Bill C-63 (Historical)

Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2

A second 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) removing the classification of the costs of drilling a discovery well as “Canadian exploration expenses”;
(b) eliminating the ability for small oil and gas companies to reclassify up to $1 million of “Canadian development expenses” as “Canadian exploration expenses”;
(c) revising the anti-avoidance rules for registered education savings plans and registered disability savings plans;
(d) eliminating the use of billed-basis accounting by designated professionals;
(e) providing enhanced tax treatment for eligible geothermal energy equipment;
(f) extending the base erosion rules to foreign branches of Canadian insurers;
(g) clarifying who has factual control of a corporation for income tax purposes;
(h) introducing an election that would allow taxpayers to mark to market their eligible derivatives;
(i) introducing a specific anti-avoidance rule that targets straddle transactions;
(j) allowing tax-deferred mergers of switch corporations into multiple mutual fund trusts and allowing tax-deferred mergers of segregated funds; and
(k) enhancing the protection of ecologically sensitive land donated to conservation charities and broadening the types of donations permitted.
It also implements other income tax measures by
(a) closing loopholes surrounding the capital gains exemption on the sale of a principal residence;
(b) providing additional authority for certain tax purposes to nurse practitioners;
(c) ensuring that qualifying farmers and fishers selling to agricultural and fisheries cooperatives are eligible for the small business deduction;
(d) extending the types of reverse takeover transactions to which the corporate acquisition of control rules apply;
(e) improving the consistency of rules applicable for expenditures in respect of scientific research and experimental development;
(f) ensuring that the taxable income of federal credit unions is allocated among provinces and territories using the same allocation formula as applicable to the taxable income of banks;
(g) ensuring the appropriate application of Canada’s international tax rules; and
(h) improving the accuracy and consistency of the income tax legislation and regulations.
Part 2 implements certain goods and services tax/harmonized sales tax (GST/HST) measures confirmed in the March 22, 2017 budget by
(a) introducing clarifications and technical improvements to the GST/HST rules applicable to certain pension plans and financial institutions;
(b) revising the GST/HST rules applicable to pension plans so that they apply to pension plans that use master trusts or master corporations;
(c) revising and modernizing the GST/HST drop shipment rules to enhance the effectiveness of these rules and introduce technical improvements;
(d) clarifying the application of the GST/HST to supplies of municipal transit services to accommodate the modern ways in which those services are provided and paid for; and
(e) introducing housekeeping amendments to improve the accuracy and consistency of the GST/HST legislation.
It also implements a GST/HST measure announced on September 8, 2017 by revising the timing requirements for GST/HST rebate applications by public service bodies.
Part 3 amends the Excise Act to ensure that beer made from concentrate on the premises where it is consumed is taxed in a manner that is consistent with other beer products.
Part 4 amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to allow the Minister of Finance on behalf of the Government of Canada, with the approval of the Governor in Council, to enter into coordinated cannabis taxation agreements with provincial governments. It also amends that Act to make related amendments.
Part 5 enacts and amends several Acts in order to implement various measures.
Division 1 of Part 5 amends the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act to update and clarify certain powers of the Minister of Finance in relation to the Bretton Woods institutions.
Division 2 of Part 5 enacts the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank Agreement Act which provides the required authority for Canada to become a member of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.
Division 3 of Part 5 provides for the transfer from the Minister of Finance to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the responsibility for three international development financing agreements entered into between Her Majesty in Right of Canada and the International Finance Corporation.
Division 4 of Part 5 amends the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act to clarify the treatment of, and protections for, eligible financial contracts in a bank resolution process. It also makes consequential amendments to the Payment Clearing and Settlement Act.
Division 5 of Part 5 amends the Bank of Canada Act to specify that the Bank of Canada may make loans or advances to members of the Canadian Payments Association that are secured by real property or immovables situated in Canada and to allow such loans and advances to be secured by way of an assignment or transfer of a right, title or interest in real property or immovables situated in Canada. It also amends the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act to specify that the Bank of Canada and the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation are exempt from stays even where obligations are secured by real property or immovables.
Division 6 of Part 5 amends the Payment Clearing and Settlement Act in order to expand and enhance the oversight powers of the Bank of Canada by further strengthening the Bank’s ability to identify and respond to risks to financial market infrastructures in a proactive and timely manner.
Division 7 of Part 5 amends the Northern Pipeline Act to permit the Northern Pipeline Agency to annually recover from any company with a certificate of public convenience and necessity issued under that Act an amount equal to the costs incurred by that Agency with respect to that company.
Division 8 of Part 5 amends the Canada Labour Code in order to, among other things,
(a) provide employees with a right to request flexible work arrangements from their employers;
(b) provide employees with a family responsibility leave for a maximum of three days, a leave for victims of family violence for a maximum of ten days and a leave for traditional Aboriginal practices for a maximum of five days; and
(c) modify certain provisions related to work schedules, overtime, annual vacation, general holidays and bereavement leave, in order to provide greater flexibility in work arrangements.
Division 9 of Part 5 amends the Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1 to repeal the paragraph 167(1.‍2)‍(b) of the Canada Labour Code that it enacts, and to amend the related regulation-making provisions accordingly.
Division 10 of Part 5 approves and implements the Canadian Free Trade Agreement entered into by the Government of Canada and the governments of each province and territory to reduce or eliminate barriers to the free movement of persons, goods, services and investments. It also makes related amendments to the Energy Efficiency Act in order to facilitate, with respect to energy-using products or classes of energy-using products, the harmonization of requirements set out in regulations with those of a jurisdiction. Finally, it makes consequential amendments to the Financial Administration Act, the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act and the Procurement Ombudsman Regulations and it repeals the Timber Marking Act and the Agreement on Internal Trade Implementation Act.
Division 11 of Part 5 amends the Judges Act
(a) to allow for the payment of annuities, in certain circumstances, to judges and their survivors and children, other than by way of grant of the Governor in Council;
(b) to authorize the payment of salaries to the new Associate Chief Justice of the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta; and
(c) to change the title of “senior judge” to “chief justice” for the superior trial courts of the territories.
It also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Division 12 of Part 5 amends the Business Development Bank of Canada Act to increase the maximum amount of the paid-in capital of the Business Development Bank of Canada.
Division 13 of Part 5 amends the Financial Administration Act to authorize, in an increased number of cases, the entering into of contracts or other arrangements that provide for a payment if there is a sufficient balance to discharge any debt that will be due under them during the fiscal year in which they are entered into.

Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

moved that Bill C-63, A second 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.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to budget implementation act No. 2, Bill C-63. The second budget implementation bill includes key measures of our government's second budget, which outlines the second phase of our government's plan to make smart investments that will create jobs, grow our economy, and provide more opportunities for every Canadian to succeed.

Thanks to these smart investments and an overall commitment to equity, our government is ensuring that Canada's best days are still ahead.

Before I get into the budget implementation bill, I want to talk about the measures the government has taken so far to give all Canadians, including those in the middle class and those working hard to join it, the opportunities they need to succeed.

To begin with, we asked the wealthiest 1% to pay a bit more in taxes in order to be able to give the middle class a tax cut. That tax cut for the middle class benefited nine million Canadians, which is something we can be proud of.

Then we brought in the new Canada child benefit, which has lifted hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty. As a result of our CCB, nine out of 10 Canadian families are getting more in benefits than they did under the previous system. Compared to the previous system of child benefits, the CCB is more generous and better targeted to those who need it the most.

In the fall economic statement released on October 24, the government announced that it would strengthen the Canada child benefit by indexing it to annual increases in the cost of living effective July 2018, which is two years earlier than planned.

What this means, in practical terms, is that for a single parent with two children and income of $35,000 the enhanced Canada child benefit will contribute an additional $560 in the 2019-20 benefit year towards the cost of raising his or her children. That means more money for books, winter coats, and skating lessons, for example. The added confidence that the Canada child benefit brings to families can have a positive impact on economic growth, as we have seen in the past.

Our government has also enhanced the Canada pension plan in order to provide Canadians with financial security when they retire from their hard work life. Enhancing the Canada pension plan ensures that Canadians will have more money in retirement so they are less worried about saving, can focus more on enjoying the good times with their families, and do not have to worry about financial issues.

Starting in 2019, we will be enhancing the working income tax benefit, or WITB, by an additional $500 million per year. This will put more money in the pockets of low-income workers, including families without children and the growing number of single Canadians. The enhancement will be in addition to the increase of about $250 million annually that will also come into effect in 2019 as part of the enhancement of the Canada pension plan.

These two actions alone will boost the total amount the government spends on the WITB by about 65% in 2019, increasing benefits to current recipients and expanding the number of Canadians receiving this support, which is essential for those who need it the most. This extra money could be used for things such as helping to cover the family grocery bill or buying warm clothes for winter. Above all, the improved benefit will help low-income working Canadians make ends meet.

The government is also showing that it is committed to helping small businesses invest, grow, and create jobs by lowering the small business tax rate to 10% effective January 1, 2018, and to 9% effective January 1, 2019. This will provide a small business with up to $7,500 per year in corporate tax savings to reinvest in and grow its business. These kinds of savings are crucial for businesses to grow and prosper.

Lastly, the government intends to make important changes to the tax system that will ensure Canada's low corporate tax rates serve to support businesses, not to provide unfair tax advantages to the wealthiest Canadians.

The steps taken to date are having a real positive impact on our economy and for Canadians. Optimism is on the rise, and with good reason. Job creation is strong, with over 450,000 new jobs created in the last two years—

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to relevance. This member and I have gone through this a few times. He brings out talking points, which it seems he is recycling from last week's fall economic update.

Bill C-63 has many measures, and the member has not touched upon a single one yet. I wonder if he has read the bill or if he is embarrassed to talk about what is not in the bill. He is talking about things that are completely not benign to the discussions today. As he is leading off the debate, I would ask the member to actually devote some time to Bill C-63.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I thank the hon. member for his intervention. I note that the hon. parliamentary secretary is only five minutes into a period of 20 minutes that he has to reflect on the motion that is before the House.

Members will also know that on issues of budgets, budget implementation, and these types of bills, as with their experience in committees, these measures certainly encompass a broad range of topics, and in the usual case members are given a degree of latitude with respect to how they make their arguments on these measures. However, I would say on budget and fiscal measures, the boundaries become even that much broader.

Therefore, I appreciate the hon. member's intervention. He is right about relevance. However, we will continue to hear what the parliamentary secretary has to say and we will be able to get a good assessment of that toward the end of his remarks.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, job creation is strong, with over 450,000 new jobs created in the last two years, and the unemployment rate is at its lowest level since 2008. Youth unemployment is also at a historic low.

Canada is now the fastest growing economy in the G7 by a wide margin, growing at an average rate of 3.7% over the last year, the fastest pace of growth since early 2006. Growth is forecast to be 3.1% in 2017, significantly above expectations at the beginning of the year. The fiscal outlook has improved by more than $6.5 billion annually on average from what was projected in budget 2017 last March. This is why we are here today, to consider and discuss the important measures contained in Bill C-63.

I will describe just a few of the key elements briefly, and I encourage the member opposite to pay close attention.

I will start with our help for the middle class and those striving to join it.

This budget implementation bill supports the middle class and those working hard to join it by protecting the rights of federally regulated workers when they request flexible work arrangements from their employers. Flexible work arrangements include flexible start and finish times, the ability to work from home, and new unpaid leave to help employees manage their family responsibilities.

These work arrangements benefit many women who continue to do the majority of unpaid work in the home. Budget 2017 was the first budget in Canada's history to include a gender statement. It seeks to present a frank and honest analysis of the impact the budgetary measures will have on women.

The government believes that having a meaningful and transparent discussion around gender and other intersecting identities will help us better understand the challenges that are faced, and will help it make informed decisions to advance the goals of gender equality, fairness, and stronger workforce participation.

The government also recognizes that youth today face important challenges when it comes to finding and maintaining good, well-paying jobs. While internships can give young Canadians the hands-on work experience they need to make a successful transition into the workforce, some internships, in particular those that are unpaid, can be unfair and exploitative.

The budget implementation act proposes to eliminate unpaid internships in federally regulated sectors where the internships are not part of a formal educational program. These changes will also ensure that unpaid interns who are part of an educational program are entitled to labour standard protections, such as on maximum hours of work, weekly days of rest, and general holidays. It is the right thing to do for our young people trying to gain necessary work experience to enter the labour force.

With regard to tax measures, the budget implementation bill begins to implement changes arising from the government's in-depth review of federal tax expenditures in order to make the tax system simpler, fairer, and more efficient.

Bill-based accounting was examined as part of the tax expenditure review. Bill-based accounting allows taxpayers to defer taxes by permitting the costs associated with work in progress to be expensed without the matching inclusion of the associated revenue.

In the 1980s, bill-based accounting was eliminated for all professionals except those designated under the law. At the time, these professionals had limited access to the small business deduction. Since those restrictions no longer exist, this measure eliminates the ability of designated professionals to use bill-based accounting.

We are listening to Canadians. In response to feedback and to mitigate the effect this measure will have on taxpayers, the inclusion of work in progress into income for tax purposes will now be phased in over four years rather than just two.

The government is also proposing changes to the principal residence exemption. The current income tax system provides a significant income tax benefit to homeowners disposing of their principal residence, in the form of an exemption from capital gains taxation. The principle residence exemption is available only to Canadian residents, individuals, and trusts.

Families are able to designate only one property as the family's principle residence for any given year. The government is proposing amendments that will improve the integrity of the tax system and ensure improved tax fairness for homeowners. An individual who was not residing in Canada throughout the year and acquired a residence will not be able to claim the exemption for that year. The ability of trusts to designate a property as a principle residence will be limited to improve fairness and integrity by better aligning the rules applying to trusts with the rules that apply when the property is sold directly by an individual.

Finally, more reporting will be required in respect of the disposition of a property for which the principal residence exemption is claimed. The Canada Revenue Agency will be provided with the authority to assess taxpayers beyond the normal assessment limitation period in respect of unreported dispositions.

The government is continuing to propose measures to ensure fairness for all taxpayers.

By developing in a cleaner, more sustainable way, Canada's natural resource sector will be able to keep making significant contributions to the Canadian economy. The success rate of exploratory drilling has grown considerably since the 1990s. In most cases, discovery wells now lead to production. Under the provisions of the bill before us today, consistent with the usual treatment of enduring assets, expenses associated with oil and gas discovery wells will be treated as Canadian development expenses, unless the wells are deemed unsuccessful.

By improving the tax system's neutrality, this measure supports Canada's international commitment to phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies and indirectly supports the federal sustainable development strategy's measures and goals, including reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Canadians and indigenous peoples deserve to know that their government is doing everything in its power to protect the natural environment while supporting our economy. Our government intends to meet its objective of having a low-carbon economy and this is a step in that direction. This bill includes tangible measures that will move Canada forward as a smart and compassionate country. The government plans to strengthen the middle class and ensure that Canadians have the support, resources, and confidence they need to succeed, create jobs, and keep our economy growing.

Growing the Canadian economy helps the government to improve its record. Canada's financial situation remains solid and the government will see to keeping the debt-to-GDP ratio on its downward trend in order to preserve Canada's financial health and allow us to continue investing in those who contribute to our country's success. Every Canadian deserves to benefit from this economic growth. The government has lowered taxes for middle class Canadians and has committed to ensuring that the tax system does not offer unintended benefits to the wealthiest Canadians, or those with a high income. I urge hon. members of the House to vote for this bill that will benefit all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for getting to Bill C-63. I certainly appreciate that contribution to this place. I think we can have a good debate.

The government has deemed it important to cut off access to work in progress for professionals such as lawyers. I have met with advocates and law society members who have said that this change will make it more difficult for people seeking legal representation, whether due to a car crash or a health issue. These lawyers operate on a contingency basis and will be forced to pay tax on work they have not received any income for. Other clients are going to have to subsidize those activities to pay these taxes when there is no firm way for them to pay them, unless they win their case. These are some of the most vulnerable people.

Does the member recognize that the government has made accessing proper legal representation in rural areas more difficult? Could he explain why he is making this change?

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

Mr. Speaker, let me first thank my colleague for his question.

As a lawyer by training who practised law and advocated for access to justice, I am very sensitive to the concerns he raised, and I think they are important. I believe that tax fairness is our main concern going forward. We have listened, and we want to make that two-year transition a five-year transition because we want legal professionals to have that transition time and we want to maintain access to justice as well.

Among other things, we want to avoid negative repercussions for lawyers operating on a contingency basis. Originally, we were going to bring this measure in over two years, but now we are stretching that to five years to give legal professionals the time they need. We always pay attention to what they have to say. There are many lawyers in our caucus. I know there are many lawyers in this House and that, like me, they care about access to justice. Our government's objective is to make our tax system a little bit fairer.

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

Mr. Speaker, it will come as no surprise to members of this House, I am sure, nor indeed to Canadians across the country, to hear that the Minister of Finance has been subject to a fair bit of scrutiny over the last number of weeks, particularly with regard to conflicts of interest around Bill C-27 and his personal holdings in Morneau Shepell.

When asked about that in question period, when the time for questions and responses is very short, the finance minister likes to start talking about his fiscal measures. Presumably, the introduction of this bill would be very important to the Minister of Finance.

Therefore, I find it passing strange that the opening speech was given by the parliamentary secretary. Is that because the Minister of Finance did not want to be subject to a 10-minute question period by members of this House?

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Minister of Finance is often here for oral question period.

It is an honour for me to be here to introduce this important bill. My colleague, whom I hold in high regard, ought to be pleased to see me do so, as we now have an opportunity to discuss a bill that is important to Canadians. As everyone knows, since taking office, we have presented two key budgets.

In budget 2016, we introduced the Canada child benefit, which is reducing child poverty by 40%, but the NDP voted against that, which still surprises me. It is an honour for me to come here and talk about our budget initiatives, from both 2016 and 2017, that have put Canada back on track for growth, job creation, and prosperity, but above all, for inclusive prosperity, which is particularly important to me. For decades now, we have seen an increase in inequality and income disparity. When we came to power, we made sure to put Canada back on track for growth that is good for the middle class and for all Canadians.

