I am most concerned that these investors have been shown to be in the driver's seat in building this bank. It is like asking the fox to guard the hen house, with a complete lack of acknowledgement of the role of a fox.

The Quebec pension plan, for example, is very clear. It expects a return of 7% to 9%. Where do members think it would get that from? It would be from the tolls and user fees collected from Canadians. Simply said, rural communities cannot sustain the level of returns Bay Street bankers require. That means that all the communities I represent will be ignored. Other MPs in this House should really reflect on the usefulness of this bank in their ridings, and most importantly, must ask who this bank is really helping.

Why is the government so proud to encourage the urban-rural divide? Canadians deserve to know what will bring these returns. What will be sold off? Where will the new tolls be imposed? What user fees can we expect? Every time the Prime Minister is asked, he talks about the different models and the potential. The outcomes of these models require more taxpayers to shell out more money.

It was hard to understand the reasoning to create this bank from the start. This dubious venture was not in the Liberals' major campaign platform. Why suddenly is it such a major project priority? We have all witnessed the government's mammoth infrastructure stimulus plan fall flat: all this taxpayer money and very little to show for it. Does the arm's length nature of this bank allow the government to relinquish the hard decisions on the infrastructure file? Is this an excuse for its failed stimulus?

The Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy says the Liberals have not shown a solid business case for its new infrastructure bank. At the head of the institute is the former parliamentary budget officer, surprisingly enough. The omnibus budget bill also limits the independence of the current PBO. It does not look good when the Liberals are limiting the PBO's powers in this year's budget while ignoring calls from the previous PBO about this year's budget.

What are the Liberals hiding? It could do with the fact that the bank has the potential to increase overall costs to taxpayers, because infrastructure built by private investors will always cost more than public infrastructure.

The government has the capacity to borrow at a very low cost, so why will it not? It may have to do with its friends on Bay Street. Rather than building critical infrastructure that benefits everyday citizens, the Liberals are creating a privatization scheme that puts the need of their wealthy friends first.

Government records show that corporations and private investors were given unprecedented control in the planning and development of the Liberals' privatization bank. BlackRock's extensive involvement in the creation of the infrastructure bank of the private sector raises conflict of interest questions. These are very important questions that need to be discussed in the House. It is a conflict of interest to allow private corporations which would be the largest beneficiaries of the Canada infrastructure bank to participate in the planning and development of the bank.

The Conflict of Interest Act states that a “public office holder is in a conflict of interest when he or she exercises an official power, duty or function that provides an opportunity to...improperly further another person’s private interests.”

The Liberals promised investments in infrastructure to benefit everyday Canadians, but instead they are getting a government that puts the interests of larger corporations first. This is a fine example of a Prime Minister who has lost touch with Canadians who rely on public infrastructure. It is also a sign that he has lost touch with the middle class and those working hard to join it.

Infrastructure can create meaningful employment for many, but this bank will pay with taxpayer money with one hand and take our user fees and tolls with the other. Therefore, Canadians will be paying twice.

The government has yet to make a compelling case for why it would be better to work with private investors seeking high returns when Ottawa has the ability to finance projects itself at a much lower cost.

While the Liberals are unphased and standing tall in the face of this important criticism, Canadians deserve better. They deserve to know what is happening. Canadians need to know what is being pawned off, where the tolls will be, and what user fees they can expect.

This project will hinder the growth of middle-class Canadians by imposing costs that will line the pockets of millionaires and billionaires while leaving everyday Canadians on the hook.

While the Liberals and their buddies are too busy figuring out how to make this venture profitable, Canadians are quickly figuring out how unaffordable and impotent the government is.

Last night on Power Play on CTV, the member for Gatineau said on a panel about the infrastructure bank that Canadians do not need to know. I disagree. The Liberal government needs to take this discussion out of the backroom secret meetings, pull it out from the omnibus budget bill, and put it in the House for debate. I hope the government will stop hiding and do the right thing.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, as I was saying, there was a desire by the government to talk about something that is in fact really important to Canadians regarding labour relations. It is actually a piece of legislation that had already passed the House and gone to the Senate and had come back to the House. We were hoping to debate that piece of legislation.

For a number of reasons, the Conservatives, in particular, felt that there were other things they wanted to talk about. I am going to have to respect that fact. However, the issue they chose to raise is interesting. It is the issue of employment insurance.

There is no party that has been a stronger advocate for employment insurance and benefits than the Liberal Party of Canada over the last number of decades. In fact, the very creation of this national program originated under a Liberal administration. Over the years, we have seen many good things that have taken place under Liberal administrations, ensuring that those benefits, in different ways, have realized benefits for more and more Canadians.

I can recall the attitude of the former Conservative government on EI. They were negative attitudes toward my brothers and sisters out in Atlantic Canada. It is one of the reasons Atlantic Canada rejects the Conservatives. It is because the Conservatives have predetermined ideas about employment benefits. That is why I was a little surprised that this was the issue the Conservatives chose to talk about.

All we need to look at is the last budget. There were a number of things in that budget. As members know, I am very reluctant to read things into speeches, but I want to share some of the words provided to me with regard to employment insurance in this budget.