We know that the more we reduce inequality and the more we help those in need, the more we grow our economy. That is what we did in budget 2016, and that is what we are doing in budget 2017. My NDP colleague should like some of the measures in Bill C-62, including the proposed guidelines for unpaid federal internships, which will ensure that young Canadian workers have more rights.

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague opposite has the difficult task of defending the indefensible.

My question for the member is simple. Why is the government attacking seniors by depriving 230,000 seniors of the guaranteed income supplement? According to the actuary of Canada, the government is going to take $3 billion out of the pockets of our most vulnerable seniors.

Why attack the middle class, which accounts for 8 out of 10 families, according to the Fraser Institute? The government is taking away more benefits than it is handing out. Why, contrary to its claims, is it attacking the middle class?

Why is it attacking not only our businesses, but the most vulnerable people in our society, such as diabetics and those with autism, by eliminating their tax credits?

Can the member ask his minister to address this situation? I would also ask him to end his deficit spending, which is counter to the government's commitments.

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

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to reassure my colleague and let him know that I am very proud to defend one of Canada's best economic records in decades.

As I mentioned in my speech, in terms of growth, 45,000 jobs have been created since we took office. According to all of the economic indicators, our government's performance is far superior to that of the previous government on virtually every front. That is what I am defending.

Speaking of defending the indefensible, I would imagine that the member knows something about that. He was a minister under Stephen Harper for 10 years. He should know what he is talking about. What I am defending here is a government that is focused on growth and reduces inequalities. I am very proud of that.

I am happy that the member mentioned the guaranteed income supplement because one of the things that we have done since taking office is to increase that supplement by 10%, which puts about $1,000 more into the pockets of our most vulnerable seniors. We have helped 900,000 seniors. We also helped hundreds of thousands of seniors from falling into poverty by reducing the age of retirement from 67 to 65. That is what we have done for seniors, and I think that we can be proud of those results.

At the very end of its mandate, the government that the member across the way defended increased the tax-free savings account limit from $5,500 to $11,000, a measure that it knew would help only the wealthiest 3%. The American that invented the concept said that it was madness and that it would impose a fiscal straitjacket on the government. Members will recall that Joe Oliver, who was finance minister at the time, said:

“Well, why don’t we leave that to Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s granddaughter to solve?”

We certainly do not leave problems for anyone's grandchildren to solve on this side of the House. We deal with problems promptly to secure stronger growth.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for highlighting some of the areas we are working on to introduce equity into our tax system.

I am particularly interested in the working income tax benefit we are announcing. Seventy per cent of Canadians living in poverty are working. This benefit would address people who are trying to get into the middle class, people who are working but still live in poverty. It is also to encourage people to get into the workforce.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raises a good point.

Yes, we know there are many vulnerable Canadians who have the lowest incomes and have trouble making ends meet. That is why we will be increasing this tax benefit by 65% over the course of our mandate. That represents an increase of half a billion dollars, as mentioned in our 2017 fall economic statement. I think this will be of some assistance to Canadians who need it most.

As I said earlier, we on this side of the aisle know that reducing inequality and helping those who need it most fuels economic growth. This is a concept the previous government never grasped during its 10 years in office. The correlation was observed in the years following World War II, for example, when middle-class incomes kept pace with rising growth.

With more inequality and less growth, we are trying to balance our system to make sure that Canadians in need have as much money in their pockets as possible to pay for public transportation, housing, and electricity.

In terms of the economy and fairness, this is the fundamental difference between our approach and that of the previous government, which preferred giving tax breaks to the wealthy with no benefit to the economy, and which had one of the worst track records on almost every economic front since World War II. It had a horrible track record in job creation and GDP growth. It also added some $150 billion to the debt.

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

Mr. Speaker, during the last two election campaigns, both in 2011 and 2015, the Liberals made a clear promise to limit the amount eligible for the stock option loophole but backed away from this promise when they came to power. Why did the government decide to break its promise to eliminate the tax loophole on CEO stock options in the 2017 federal budget? It could do it today.

Before the member answers this question, we do not want to hear about the child tax credit. We do not want to hear about all the things they say they are doing to help Canadians and to help those who are not in the middle class join the middle class, because we know that the CEO stock option loophole tax break for people on Bay Street is not helping them.

We want a direct answer. Why did they not follow through with this promise?

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

Mr. Speaker, yes, we increased taxes for the wealthiest 1%, a measure they voted against. It is only natural that the NDP would not want to talk about the Canada child benefit, since it voted against it. The NDP promised all of the most progressive measures during the election campaign, as well as a Conservative budget, and was obsessed with the idea of a zero deficit. That is what the NPD told Canadians in 2015.

With respect to the hon. member’s question, I would like to remind him that we invested a total of $1 billion in the last two budgets, which puts us on course to recover tens of billions of dollars lost to tax avoidance. We have identified $25 billion lost to tax avoidance and tax evasion. That is what the government is doing.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if I could get the unanimous consent of the House to split my time with the hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to share his time?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, “thank you” is the key expression in my speech today. I was in a coffee shop recently. I bought a cup of a coffee, and I said “thank you” to the barista serving it, and she said “thank you” back, and not “you're welcome”. I thought that was particularly bizarre, because we are taught from childhood that the sequence is supposed to be “thank you; you're welcome” and not “thank you; thank you.”

I then realized that this double “thank you” happens all the time when I am buying or selling goods. I finally stumbled upon an explanation, from the economist Steven Horwitz, as to why this double “thank you” occurs. In a free market economy, whenever we buy or sell something, we have something that is worth more to us than what we had before. If I have an apple and want an orange, and someone has an orange and wants an apple, and we trade, we still have an apple and an orange between us, but we are both richer, because we both have something that is worth more to us than what we had before. How do we know that? It is because the exchange was voluntary. Neither of us was forced to trade the apple for the orange. We each did it by volition, because we wanted the product the other person had.

Every exchange in a free market economy, literally every single one, without exception, is based on voluntary exchange: labour for wages, investment for return, payment for product. In each case, the buyer and the seller offer what they have voluntarily. By contrast, every single transaction done by government is done by force, even legitimate, desirable transactions. We all agree that the government should fund an armed forces to keep us all safe. We all understand that if left to themselves, citizens might not voluntarily donate enough money to marshal such a force. Therefore, we believe that the government has a role in compelling taxation to fund what is, in effect, a public good we all require and from which we all benefit.

However, surely we should also agree that the use of that force should be limited to cases where it is absolutely unavoidable and necessary. We should not expand government into areas people can decide upon and act out on their own volition. The government continually gets involved in areas that are easily done through voluntary exchange. In fact, it replaces free choice with force very often.

The Liberal government has done that. It claims that the need for government intervention in the economy is to protect the weak from the strong. That is a strange way of looking at the world. Since when does expanding coercion help the weak? Relationships of force typically favour the strong.

Let me give members a counter-example. An 18-year-old walks into an Apple store to consider buying an iPad. Now, this young man is worth about $1,000. He earned it in his summer job mowing lawns. The company he is dealing with is worth $878 billion, almost a $1 trillion. He is negotiating with the most powerful company in the world, which is almost $1 trillion in size. How could that negotiation ever be fair? The answer is voluntary exchange. Apple cannot get his $1,000 for an iPad unless it proves to him that it is worth more than the money he has to part with to get it. By contrast, he cannot get the iPad unless he can convince Apple that the $1,000 is worth more to the company than the product it has to part with to get it. In other words, this system of voluntary exchange takes the most powerful company in the world and lowers its power to the level of an 18-year-old with barely enough money in his bank account to pay for a tablet.

Now imagine they enter a different universe: government. If Apple decided it wanted a subsidy from government, paid for by the taxes of that young man, I am afraid Apple would have a heck of a lot more power in making that decision come about. The government could use force to collect the money to subsidize the company. In that scenario, Apple could hire an army of lobbyists, make political donations, and influence public opinion, whereas that poor young guy would be too busy mowing lawns to have the same political power.

Therefore, when the government is in control of the economy, the bigger, the stronger, and the more powerful forces always get ahead. They can use money to acquire political power and political power to acquire yet more money. That is why countries with big governments typically have much more poverty and much bigger gaps between rich and poor.

The current government is expanding itself into areas not necessary for governments to be involved in. Let me give some examples.

The Prime Minister said he was going to determine how much Canadians would choose to invest in Bombardier. In the end, he did not give them any choice. He decided for them. He gave $400 million of taxpayers' money to this company that is able to invest a fortune in lobbying. That $400 million was, in part, used to boost the salaries of the billionaire executives by 50% while 14,000 workers were laid off.

There is the infrastructure bank, which will give $15 billion worth of loans and loan guarantees to wealthy investors who are contributing to infrastructure megaprojects. This will ensure that if the project succeeds, the private investor will make money, but if it fails, the taxpayer will take all the loss. Again, this is a financial arrangement that not one of those taxpayers would voluntarily enter into. After all, what do they get? They get a big pile of losses. However, because the powerful interests that lobbied the government at the Shangri-La Hotel, where a summit of private-equity investors was held, were able to convince the government to force taxpayers into that economic relationship, the government is again favouring those who have political power over everyone else.

There is the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank we just learned about in this very bill. Five hundred million dollars, half a billion dollars of Canadian tax dollars, would be invested in this new foreign-run infrastructure bank to build infrastructure in faraway, overseas lands. Who in Canada would ever buy shares in a bank that will never pay any dividends and will only ever offer loans and loan guarantees to wealthy investors, who will take advantage of it in the event that their projects go under? However, if those projects make money, and if they profit, those borrowers, again wealthy investors and construction companies on other continents, will get all the profits. They get all the profits; taxpayers get all the loss. Again, no one would voluntarily enter into such a transaction.

There is something called superclusters. The government has a billion-dollar fund it is going to hand out to wealthy high-tech investors, who will then use those subsidies to pay themselves exorbitant salaries. They are not necessarily expected to earn any of the money themselves, because they will be able to get their revenues and their capital from taxpayers, who are not voluntary participants.

In Ontario, we had the Green Energy Act. People were forced to pay 90¢ for a kilowatt hour that was only worth 2.5¢. We know that no free person would decide to pay 90¢ for something that is worth 2.5¢. Who won? Of course, it was the wealthy investors who turned themselves into multi-millionaires with this enormous wealth transfer. Who lost? It was the poor, the working class, the people whose power bills doubled to fund this monstrous wealth transfer from the working class to the super-elite.

In all these cases, the government has used coercion and force to appropriate more and more of the economy and favour those who have the most political power. All of those people are rich. Therefore, when the government claims that it is expanding its power and control over the economy to help the less fortunate, I ask, at the very least, that this House look upon such claims with great skepticism.

Instead, this House should favour the free market, where people are judged on their merit, on their contributions, and on the voluntary exchange of goods and services that requires every single person who wants to get ahead to offer someone else something worth more to him or her than what it costs. That is the free market, that is true empathy, and that is the way we build a just and prosperous society.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member has a different perspective and he is wrong in so many ways. He talked about redistribution. He says that this government has a redistribution of wealth that favours Canada's wealthiest. He is so wrong. Never before in the history of Canada have we seen a redistribution of Canada's wealth to the middle class and those aspiring to become a part of it. Let me give a very clear example of that.

The member is very wishy-washy on a multitude of things. The greatest income tax break has been given to Canada's middle class, a tax cut that the Conservatives voted against, hundreds of millions of dollars from Canada's wealthiest to Canada's middle class. There is much more, but, unfortunately, I do not have the time.

I appreciated the first minute and a half of the member's speech, but if he looks at what is actually being implemented by this government, I am sure he would find his arguments are wrong.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have looked at the Liberals' policies very carefully and it turns out they are exactly the opposite of what the member says. Let me give an example.

On the middle class, 87% of middle-class taxpayers are paying more income tax today than they were when the Prime Minister took office. That does not include the carbon tax, which has driven up the cost of gasoline, home heating, groceries, and other essentials, a tax that falls particularly heavy on the poorest people and particularly light on the wealthy. Those are not even included in the calculations that show the middle class is already paying more.

Who is paying less? It is the wealthy. According to Finance Canada, the wealthiest taxpayers in Canada are paying $1 billion less tax since the Prime Minister took office. That is exactly the opposite of what the government promised and what its rhetoric suggests.

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

Mr. Speaker, unlike the member for Winnipeg North, I will agree with the member for Carleton that we ought to take the government's claims with respect to its budget with a great degree of skepticism. I want to congratulate the member for his mastery of the concepts in an introductory economic course, but if he took further courses on economics, he would appreciate that those concepts become considerably more complex and nuanced, particularly the ideas of coercion and voluntary exchange within a free market and when certain actors start with very unequal amounts of resources, whether they are social or financial.

Is the member just not aware of those complexities and nuances or has he ignored them for political purposes?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right, that different people start with different wealth depending on the families into which they are born. That is why we need to guard against them using that wealth to acquire greater political power and use that power to acquire more wealth.

The Bombardier Beaudoin family is a great example, a family born with $1 billion of net worth. It is able to hire an army of lobbyists to come to Parliament Hill and get $400 million of interest-free loans, supported by the socialist NDP, by the way. In exchange for that, the family was able to give itself a 50% pay hike and retain control of a company in which it only had a minority interest through a complex web of special voting shares. All of that was facilitated and made possible by handouts from government.

That is how socialism works. The wealthy use its power to get more money from the government. The bigger the government is, the more concentrated the wealth becomes, because the greatest concentration of wealth is government.

Strategas Research has done a study showing that as government in Washington gets bigger, the spend on lobbying in that great capital goes up. It is almost a one-for-one correlation, because businesses go where they can get a return on investment. If all of the money is with the government, they invest in acquiring power within the government. We believe in dispersing wealth and power out into the hands of the people who earn it. That is how the free market system works.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few seconds to congratulate my colleague on his excellent speech. He described the economic system that the Liberal government appears not to grasp in simple terms everyone can understand.

What I take away from my NDP colleague’s remarks about Bill C-63 is the word “skepticism”. The Liberal government has lost all credibility in matters of public finance and taxation since it was elected and promised to run very small deficits. Remember that, during the 2015 election campaign, the Liberal Party promised to run very small deficits and to balance the budget by the end of its term in 2019. It also promised that the deficit would never exceed $10 billion.

However, in their first budget, their first opportunity to keep their first important promise, what did the Liberals do? They loosened the purse strings, revved up spending, and forgot their promise. Now, two years after they were elected, they are announcing that they will run a deficit of almost $20 billion this year. That is twice the limit they set for themselves in 2015. They also say they are projecting deficits in excess of $10 billion in the coming years. Skepticism is what we feel when this government talks numbers.

On this side of the House, we believe in responsible government spending, tax breaks, and making life more affordable for all Canadians. We know that it is unacceptable to ask future generations to pay for today’s spending. It is especially unacceptable to ask future generations to pay for the Liberal government’s out-of-control debt, especially when we are talking about tens of billions of dollars. Let us keep in mind that, last December, the Department of Finance found that the federal debt could double, to reach $1.5 trillion. I never thought I would use this number in the House. By 2050, the federal debt could reach $1.5 trillion. That is $1,500 billion that our children and their children will have to pay, because the government is acting totally irresponsibly today.

Even worse, the government says that it will never formally return to a balanced budget. In the fall economic statement, the Minister of Finance announced huge deficits for the next six years. Unfortunately, an important section is missing: there is no plan to return to a balanced budget.

The government has announced massive deficits for at least the next six years, and it has no plan to get the country out of its huge tax hole. Why does the government think that Canadians would accept such a situation? That is not what they voted for in 2015; they did not vote for a $1.5-trillion deficit in 2050.

Clearly, when it comes to the deficit, every penny over $10 billion is a promise to Canadians that has been broken. If we count every penny over $10 billion, it comes out to 990 billion broken promises this year, 860 billion broken promises next year, 730 billion broken promises the year after that, and all the way to 2050. Billions of broken promises for every penny over the estimated $10-billion deficit.

These broken promises are just one more item in a long list of disappointments. The list has become extremely long and includes the broken promise of electoral reform, the inadequate protection of the dairy industry, the failure to reach a softwood lumber agreement, Omar Khadr, and ethics issues in the cabinet. I would like to remind you that this is the first time in history that a minister of finance and a prime minister are facing complaints and being investigated by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. It is unprecedented that the two most important people in the government are being investigated by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.

We never get answers to our questions. I remember that we once spent an entire question period asking the Prime Minister for a simple answer to a simple question: how many times had he met with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner?

He has not once answered this question. We asked the Minister of Finance to acknowledge that he placed himself in a conflict of interest right here in the House, before Canadians and members of Parliament. He never answered.

Yesterday we learned that he paid a $200 fine for having been in a conflict of interest. How can we trust a government that is not even capable of answering members of Parliament, telling the truth and answering simple questions? He got caught with his hand in the cookie jar and is content to merely pay a fine. To put a lid on the issue and try to get people to forget that he committed an offence, the Minister of Finance even had the gall to try to buy Canadians’ and the opposition’s silence by saying that he would donate $5 million to charity. I do not believe anyone on this side of the House can be blamed for being skeptical.

The government always thinks that the answer to its problems is to raise taxes on Canadians. Since it took power, taxes have been rising, affecting health and dental insurance benefits, personal savings, hydroelectricity, gas, heating, farmers, medical treatments that save lives, small and medium-sized businesses, people with type 1 diabetes, etc. The list keeps getting longer. Why?

After learning that the deficit could reach $1.5 trillion over the next four decades, someone undoubtedly asked the Minister of National Revenue to find some money somewhere. For the government, the easiest way to find money is on the backs of those who are most in need, those it has been saying it wants to help since the outset, but that it continues to harm.

According to a report by the Fraser Institute, since 2015, more than 80% of middle-class Canadians, the same people the government claims to want to help, have been paying higher taxes. These are the facts, and they come from the esteemed Fraser Institute, not us.