Budget 2017 contains several provisions aimed at improving the quality of life for Canadian families. I am thinking in particular of improvements to the employment insurance system, and that is the topic I would like to discuss this afternoon.

First, we must understand one thing. Canadians may, at some point in their lives, need to put their personal responsibilities before their professional ones. At such a juncture, Canada's special employment insurance benefits can be of help to them. Each year these benefits help thousands of eligible Canadians to care for a new baby or to care for a family member who is critically ill.

On the caregiver benefits, let us start by looking at the changes to the caregiver program. Budget 2017 proposed to create a new employment insurance benefit that would last up to 15 weeks. This new benefit would allow Canadians to care for an adult family member who was critically ill or severely injured. Benefits would be paid to people caring for an adult family member who was critically ill but was not at the end of life. This is a first for employment insurance.

I must add that this new benefit would supplement the compassionate care benefit for caring for critically ill family members at risk of death. Parents of critically ill children would continue to have access to up to 35 weeks of benefits. They would also now be able to share these benefits with more family members.

Now let us turn to parental benefits. Starting a family can be a challenge, especially for working parents. With budget 2017, we propose to help them meet those challenges. In short, this budget would offer flexibility to working parents. They would be able to choose the option that best meets their needs, depending on their work and family circumstances.

Under the proposed amendments, parents would therefore have two options. The first option would be to receive employment insurance parental benefits over an extended period at a lower benefit rate of 33% of their average weekly earnings. Benefits could be received for up to 18 months, counting both parental and maternity benefits.

The second option would be to receive benefits at the current rate of 55% over a period of up to 12 months.

These amendments are expected to cost $152 million over five years, starting in 2017-18, and $27.5 million per year after that. Parents may, of course, continue to share the benefits between them.

Furthermore, we propose to allow a pregnant woman, if she so chooses, to claim employment insurance maternity benefits up to 12 weeks before her due date, which is more flexible than the current standard of eight weeks. This additional flexibility is expected to cost $43.1 million over five years, starting in 2017-18, and $9.2 million per year after that.

That is why it is always a pleasure to stand in my place, especially on behalf of my constituents. Many of my colleagues would love to be able to share some of the thoughts that we have and some of the progressive actions we are taking as a government, recognizing what Canadians want the government to do.

Canadians understand the need for compassion. They understand that this is a government that cares about what is happening at the grassroots level. We have a Prime Minister who has challenged all members of the House to represent their constituents here in Ottawa, and my colleagues have taken that challenge to heart.

We constantly hear about the need to improve the employment insurance program. The Minister of Finance and the parliamentary secretary held pre-budget meetings and consultations in every region of this country, and that was a direct result of all the networking and communication, including online. We now have a budget that better reflects what Canadians want, and we on this side of the House see the many benefits to voting in favour of this budget.

We had a great debate yesterday on Bill C-44, which is a budget implementation bill. When we have a motion for concurrence on a report, as was moved earlier today, I would suggest that if members truly believe in employment insurance and want to see progressive action being taken to support Canadians, this is a budget they should be voting for, because it includes the kinds of initiatives that I have listed over the last few minutes.

I listened to the member across the way express concerns about what took place in committee, and I take exception to some of the comments that he made. Let me make reference to a couple of specific ones.

One comment was in regard to a perception that the Conservatives in particular are trying to get across, which is that this government is not sensitive with respect to what is taking place in our standing committees. Having been in opposition when Stephen Harper was prime minister, I witnessed first-hand a total disregard and lack of respect for our standing committees, with a parliamentary secretary sitting at the head of the table dictating, having that Harper bubble around, and nothing being passed unless it was a government initiative. I would suggest that the proof is in the pudding when we see legislation that goes to committee and opposition members—

Proposed Canada Infrastructure Bank

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same question of privilege raised by our colleague from Victoria, the NDP House leader. As one of those parliamentary keeners, I suppose I would like to add a few points on this important question of privilege.

On October 10, 1989, Mr. Speaker Fraser ruled on a similar matter regarding misrepresentation of Parliament's role in government communication respecting the proposed goods and services tax. The government was advertising details of the tax as if Parliament had already adopted it. While the Speaker did not rule the matter to be a prima facie question of privilege at the time, he did say:

However, I want the House to understand very clearly that if your Speaker ever has to consider a situation like this again, the Chair will not be as generous.... we are a parliamentary democracy, not a so-called executive democracy, nor a so-called administrative democracy.

In the Ontario legislature, Mr. Speaker Stockwell dealt with a question of privilege concerning a pamphlet issued by the minister of municipal affairs and housing regarding the government's program for reforming municipal government in metropolitan Toronto. On January 22, 1997, Mr. Speaker Stockwell ruled the matter to be a prima facie question of privilege, since the pamphlet gave the impression that passage of required legislation was not necessary.

On November 6, 1997, on a similar matter, the Speaker ruled:

...the Chair acknowledges that this is a matter of potential importance since it touches the role of members as legislators, a role which should not be trivialized. It is from this perspective that the actions of the Department...are of some concern....

This dismissive view of the legislative process, repeated often enough, makes a mockery of our parliamentary conventions and practices....

I trust that today's decision at this early stage of the 36th Parliament will not be forgotten by the minister and his officials and that the departments and agencies will be guided by it.

The Prime Minister and the government's dismissive view of this Parliament should not and ought not be tolerated. If he is going to try to change the rules to suit himself, to attempt to circumvent the entire legislative process and give the impression that this Parliament has no role to play in the plans of the government to establish an infrastructure bank, that is wrong.

If he wants to establish his own version of Prime Minister's question period every Wednesday but then does not actually answer the questions, that is wrong.

He promises that he will not use omnibus bills, yet Bill C-44 is brought in and rammed in.

Mr. Speaker, reflecting on the citations I have raised and those raised by my colleague from Victoria, you ought to find that a prima facie question of privilege does exist in this matter.

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

Were you consulted on the nature of the changes presented in Bill C-44 before they were tabled?

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to seek your ruling on what I believe to be a contempt of this House that constitutes a prima facie question of privilege. Should you rule in my favour, I would be prepared to move the usual appropriate motion. This relates to Bill C-44, the government's omnibus budget implementation act, that is currently making its way through the legislative process of this House and which will be followed by the often lengthy legislative process in the other place.

For Canadians watching at home, last night the House passed Bill C-44 at second reading, which is the second stage of a five-stage process that must be completed even before the bill heads to the Senate for study. The bill still needs to be studied at a House committee, reported back to this House, concurred in at report stage, and then, of course, adopted at third reading.

The summary of Bill C-44 is very informative. I will not read the whole thing, because even the summary of this massive omnibus bill is multiple pages in length, but the portion of the bill that I would like to focus on today is contained in part 4, “Various Measures”. The summary states:

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.

The idea that Canada's public infrastructure should be used as a tool to financially enrich private investors rather than as a way to enrich the lives of middle-class Canadians and those struggling to join it is bad enough, but the government has now gone beyond making bad policy decisions. It is actually discounting the need of this House to pass legislation before it rolls out appointments for this institution.

I would like to read from a Canadian Press news story dated May 8, 2017, with respect to the new infrastructure agency. After noting that it has been decided to locate this agency in Toronto, it states:

The Liberals are also starting a search to find a chair for the agency’s board of directors, the directors themselves and the chief executive officer. Anyone is able to apply for one of the appointments, but there are few people internationally with the expertise and job experience for the positions.

I reviewed the government's appointment website, and it advertises these appointments with a closing date of May 23 of this year. The government expects the agency to be up and running by the end of the year.

The enabling legislation has not been passed in this House—

[Jean-Denis Fréchette, Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament]

Thank you. I'll go quickly to my remarks.

Mr. Chair, vice-chairs and members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to address the changes to the PBO's mandate and operations, as set out in Bill C-44.

You have in your hands a discussion paper that outlines the major implications these changes could have on the PBO's effectiveness and ability to provide services to members of the Senate and House of Commons.

There is a paradox in the drafting of this bill. In the introduction, the new mandate is well written and respects the spirit of the PBO's role, as evidenced in proposed section 79.01:

Sections 79.1 to 79.5 provide for an independent and non-partisan Parliamentary Budget Officer to support Parliament by providing analysis, including analysis of macro-economic and fiscal policy, for the purposes of raising the quality of parliamentary debate and promoting greater budget transparency and accountability.

The paradox comes later when the bill imposes restrictions on this independence, in addition to undermining the PBO’s ability to effectively and efficiently respond to Parliament's requests. The most restrictive restrictions include, first, the degree of control that the Speakers of the Senate and the House of Commons will be expected to exercise over the office of the PBO’s activities; second, the limits of the PBO’s ability to initiate reports and members’ abilities to request cost estimates of certain proposals; third, the risks flowing from the PBO’s involvement in preparing cost estimates of election proposals; and finally, the restrictions on the PBO’s access to and—this is important—disclosure of information, and the lack of an effective remedy for refusals to provide access to information.

I see no problem in submitting a work plan to the Speakers. However, the PBO would become the only officer of Parliament to require the approval of both Speakers for his or her annual work plan. It seems clear to me that this will place considerable pressure on the two Speakers in regard to their neutrality, particularly during an election year and especially in the absence of a joint committee that has yet to be created.

Furthermore, if one adds to that obligation that the direction and control of the office of the PBO and its officers is vested in the Speakers, it is easy to see how time-consuming it could become for them and their own administration. That is why I'm fairly confident that this aspect of the bill will be reviewed and revised by the government.

The current wording of paragraph 79.2(1)(f), which deals with the freedom of any member of the Senate or House of Commons to request an estimate of the financial cost of any proposal, can be interpreted in more than one way and should be clarified.

Lastly, with respect to access to information, the absence of any mention of a remedy in the event of a refusal suggests that it will be up to the two Speakers to intervene in the event that a department or agency refuses to provide information requested by the PBO, or refuses that information be released by the PBO. This too could exert additional pressure on the two Speakers, and create a challenge for their staff, which will have to manage these matters of parliamentary privilege.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Kevin Page]

I would clearly lay out the purpose. I would more clearly specify the mandate. I would be very particular on the qualifications of the budget officer that you want.

On the information provisions, we just heard questions. You need to get to the point that you know right now how you will handle those situations when the government of the day, perhaps a year or two before an election, says they're not giving you the information. I would work through these various types of scenarios.