Charles Lammam and Hugh MacIntyre, co-authors of the report, said of the government’s track record that, as is often the case with Liberal governments, its rhetoric is far removed from the facts on the ground. They say that, despite the government's many claims to the contrary, it has increased personal income tax for the vast majority of middle-class families.

Given all the facts, the Liberal government’s rhetoric, and its promises, it is clear that it says the opposite of what it means, something it has been doing more and more, unfortunately. When it says that it is on the right track, then I think there is real cause for concern. Indeed, they may say we are on the right track, but our children and their children will still have to pay for the Liberals' actions.

Across the aisle, they will say that the economy is doing well and that it continues to grow, but it is important to remember that the economy is growing despite the Liberals’ actions, not because of them. Infrastructure projects and investments have been on the decline, not on the rise. In August, the parliamentary budget officer confirmed that grants and contributions made by Infrastructure Canada to provinces carrying out infrastructure projects were essentially stagnant, with no increases over last year. Not only does this mean that there is less money to improve roads and bridges in our communities, it also shows the government’s lack of commitment and, once again, Canadians’ skepticism.

The Liberal government’s out-of-control and poorly thought out spending and its lack of concern for the growing tax burden it is imposing on Canadians are fundamentally unacceptable. The Canadian economy requires a different approach from the one proposed by the Liberal government, which is forgetting the impact that its out-of-control spending will have on economic security and future generations in our country. For that reason, I will obviously not be supporting Bill C-63.

I ask the government to see reason, answer the opposition’s sensible and simple questions and tell Canadians the truth.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the member focused a great deal of his time on the deficit, yet the Harper government over 10 years created the most significant amount of debt for Canadians in the history of Canada. I do not think we need to take advice from the Conservatives about how we should manage the deficit situation, especially if we compare it to economic performance. In the last two years, we have assisted in generating more than 400,000 jobs. That is almost half of what the Conservatives did in 10 years.

Perhaps the member could explain to Canadians why, when our government gives breaks to Canada's middle class, such as the tax break to middle class and the increase in taxes on Canada's wealthiest, the Conservatives consistently vote against Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it.

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

Mr. Speaker, the answer could not be more simple. It is because we do not trust the Liberal government. We do well, since, in reality, more than 80% of middle-class Canadians are now paying more in taxes. That is the truth of the situation.

They talk about the previous government’s deficits, but I am very proud of the Harper government’s record. Canada emerged from the worst economic crisis in recent years in better shape than any other G7 country. That is because we were able to effectively manage Canada’s public finances. That is why we left the current government a surplus in excess of $1 billion, which allowed it, when it came to power, to say that it had money and wanted to spend it. Unfortunately, it bit off more than it could chew, since its deficit will reach $1.5 trillion by 2050. This is unacceptable.

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

Mr. Speaker, when there is talk about the Minister of Finance’s conflicts of interest in the House or elsewhere, the Liberals often imply that the measures in this bill justify his conflicts of interest and make it acceptable for him to use his public office for financial gain.

Does my hon. colleague agree that a cabinet minister doing a relatively good job should justify his using his position for financial gain?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. No, I do not approve of the Liberal government's attitude whatsoever.

I do not understand why the Minister of Finance has been hiding behind the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner ever since we started asking questions about ethics. To me, the best way to avoid a conflict of interest or an ethical conflict is to personally act for the good of all Canadians and not wait for someone else to say whether or not we are acting appropriately.

It seems to me that someone in the Minister of Finance's position should know that conflicts of interest start with one's behaviour and one's ability to restrain oneself.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, in my riding, small business owners that employ a lot of people were very upset this summer. They were very concerned when they started to see what the government was doing. They were led to believe it was going to take from the rich and give to the poor, and they never really considered themselves rich. They just thought they were hard-working business people, employing people in the community. What are the comments and suggestions the member is hearing from his business communities in Quebec, and how do they relate to this government and what it is doing to them?

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

Mr. Speaker, the economy of my riding, Mégantic—L'Érable, is defined by its small and medium-sized businesses. Its job creators are its small and medium-sized business owners. Its farmers and agricultural producers ensure that there are still villages to support the towns. These people work hard seven days a week, 12, 13, 14, or 15 hours a day.

What I can say is that considering what these people do to create jobs, they do not accept and will never accept being treated as cheats by their own government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will continue in the same vein as my Conservative colleagues.

I was not so much surprised as offended when I heard that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner had fined the Minister of Finance for breaking the rules by forgetting to declare his villa in France, which he hid in a company. Then again, who among us has not forgotten a villa in France, Spain, or Morocco at some point? Apparently that is the kind of thing that can happen to someone like the Minister of Finance.

He forgot, and he got his knuckles rapped for it. I want to make sure everyone at home understands the penalty this poor man is being forced to pay. He has to pay $200. This is the man who just signed a cheque for $5 million in an attempt to extricate himself from a scandal involving his shares in Morneau Shepell, which benefited from a bill that he himself introduced. No doubt that was a hard lesson for the Minister of Finance to learn from the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. Unfortunately, all that did was feed the public's cynicism toward politicians, the Liberal government, and the Minister of Finance. Those people are completely out of touch with reality.

I want to be sure that I am understood in both official languages. We just learned this week that the Minister of Finance was fined because he forgot to officially declare that he possessed a villa in beautiful Provence, France. That is something that probably happens to a lot of people in Canada: “Oh, yes, the villa; sorry about that. I just forgot.”

He got caught, and then received a slap on the hand, a big one. It was a hard lesson for him, I guess. It was $200 for contravening the code of ethics. We are talking about the same minister who just recently said he would write a $5 million cheque to try to get out of a scandal. It was a scandal because the minister tabled legislation, Bill C-27, that directly profits his own company. He made millions of dollars on that. Then, because he got caught, he said, “Okay, I'm a rich man. I can fix that. I'm going to write a cheque for $5 million.” Now, the minister has received a fine of $200. That poor man, it must be a really hard week for him.

I am making a joke about that, but seriously, it is only increasing the cynicism of this country's citizens. During the last campaign, the Liberals said they wanted to reinstate trust in our democratic institutions. They wanted people to stop being cynical about the political class.

Since the Liberals were elected, they have been doing the opposite. They are breaking promises. They are tabling legislation that profits themselves and their friends on Bay Street, the elite of this country. As NDP members, we think this is completely wrong. They are going in the wrong direction. We have to point that out, and say it loudly and clearly.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

I thank the member from Drummond for his support, which has allowed me to have a drink of water.

Today, we must debate the budget implementation bill. There are many things we could talk about. Let me go back to the last election. The Liberals told us that interest rates were low and that it was the right time to borrow money and to run deficits in order to reinvest in our infrastructure. That might make sense. It is the mandate given to them by Canadians.

However, what we are learning is that instead of running a small deficit to build infrastructure, they ran up a large deficit, and we still have no infrastructure.

The deficit is higher than projected, and not because the government spent more money on infrastructure. In fact, it spent less than anticipated. Shovels are not in the ground, projects are not moving forward, and some projects have not even been approved. The money is not making its way to the towns and villages of our communities.

This week, The Canadian Press reported that $2 billion in infrastructure spending had been delayed. However, this is money that should have been invested in our communities this year to help build new infrastructure. The Liberals just keep putting it off.

What is the reason for this deficit if not infrastructure spending? After all, this was the idea flogged to Canadians in the last election.

As the finance critic, I am very concerned about this situation. The government is not investing in our communities as it said it would, and the deficit is much higher than projected.

The economic lever to grow the economy is just not there. Not only are the Liberals breaking their promises, but they are also increasing the public debt much more quickly than they had promised. They are doing exactly the opposite of what they had promised. I have to wonder where they are headed and whether Canada is going to hit a wall at some point. Instead of investing in our communities and in infrastructure, the Liberals are doing nothing and yet still adding significantly to the deficit.

I want to be clear about that.

In the last election the Liberals' platform said that, because interest rates are low, this is the time to get some loans, have a small deficit, and spend money on infrastructure because we have a deficit in infrastructure. That was true then and is still true. That was their logic.

That spending on infrastructure should have helped to increase growth in our country, but what we are seeing right now is that deficits are bigger than expected and there is no spending on infrastructure. Projects are not there. Money is not being spent in our cities, villages, and provinces. We do not know exactly why the money is not being spent but the deficits are higher. Why? What is the logic behind that? It is the complete opposite of what the Liberals said they would do in the last federal campaign. As the finance critic, I am worried about that, because it is not sustainable.

The Liberals are not doing what we need in our communities to help families: create more public transit; build bridges, roads, arenas, and pools, and everything that makes the lives of our citizens easier; increase the possibility of business and trade and help people to get start-ups and have the numeric infrastructure and Internet connections. High speed Internet in some regions is still a big problem. It is not there.

We are worried about the way the Liberals are not doing what they promised to do. They are not spending on infrastructure and they are not creating growth in our economy.

This may surprise the House, but I am also worried about the fact that, in his last economic update, the finance minister's document said that the public debt charges that they were expecting, the interest we are paying on our debt, will increase from $24.2 billion for 2017-18 to $32.8 billion 2022-23. In five years, there will be an increase of $8 billion in the interest on public debt charges. That is a lot of money, and it will probably get worse.

Those numbers, the provision or the prediction, are based on a really low interest rate. The actual interest rate, or the provision, is about a 25-point increase per year or less. However, all the experts say that the interest rates will go higher than that, so those numbers are wrong. The economic situation is that the Bank of Canada will be in a position to increase the basic interest rate much more. Therefore, those figures will get worse, and we will pay much more than that. People who are listening to this should look at those numbers. It is not what experts say will happen.

I want to say it again. It may surprise the House to hear that the NDP finance critic is worried about this, but in the economic update delivered last week, we learned that the projected interest charges are basically unrealistic. Between 2017 and 2018, we will be paying $24.2 billion in interest on the debt. That is a lot of money. In 2022-23, so five years later, we will be paying an estimated $32.8 billion in interest on the debt. That is an increase of over $8 billion in five years in interest alone. That probably will not happen; it could be even worse.

Those forecasts are based on current interest rates and very small yearly increases in interest rates for the next few years. Everyone agrees that, considering the current economic situation, the Bank of Canada will not be able to keep interest rates as low as they are at the moment. Interest rates will likely go up by over 25 basis points per year. The figures presented are unrealistic, and after the next federal election, we will be worse off than the Liberals are claiming today.

With regard to last week's economic update, I would like to take this opportunity to draw the attention of the House to something that I find very worrisome as a progressive and as someone who believes in public services. It has to do with what is known as direct program spending. The government has allocated $139.1 billion for direct program spending for 2017-18, $140.1 billion for the following year, and then $140.2 billion for the next. The Liberals have basically frozen this spending. They are increasing direct program spending by only $1 billion from 2017-18 to 2018-19. The following year, in 2019-20, that amount will go up by only $100 million, which is next to nothing.

With federal employees' labour contracts and collective agreements, which the government must obviously respect, and with inflation, which means that everything will cost more, we know full well that a spending freeze means cuts. The government cannot give the federal employees who provide services a 1.5% raise while failing to increase direct program spending. That will mean austerity measures and cuts to services for Canadians. That is not what the Liberals were elected for. It does not bode well for the future. Cuts and austerity measures may be imposed on public services, which are already barely meeting their obligations and the needs of Canadians.

The Liberal government tries to come across as progressive and Keynesian, but it is nothing but a facade, and the cracks will start to show in the next few years as the Liberals face a difficult choice: either reduce services, or run an even higher deficit than projected.

I just wanted to draw people's attention to this, because it is something we will have to keep a close eye on.

I want to say this in English as well, in order to bring it to the attention of the people who are listening. In the economic update last week, the direct program expenses outlook for 2017-18 were $139.1 billion. The following year they would be $140.1 billion. The year after that they would be $140.2 billion. It is almost a freeze in the direct spending in program expenses of the Liberal government.

We all know that we have to respect the working contracts of civil servants, people who work for the federal government. Those contracts, that collective bargaining, includes increased wages of at least 1.5%. We also have normal inflation. With the increase of wages and inflation, those numbers mean the Liberal government will have to impose austerity. It will have to impose cuts in public services because it is not sustainable. We cannot increase the wages of public servants, but we all agree it is normal to do. We have to respect those contracts, but those numbers worry the NDP. We do not want a policy of austerity. Even the International Monetary Fund's recent study said that austerity was not working. This is not something we want, not something we propose, and this is not something, a progressive party movement, we want to see from the federal government.

After these warnings, the only thing left to say about the budget implementation bill is that there is not much to it, and what there is is extremely disappointing. It offers no plan for investing in affordable social housing. It does not restore the eco-energy retrofit program as promised. It does not propose a national daycare program, the program that families in Quebec and across Canada would probably find the most useful.

In the NDP's opinion, the budget implementation bill is more important for what it does not address than what it does. It contains no serious measures against tax evasion. The tax loopholes used by CEOs are still completely legal and permitted. There is nothing in the bill against tax havens, which cost us anywhere from $5 billion to $8 billion a year.

Let us keep in mind that interest on the debt could rise by $8 billion over the next five years. However, we could save $8 billion a year if we made the slightest effort to stop doing business with tax havens or renegotiated all of our tax treaties with them.

One strange thing about Bill C-63 is the fact that it authorizes the Minister of Finance to invest $480 million in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. That is right, the Government of Canada will buy $480 million worth of shares in an infrastructure bank to build infrastructure in Asia. I was under the impression the Liberals wanted to build infrastructure in Canada, but instead of coming up with cash to build what we need here, they are authorizing the Minister of Finance to invest $480 million over there. The Liberal government could end up building more infrastructure in Asia than here at home. How absurd.

We do not understand why the government wants to get involved in the Asian infrastructure bank. What is it hoping to get out of this? Why is it investing money over there? What kind of return will there be? As progressives, we have other concerns. Will this bank promote infrastructure privatization in Asia? Will it respect environmental standards and workers' rights?

Speaking of workers, the Liberals are going to be extremely pleased with themselves for giving leave to people who are victims of family violence. That is one of the measures in Bill C-63. However, that is unpaid leave. As we all know, victims of family violence tend not to be independently wealthy and are, in many cases, dependent on their violent partner.

Instead of saying that it will give unpaid leave to victims of family violence, the government should say that it is doing nothing because that does not exist. The Liberal government is trying to pull the wool over our eyes yet again.

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

Mr. Speaker, I always find it interesting when a New Democrat talks about balancing budgets and has concerns with deficits and debt. We all know the commitment the former leader of the New Democratic Party made, going into the last election, which was a guarantee to balance the budget. If we listen to the New Democrats talk about it, there is no possible way they could have balanced the budget. Now, with their new leader, Jagmeet, perhaps the member could tell us the current NDP policy on balanced budgets. Being the finance critic, perhaps he could enlighten Canadians.

I want to emphasize something, and it can be found in the fall statement, “Progress for the Middle Class”. It makes it very clear on page 3, It says that when it comes to the G7 real GDP growth over the past year, Canada has outperformed our peers, whether the United States, Germany, France, Japan, the United Kingdom or Italy. We are just under 4%. The United States, which is the closest to us, is at 2.2%. Over 400,000 jobs have been created in Canada.

The government's plan of investing in our middle class, giving tax breaks, and increasing the Canada child benefit and the GIS for our children and seniors is working. We are seeing more employment. We are seeing a much more active economy compared to our peers. Could the member explain why the New Democrats do not support these wonderful initiatives?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my tireless colleague for the question. He has an excellent attendance record in the House.

Unfortunately, inequality is reaching an all-time high in Canada. Over the past 30 years, Canadian workers have helped grow our economy by more than 50%. Productivity and wealth creation have gone up, but workers' income has stagnated. Their purchasing power has not gone up, but their debt has.

We live in a country where inequality is growing faster than it is in the United States. We live in a country where the CEOs of the 100 largest companies in Canada earn the equivalent of the average Canadian's annual salary by the morning of January 2. I hope that those CEOs were not too hung over from new year's eve and were able to wake up and realize how privileged they are.

We have a Liberal government that is doing nothing to address this problem. On the contrary, they are keeping tax loopholes open for CEOs, which is costing us $800 million a year. They are still there. Despite their election promise, the government is doing nothing about this. The 100 wealthiest Canadians have more than the 10 million least fortunate Canadians. This is nothing to brag about.

Unfortunately, all too often, any jobs that are created are low-paying jobs, with no benefits or retirement plan. When these jobs do have retirement plans, the Liberal government attacks them, rather than protecting them. If the Liberal government really cared about workers, it would change the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to make sure that situations like the one with Sears never happen again, so that the pension funds of workers who gave 25, 30, or 35 years of their lives to a company cannot be stolen by a major corporation like Sears. That is the result of the Liberals' inaction.

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

Mr. Speaker, I once again commend my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his work.

The bill implements the budgetary measures of this government, which, as we know, plans to run a deficit that is twice as high as what it promised. The question that I want to ask my colleague has to do with the fact that the government is attacking the most vulnerable members of our society.

Since taking office, the Liberals have cut the tax credits that we created for families, including the arts and fitness tax credits. The Liberal government also did away with the public transit tax credit. Who would have thought? We, the Conservatives, want to help people who use public transit, but the Liberals did away with that tax credit.

On top of all that, we recently learned that the Liberal government, which has an insatiable appetite for spending taxpayers' money, wants to make it harder for those who are ill to access tax credits. This affects people with diabetes and those with mental illnesses.

How does the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie feel about the Liberal government's direct attacks on the most vulnerable members of our society?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent for his question. My answer is simple. I am absolutely outraged that a finance minister can make money off of bills introduced in the House. I am outraged that he is trying to get out of a scandal by writing a big, fat $5 million cheque. I am outraged that he got nothing but a slap on the wrist from the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner in the form of a $200 fine. Ouch, that must hurt.

At the same time, my colleague is quite right. The government is going after people who are suffering. I do not agree with all the tax credits the Conservative Party brought in, but yes, there were a few good ones.