I would build in an external review function for this office, so that after five or seven years you can have an external review of the office to assess whether it's performing its function and living up to your needs.

These are specific things. We've drafted language around the budget implementation act. The current parliamentary budget officer has done the same. We have, then, a good starting point.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Yes, but we have seen, in many cases, where Parliament doesn't actually work on behalf of Canadians, and I think that's why we have roles like yours, like the Auditor General, and others, that are independent. Whoever the government is, and however they choose to work with opposition and other members of Parliament, you're that independent....

That leads me to another question. I'd like your view on this. You're here as part of this legislation. Do you feel you should be here testifying as part of the consideration of the budget implementation act, or do you feel that with your experiences as a parliamentary budget officer, you should be here maybe testifying before a special committee to look at the role of the parliamentary budget officer, and not get buried within the implementation act?

[Kevin Page, President and Chief Executive Officer, Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's nice to hear that the finance committee is an agreeable committee.

Thank you, Chair, Vice-Chairs, members of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance. It is an honour to be with you today.

I will be making brief remarks on Bill C-44, particularly on the position of the parliamentary budget officer.

These remarks reflect analysis publicly released by the Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy, or IFSD, at the University of Ottawa. They include both favourable and unfavourable observations. The bottom line is that amendments are necessary. I am heartened to hear that the government is open to changes.

My perspective is premised on the basic need for senators and members of Parliament to have financial analysis when they vote on spending and tax legislation. Given the uncertainty around projections and cost analysis, we want additional data backed by analysis for parliamentarians. Canada's Parliament needs a strong and independent budget office.

I congratulate the Government of Canada for having introduced a bill that will strengthen the Parliamentary Budget Office.

From this vantage point, a number of proposed changes are favourable. The position will be an officer of Parliament. Parliament will have a role in the selection of the officer. The officer can now be dismissed for cause, as opposed to working at the pleasure of the Prime Minister.

The mandate is being expanded to help political parties cost election platforms. Political parties struggle to find technical expertise to help them cost initiatives in their election platforms. Who better to do this in a non-partisan way than the PBO? It will not be easy to set up the protocols with the public service on information sharing, and with parties on the release and use of PBO analysis, but the benefits of a good process should be significant for parties and voters. This is a complicated endeavour that merits the careful consideration of parliamentarians.

When I took the position as parliamentary budget officer, few people with the requisite experience and skills wanted to be the PBO. During my mandate, there was confusion and tension around responsibilities and accountabilities. The officer position was situated in the Library of Parliament, so there were administrative accountabilities to the chief librarian and mandate accountabilities to Parliament.

The amendments proposed by the government will ensure the accountability of the parliamentary budget officer to Parliament, and may also encourage more people to apply for that position.

I have some less favourable—even unfavourable—observations related to the proposed legislation. I argue that it is essential that four provisions of the proposed legislation be amended to better serve parliamentarians. They deal with purpose, mandate, independence, and access to information.

Without these amendments, the Parliamentary Budget Office could be weakened and less independent than it is currently.

With regard to purpose, the purpose of the PBO must align directly with the core mandate of Parliament. According to Robert Marleau and Camille Monpetit, two Canadian experts on parliamentary procedure, the direct control of national finance is the “great task of modern parliamentary government”. The House of Commons is given the power of the purse, and the PBO plays an indispensable role by providing decision support in the form of economic and fiscal analysis to improve the quality of debate and outcomes for Canadians. The legislation should reflect this type of language. It should be strengthened with this purpose at its core.

The mandate in the proposed legislation is less clear and more restrictive than in the current legislation. It should be clarified. Do senators and MPs want independent economic and fiscal forecasts and related analysis? Do MPs want help with costing and scrutiny of spending and tax legislation? What the PBO will do to serve Parliament should be spelled out in the law very clearly.

For instance, the proposed legislation would no longer allow individual MPs to request costing analysis of government bills or procurement. Their requests would be limited to support on private members' bills. During my time as the PBO—the parliamentary budget officer—we received important requests from MPs to cost wars, fighter planes, and crime bills, among many other things. There is no good reason to restrict this important function of the parliamentary budget officer.

With respect to independence, independence for the parliamentary budget office means being free from political and bureaucratic influence in its work and reporting. An independent parliamentary budget officer should determine the work plan and undertake analysis within the mandate he or she deems important, in the same way that the Auditor General must undertake work in the audit of the public accounts. There should be no requirement to have work plans approved by Speakers of the Senate and/or the House of Commons. This does not exist for the Auditor General.

Given the frequency and volatility of economic information, it is also essential that the parliamentary budget officer publicly release timely reports, even if this means doing so when Parliament is not sitting. The proposed legislation would restrict reporting to only when Parliament is sitting.

With respect to access to information, in my experience, governments and the public service do not like to provide information that will be used to strengthen accountability. You must ask yourselves whether you want to strengthen the information provisions of the parliamentary budget officer. What if the government and public service refuse to provide essential information that the budget officer requires to serve you in your capacity to undertake financial due diligence? Should there be sanctions? Should the PBO have recourse to a federal court?

In closing, I want to make a plea for this Parliament to see the strengthening of the parliamentary budget officer and office as a beginning and not an end. Our estimates system is badly broken.

There is too little analysis on the thousands of dollars of expenditures approved through laws and appropriations. Our financial system needs a better alignment between expenses and the budget.

We need better control gates for accountability of spending and performance.

It is a privilege to be here and a privilege to take your questions. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

For the record, we're dealing with the order of reference now—rather than the pre-study—of Tuesday, May 9, 2017, Bill C-44, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measures.

This afternoon we're fortunate to have, from the Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy, Kevin Page, who is the president and chief executive officer, and Mr. Khan, who is the executive vice-president. He will be a little late getting here, as I believe he's before the Senate committee at the moment.

I might mention as well that there may be a vote. I think it's scheduled for some time around 4:15, so that will disrupt the hearing for a little while and we may have to suspend.

Mr. Reid.

Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1

[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 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.

[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.

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

I know it's in the Judges Act and that it may not be in Bill C-44. But do you use this index and not another?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you.

In Bill C-44 in this area, the formula a times b divided by c, there is a foundation amount for each province in both home care and mental health so that some of the smaller provinces that are less populated don't get injured by just going to per capita. Is that correct?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon. Earlier today, I had the the privilege of speaking on Bill C-44 in the House. I spoke about the agreement that was reached by the Minister of Health to deliver health care dollars and also funds for mental health to the Province of Ontario over a 10-year commitment. I'm quite proud to say that was signed and I was quite pleased to see that occur.

In terms of accountability mechanisms, such as reporting requirements that have been built into bilateral health care agreements, can you comment on any such agreements with the provinces?

[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—

[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.

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

Thank you for being here.

As you surely know, the provision is copied and pasted from 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. My question isn't necessarily to determine why you decided to include it in Bill C-44, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measures, but rather why you have chosen the legislative approach rather than a budgetary one, which is the regular and fastest way.

If the government believed that it was a priority to adopt this $125 million allocation, and if it had been included in the main estimates, the allocation would have already been adopted.

You're asking this committee to adopt this part of the bill, even though it could have been done in some other way. What motivated your decision to use the legislative process?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thanks to all of you.

If you're still not clear on it, we can come back to you in a moment, but we need to stay on the budget implementation act if we can.

Mr. Sorbara, and then Mr. Fergus.

[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.

[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?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We're not really on that question anyway in Bill C-44, so I could have ruled it out of order.

Mr. Dusseault.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

The committee will come to order.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee is studying the subject matter of Bill C-44, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017, and other measures.

Yesterday we heard from representatives of Finance Canada. This afternoon we'll start on part 4, division 3, entitled “Financial Sector Stability”, and hear from Lisa Pezzack, director, financial systems division, financial sector policy branch; Liane Orsi, senior adviser, financial institutions division, financial sector policy branch; and Justin Brown, chief, financial systems division, financial sector policy branch.

Welcome. After your opening statement, we'll go to questions.

The floor is yours.

[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.

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.

Second Reading

[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.”

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Amarjeet Sohi, Liberal, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

Yesterday we launched the search for the leadership team of the bank. We will be recruiting the CEO for the bank, and the board chair, as well as board members. That information is out. We encourage all Canadians to apply. The legislation has been introduced as part of the budget implementation act. If that is passed by Parliament, the bank will be legally established and our goal will be to have it running by the end of 2017.

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.

Bill C-44—Time Allocation

[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?

[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.

[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.

[Patrick Halley, Director, International Trade Policy Division, International Trade and Finance Branch, Department of Finance]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Division 1 of part 4 pertains to amendments to the Special Import Measures Act. This is the primary legislation governing Canada's trade remedy system, which provides for the application of duties to address situations where dumped or subsidized imports cause injury to domestic producers.

The Minister of Finance is responsible for the legislation and policies relating to Canada's trade remedy system, which is jointly administered by the Canada Border Services Agency and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal.

There are four key legislative amendments being proposed in part 1. The first change relates to the implementation of a World Trade Organization dispute settlement decision, which found that Canada was in breach of its international trade rules. With these changes, Canada's trade remedy system will allow for determination and trade remedy investigation when an individual exporter is found to have an insignificant amount of subsidy or dumping.

The remaining three changes relate to proposals on which public consultations were conducted at this time last year. Two new proceedings will be created related to the enforcement of trade remedy measures.

First, primarily in clauses 87 and 89, there will be new scope proceedings that will provide for binding and appealable rulings as to whether a good is subject to anti-dumping or countervailing duties. These proceedings will enhance transparency and predictability related to the enforcement of trade remedy measures in Canada.

The second set of changes relates to new anti-circumvention investigations. They are primarily in clauses 84 and 89. These new anti-circumvention investigations will provide for the extension of duties to goods from exporters who are modifying their trade patterns specifically to avoid the imposition of duties in Canada. This will provide the Canada Border Services Agency with enhanced tools to address circumvention and more effective enforcement.

Third, CBSA will also be given new powers to respond to situations where market distortions in the country of export make prices unreliable for the purpose of calculating dumping margins, for example, when there are price controls by the government. This will ensure that trade remedy duties are accurately reflecting market conditions in the country under investigation.