My wife has diabetes. Luckily, she has pretty good insurance coverage and does not need the tax credit. However, I do see what it takes to manage it in her day-to-day life. For people with low incomes who do not have insurance, that tax credit was absolutely crucial. Since last May, 80% of people who suffer from type 1 diabetes and apply for the tax credit are being denied. Prior to that, 80% of those tax credit claims were approved.

The Liberal government is claiming that nothing has happened, that there have been no changes in the directives or the regulations. In that case, why is the government now rejecting all applications for the tax credit?

Every year, I organize a help desk in my constituency office to help people prepare their income tax returns. We see people with very low incomes, many of whom receive social assistance or earn minimum wage. I live in Montreal, which has public transit. The only tax credit those individuals could apply for was the public transit tax credit. They might have gotten $150 back at the end of the year, and the Liberal government abolished it. I do not understand that measure at all.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his passionate speech. It is always an honour to hear him talk about these important issues.

I would like to ask my colleague several questions. We know that the Liberal government has always talked very proudly about how it is helping the middle class and those striving to be a part of it. It is giving a tax break to people making between $45,000 and $200,000.

Does my friend know how much of a tax break people making less than $45,000 got? What if they do not have any children? What about one-income families, a married person with no children who is making $80,000? What about a family with two income earners making $40,000 each? How much of a tax break would they get? Would they get the same as a single person making $80,000?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and for his efforts to help workers and retirees. His fight represents the values that are essential to progressives and, of course, our entire New Democratic movement.

His question is entirely legitimate. Under pretext of helping the middle class, the Liberals have attacked them instead, by reducing their purchasing power, while maintaining measures that benefit our society's wealthiest and most privileged. Let us talk about their famous low-tax plan for the middle class. My colleague's question is entirely legitimate. Let us keep in mind that those earning less than $45,000 a year got zero. They got nothing at all.

Does the Liberals' definition of middle class only include those who earn $45,000 and more?

I would like to hear their views on the honest workers in our riding who earn $30,000, $32,000, $38,000 or even $42,000 a year and get absolutely nothing. People without children have been completely abandoned by the Liberal party. Yes, we need to help families, I have a family, I like families, but there are people who decide not to have children. If they do not have any children and earn less than $45,000 a year, they get nothing, zero, nada.

I will come back to my Liberal colleague's questions about balancing budgets. The NPD takes a balanced view. We consider both the expense column and the revenue column. In the revenue column, there are many things that could be done. We could crack down on tax havens and tax evasion, stop subsidies to oil companies, and raise taxes on big corporations like banks, which have enjoyed years of handouts from successive federal governments. That would allow us to keep offering robust public services and social programs.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to inform the House that I will be splitting my time with the member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook.

I am happy to speak today about our government's budget implementation bill, which is an important step in providing opportunities for Canadians and strengthening our economy. It provides a legislative framework to implement key measures from budget 2017.

Just over a week ago, our government provided its fall economic statement. It shows that our plan to grow the economy is working. The economy has created over 472,000 new jobs since late 2015, and we have seen the unemployment rate drop from 7.2% at the beginning of 2016 to 6.2% in September 2017, the lowest rate since 2008, or in almost 10 years.

I have talked with many young people in my community on their concerns about the youth unemployment rate. While it remains higher than the national average, is it as its lowest rate on record at 10.3%. While I would like to see us keep beating that record and reducing it further, I am happy to see that we have made such improvements.

Budget 2017 is the next step of our government's plan. Our plan is to make smart investments. Like many of my colleagues, I have heard from constituents that they want to see our government invest in the future in smart ways to create jobs, grow our economy, and provide more opportunities.

Budget 2017, which follows in the footsteps of budget 2016, offers immediate help to those who need it the most. In my community, at my poverty reduction strategy consultation, in my discussions with the Sisters of St. Joseph, and at the rainy day multi-faith walk along Danforth Avenue in support of the Chew On This campaign of Dignity for All, along with the Danforth Jewish Circle, Eastminster United Church, and Glen Rhodes from that church, the Madinah Masjid Mosque, and the Neighbourhood Unitarian Universalist Congregation, I heard about the need to address child poverty.

In Toronto, the child poverty rate was 27% in 2016. The Canada child benefit is one direct means our government is using to address this issue by directing it at the families who need it the most. It is non-stigmatizing, portable, and progressive, which means that those people who need it the most will receive a larger benefit. Also, it is non-taxable, and so the amount people receive is what they will get to keep.

I heard some anti-poverty advocates express concern that this program was not indexed. As a result, every year, its assessed value against the cost of living has gone down. In fact, this was raised by Canada Without Poverty in its presentation to the finance committee's pre-budget consultations. The good news is that its advocacy was heard. As of this coming summer, the Canada child benefit will be indexed. This will be an important step in removing child poverty across our country.

On Monday of this week, I had an opportunity to speak at a conference organized by Food Banks Canada. I was able to thank its representatives for their advocacy and work in putting together the annual HungerCount report, which provides important data and insights into food insecurity across Canada. Last year's report recommended an increase in the working income tax benefit, as have the reports and plans of action of Dignity for All.

As part of our government's fall economic statement, we announced that the working income tax benefit would be increased. That tax benefit helps to offset the financial barriers faced by those joining or rejoining the workforce by supplementing the earnings of low-income workers. Starting in 2019, this benefit will be increased by an additional $500 million annually.

Our government's fall economic statement showed how much the economy has grown, with hundreds of thousands of new jobs being created and the lowest youth unemployment rate on record. It included important anti-poverty measures through the indexation of the Canada child benefit and an increase to the working income tax benefit.

All of this good news is why I am happy to speak to our continued work to grow the economy and help provide opportunities to Canadians through the budget implementation act, Bill C-63.

I would like to focus on division 8 of the budget implementation act, which makes changes to the Canada Labour Code that would allow federal employees some greater flexibility in recognition of the family responsibilities that many of them must balance with their work.

My two children are 19 months apart. As any parent knows, particularly a parent of two children who are close in age, the early years of balancing work with family responsibilities can be very chaotic. In my own experience, I was lucky enough to be able to negotiate with my employer some flexibility in my workplace. In my situation, that made all the difference, allowing me to be more efficient at my work while managing my very busy home. Given my experience and having seen how flexibility can work, I am pleased to see flexible work arrangements added to the Canada Labour Code. A federal employee will now have the right to request a flexible work arrangement. The employer's response now has to be based on prescribed reasons for the decision, and there can be no penalty against the employee for having asked for this opportunity. This will remove the fear that some employees might have about the negative impact of making such a request. It is a step forward in recognizing the needs of employees, which can change over time. I should add that this allowance is not just for family responsibilities, but also for federal employees to seek flexible work arrangements based on whatever their circumstances may be. They just must set them out clearly according to certain rules set out in the proposed changes to the Canada Labour Code.

An issue that is important to many federal employees as parents or as carers for elderly family members is how to attend needed doctors' appointments of their family members. I know from my own experience that I have received my share of telephone calls from my day care to tell me that my child was sick and that I needed to leave work to pick the child up. That can be very difficult to manage against my work obligations. Therefore, I can see the need for what is another major change to the Canada Labour Code, the granting of up to three days of leave every calendar year for employees to carry out their responsibilities related to health care or the care of any of their family members. This will provide some extra peace of mind and assistance to federal employees. Because this comes up as we head into parent-teacher interview season, I should add that the three days of leave also applies to employees' responsibilities related to the education of any of their family members who are less than 18 years of age. That can help them attend parent-teacher interviews or to meet other school-related needs.

This year our government announced Canada's first gender-based violence strategy. I am happy to see that, as part of this budget implementation act, it takes into account family violence by making amendments to allow leave for any employee who is a victim of family violence, or is the parent of a child who is a victim of family violence, for up to 10 days. The leave is to enable employees, in respect of such violence, to the following: (a) seek medical attention for themselves or their child in respect of a physical or psychological injury or disability; (b) to obtain services from an organization that provides services to victims of family violence; (c) to obtain psychological or other professional counselling; (d) to relocate temporarily or permanently; or (e) to seek legal or law enforcement assistance, or to prepare for or participate in any civil or criminal legal proceeding. While my wish is that this will become an unused provision as a result of our strategies to eliminate family violence, it gives me quite a bit of peace of mind to see that these changes can provide extra support to survivors of family violence.

People in Toronto—Danforth have reached out to me to ask our government to take the necessary steps to eliminate poverty. The announcements forming part of the fall economic statement that will result in the indexation of the Canada child benefit and an increase to the working income tax benefit are two tangible and important means to reduce poverty. There is much more work being done to address poverty, including our national housing strategy, which will be released shortly; our government's poverty reduction strategy, which is taking into account the feedback that was received through consultations; and the national food policy, which I eagerly await.

I am pleased to support the budget implementation act, which would provide more opportunities to Canadians and would grow our economy. The changes to the Canada Labour Code would bring some of these long-needed changes to bring flexibility into the workplace.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the member's speech on the second part of the budget implementation act.

I know that the members on that side of the House like to talk about how high the employment numbers are. Statistics Canada does not agree with their findings. I have two StatsCan tables: composition of employment gains and contribution to decreasing unemployment rates. StatsCan shows that participation rates since the current government was elected and brought into power have gone down every single year. It accounts for two-thirds of the decrease in the unemployment rate, so it is not that so many new jobs are being created, because as the population grows they have to create a certain number of jobs every single month. What is actually happening is a lot of people are simply dropping out of the workforce and therefore the unemployment rate is going down. Just for this year, if we look at the job creation numbers we see that 11 out of every 12 jobs were in the public sector and one out of every 12 were in the private sector. How can this be sustainable?

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what we see is that as a government we are investing in new technologies, in clean technologies, and we are creating jobs for the future and that is what we are seeing on the ground. In a city like Toronto I am so pleased to have seen that, just yesterday I believe it was, we were declared a UNESCO media arts significant location for our work that we are doing in new technologies and in getting our stories told in new technologies. That is where we are creating so many jobs as well as across the economy.

Our numbers were very clearly set out in our fall economic update. I believe the number in there was 472,300 jobs. These are good jobs. We are getting people back to work.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to sit with the member for Toronto—Danforth on the all-party cycling caucus. She joins me in understanding that we have soaring health care costs, soaring greenhouse gas emissions that we have to deal with, and infrastructure costs.

We have talked about cycling as being a part of the solution. The Minister of Environment and Climate Change has acknowledged that we need a plan like other countries such as Norway, Sweden, and Germany. They have accelerated people riding bikes and lowering their impact. They have set clear targets so that they can lower emissions. This has been supported by the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, by Canada Bikes, and even by the member's own city. The City of Toronto endorsed my bill, Bill C-312, for the call for a national cycling strategy.

Does the member support a national cycling strategy? If so, will the government move forward with supporting my bill and move forward so that we can take on the greatest challenge of our time and that is lowering our impact on the environment and of course at the same time lowering our health care and infrastructure costs?

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my friend across the way is speaking to an issue that is close to my heart. I am an avid cyclist. I cycle around as my main mode of transportation in my community and around the city. I absolutely believe that it is an important part of building out how we can get people moving, make cities safer, and help the environment. I absolutely do support any infrastructure that works toward promoting cycling. I was very happy to see that in fact in our investments in the City of Toronto, the federal investments that went to public transit also went to support cycling infrastructure. The investments created new bike-share stations and bike parking stations at subway stations, and also went to some further pathways and trails that had been requested by the city. These are all tangible ways that we make it easier for people to get around our communities on bicycles.

I absolutely always support 8 80 Cities, ways for people from eight to the age of 80 and more on either side to get around our cities safely. I absolutely support cycling as a strategy.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government is trying to take credit for the increased job creation in Canada. However, the truth of the matter is that the one method it said was going to be very effective was its infrastructure program. We know that the parliamentary budget officer confirmed in August the Liberals are failing to get the funding for important infrastructure out the door. Infrastructure Canada's grants and contributions to provinces for infrastructure projects are essentially flat compared to last year. In my riding, people ask me all the time where that money is and when it is going to stimulate the economy the way the government said. The economy is actually being stimulated right now from the efforts of small businesses in Canada.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting question. I guess one just has to look for it.

In my community, I have seen water infrastructure being built. In East York, there are new pipes going in. We can see those projects happening. I have seen new bike-share stations, which I just referred to, being put in place. There are over 13 housing projects that have received funding just in my community. I am not sure why the member does not see any of this funding in her community, when I certainly see tangible results in my own. Perhaps it is a matter of going out to see the construction going on just down the street.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to stand in the House today to speak on our budget 2017. It is exciting, to be quite honest.

I am the member of Parliament for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, which is on the outskirts of Halifax and Dartmouth.

Nova Scotia has the largest number per capita of veterans and military in the country, and my riding has 23%, the most in the province. A lot of my time is spent learning how we can support them. An important part are town halls and meetings with various legion members and their families. Many of them are also military members or veterans.

I am happy to mention that a couple of months ago I was appointed to the veterans committee. It is very important to me and I am very happy to be taking part in it.

In my riding we have many seniors. We hold a lot of records for the number of veterans and seniors. From 2011 to 2016, we had a 33% increase of seniors, the greatest in the country for those 65 years and older. That identifies the need to support our seniors.

In our riding, while the number of seniors over the last five years has increased, the numbers of youths have decreased by about 5%. That is not a good formula. We have to make things happen. I strongly believe that this budget will allow us to do that.

Also in my riding are a lot of young families with many young kids. We need to create infrastructure to allow us to support those individuals.

It is extremely important to talk about our veterans. Many things are happening, although more needs to be done. This morning I met with the ombudsman of veterans affairs and the ombudsman of the Canadian Armed Forces. We now have an opportunity to drill deeper on some of the issues.

One thing our government has promised, and we will fulfill, is a lifetime pension. The details, as we indicated in the budget, are being worked out. We hope to launch it before the end of the year.

The other piece about veterans is their transition after release. It is probably the most difficult and challenging piece. Our government has already done many good things in this area, but we need to do a lot more. We need to make sure that it is a seamless process for a military member who is being released for whatever reason. Whether it is for medical reasons or not, we must make sure that we do it right.

We are not doing it right. Approximately 10,000 military members are released each year, and 27% of them have challenges transitioning. More importantly, 60% of that 27% are not on medical release. We have a lot of work to do in this area and we will be concentrating a lot of our energies here.

The government has put an educational component in place with respect to the military. When veterans are released after six years they will receive $40,000 for transition and rehabilitation, and after 12 years they will receive $80,000. Those represent investments in creating that transition that is so important, and we have so much more to do.

We have also invested in family resource centres. It is crucial for more interventions in the short term to support our veterans.

The federal government cannot solve it all. The provincial government and the municipal government also have some responsibility. They are on the ground. The family well-being fund brings veterans into the community. This allows different organizations to apply for funding for services in their communities for veterans. That is extremely important.

The other one, of course, is the centre of excellence we have talked about for PTSD and medical issues. We need to do more in that area, and we need to do it quickly. We have committed to that type of centre. What is the centre? It cannot be just bricks and mortar. There have to be services. We have to keep data and have tracking. We have to know what is happening in other countries so that we can take best practices and apply them here.

We just announced the joint suicide prevention initiative, which is another great example of our government taking a horizontal approach to supporting our military and veterans. We have the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Veterans Affairs working together to tighten the seamless approach we want.

The second piece I want to talk about is seniors. I spent a lot of time this summer visiting every seniors residence in my riding talking about some of the services and what we are trying to do. We have already changed the retirement age to 65. Some of them are now seniors and are recognized as seniors, whereas under the former government, they were not. We know that is extremely important as well.

We also put in place for seniors compassionate care benefits. Any family member or relation of someone who has a terminal illness can apply for extra weeks of compassionate care benefits. It has gone from six weeks to 26 weeks, which is extremely important.

The accessibility tax credit is another one that is extremely important. If we want people to stay in their homes longer, we may have to make some adjustments. I am sure some members have seen the television ads about the chair that goes upstairs. That is an example. We have to do all kinds of different things structurally to make sure people can stay in their homes longer. The national housing strategy will also greatly help seniors. The investment in the national health care program is another one that will assist in that area.

The third point I want to talk about is youth. As I said before, we have fewer youth in my riding than five years ago. We need to change that trend. Last year I had a youth council, and I will continue that this year. It is an opportunity for them to help us as a government, to help us as MPs, understand some of their needs.

We have put in place the working income tax benefit for those families making low incomes. They can use that money for education. We have created an employment strategy that will help 33,000 youth develop job skills and will create 15,000 green jobs. We have doubled the number of summer jobs in the last two years for young people.

I cannot leave without talking about the CCB. All of us in this chamber, all 338 MPs, have families in their ridings that have received extra funding to use for education, sports, and all kinds of challenges these families have. In my riding alone, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, the families of more than15,000 kids are receiving money tax-free. That is a major investment. I am hearing that at the door. Nine out of 10 families across this country are receiving more money; 300,000 kids are now out of poverty. That is impressive. That is the type of government we have.

Let me summarize. In the last two years, we have had 450,000 new jobs. We put a national strategy in place, with all the provinces and territories, for the CPP, something the last government could not do, but we did it. We are working on national strategies: a national seniors strategy, a housing strategy, and small business. This government and this budget—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Maybe the member will be able to finish up his thoughts during questions and comments.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite gave a very passionate speech about the Liberals' perspective on their budget. He mentioned the doubling of the number of summer youth employment jobs. He is very proud of that. However, what he failed to mention was that university students need a solid summer of work. They need to know that they are employed throughout the summer. When the Liberals doubled the number of job opportunities, they cut back the number of weeks available in any of those positions by half. From what I understand from my calculations, that means twice as many jobs but half as much employment time. As a result, many university students, and even high school students, were not able to take those jobs, because it meant it limited other opportunities. How can he say that this is a good move on behalf of the Liberal government?

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to correct the record. Not only have we doubled the number of jobs, we have doubled the funding. Not only have we doubled the funding, we have put a process in place that will best meet the needs of people. The student going to university can still have 16 weeks. The one in high school will get 12 weeks. The other one will get eight weeks. It is a program for the people on the ground. That is the difference with our government. We are meeting the needs of the youth.