Finally, one item that is not in Bill C-44 but was in budget 2017 was the proposal that unions be provided with the right to participate in trade remedy investigations. This change is being implemented in a parallel process, namely regulatory amendments. So it is not in this bill, but was announced in the budget.

Overall, these changes will strengthen Canada's response to unfair trade, better align Canada with our major trading partners, and ensure that we are abiding by international trade obligations. They provide important new tools for trade remedy investigators in Canada while maintaining the system's balance of interest between domestic producers, downstream users, and consumers.

That concludes our presentation.

We would be glad to answer any questions you have.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Gentlemen, it's always a pleasure to talk to you. A few minutes ago or an hour ago, we had the chance to talk about tax on alcohol. I would like to talk about tax on tobacco. I think Mr. Coulombe will be my counterpart.

It will be my pleasure to speak with you again, Mr. Coulombe. Thank you very much for the specific details you gave us about alcohol tax.

Now, let's talk about the tobacco tax.

We know that Canada had a sad reputation in 1981: we were the country that consumed the most tobacco per capita. Through vigorous awareness campaigns to alert the public, tobacco consumption in Canada has declined nicely. Our country now ranks among the best. We are not the best, but among the best in terms of use. When I say that we are among the best, it means that the less we use, the better.

Obviously, it is not without raising the anger of some who are sad to see that the current government wants to legalize marijuana, but that's another matter. Let's keep to Bill C-44, in accordance with the chair's most pertinent instructions.

Mr. Coulombe, I assume you have assessed the impact of the increase in the excise tax on tobacco. Is it calculated in the same way as for the excise tax on alcohol, meaning it's calculated based on the rising staircase principle, which can also have consequences on the other industries that depend on that?

I want to say right now, that clearly alcohol does not do harm people's health in the same way as cigarettes. As I mentioned earlier, the impact of alcohol in restaurants and drinking places has nothing to do with the impact of tobacco.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We're here to deal with Bill C-44, but if there is an area that the department can provide further clarification on, I don't have a problem with that because they could either be asked for further clarification on it at this committee or via an Order Paper question. If any of the witnesses think they want to take a stab at this, they're open to do it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We'll come to order. We're still taking questions on parts 1, 2, and 3 of Bill C-44.

Mr. Dusseault, the floor is yours.

Bill C-44—Notice of time allocation motion

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

Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-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.

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

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Does this have any relation to Bill C-44?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

As far as your question is concerned, Mr. Liepert, I think it can be directed the minister when he is before us, because relates to something he said, but that item is not in this particular bill, Bill C-44.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I will call the meeting to order. We are dealing with the budget implementation act, Bill C-44. We have with us today a number of individuals from Finance Canada.

Sometimes we deal with each part, and then go to questions. We'll have the presentations on part 1, then the presentations on part 2, then the presentations on part 3, and then we'll go to questioning of all of the witnesses.

Are people okay with that?

Starting with part 1, we have Mr. McGowan, Mr. LeBlanc, and Mr. Greene.

I don't know if in your opening statements you want to mention your areas of responsibility, because I don't have that information in my documents.

Oh, yes I do.

I'll give your title, Trevor. Mr. McGowan is the senior legislative chief, tax legislation division, tax policy branch. Mr. LeBlanc is the director, personal income tax division, tax policy branch. Mr. Greene is the director, tax policy branch.

Welcome. The floor is yours on part 1, amendments to the Income Tax Act and to related legislation.

Government Accountability

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

Mr. Speaker, as we said during the campaign and as we continue to say, we would like to advance the independence of the parliamentary budget officer. We actually thanked the parliamentary budget officer for his analysis of the provisions of Bill C-44. We look forward to working with him and others to improve the bill to ensure we accomplish the objective of an effective and independent parliamentary budget officer.

I have said to the member and to all members, let us pass this legislation at second reading. Let us send it to committee so we can advance the independence of the parliamentary budget officer. We can do this together.

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

Mr. Speaker, omnibus Bill C-44, introduced by the Minister of Finance, contains a virus. That virus directly attacks the independence of the parliamentary budget officer, which defies reason. The parliamentary budget officer is independent and must stay that way. With this bill, the Speaker of the Senate, who is not elected but appointed by the Prime Minister, will have veto power over the work of the parliamentary budget officer.

Can the Minister of Finance, who is an honourable man, explain such an unacceptable situation?

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

[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.

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.

[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.

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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

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.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-44, Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1, is currently before the House.

Tomorrow morning, we will consider the Senate amendments to Bill C-4 on unions, and then move on to Bill C-44 after question period.

Next week, we have the pleasure of having two allotted days, one on Monday and one on Thursday.

Ideally, I would like to finish debate on the budget legislation next Tuesday in order to send the bill to committee for in-depth study. Bill C-4 will be considered on Wednesday, with the hope of sending it back to the Senate that day.

I do my best to provide a calendar that is as accurate as possible so that all members can prepare. From time to time, things need to change. As members know, we have had some important conversations in this place. We will always ensure that members have the ability to have those important conversations. That is why I would ask that we all continue working better together.