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

Madam Speaker, the member talked about the 450,000 jobs, but we are not seeing those jobs in places like Port Alberni, which has the highest poverty rate in British Columbia.

The Liberal government made a clear promise that it was going to cut subsidies to oil and gas, which is over $2 billion. It made a promise that it was going to take real action on climate change. Instead it has adopted the same targets the Harper government had, but without a plan. We are seeing an increase in fires and flooding in our communities, and certainly in my riding of Courtenay—Alberni.

The previous government put forward a plan, a home energy retrofit program, and although it was short-lived, it was heavily subscribed to. It was a great opportunity for homeowners to get involved in taking action to tackle climate change. It created jobs for tradespeople.

The Liberal government promised that it would move forward with a home energy retrofit program. We have great opportunities in my community in Cumberland. I was just talking to Jason Jackson, from Hakai Energy, and he said that any money would inspire people to get going on doing their part.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments concerning his region. However, we have to look at this government if we really want to see change on carbon. The environment is one of our strong agendas. What is important is that we put in place a carbon tax. We are the ones working closely with the provinces to make a big change in that area.

Who is doing the ocean strategy for our coastlines? The Liberals are. We are not talking about it; we are delivering on commitments. That is the difference between our government and the former one.

We are looking at creating national strategies, not for tomorrow, and not using a band-aid approach. We are using an approach that will guarantee that structures will be in place for Canadians for the next 30 or 40 years. That is our plan. It is a solid plan, and Canadians are behind us 150%.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, how can investing half a billion dollars in the Asian infrastructure bank help Canadians?

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

Madam Speaker, the member should look in the mirror, because he just used the word “investing”. Investment means investing in people. It means investing in infrastructure. It means investing in jobs. That is what it means, and that is what we are doing.

He should ask himself how many young kids in his riding are receiving the Canada child benefit, the CCB. There are thousands. I guarantee that it is 10,000 and probably up to 20,000.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am so pleased to be joining the debate on the budget implementation act, part 2. It is Financial Literary Month. The Minister of Finance announced it just yesterday. It was great, because the minister has demonstrated an amazing ability to look after his own personal finances. I definitely know he will not be the one announcing ethical literacy month any time soon.

I have been listening to the debate in the chamber on the tax brackets. Many members have said, “We have lowered taxes on the middle class.” In fact, do member know who the Liberals lowered taxes for the most and who received the greatest benefit? It was that member, and that member, and that member. Who did not get a tax break? It was those people, all the people watching CPAC right now. That is because the so-called new tax bracket to tax the 1% did not tax any of us more. We got the full benefit of the tax break for the middle class. I do not think members of Parliament are part of the middle class, though.

Those are just talking points. It is just spin. Middle-class Canadians did not get a tax break, because what the government gave with one hand, it took away with the other hand with higher carbon taxes, by nickel-and-diming them on different tax credits, and through higher CPP and EI premiums.

I want to spend a little time on the employment numbers the government likes to use. Just this year we saw employment numbers showing that 11 out of 12 jobs were created not in the private sector but in the public sector. That is not sustainable in the long term. We actually have to create jobs in the private sector to pay for jobs in the public sector. That is how it works.

The Liberals promised a $10-billion deficit. It is $20 billion. They are afraid of saying that word. Every single member so far has avoided even mentioning it. There is not even a plan in the budget to return to balance.

Before I continue, Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my very good colleague, the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent. I am sure members are pleased that I will not be able to use the whole 20 minutes to pillory this budget.

On the deficit, we know that they have no plan, because they are not even considering it. They have no intention of ever returning to a balanced budget, which is why they are so happy to spend. That is also why the employment numbers scare me so much. There has been a 2/3 reduction this year in the unemployment numbers. The Liberals crow about this, saying that the unemployment rate is going down. It is because the participation rate is going down. There are fewer people looking for work. Two-thirds are not looking for work anymore. I cannot blame them. They are being nickel-and-dimed on taxes, so why would they? Why would they continue working if they cannot make an honest buck without having the government take the honest buck? It is shameful.

Another part I want to talk about is the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. The member previously said it is about investment. Well, there is a great Yiddish proverb on this: “On his words no building could be built.” That is exactly the record of the government. It is not going to get infrastructure built. It is actually going to fail at this. It is going to create well-paying middle-class jobs in Pakistan, in Tajikistan, and in China, which leads this infrastructure bank. It is not going to create it here for middle-class Canadians, because every single Canadian company can already bid for work. We did not need to join them and waste half a billion dollars in middle-class taxpayer dollars on this. They could have bid for the work already.

Let us compare that to the government's record in Alberta. Twenty-seven out of 174 infrastructure projects are completed so far. The Liberals are two years into their mandate, and all they have to show for it is 27 projects completed. That is not me saying that. It is on the government's website. The government is saying that.

There are two programs: clean water and waste water funds, and public transit and infrastructure funds. Let us compare that to what the infrastructure bank is paying for. It has loans to 21 projects. This is where it becomes really ridiculous for Albertans.

This infrastructure bank, the one we are going to put half a billion dollars into, is going to finance what? It will finance pipeline projects in other countries. Let us look at this: Bangladesh natural gas infrastructure, an efficiency improvement project, 36 inch pipe, 181 kilometres; Azerbaijan Trans-Anatolian natural gas project, TANAP for short, is going to be financed through this Asian infrastructure bank. Let me get this straight. We will loan money to pipeline projects in Azerbaijan and Bangladesh, but we will not support energy workers in Alberta.

Who are the victims of these types of government decisions on that side? Alberta energy families are the victims of this decision to finance infrastructure projects, pipelines overseas in Asia, helping middle-class Chinese workers and middle-class Bangladeshi workers, instead of Canadian middle-class workers. That is shameful. They are the victims of this type of decision-making.

It goes on. Those are not the only countries. We have to look at it more broadly as well. Speaking of Canada's foreign interests, what kind of interests could we possibly have in financing this bank with half a billion dollars? Let us look at it.

Our ally Japan, with whom we would like to have a better relationship and a free trade agreement, heads up the Asian Development Bank. Do we choose to go there? No, we are going to go to the bank controlled by the biggest shareholder, the Chinese Communist Party, where a 76% vote is necessary to approve a project and where the Chinese government holds the biggest stake. It has been said that it is not a multilateral bank but a vehicle to pursue China's interests. Why are we financing China's foreign policy?

It has been said of the appointment process at the AIIB, which is the acronym for this bank, when compared to the World Bank, when compared to Japan's ADB, the development bank I just spoke of, that China has veto power over the appointment of the AIIB president. That type of influence does not exist at these other multilateral bodies of which Canada is a part.

I have to ask this question. Why are we giving away half a billion dollars of middle-class Canadian taxpayers' dollars? We taxed people in Alberta, people who did not have jobs, energy families, convenience store workers, restaurant workers, to then give the money to middle-class workers in China to literally build a pipeline over there. These projects have been approved over there.

We crow about projects being approved here, but in this budget the government is going after the energy industry again. It is repealing one of the tax credits that the energy industry uses. It is in subclause 19(1) of this budget implementation legislation. The government is phasing out the first $1 million and no longer will the CDE be able to be reclassified into a CEE.

This is another kick in the shins to energy families. It is a kick in the shins to Albertans, who are the victims in all this. They are the ones being targeted by this. These are junior oil and gas companies, which have been taking advantage of this to defray some of the exploration costs involved in drilling wells. They are the ones being targeted by this. At a time when the industry is struggling, the number one employer in Alberta is being targeted with the elimination of a tax credit.

The government is giving the money from Alberta taxpayers to China to build a pipeline in Azerbaijan or maybe future pipelines. However, when it comes to Canada, the government tells us we cannot do that; we have to look at our GHG emissions, look at our communities and what they think, which are all fine points to make, but why is it financing these projects overseas?

Does the government not see the drastic hypocrisy in putting forward such a budget implementation bill? The Liberals expect to raise an extra $145 million on the backs of energy workers and oil and gas entrepreneurs in Alberta, and I find that shameful.

Obviously I cannot support this bill. I cannot support this bill because I do not see anything in it for Alberta's middle class. I do not see anything in it for Canada's middle class. I just see a government project in division 2, this Asian infrastructure bank agreement to transfer half a billion dollars worth of wealth to build pipelines in other countries, among other projects. I ask myself why. Why do Albertans have to pay for all this? Why do middle-class Canadian workers have to pay for this?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned deficits, as if the Conservative government ran none. They ran them as high as $50 billion and ran them almost every year they were in office, so I find the comments a little hypocritical.

Second, when he talks about growth and the state of the economy, would he care to comment on a decade of the lowest growth that Canada ever saw? It languished at about 1%, while Canada right now is poised, on an annualized basis, for GDP growth of 4.5%; while Canada has gained more than 400,000 jobs, 60% of which are full time; while the secretary general of the OECD said about Canada:

You are talking about being the highest-growing in the G7, you are talking about a performance that has been steadily positive even as there have been slippages in many other OECD and G7 countries, and you have seen very steady job creation.

That was said by the OECD. That is the record.

I would pose this to the member. After a decade of languishing, after a decade of our economy not growing, why can he not get on-board a plan that is finally getting our economy rolling?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, he must have missed the great recession of 2008 and 2009, when his party demanded more spending. In fact, had Parliament and the government adopted the Liberals' plan, there would be even more debt, probably double or triple the debt. It was a Conservative government that limited the damage that the other parties could have done to the economy and to middle-class Canadians.

He must have also missed the GDP forecast for the future in the budget, which showed that the GDP will be lower than in the 2015 budget. In fact, the economy will go down and there will not be as much growth. It will be lower than what was expected in 2015. We have one year of juiced-up GDP and then it goes lower than what it was expected to be in 2015. Every private sector economist is saying there are difficult waters ahead, and the government is not ready for it. It is just racking up deficits and debt year after year, with no plan whatever to return to a balance.

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

Madam Speaker, in my riding and certainly on the west coast of British Columbia, with Vancouver housing prices skyrocketing, it is spilling over to Vancouver Island and affecting housing prices. More and more people are vulnerable. They end up living on the streets. Groups like the Port Alberni Shelter Society or Dawn to Dawn in the Comox Valley are trying desperately to find housing for the most vulnerable, the people living on the street.

The Liberal government made an announcement of $11.2 billion over 10 years for housing initiatives. However, when we look at the details, we find out that it is only $20 million this year and $300 million by the next election. Does he find it a little misleading when the government makes announcements like this, and does he support the government following through with its promise to cut loopholes for CEOs that cost taxpayers in Canada over $750 million, when that money could be used for affordable housing?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is difficult. He lives in an area where there is a difficult housing market, especially for young people trying to buy their first house. I remember being in the same position of trying to buy my first condo in downtown Edmonton when I lived there, one that would accept kids, because I had children then. The Liberal government is known for this. It makes a promise, and when we look at it much more closely, we see the promise is a lot smaller or in the fine print it is not what we expected.

When Liberals say they are going to create well-paying, middle-class jobs, I guess their caveat should have been that they meant to say they would finance the Azerbaijani trans-Anatolian natural gas pipeline project, because that's where they were going to create middle-class infrastructure jobs. We know from the PBO there were $2 billion that they could not spend and only 27 projects were approved and completed in Alberta. It is a shameful record that the government has created for itself after two years.

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

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to follow the eloquent speech given by my colleague, the member for Calgary Shepard.

The bill before us implements the measures announced in the last budget. This gives us a chance to talk about Canada's economic situation, and more specifically the economic update the government tabled last week. I will come back to that.

My speech today will show how badly the government is mismanaging public funds, in the Conservatives' opinion. This government makes choices that beg for close scrutiny, but above all, it makes dubious claims about those choices, which are not yielding the results it was hoping for. This is why we strongly condemn them.

During the last election campaign, one political party had the bad, yet admittedly novel, idea of promising Canadians that it would put the budget back into deficit. That party was the Liberal Party.

The Liberal platform claimed the government would run modest deficits for three years and balance the budget in 2019. The Liberal campaign promise was a tiny deficit, barely $10 billion, and a balanced budget in 2019, which is an election year.

Canadians fell for it. Unfortunately, they now realize that those promises have not been kept. Here we have a budget that projects a $20.2 billion deficit according to the latest numbers from the parliamentary budget officer, who analyzed the data very objectively and concluded that Canada's deficit is double what the Liberals promised Canadians.

The government also promised to balance the budget in 2019. There is nothing in this budget about a timeline for balancing the budget. If memory serves, I do not believe a Canadian government has ever, in times of economic prosperity, perpetuated a deficit without a plan to balance the budget. We have seen that kind of thing during world wars, unfortunately. We have seen it in times of major financial crises, such as when inflation was approaching 10% in the 1970s, but I do not remember another government ever running deficit after deficit with no plan to balance the budget.

In our opinion, not only is this a broken promise, but, even worse, it is very bad news for Canada's youth, our children and grandchildren, because they will be paying for it in the future.

Why are we so worried about deficits? It is because the deficit is growing and, if the government's attitude does not change, it will grow to $1.5 trillion, or $1,000 billion, by 2050. Our children and grandchildren will have to foot the bill. The current government has taken the wrong approach to governing.

The Liberal government's record is as follows: broken promises with respect to small deficits and the return to a balanced budget; a large deficit that is double what was projected; no timeline for balancing the budget.

The government says that it has reduced the tax burden for Canadians, but that is not true. Just one month ago, the Fraser Institute released a study indicating that 80% of families pay $840 more in taxes today due to this government's bad decisions.

Not only will the soon to be implemented carbon tax result in higher taxes for Canadians, but the tax credits introduced by our government were abolished. The first on the government's chopping block were the family tax credits, including credits for children's sports and arts activities. It also eliminated the tax credit for the purchase of textbooks.

It even eliminated a green credit introduced by the Conservatives. The late Hon. Jim Flaherty, a former Conservative finance minister, introduced a tax credit for users of public transit. It was an effective way of encouraging and helping people to use public transit in their community. The Liberals, who continually boast about being environmentally friendly, eliminated the public transit credit.

Over the past few months, we learned that the government wanted to attack the most vulnerable and most disadvantaged among us: the sick. It decided to impose stricter eligibility criteria for the tax credit for people with diabetes or mental illness. It is despicable for a government to go after sick people.

Our government created a tax credit to help people suffering from type 1 diabetes. Earlier, an NDP member was talking about his wife who has diabetes. We know it costs a lot of money, around $15,000 a year. Our government created a tax credit to help those people, give them some breathing room, and ease their suffering. This government is making the eligibility criteria stricter.

When we were in power, 80% of the people who applied for the tax credit got it. Today, under the Liberals, 80% of people who apply for it do not get it. Attacking the sick is unbecoming of a government and that is what the Liberal Party is doing.

These people crow over their lofty principles as they claim to have created the Canada child benefit to help children. The Prime Minister takes the floor every day. Yesterday, it was funny, he was so proud to be providing numbers. He talked about the number of children in the ridings of Richmond—Arthabaska and Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, as if he himself had invented family allowances.

Remember that this government implemented a new system, the Canada child benefit, but they forgot a small detail in the budget: inflation. They forgot to calculate inflation. That meant that in the end, Canadians were going to have less money in their pockets than they had under our program, the universal child care benefit. Each had their own point of view and their own game plan. We supported children.

The Prime Minister rises in the House to say that 23,283 children today receive such and such amount. However, children also benefited from our measures when we were in power. The big difference is that we had a balanced budget, which is not currently the case with the Liberals.

When we run a deficit, we are forcing our children and grandchildren to pick up the tab. Sure, this is a family-friendly measure designed to help children. I hope it helps them, anyway, because they are going to have to pay for it later thanks to a Liberal government that cannot balance the budget. This government may be focused on families and children, but it is also making them foot the bill.

I also remember the Liberals promising to change the tax system and make the rich pay more. They were going to be like Robin Hood, robbing from the rich and redistributing that wealth to the least fortunate among us. That is what the Liberal government said it would do. Two years on, what do we see? The exact opposite has happened.

As we said earlier, 80% of families are paying $840 more to the Liberal government. The richest Canadians were supposed to pay more tax. Our teary-eyed Prime Minister said that wealthy people like himself were going to pay more tax. Two weeks ago, the Minister of Finance said that wealthy people like himself were going to pay more tax. The truth is quite the opposite.

The richest Canadians are paying $1 billion less in tax today than they paid under the Conservative government. Those are not my words or the Conservative Party's. That is from the Minister of Finance, who knows exactly what is coming in and what is going out. He calculated that, because of the Liberal government's measures, the wealthiest Canadians are paying $1 billion less in tax each year than they were under the Conservatives. That is the reality.

What is more, those who stand to benefit the most from the tax reform are those who earn between $144,000 and $200,000 annually. They are the ones who win the kitty. However, nothing has changed for those earning $45,000 or less a year. I am sorry to say it, but those who earn $150,000 a year are not part of the middle class. Those who earn $45,000 a year need every penny so that their family can have a decent life, but the government is giving them absolutely nothing. Those earning between $144,000 and $200,000 a year win the kitty. People in the top 1% are getting a $1-billion tax cut. That is the reality of the Liberals' record.

That is why we have to be very careful. This government says one thing, and does another. That is why we think that the bill is no good. We invite all hon. members to vote against it.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened to my learned friend from the other side, and there were some inaccuracies in what he said. He mentioned that the Conservatives introduced the child benefit during their regime, but that was taxable. Under the Canada child benefit, we are giving more tax-free money to nine out of 10 families than the previous government did. The member also mentioned that we had not considered inflation. Probably the member forgot that we are now two years into our governance and we are linking the Canada child benefit to the cost of living increases.

I did not hear the member talk about affordable housing for seniors. In the riding of Nepean in Ottawa, 10,000 people were on the waiting list for affordable housing. We have made a great many investments for seniors. A few years back, a report stated that in Ottawa and the eastern Ontario region, 2.5% of patients accounted for 35% of hospital expenses. Fifty per cent of that 2.5% were seniors. Therefore, we have transferred more funds to the provinces with the condition they be used for senior care and mental illness.