Finance

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

Mr. Speaker, we thank the parliamentary budget officer for his analysis of the provisions of Bill C-44. We look forward to working with him and others to improve the bill to ensure we accomplish the objective of having an effective and independent parliamentary budget officer.

Our government is committed to providing greater independence to the parliamentary budget officer, and this is the overriding intent of the legislation recently introduced in the House of Commons. We believe that it should be an officer who reports to Parliament, unlike the previous government, which felt that he should report to the Library of Parliament.

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

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary budget officer is concerned, and rightfully so. The government is using Bill C-44 to try to take away his power. As the parliamentary budget officer himself said, this will undermine his independence and political impartiality. Why? Because, from now on, the parliamentary budget officer will have to report to the Speaker of the House, and he will have to submit his game plan for the year. I really like you, Mr. Speaker, but you should have nothing to do with the work of the parliamentary budget officer.

Why is the Liberal government stooping so low?

Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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?

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.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for the time you are giving me.

This is a notice of motion that I submitted on March 22, 2017. It deals with the testimony obtained by CBC/Radio-Canada from employees of the major Canadian banks. They gave testimony about questionable, sometimes even completely illegal, commercial activities.

Following that evidence, the public reacted to the behaviour of Canada's major banks. That's why I'm encouraging the members of the committee to call as witnesses representatives from those banks, namely TD Bank, Royal Bank, Bank of Montreal, CIBC and Scotiabank. It would also be appropriate to invite the Canadian Bankers Association, as well as anyone whom the committee deems appropriate.

A subcommittee could discuss it and decide which witnesses would be appropriate to invite. The committee must ensure that there is compliance with the Bank Act, that consumers are protected and that those sorts of activities will never happen again. We must determine how those activities can be prevented by enforcing the legislation.

So I invite all my colleagues to support the motion. I'm not constrained by tight deadlines. I'm open to any proposals. I don't intend to insist that we delve into it at the next meeting, but I would at least like the committee to show a sign that it's interested in the issue and that, in due course probably after the study of Bill C-44, it might be able to undertake the study. This will mean inviting representatives from the banks in question and recommending amendments to the Bank Act. I hope to obtain the support of all my colleagues to do so.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Yes. The sixth report is before you. It really deals with the aspects of Bill C-44, the budget implementation act. We'll hear from officials on Monday and Tuesday, the current and former parliamentary budget officers and related witnesses on Wednesday, May 10, and really all other matters related to the schedule on how we would deal with Bill C-44. Instead of reading it all, I consider it moved.

It's up for discussion. Mr. Liepert.

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.

[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.

[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.

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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We'll come to order and reconvene on committee business. We're in public for a bit.

Just to give people an indication of what we have to try to deal with, we need to decide on how we're going to handle the budget implementation act. Do we start do to a prestudy? We've got until.... We really think it pretty well has to be wrapped up, as we have to do clause-by-clause sometime around May 29 if it's going to get through the system, so we need to talk about that.

Also, there may be one or two motions that people want to lift off the table. There are several on deck.

We also have to talk about the budget for the pre-budget consultations in the fall. That will have to be in camera, because we're going to talk about the locations and the amount of monies that we can take forward to the Liaison Committee to request for a budget.

We can start with Bill C-44, the budget implementation act. As I indicated in the initial discussion, if we're going to get it debated and through this committee, we need to be looking at clause-by-clause sometime around May 29. Last year, for the one in the spring of 2016, we did prestudy meetings with Department of Finance officials. We had four meetings on it. One was with the Minister of Finance, two of those meetings were outside of our regular sitting days, and then we had one meeting on clause-by-clause. I do know from what I'm hearing—and I'm imagining that others are hearing the same—that we have quite a number of people who want to be here, with everything from the Canadian Vinters Association to you name it....

What's the discussion on this? Where do we want to go? I have Pierre first, and then Gérard.

Go ahead, Mr. Dusseault.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you all for your presentations. Everybody got on the record for at least a moment with the witnesses, and no doubt, as mentioned in the earlier discussion, we will see you at some point on Bill C-44 on the proposed changes to the parliamentary budget office, and we look forward to your presentation to the Senate on Wednesday. I'm kind of interested in that myself.

The meeting will be suspended for a few minutes, and then we'll go to committee business.

[Jean-Denis Fréchette]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I never refuse to answer parliamentarians' questions.

Next Wednesday, in six days, I will publish a discussion paper with information for parliamentarians and their staff, specifically about the reform proposed in Bill C-44. This paper pertains not so much to the potential impact of this bill on the operations of the PBO, but rather to the potential impact on parliamentarians. I invite you all to pay close attention to that.

I will now answer your question about the independence of our office.

In the interview reported in the article you mentioned, I also said I am pleased that the independence of the PBO is recognized. We are certainly removed from the Library of Parliament. We will have our own budget, which is an aspect of independence. As to being completely independent, that is another matter. Thanks to the debate that we and other parties have raised, however, I believe this bill will be improved.

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

That is precisely what we are concerned about, Mr. Chair. The document we are studying today is based on the motion we had introduced, the purpose of which is to analyze the Government of Canada's economic and financial outlook. That is part of the PBO's mandate.