Finally, does the member recognize that the increase in our GDP growth is the best among the G7 countries due to the investments we have made.

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

Madam Speaker, I am certain that my colleague will be very pleased to read the document I am holding.

This Fraser Institute document reports that 80% of families are paying $840 more with the Liberals in power. That is the reality. The member spoke about the debt-to-GDP, or gross domestic product, ratio and said that it is the best among G7 countries. I have two things to say about that: first, the Liberals never mentioned it in their election promise regarding possible tax cuts.

This reminds us that, when we were in government, we left the house in order with a $2.5 billion surplus. Even better, Canada was the first to emerge from the economic crisis. We were the best country in the G7 and we had the best debt-to-GDP ratio. That was the legacy of the Conservative government. This government is headed in the wrong direction by spending money it does not have and creating deficits.

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

Madam Speaker, before the budget was tabled last spring, the NDP sent a letter to the Minister of Finance, outlining some of our great ideas on how the government could help Canadians, the middle class, and those striving to join it. Perhaps the Conservatives may not have agreed with all of that list, but one the thing I think they would have agreed with was to bring back the eco-energy retrofit program, which was a Conservative policy. It would provide money for Canadians across the country, leveraging hundreds of millions of dollars. People spent so much money in stores across the country and it cut down greenhouse gases in their communities.

Could the member comment on why the Liberals have not started this program again? It was such an obvious success of the past Conservative government.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to pinch myself when I hear an NDP speaker talk about a great program tabled by the Conservatives. I thank him so much. We had many of them.

The philosophical approach of the Conservatives was to let people decide for themselves. This was why we had so many tax credits to help children, families, and those who used transit, those who used buses and metros in big cities. If they wanted to use those, we would help them. This is why we also had some great tax credits for people who were sick. Unfortunately, the Liberal government has failed to recognize that. The government thinks that the best way to deal with people is to tell them what is good for them and what is not good for therm. That is not the way we see things.

We welcome the fact that the NDP supports some of our policies. Two years from now we will apply them again.

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

Madam Speaker, the name of my riding is quite long, but I am very proud of it because I represent four RCMs, those of Avignon, La Mitis, Matane, and Matapédia. I will be sharing my time with the member for St. Catharines.

As I was saying, I am the member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, which was represented by an opposition member for nearly 25 years. During that whole time, it was represented by a Bloc member. It was a particularly difficult period because we did not have the federal government's ear and were not represented at the decision-making table to make sure that important initiatives were carried out. During that time, particularly the 10 years that the Conservatives were in power, my riding went through some really tough economic times.

Jobs were lost and businesses closed their doors in my region, mainly because of the budget cuts within federal departments and agencies. It was a particularly dark period. That is why I decided to get involved in politics. I told myself that I was going to use my experience to work hard so that my region had a place at the decision-making table. Today, the Liberals are in office because our platform was and still is excellent, as reflected in our previous budgets.

I would like to respond to what my colleague said earlier. To us, the important thing is that the debt-to-GDP ratio, which was 32.5% when we came to power, has gradually gotten smaller. Now it is 30.5%, and it will continue to shrink. That was one thing we promised to do. Based on our projections, that ratio will reach its lowest point since the 1970s. We brought it down to that level thanks to a healthy economy and a plan that is working. Revenues are up, and people are confident, so they are investing and consuming goods, which is a huge help to Canada's economy.

Not long ago, Ms. Lagarde, managing director of the International Monetary Fund, said that she hoped Canada's approach would go viral. That is true, and that is what we would like to see because our plan is working.

As I said before, I represent a riding in the Lower St. Lawrence region that straddles the Gaspé and includes 57 exceptionally vibrant municipalities. The residents of those municipalities have been especially proud these past two years because, thanks to our budget and our platform, we have invested $77 million in various projects there. The region has not seen that kind of investment in years.

We are seeing economic growth. Jobs are being created and the economy is booming. Of course there is still work to be done, but in two years' time, we have managed to attract investments totalling $77 million. I also know that this is going to continue, because there are still some excellent projects on the table. I support them, and my government is going to support them. I can assure the House that we are in an excellent and very positive situation.

Here are some specific examples of projects that have come out of the budget measures we implemented. In my riding, in Sainte-Flavie, right next to the Mont-Joli airport, for those who know the Gaspé region, we have the Maurice Lamontagne Institute, an internationally recognized French-language ocean research institute. Last June, I had the immense pleasure of welcoming the Minister of Fisheries to announce a $27 million investment, which will give the institute the research labs and infrastructure it needs to conduct important research and examine what is happening in our oceans in order to predict trends.

On top of this $27-million investment, the minister also announced more jobs. During the 10 years the Conservative government was in power, this institute was on a downward spiral. Jobs and investment were cut, which worried us greatly. Our announcement was a tangible demonstration of how much our government values research.

On a side note, when we came into office, the Prime Minister released a letter to federal public servants saying that we care about them, that we value research, and that we need their research findings to inform our decision making. This letter took a huge weight off their shoulders. The effect was amazing. Now they are truly motivated.

I was present at the institute when my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries, made the announcement. There was a “Stop Harper” sign outside the building. This is an important anecdote, because the institute needed a chance to turn things around. Now it has that chance, thanks to our investments and the measures we implemented in this budget. Investments are being made, and jobs are now being created. I am very proud that those jobs are in the regions.

There is a major regional airport in my riding, Mont-Joli airport, that makes it possible for me to return to my region as often as possible. Scheduling conflicts can make that a challenge at times, but the airport needed to be developed because it is an important infrastructure that allows workers to travel to our region. We are committed to investing in extending the runway at the Mont-Joli airport. We have also allocated funding for decontaminating the land around the airport so that the City of Mont-Joli can acquire the land and sell it for development.

We have also invested in the environment. For example, the banks of the St. Lawrence have eroded over the years. Obviously, climate change has had a significant impact. Some do not think that climate change is having such a serious or direct impact, but back home there is no denying it. The Minister of the Environment has invested in a project to protect 20 kilometres or so of banks by planting vegetation to shield from the high tides.

Furthermore, we invested in transforming churches into cultural centres. We also invested in our communities. I count myself lucky to have two Mi'kmaq communities in my riding, Listuguj and Gesgapegiag. People in those communities are much happier when we talk to them these days, because the dark days of the Conservative reign are over. I just spent some time with some of them yesterday here in Ottawa. We met with the Minister of Fisheries to talk about some development opportunities. Sizeable investments have been made in their communities, specifically to give them the infrastructure needed for their development.

We also invested in water supply and waste water treatment systems. We also made sizeable investments, in partnership with the Government of Quebec, in our arenas. We have invested in more tourism-oriented projects, such as lookouts, so that when tourists are passing through the Matapédia valley, they can stop and take the time to see the beautiful landscapes along the river. We announced some measures regarding investments in a series of lookouts so that tourists can enjoy the magnificent views in the Matapédia valley.

In Carleton-sur-Mer, thanks to our budget measures, visitors can access the magnificent Mount Saint-Joseph and its beautiful parish church. We are investing several million dollars in this tourist attraction.

In closing, over the past two years, our government has invested a lot of money across Canada. I am particularly proud of our government and our Minister of Finance, and this is only the beginning. We continue to implement our amazing platform.

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

Madam Speaker, we have a man who goes by the name of Elvis in our community of Port Alberni. Elvis has an alcohol addiction. He used to drink daily, and every day the ambulance, fire department, or police were called to pick him up. They would take him to the hospital and a doctor or a nurse would evaluate him, and sometimes X-ray him. Elvis would then go back to the street. It would cost us roughly $2,000 a day in services to take care of Elvis.

The Port Alberni Shelter Society raised money from the public and community groups and found Elvis a place to stay. It costs us $425 a month for Elvis to live in this place, and he has been living there for five years, saving hundreds of thousands if not millions of taxpayers' dollars.

The government has talked about delivering money to housing, but we are not seeing it, and every community has an Elvis. Every community know this same story. We urgently need to get people off the street and save taxpayers' money. We need to make sure there are no more Elvises waiting for a place to live.

Will the government take seriously and urgently the vulnerable people living on the streets in our communities? We have been waiting for too long.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his remarks. He obviously cares about his constituents and the person that he mentioned.

The Government of Canada shares that concern. We have announced and taken steps to invest in infrastructure and affordable housing to give the less fortunate better access to quality housing.

I often talk about my riding. Two or three weeks ago, I was at home in Pointe-à-la-Croix to announce funding to properly renovate a building that houses some 60 affordable housing units for people in the community. I could give other similar examples because this sort of thing is happening all across Canada. We care a lot about this issue.

Investments have been made and others will be made to give Canadians who are not as well off access to affordable housing.

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

Madam Speaker, I know the member's government has said a lot of great things about fighting climate change, sentiments that I share. The trouble is, the government's actions have been very inadequate. In fact, we are seeing greenhouse gas levels going in the wrong direction, going up rather than down.

I want to ask the member about one hugely successful program the previous Conservative government started, the ecoENERGY retrofit program. For a small investment, the federal government was able to leverage a lot of spending by people across this country, getting businesses in every community more and more business as a result. I have heard this from builders and businesses in my community.

This program brought down greenhouse gases across this country. However, the current government has refused to bring that program back. It was such a successful program and easy win for everyone, it would get full support within the House if it returned. Why has the government refused to bring it back?

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his comments. He knows and he said that our government cares about the environment and must make concrete investments to deal with climate change.

To answer his question, I have another real-life example, and I talked about this earlier. Thanks to the program that was implemented by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, our government was able to invest tens of thousands of dollars to protect some 20 kilometres of the St. Lawrence River shoreline. Plants were planted to protect the bank from high tides. There are many other examples like this.

I would like to remind members that we signed the Paris agreement. There is a lot of work to be done, but it is worth doing and continuing our efforts. I look forward to other announcements like this from the minister.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak in favour of the budget implementation act to implement the second phase of the plan that the minister and government laid out for Canadians in budget 2017. Two years into our mandate from Canadians, it is abundantly clear that the plan we laid out, which the Minister of Finance has been executing, is working. In our riding of St. Catharines, we do not have to look far to see the real impact that our policies are having on our community.

Prior to and since my election, I have had the opportunity to work with many people in great organizations. An example of that is the YWCA Niagara Region, whose representatives I will be meeting later today. I look forward to talking to them about the great work they do in Niagara and across the country. However, prior to my election, they ran an excellent program known as the cardboard house. They set up a cardboard house. We were able to walk through the few rooms in this small house and see the statistics on the poverty levels in Niagara. Prior to my election, one statistic that caught my eye was child poverty in Niagara. That number was 25%. Of the children in the Niagara region, 25% were living in poverty. That is unspeakably and shockingly high.

I was proud to be part of the campaign with our Prime Minister that recognized the plight of child poverty in Canada. During the previous election campaign, we committed ourselves to implementing a policy that would help raise some of those vulnerable Canadian children out of poverty, and in December 2015 we introduced the Canada child benefit as one of our first pieces of legislation as a government. Since July 2016, when the CCB came into effect, it has been helping hundreds of thousands of Canadian children across the country. In St. Catharines alone, as of July 2017, over 15,100 children have received this new and tax-free benefit. In St. Catharines, payments average $600 per month, amounting to more than $5.4 million dedicated to helping some of the most vulnerable and to making life a little easier for middle-class families and those working hard to join them. This is an example of our government listening to Canadians.

This past summer I had an opportunity to participate in a fundraiser run by the YWCA Niagara Region. Prior to that fundraiser, it invited me back to the cardboard house, which was in the Pen Centre, a local mall in St. Catharines. I looked back again through the statistics, and many of them were too high. A lot more work needs to be done. The one statistic that caught my eye was that child poverty in Niagara was no longer 25% but 15%. As I said, that number is still too high, but it is a 40% reduction in child poverty in St. Catharines and the Niagara region within two years. We cannot argue with statistics. It's basic math: the more money we put into the hands of middle-class families and of those who are struggling, the more we reduce poverty. This is the result we get when we listen to Canadians and put in place a plan that is in the best interests of the country.

Reducing poverty and bolstering the middle class was a central tenet of our plan. It was at the core of budget 2016 and continues to be a core guiding principle of budget 2017 and the budget implementation act we are debating today. We do not have to look far to see supportive statements indicating that our plan is working, but I think one supportive statement in particular bears discussion. The Governor of the Bank of Canada is responsible for setting the monetary policy of our central bank. His job is essential to the successful operation of our economy, and his opinion holds enough weight to shift the entire stock market. He is independent, but was appointed on the advice of the former government. During his remarks of July 12, he noted that our economy was strengthening and the economic outlook strong. However, it is interesting to see his reasons for making those remarks. He credited our government's commitment to targeted stimulus spending as the reason for continued growth in our economy. He noted specifically that the Canada child benefit was “highly stimulative”.

We cannot ask for much more validation than that. The Bank of Canada governor, appointed by the previous Conservative prime minister, has credited our plan for growing the economy, which is exactly what we said it would do.

Perhaps the opinion of the Bank of Canada governor is not enough, so let us hear from Greg from St. Catharines.

I ran into Greg on the streets of St. Catharines. He said hello to me and said “Thank you, Chris.” I was perplexed by that and asked why he had said that. He told me that it was because of the Canada child benefit.

Greg's daughter and grandson live with him. While his daughter works, he takes the opportunity to spend a lot of time with his grandson. It is evident the money his daughter receives from the Canada child benefit makes life easier for the entire household. They have more money for groceries, activities, making things just a little easier day by day. These are real constituents benefiting from our plan.

If the governor's comment and Greg's story are not enough, perhaps we should talk about Laura.

Laura is a a single mom in St. Catharines. She works full time, but despite working full time and being a single mom, she gives a lot back to the community. As many parents can attest to, life is hard enough when they have kids. Obviously, as we have talked about on all sides, it is more difficult when there is just one parent. However, for all the single parents out there, life is not always so easy. The CCB helps supplement her income, allowing her to put money where it needs to go, allowing kids to be kids, to play sports, and enjoy outing with friends.

Again, the proof is in the testimonials, and the proof is crystal clear that our plan is working. Bill C-63, which would implement the next phase of budget 2017, will continue to improve the lives of everyday Canadians.

I want to turn for a moment to talk about poverty on a wider scale.

Last week, the finance minister tabled the fall economic update, which included further measures to boost the Canada child benefit. This will continue to contribute positive results to the economy.

However, the minister also made note of a new commitment to the working income tax benefit. Addressing poverty on a wide scale requires addressing the core of the problem. While it was announced that 450,000 new jobs were created since late 2015 and we had the strongest economy in the G7, we must dedicate resources to those Canadians who are down on their luck and need help. The working income tax benefit does just that.

Utilized as a refundable tax credit, the working income tax benefit provides important income support, helping supplement the income of low-income earners. By allowing low-income workers to keep more of their paycheques, the benefit encourages people to enter the workforce and allows them to establish a level of stability, decrease their need for social assistance, and to get back on their feet to break the cycle of poverty.

This has been our goal since the election, advancing an agenda that would serve to expand the middle class and make the lives of Canadians families a little easier.

To recap, today we are debating legislation that would implement the next phase. Our CCB has been successful in its intent to reduce poverty of over 300,000 children. We have witnessed the impact it is having on middle-class families and, as such, we have committed to bolstering it further by tying it to inflation a year early, adding an additional $5.6 billion in support over the next six years.

As I mentioned, our economy is first in the G7 with respect to growth, and the Bank of Canada governor has clearly stated that our policies have contributed to the strength of our economy. Over 450,000 jobs have been created since late 2015 and we are expanding the working income tax benefit to help some of our most vulnerable, giving them the opportunity to regroup and get back on their feet, while not sinking them further into poverty.

These are the types of commitments and policies Canadians expect. The people of St. Catharines have had a direct benefit from our policies. I am proud to be part of that plan and carry this forward. I encourage all members to vote in favour of Bill C-63.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Before I go to questions and comments, the member mentioned his first name during his speech. I want to advise him that this is not appropriate.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

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

Madam Speaker, in my speech, I will address the issue of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, which is part of this omnibus legislation, but I want to give a member of the government the opportunity to comment on this.

This budget implementation bill authorizes the spending of close to $400 million on Canada getting into the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, where we would own less than 1% of the shares. It would be controlled by China as an agent of its foreign policy objectives, ultimately building infrastructure in Asia to advance Chinese strategic objectives.

Does the member feel that it is in the interests of people in St. Catharines to spend close to $400 million for 1% of the shares in a bank that will build infrastructure in Asia as a way of advancing China's strategic objectives?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, what the hon. member has not mentioned is that many other countries have joined, including France and Australia.

What is important to the residents of St. Catharines is getting Canadians to work, getting Canadians to benefit not only within Canada but abroad. We are an exporting nation. There are only 35 million or 36 million of us. We need to look beyond our borders for success. We have done so well at that over our history. We have one of the fastest-growing economies in the G7 because the Canadian brand is strong.

This is an excellent opportunity to build that brand abroad in Asia, where we have some of the largest economies in the world, emerging economies that need infrastructure. This will be an excellent opportunity for Canadian companies to bid on that, create jobs, and, again, grow the middle class.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his remarks.

Based on his last answer, it costs $400 million to build a foreign investment bank. I think this is too expensive. There must be some other way to build Canada's brand abroad.

That being said, there is a question I have wanted to ask for some time. As we saw yesterday, the Liberals like to boast that they have lifted 300,000 children out of poverty. What methodology did the Liberals use to come up with this figure? Could my colleague tell us a bit about their calculations?

My colleague loves throwing numbers around, but he does not really give any details about how they calculate these figures. Can he tell us exactly how the Liberals came up with the figure of 300,000 children?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, the number comes from the Library of Parliament's independent study on that.

The member talks about “being rich”. It is rich that he would criticize the CCB. I believe that the plan the NDP ran on would have lifted 80,000 children out of poverty. However, a fight for austerity and to balance the budget at any cost was not a message that resonated with Canadians.

Ours worked. It is proven by independent research. We would be more than happy to share the study by the library with the member. It is having a great impact in my riding, in his riding, and across the country.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a follow-up to the member's comments earlier with respect to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.

The member talked about the importance of engaging around the world and of building Canada's brand in Asia. I certainly believe it is important for Canada to seek partnerships with like-minded countries in Asia and to seek partnerships that advance our strategic interests.

However, the government is proposing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on an entity that is fully controlled by China and exists to advance its strategic objectives. That is not building Canada's brand; that is building China's brand in Asia.

Could the member justify that kind of spending, close to $400 million of Government of Canada spending, when people at home would rather see investments that actually benefit them?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, it would be irresponsible for the government to not engage in the largest economy in the world. This will benefit Canadians. This will have results. Our plan is having results and it is working. We have the fastest-growing economy in the G7. I hope the member supports the budget implementation bill.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to address what is indeed a very large piece of legislation, the government's budget implementation act. I hope to have the opportunity later on in my remarks to talk about the general budgetary policy of the government.

However, as deputy shadow minister for foreign affairs, I want to talk about the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank in particular, and contextualize that a bit with respect to what we in the official opposition think is a better basis for a relationship with countries in Asia and with China.

Before I do that, I will be splitting my time with the excellent member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

Those following along at home can find, on page 239, of their copies of the budget implementation bill the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank agreement act. Although the bill is long, this section of the bill is relatively short. I would draw it to the attention of members and those who are interested in this. This is the part of the legislation that has the Government of Canada acceding to or joining the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.

The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank is a China-based and China-controlled investment vehicle that builds infrastructure throughout Asia, but does so in a way that is aligned with the strategic interests of the People's Republic of China.

A lot of Canadians would wonder why Canada would be getting into this bank, spending a whole bunch of Canadian dollars to become part of an investment bank that is designed to advance the strategic interests of another country. As I talk about this, I want to be very clear about what I think our relationship should be with China.

In the official opposition, we support strategic engagement with China that reflects our interests and our values. That does not mean trying to have the best possible relationship, or trying to be part of every club or trying to make the other side feel as good as it possibly can about us. Rather, it is about continually looking for opportunities in the context of that relationship which advance our interests and values. We believe that is the approach we ought to take with respect to our relationship with the People's Republic of China.

This section of the budget implementation act would have Canada joining this investment bank. It would provide for Canada's getting about 1% of the shares. China has over 30% of the shares. We would have very little influence or control in the direction.

Paragraph 5 of the division of the bill dealing with the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank says, “The Governor in Council may, by order, amend the schedule to take into account amendments to the Agreement that are consistent with the purpose and functions of the Bank.” Therefore, this act would provide substantial control to the minister to exercise outside of statutory changes.

Paragraph 7 says:

The Minister of Finance may make payments out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund to the Bank in respect of Canada's initial subscription of shares in an aggregate amount not more than US$ 375,000,000, or any greater amount that is specified in an appropriation Act.

Therefore, this would authorize, as I had said in questions and comments, close to $400 million. I should have specified we are talking about U.S. dollars in that context. We would be spending a lot of taxpayer money to buy shares in this bank that makes investments in Asia in infrastructure and is fundamentally controlled by the People's Republic of China.

There are a lot of problems with that. One problem is simply a basic question of value for taxpayer money. Why would we not be spending that money at home and/or in ways that advance our strategic interests? Why is it somehow necessary for us to have such a good relationship with China that we effectively give it so much money for it to control?

However, this is also a problem because we have major concerns about the transparency of this investment bank and the lack of human rights protections in its activities. These are precisely the concerns that have led our partners, including the United States under the Obama administration, to choose not to participate in this investment bank. Again, this is because they question the value for taxpayer money, and, in particular, they have concerns about transparency and human rights, things that the government talks a great deal about but we do not see much action on.

In that context, I would like to draw the attention of members to this infrastructure bank's engagement in Burma specifically. There has been a great deal of discussion in the House about the human rights abuses happening right now against the Rohingya people, as well as other minorities in Burma. However, Canadian investments in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank will be used in projects over which we have no direct control, in environments with significant human rights problems, and without the kind of transparency about those projects or protections in place that we would expect. How do we know how Canadian tax dollars will be used in Burma as a result of our membership of this investment bank? We do not have any kind of transparency or protections around how that money would be used.

There are, of course, alternatives. There are international investment vehicles that build infrastructure and encourage economic development that have the kinds of protections we would expect and that are more aligned with the kinds of strategic objectives Canadians would identify with. We are already participating in those kinds of vehicles. However, for us to choose to spend close to $400 million U.S. on chasing the approval of a foreign power using that money to build infrastructure in Asia, very clearly, is not something that Canadians want.

I challenge members of the government, if they think this is a great idea, to take this particular section of the budget implementation act, buried on page 239, to their constituents, put it in their local papers and ask people in their ridings what they think of it. I suspect that even in very traditional Liberal ridings in this country, members of the government would find that voters do not want close to $400 million, and perhaps more in the future, going toward this particular approach. We should be working to create jobs here in Canada and advancing Canada's strategic objectives and values, but this proposal is fundamentally at odds with our strategic objectives to advance our values vis-à-vis human rights, as I have spoken about, and shows a lack of respect for human rights.

Of course, there are many other things in this budget implementation act that I could speak about, such as the continuing failure of the government to live up to its commitments. Yes, it promised deficits, three years of $10-billion deficits followed by a balanced budget. It has more than doubled its deficit projections for each of the first three years and has no plan to ever return to a balanced budget.

This budget implementation act does not let up on the government's attack on small business. Liberals continue to say, for example, that they will make changes with respect to income sprinkling and passive income that will have a negative impact on small business. I want to be very clear on this issue of income sprinkling. Before the election, there was a structure in place that allowed all Canadians to split their income. It was transparently fair and equal. Couples could share their income with each other for tax purposes, however they earned that income. That reflects the reality that couples share their money. The government did away with income splitting and then tried to use the fact that wage-earners cannot split their income as a justification for not allowing people in small businesses to do it. Why do we not just allow income splitting for everyone?

In particular, for the reasons I spoke about in regard to the infrastructure bank, and also more broadly, in regard to the problems with the government's fiscal agenda, Conservatives oppose this legislation.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, I noticed that my friend on the other side failed to mention some of the major improvements the government has made. It increased the Canada child benefit, which has led to an increase in GDP and made Canada the best performer among the G7 countries. He talked about the deficit, but he failed to mention our promise to keep the debt to GDP ratio lower than what it was. We are on course to do that. Why does he not recognize those facts?

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

Madam Speaker, my friend across the way is upset that I did not mention all of the different issues in the budget implementation act. I certainly would take issue with the government's policy with respect to families and I disagree with the member's statement about their impact. However, of course I cannot discuss all of the measures in the budget implementation act. It is very long, if the member has not noticed.

I focused my attention on the particular issue of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. I am sure the member would not want to talk about this in his riding, because if he asked constituents in his riding and other ridings here in Ottawa, I am sure they would not be very keen on seeing hundreds of millions of their tax dollars going to building infrastructure, not here in Canada and not toward advancing Canadian strategic interests, but in Asia as part of a PRC-controlled development bank that does not have the kind of transparency and human rights protections that we need. If the member thinks this is a great idea, I would like to hear him talk about it.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, it is important to understand that investing in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank helps us close the infrastructure gap in the Asia-Pacific region. This could lead to more business opportunities for Canadian businesses. That is one of the reasons we want to renew our involvement on the international stage, the same way we got involved in the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank.

Australia, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom have all invested in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. If it makes sense for these European Union countries, why would it not make sense for Canada and give us access to the same opportunities?

I would like to know what the member thinks about the participation of the other countries I have just mentioned. France, Australia, Germany, and the United Kingdom are all participating in development in Asia, because they recognize that it is important to their national interests.

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

Madam Speaker, I will note for the benefit of the member that the U.S. is not a member of the bank and that the Obama administration raised concerns about transparency and human rights. This highlights a fundamental difference in the foreign policy approach taken by the government and the official opposition.

The question they want us to ask is, what is everyone else doing, so we can do it too. The question we want to ask is, what is right in terms of our values, and what reflects our national, strategic, and economic interests? On both of these scores it is very clear that this proposal fails.

The parliamentary secretary spoke about the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the World Bank in the same breath, but we have to take a critical approach and look at the differences between these vehicles. One is transparent and seeks to have human rights protections in place, and one transparently does not. It is simply not enough for the government to try to create some kind of equivalence between the values advanced by a PRC-controlled institution and those advanced by a western institution. We should not buy into a false moral equivalency between the kinds of systems that exist or are propagated by these strategic vehicles.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for his contribution here. I was very impressed that he actually spoke on the budget implementation act. I have seen many Liberal members stand today and not even touch the act itself.

In regard to the Asian infrastructure bank, perhaps he could just reinforce those points. Canadians do want to see infrastructure reinforced here in this country. Could he explain the expectations that many of our constituents have on how their money is spent?

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

Madam Speaker, Canadians want to see investments in infrastructure here in Canada. I think they do want to see us engaged internationally, but in a way that reflects our values and interests. They do not want us to write blank cheques to institutions that we do not control and that reflect neither our values nor our strategic interests.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, as the member of Parliament for the upper Ottawa Valley riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, I take this opportunity to thank my constituents for the trust they have placed in me to represent their interests in the Parliament of Canada. I am here to serve them.

Democracy is under attack in Canada with the tabling of Bill C-63, the omnibus bill before this chamber today. It is under attack by a complicated financial piece of legislation that is 254 pages long. The budget bill before us, Bill C-63, should be split into 10 bills, rather than the single bill that was dumped onto Parliament.

Only by allowing the Conservative government-in-waiting, and all Canadians, the opportunity to properly scrutinize government legislation will Canadians be assured that the federal government deficits are not being used to pad the pockets of party insiders. The omnibus bill requires extensive and proper study. Huge dollar amounts are being spent and taxed in this legislation. Canadians, who are alarmed at the constant erosion of their personal liberties, are being over-regulated and overtaxed, and they see this type of interventionist, budget deficit legislation as the wrong direction for Canada.

This legislation claims it will be “closing loopholes surrounding the capital gains exemption on the sale of a principal residence”. What exactly does that mean for the average, middle-class Canadian, who is so unlike the current finance minister? The finance minister controls, through some complicated tax avoidance scheme, a private corporation that owns a villa in the south of France for his personal use and enjoyment, something he conveniently forgot to disclose to the Ethics Commissioner until now. He was forced to confess it after a CBC story outed him, which resulted in his pleading guilty to breaking the law.

For a family struggling to make ends meet and trying to start a business out of their home, does it mean they will lose their personal capital gains exemption? Average, middle-class Canadians cannot afford the cost of setting up complicated tax avoidance schemes using half a dozen numbered companies to hide a French villa, and who knows what else. If their home business fails due to over-regulation and over-taxation, will they get to claim a tax deduction against their high income tax bill?

What will be the dollar value of the tax collections quota that the new tax collectors hired as a result of the most recent economic update are required to shake down from taxpayers? Were they hired to go after home-based businesses or can Canadians expect other tax increases by stealth? For example, there is the decision to go after family owned campgrounds. How many taxes does the Liberal Party intend to collect from closing the so-called personal residence loophole?

Every proposition has a price tag. We know that the government has a figure. Average, middle-class Canadians have a right to know what it is.

What about the line in the bill with respect to beer made from concentrate on the premises where it is consumed? Unlike the finance minister, who heads to his private villa in the south of France to pursue his taste for fine French wine, for the average middle-class, working man, Canadian beer is their beverage of choice. That is certainly the case in the upper Ottawa Valley. The Liberal complaint seems to be that someone might otherwise be getting a slight break on the price of a beer. As usual, the Liberals have the wrong approach and they have hired a bunch of new tax collectors to pursue their wrong approach.

Why is wine made from concentrate not a tax target in Bill C-63? Why is beer only being overtaxed by this finance minister? The Conservative approach to this manufactured excuse to raise taxes on beer is to lower taxes specifically on beer that is already subject to high taxation. In the last few years the upper Ottawa Valley has seen the growth of a vibrant craft brewery trade. Typical of the liberal, deficit-obsessed big government mentality, the success of the craft breweries have made them a Liberal tax target.

A lot of hard work goes into starting a small business, something that is not appreciated by a government that has $212,234 to spend on a glossy front cover for its deficit budget document.

Democracy is under attack in Canada. It is under attack by an arrogant Prime Minister through his refusal to be held accountable during question period in Parliament. It is under attack by his unwillingness to fire his finance minister, who has so far admitted that his personal fortune has increased by $14 million since he took office. I say so far, because Canadians are in the dark as to the full extent to which the finance minister's personal financial holdings have increased and continue to increase.

Now that the finance minister has admitted to breaking the Conflict of Interest Act by pleading guilty to his convenient lapse of memory regarding his European villa, his removal should be automatic. His continued refusal to disclose the vast holdings in his collection of numbered companies sends a clear message that he is hiding something from Canadians.

Rather than practise open government, the finance minister has acquired a Liberal insider from Toronto as his chief of spin, Ben Chin. Who is this Ben Chin who has been hired by the finance minister to spin the truth for him? Chin is a failed Toronto Liberal Party candidate who was rewarded for losing to an NDP candidate with a position as an insider and a fixer alongside Gerald Butts, the Prime Minister's current hatchet man, when he was at Queen's Park in Toronto.

Chin's claim to fame happened after he landed a plush patronage job at the Ontario Power Authority at a $247,000 salary, paid for by Ontario's overtaxed electricity ratepayers. One of the schemes he was able to set up was a twisted conservation incentive program called Air Miles for Social Change. Data mining is one of the reasons loyalty programs are set up. The personal information acquired has an attractive resale value to groups like political parties.

The Ontario Power Authority's initial deal with Air Miles was intended to be only from the spring of 2010 until the end of that year, but there was an option for the OPA to extend that relationship. Under Ben Chin's supervision, the program was extended.

One of the beneficiaries of the Ontario Power Authority's new relationship with Air Miles was the charity World Wildlife Fund Canada, then headed by current Prime Minister insider—surprise, surprise—Gerald Butts. The Ontario Power Authority provided the option for participants in designated conservation programs, who were Air Miles collectors, to pledge their Air Miles rewards to—surprise, surprise—the World Wildlife Fund Canada.

In the context of today's discussion regarding omnibus tax-and-spend legislation and who benefits, a powerful statement is being made by the ethically challenged finance minister when he turns to someone with a reputation as a Liberal insider like Ben Chin. Chin adds to the finance minister's shattered reputation.

Chin and Butts, since they were associated with the Liberal Party in Toronto, are responsible for energy poverty that is now a fact of life in Ontario: heat or eat.

Rather than address the real reasons for energy poverty in Ontario, this is a government that goes into huge deficits with Bill C-63 to send borrowed Canadian dollars to China for the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.

What about infrastructure in Canada? I know of more than a dozen municipalities that desperately need infrastructure repairs in Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. They do not have the luxury of endlessly raising taxes or unlimited borrowing to fix their streets and sewers.

Governments should be concerned about the needs of Canadians first before chasing foreign money schemes that are designed to make the rich richer.

This is what a smart observer had to say about the finance minister's new spin doctor:

Ben Chin’s electricity career helps to illuminate the real purposes driving those with their hands on the levers of power in Ontario’s electricity system.... Ontario was establishing itself as a massive electricity exporter, selling enough discounted and often free power to neighbouring jurisdictions to power substantial cities.... The conservation PR that Chin was engineering was focused on a different kind of power.

Democracy is under assault in Canada by the federal government's fiscal policies.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned what she considers to be the omnibus nature of this budget implementation bill. I do not doubt her expertise about omnibus bills. For 10 years she was under the Harper Conservatives, who dropped the largest BIA in the history of this Parliament, so she knows a fair bit about omnibus bills.

We are not modifying the navigable waters act, as those members did while in government. As far as I am concerned, everything is related to the budget.

I would like to ask my colleague what specifically in Bill C-63 does not relate to the budget. I have heard her talk about taxes, about excise taxes. I have heard her talk about everything that is related to the budget. How can she frame this to be an omnibus bill when everything is related to the budget and its implementation? Again, I do not doubt her expertise about omnibus bills. She has seen a lot of them.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, well, the omnibus bill goes all over the board. It goes from the principal residence to division 10 of part 5 and the Energy Efficiency Act. This is a particular part of the omnibus bill with which we in the riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke have special familiarity.

We have the provincial people implementing a similar takedown of taxes from taxpayers at the federal level now, and the practical solutions to Ontario's energy problems were never the focus of the people who have the levers of power today. They weave their way around the House and outsource everything from the government sector in many ways, such as the Asian infrastructure bank in which the outsourcing is not even going toward Canadian infrastructure but toward wealthy people in Asia and the companies there.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned the debt levels, and that we should not be investing so much in infrastructure. I guess I would congratulate her in that she really does not feel that we should be investing in any infrastructure in her community.

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

In Asia.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

No, she did not say in Asia. She actually talked about debt levels and related them to infrastructure in general.

Also, regarding connectivity, she and I have had numerous conversations about the need for broadband infrastructure. Therefore, I am very happy to hear her say that she really does not feel that money should be spent in her own community, which would certainly leave more for the rest of us.

Would she agree that the need is not really there in her own community for any infrastructure or broadband Internet?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think it must be opposite day, because that is exactly the opposite of what I was saying. We actually need money being spent in Ontario and, yes, for broadband, because government is expecting us to do everything over the Internet, but it is not quite available.

Instead of investing in roads and broadband, the Liberals are putting money, according to this omnibus piece of legislation, into the Business Development Bank. However, instead of developing businesses that are going to help Canadians, it is taking that money overseas or using it to have more so-called green social infrastructure manufactured, which only increases poverty and drives up the need to have more tax credits for the poor who cannot afford it.