If, unfortunately, we have to provide our questions in advance or, worse still, we are told we cannot ask questions on certain topics, this would undermine parliamentarians' freedom of expression, Mr. Chair. As a member of Parliament, I cannot accept that.

It will ultimately be for the public to judge whether we have done a good job. It is not up to some speaker to judge. Unfortunately, that is what Bill C-44 is designed to do by giving the Speaker of the House of Commons and the Speaker of the Senate the power to approve or reject the PBO's work plan. Yet this is the very essence of our role as parliamentarians, and of the PBO's role. The position of PBO was created to be protected from any kind of political pressure.

I very proudly recall that it was our political party that created this position. I am also very proud to recall that, as a member of a provincial legislative assembly, the National Assembly, I suggested that it establish this kind of position. I am especially proud to see that our parliamentary committee has the privilege of welcoming the PBO, and I will certainly not stop myself from asking questions when the PBO is before us.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We're not going to Bill C-44.

Mr. Albas questioned whether or not this was based on a motion. I'm going to read a motion that was passed at this committee. It was a motion by Ms. O'Connell on February 4, 2016. The following was agreed:

That, consistent with the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) mandate to provide independent analysis about the state of Canada’s finances and trends in the national economy (as outlined in section 79.2 of the Parliament of Canada Act), the PBO provide an economic and fiscal outlook to the Committee the fourth week of October and April of every calendar year, and be available to appear before the Committee to discuss its findings shortly thereafter.

We're holding this committee meeting today pursuant to that motion. As I said earlier, Bill C-44 will come up at a proper time when you'll have all the opportunity in the world to raise your questions related to Bill C-44. We're not here for that purpose today. So let's get back to the economic and fiscal outlook.

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

Mr. Chair, I should mention that Mr. Fréchette's statement, which I read rather quickly, is from an interview he gave the daily, Le Devoir.

It is nonetheless very worrisome, Mr. Chair. The independence of the PBO will indeed be undermined if Bill C-44 is passed.

What other concern do you have about this kind of—

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

Mr. Fréchette, you have presented your April 2017 economic and fiscal outlook. If Bill C-44 unfortunately passes, would it be possible for you to present a similar outlook in a future Parliament?

Specifically, section 79.14(1) of the bill provides that:

Before each fiscal year, the Parliamentary Budget Officer shall prepare an annual work plan [...]

Further on, section 79.14(2) of the bill stipulates that:

The annual work plan is subject to the approval of the Speaker of Senate and the Speaker of the House of Commons [...]

Moreover, you have stated, loosely translated, that:

I am more apprehensive about the Speaker of the Senate than the Speaker of the House of Commons [...]. The Speaker of the Senate is appointed by the Prime Minister's Office, while the Speaker of the House of Commons is elected by his peers.

So could a document such as the one we are examining today still be prepared, despite the affront contained in Bill C-44?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I'm trying to keep us on track with what the PBO at this stage was invited here to do. I said in the beginning that they were invited to speak on the economic and fiscal update. You also said in your introduction how important a role they play, and I agree with that, but I do think we have to stick to the topic they were invited here to address. They will be invited again to deal with Bill C-44 and the line of questioning you're trying to go down.

For us to do our job as a finance committee, that's the ruling I need to make. I'm going to stick to questions on the economic and fiscal update at this point in time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We're going to stick to the economic and fiscal update. I think we need to. We'll have other opportunities to deal with Bill C-44. In fairness to the PBO and their people, that is the issue we invited them here to speak to today. They will be invited again at a later date, when you can make all of those points in probably greater detail.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to the House of Commons, Mr. Fréchette and welcome to your senior advisors.

We are very pleased to have you here. The institution of the PBO plays a fundamental role for us. It is a precious gem that we must protect and enhance even further.

We are very proud to say that it is our political party that was so bold as to create this institution, something that bears mentioning. I say “bold” because the role of the PBO is to analyze the actions of the government in power.

In a previous life and in another legislative assembly, the National Assembly, my colleagues from the second opposition party and I suggested that the position of parliamentary budget officer be created, based on the experience of the House of Commons. My departmental colleagues said at the time that they did not want anyone looking at their work. That is exactly what your role is, and you do it very well. We want to preserve this institution.

There is something that is really bothering us. Two weeks ago, the Minister of Finance introduced the omnibus bill, Bill C-44, which includes division 7 of part 4. I would point out in passing that the government had promised not to introduce omnibus bills.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, during the next two weeks, as the opposition House leader has said, members of the House will be in their ridings, working hard for their constituents. Upon our return on Monday, May 1, we will commence second reading debate of Bill C-44, the budget legislation, for the week.

Thursday, May 4, shall be an allotted day.

The Budget

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government wants to tie the hands of the parliamentary budget officer under the guise of making him more independent. That is what we are seeing with Bill C-44, and it is very troubling.

I would like to ask three very simple questions. Will the parliamentary budget officer still have the freedom to initiate investigations based on current events or will he be subject to an annual plan? Will parliamentarians be able to request investigations on subjects of their choice? Finally, will the ministers and departments be bound by law to co-operate with and give information to the parliamentary budget officer?

The quality of our democratic life depends on this. These are three very serious questions.

Ways and Means

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

moved for leave to introduce 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 first time and printed.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)