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

Madam Speaker, during the member's speech, I Googled “hypocrites”, and it led me to the “Real Change” website of the Liberal Party platform. There was a specific section with respect to omnibus bills, which said:

We will not resort to legislative tricks to avoid scrutiny....

[The previous government]...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.

Well, we are dealing with an omnibus bill. I am wondering what the member thinks of that.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, we can just look at the Liberals' platform, and essentially everything they said they were going to do is exactly the opposite of what seems to have transpired. Welcome to opposite day in Canada. I do not think the Liberals understand the difference between being transparent and being invisible.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my friend, the member for Scarborough—Rouge Park.

I will be speaking about the second budget implementation act.

First of all, I would like to say how proud I am to represent the people of Gatineau in the House. It is an honour to have been chosen as their spokesperson in this chamber of Canadian democracy. Every day, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement and as MP for Gatineau, I try to promote the interests of my constituents within the Government of Canada.

The first thing I would like to say is that this bill is part of a larger movement or trend, part of our government's wider plan to promote greater work-life balance. It will also help ease the burden of young families and our families in general. This is a well represented group in my riding of Gatineau. A recent study found that the population of Gatineau is younger, and that its income and rate of growth is higher than the Quebec average. The riding's people work hard and have helped build Canada through their participation in the federal public service. The people of Gatineau have worked hard in the forestry and resource sectors. They have created wealth. My constituents work, and most importantly, live and raise their families in the riding of Gatineau.

Our government's efforts and policies are appropriate for the people of my riding and have a positive impact on the citizens of Gatineau. It is very difficult to achieve work-life balance today. There are problems with transportation, and there is stress. Even with two incomes, our families' debt levels are higher than the national average. The government must take action.

Our election platform and the bill before us today are meant to ease this burden. I would remind the House that we cut taxes for the middle class. When we talk about the middle class, this includes the people of Gatineau. One of the first things we did was to cut taxes for the middle class. We dropped the retirement age. Mr. Harper wanted to raise the eligibility age for retirement to 67, but we brought it back down to 65.

As the Prime Minister said yesterday, the Canada child benefit and the enhancement we just announced in the fall economic update will help all Canadian families. It will give them room to make some choices, whether regarding child care, registration in cultural activities, leisure activities, and so on. The Canada child benefit is the most important social program of my generation for future generations, for the families and children in Gatineau and across Canada.

We enhanced the Canada pension plan. I applaud the Quebec finance minister' initiative, which will adapt the Canadian reform to Quebec society. The Canada pension plan will get a boost from coast to coast thanks to the federal government's efforts. This means that young workers and young families can rest assured that they will have a better and more secure retirement. What they save now will be returned to them at the end of their working lives.

Of course, there is also the working income tax benefit. Just like everywhere else, some people have trouble getting off social assistance. They find it difficult to choose between getting back into the job market and continuing to receive social assistance. Thanks to measures we just announced, this tax credit will be enhanced, which will make it easier for people to choose to go back to work and contribute more to society because they know they will get a tax credit, they know the government supports them, and they know that, financially, going back to work makes sense.

The bill we are talking about today will make life easier for people working in federally regulated industries. There will be more flexibility around vacation and annual leave. People will have up to 10 days of bereavement leave if they lose a loved one, and they will have an additional three days of unpaid leave to attend to family responsibilities. That is one way we are showing compassion for our workers and for people who are having a hard time balancing work and family responsibilities. Those responsibilities can be toward our parents, our children, or even ourselves. We have introduced important measures.

Our government will continue to make life easier for Canadian families. It will also continue to make it easier to raise a family and to deal with the stress associated with two incomes, the stress caused by personal debt, and the stress caused by job insecurity in our country.

We are well aware of these realities in Gatineau and elsewhere. As the member for Gatineau, I will continue to urge my government to take action and do what is necessary to help families in Gatineau and Quebec find work-life balance.

I will close on a more personal note. Tax measures alone will not allow people in the riding of Gatineau and the Outaouais region achieve work-life balance. We need to invest more in our roads and infrastructure, including those we share with other levels of government.

We have taken a big step forward with the Rapibus extension that I recently announced with my friends and provincial and municipal counterparts. This will make life easier for many people in Gatineau. We must continue to find solutions for the western part of Gatineau and extend this transit system to the eastern end of the city.

Another initiative that must be undertaken by our government, in co-operation with our friends in Ottawa, Ontario, Quebec, and Gatineau is the construction of a sixth interprovincial bridge, this one in the Gatineau sector. That would allow a young single mother who works in Tunney's Pasture to get to the Cheval-Blanc sector of Gatineau more easily to watch her daughter's soccer game, for example. We need to reduce traffic by improving transportation, something that the programs we will put in place will accomplish. With the help of the federal government, life will be greatly improved for the people of Gatineau.

I am very pleased to be part of this government, this movement, and this trend. I once again thank the people of Gatineau who gave me the honour of representing them.

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

Madam Speaker, the member opposite talked about wanting to lessen the stress on middle-income families. One thing this bill will absolutely do, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance said this earlier, is create serious challenges with respect to the work-in-progress provisions. Often times, people will seek to have a lawyer represent them in court but do not have the money to pay for it and a lawyer will often take the case based on contingency fees. This bill will force taxes to be paid on work that has not yet been done, has not been billed, and may never be paid. Does the member not agree that this is the exact opposite of reducing stress? This is increasing stress on a very vulnerable population. What does he have to say about that?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from British Columbia for the question. Obviously, if he thinks that the federal government is advocating anything other than tax fairness, well he is wrong. The government is advocating tax fairness, equal treatment of income in our corporations. That is indeed what is being done in the provision here. If the firms we consult did not bill for the work, that would have a positive impact on their tax situation. I believe the question does not really apply, here.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member across the floor mentioned something that was interesting to me when he talked about pensions and what the government has done, namely lowering the eligible age back to 65 from 67, which we welcome. Also, I do not think what was done with the CPP is enough, but it is for our children and our grandchildren going forward.

One thing he did not state is that there is something in the bill that a lot of workers have, a defined pension benefit plan, which will give them a stable income when they retire. However, the government wants to change that to what it calls a “defined target plan”, which would give them instability. Why is the government attacking these middle-class people, and those who are striving to join them, who have defined benefit plans?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, let me be very clear: as I stand here let me say that our federal public service pensions, those that are subject to the plan in question, will remain in place forever. They will be there for current and future employees. It is not by lowering our standards for pensions that we are going to ensure a better retirement for Canadian society. I think that my colleague is talking about a bill that will be debated here in Parliament and I look forward to having that discussion. To me, federal public service pensions are sacrosanct.

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

Madam Speaker, we in the official opposition have said that the government's policies tend to hurt those who they precisely were intended to help. That could not be more clear, given the example that my colleague ended his speech with. He spoke about a single mother who wants to be able to use public transit to take her daughter to soccer. I have a great idea for how we can help her. We could make transit passes tax-deductible. Wait. That was a measure the current government cancelled. It is increasing taxes precisely on the groups it talks about helping.

When we talk about children and families, I want to very quickly ask the member this. Does he think it is fair to the next generation to run deficits in perpetuity? If not, when will the government balance the budget?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, what is fair to the next generation is ensuring that they have a retirement and that is what we just did by improving the Canada pension plan. As far as public transit is concerned, there needs to be a public transit system, like in my case that goes to the Cheval-Blanc neighbourhood, to help this young single mother.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Gatineau for his speech.

I am very proud to rise this afternoon to speak on Bill C-63 , a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measures.

I want to start by acknowledging that we are gathered here on the traditional unceded lands of the Algonquin people.

This is the first time I am actually making a full speech since my good friend and mentor Arnold Chan passed on September 14. I do want to take this opportunity to remember him and to reflect on his enormous contribution to Canada, and express my continued support and love to the Chan-Yip family.

I want to congratulate the Minister of Finance on directing such a great job on our economy. I know there is limited time for me to speak before question period, so I want to just have the first part of my speech contextualize the position of our economy today, two years since our government took office.

It is very clear that our policies are indeed working. In the past four quarters alone, the Canadian economy grew at the fastest rate since 2006. The average growth was 3.7% for the past four quarters. The economy created 450,000 jobs since late 2015. That is a remarkable number to reflect on.

The unemployment rate is the lowest it has been since 2008. This economy is projected to continue growing with a forecasted growth of 3.1% annually, the fastest growth rate in any of the G7 countries.

We have the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio of any G7 nation. The economy is directly benefiting from our progressive economic policies. Our aim is to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor, and build a middle class that will be the engine of this country. We want to ensure that no one is left behind, and, yes, that will mean that those with the ability to pay more ought to pay more.

Members may recall the measures that our government has put in with respect to where the economy has now landed. First, with respect to the middle class, we have lowered taxes on the middle class. We have put more money into the pockets of people who drive the economy. We have cut taxes for nine million Canadians.

The Canada child benefit has been an enormous source of strength to our economy. I look forward to picking up on that and elaborating more on its benefits to my riding.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge Park will have seven minutes remaining in his speech when the House next comes back to this topic.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-63, A second 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Scarborough—Rouge Park, I once again rise to continue the discussion on Bill C-63, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measures.

I was talking about the economy, and I highlighted some of the work of our government had done with respect to tax fairness.

I now want to touch on something that is very close to my heart and certainly something that affects each and every member, which is the Canada child benefit.

In July of this year, according to statistics that were recently provided to me, 9,170 payments, benefiting 16,160 children, were made through the Canada child benefit in Scarborough—Rouge Park. An average payment in Scarborough—Rouge Park is $630 per month, or $5.754 million just for this year. If we look at it over four years, it works out to a significant amount of money. I am quite proud to say that this has had a game-changing effect in my community and I am sure in other communities across the country.

Many people in my community are unable to afford to send their children to extracurricular activities. There are housing issues in Toronto. In the eastern part of Toronto, especially, housing is quite expensive, with a high cost for basic services such as the Internet and telephone. The Canada child benefit will assist many families to support their children better than they were able to before.

This is a very important aspect of our platform. Enhancements to this were proposed recently in the fall economic statement by the Minister of Finance, such as the acceleration of indexing of the Canada child benefit to inflation in two years, starting in July of 2018, with an additional $5.6 billion in support of Canadian families over 2017-19. For a single parent, with two children, making $35,000 a year, this will mean an additional $560 more next year.

In addition to the Canada child benefit, there are also enhancements to the working income tax benefit. It is a refundable tax credit that cuts tax for eligible people in the workforce and encourages others to get a job. It will be an additional $500 million per year, starting in 2019.

I want to dive into the substantive parts of the legislation and talk about several aspects of it.

First are the amendments to the Canadian Labour Code to improve the rights of workers. We have introduced these measures to ensure people can have flexible work arrangements. All employees working for more than six months have the right to ask for changes to the number of hours they work, the location, and schedule, among other things if they work in a sector that is regulated by the federal government.

Employers must respond to requests within 30 days and employers are prevented from disciplining employees. If the employer does not accept their request, it is required to give a written rational for its decision and refute the request on legislated grounds.

We have expanded family leave to three days to aid family members suffering from health issues, or for educational purposes, as well as leave for victims of family violence who can receive 10 days of leave to seek medical or psychological help, family services, relocation services, and to seek law enforcement assistance.

Also important is the introduction of five days leave to engage in traditional indigenous practices. I sit on the indigenous affairs committee. It has been a great opportunity to learn important aspects of indigenous culture. Over the last two years, it has been clear to me that the current workplace environment and systems in Canada do not reflect, respect, nor give space for the traditional practices of our indigenous brothers and sisters. It is important to ensure those in the workforce are able to take time off to engage in traditional indigenous practices.

These are very important measures.

To quickly summarize, this is a very important aspect of our platform. It is the second phase implementing the budget introduced by our finance minister, which has been great for the economy, as it has allowed for a more equal playing field and reduced the gap between the poor and other Canadians. It is aimed at enabling Canadians to live in harmony without having the large income disparities that we see in other countries, which often trigger social unrest.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to call to the hon. member's attention a big concern of mine about unpaid domestic leave.

I want to hear the member's response to the fact there will be a barrier to people actually accessing unpaid domestic leave. Nine percent of women in a domestic violence situation are controlled by their partner economically. The member can imagine the impact of someone coming home with less pay than their a partner who is abusing them. Although I understand the intention, I am concerned that in reality it will not be accessible to the people it is intended to help.

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

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with the brilliant point by my friend from Saskatoon West.

However, this is an amendment to the Labour Code and not necessarily to the EI system or to the other social security measures that we have. It is an important first step. For example, in my riding of Scarborough—Rouge Park, our constituency office often deals with situations of domestic violence, and one of the difficulties we face is that once someone needs to move or take time off to address the domestic violence situation, they are sometimes threatened with losing their job.

In my opinion, this is a very important first step in addressing that, as my hon. friend can concede. It is the direction we need to go in to ensure that working people have time to be able to take care of themselves. In the meantime, I believe the Canada child benefit will be of assistance and will certainly assist those single parents who may need that help in situations like these where they are in transition.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has done a fantastic job advocating for his constituents on important policy matters.

One of the things I believe the government has been so successful at doing is focusing its attention on Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it. We have realized some of the benefits of doing that, for example, the 400,000-plus jobs that have been created and the resulting increased disposable income and, as my colleague just made reference to, the Canada child benefit. All of that extra money is put into the pockets of individuals who really need it, causing them to spend more in the community and strengthening our economy.

What are my colleague's thoughts on the government's focus on Canada's middle class and the benefits resulting from doing that?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that the Canada child benefit, for example, has had a very important effect on the economy. In fact, it has helped ignite it. We have the lowest unemployment rate in 10 years, we have created 450,000 jobs in the last two years alone and, as I said in my speech, the unemployment rate remains quite low and the growth rate quite high. It is a very important observation.

However, in the past during times of great economic growth, income disparity widened. The people making good amounts of money were making even more money, and the people on the margins were making less. Income disparity widened in what were probably some of the best times in history, and one thing that our government aims to do is to narrow that gap and ensure that the disparity between the rich and the poor does not increase. We aim to create an equal playing field so that children, regardless of the circumstances they are born into, have the same rights and opportunities in life and will not be limited in what they can and cannot do because of the financial circumstances of their families.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with my colleague, the member for Peace River—Westlock.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to round two of the 2017 budget implementation bill, also known as The Wizard of Oz act, as the government yells, “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain”, in an effort to distract Canadians from the ethical meltdown the finance minister has been having with his conflict of interest scandals. Unfortunately, for the man behind the curtain, the finance minister, Canadians are paying attention to his actions and the fact he was just fined by the Ethics Commissioner for not bothering to follow our conflict of interest laws.

I cannot help but think of what other Wizard of Oz characters we might be reminded of by the government: someone like the “Tin Man” without a heart, who is raising taxes on Canadians with diabetes and those suffering from mental illnesses; perhaps a “Dorothy” looking for a home, just not in southern France; and, of course, there is the “Scarecrow” who desires nothing else but a brain. This could apply to any number of cabinet ministers, whether it is someone using government resources to help a family member in a municipal election in Calgary or mistakenly claiming the military glory of soldiers, or perhaps starting Phoenix when we all knew it was just not ready, but I digress.

Much like the tornado that swept through Kansas, the ethical storm encompassing the finance minister has cast the Liberals into disarray. After spending the summer attacking small businesses and entrepreneurs, including mom and pop shops, farmers, and doctors, and declaring them to be tax cheats who need to pay more, the Liberals are pouring money out the door, trying to get Canadians to forget.

The Liberals have suddenly reinstated the previous Conservative government's small business tax cut. They make bigger, more grandiose promises, accumulating even more debt on the backs of our children and grandchildren. They are spending like mad and claiming their plan is working. They beg us, “Please, do not look at the man behind the curtain. Everything is fine. I know you want to talk about the ethics issues, but maybe you would like some money instead,” they cry.

The minister has the audacity to argue that massive spending increases were part of the plan all along, that the wizard knows best, but Canadians are not buying this. They know that the Liberals are broke and that the tax hikes just fuel their relentless spending and nothing else.

Here we are, after last week's fall economic update and the Liberals' re-profiling of another $2 billion in infrastructure spending to next year, and their banking of billions in a one-time accounting adjustment, with their finding themselves with a few extra billion to spend this year. That is how they spin the story anyways.

The Liberals forget it is not really extra money, but rather that the deficit that will come in $8 billion above their campaign promise, instead of the $12 billion they originally thought. It is like someone taking $20 from the right pocket, putting it in the left pocket, and then trying to convince themselves they are now $20 richer.

The Liberals say it is okay, because we have record growth, hundreds of thousands of jobs, with the majority of them in the private sector. Unfortunately, the parliamentary budget officer's report crushes this Liberal spin like a house dropping on the wicked witch of the east.

First, there is the claim that the majority of jobs are in the private sector. According to the PBO report that just came out following the fall economic update, just 4% of job growth was in what the PBO classifies as the private sector; 47% was in the public sector; and 49% was in self-employment.

It is ironic that the Liberals spent months attacking self-employed entrepreneurs, trying to hike their taxes, calling them tax dodgers and accusing them of exploiting loopholes to avoid paying their fair share of taxes, and now they are claiming responsibility for creating these wonderful new jobs.

Note as well that the other half of the job gains is due to public sector hiring. That is not to say that public service work is not valued. Even MPs contribute once in a while, but it is ridiculous to assume that economic growth can be sustained through public sector growth.

As for the drop in the unemployment rate, well, the PBO notes that 0.6 points or 7.5% of it was due to people simply leaving the workforce, having given up on trying to find a job. We know that the employment numbers are not great and are mostly independent of what the Liberals have done.

Maybe economic growth is the high point. Let us look at economic growth.

The growth so far this year was driven by record levels of household debt spending and a rebound in the energy sector from the lows of last year. Canada's real GDP growth is projected to slow to just 1.6% in two years. That is hardly the state of economic nirvana the Prime Minister promised when he took the country's finances deep into the red.

What about that pesky deficit? The Liberals pegged it at $18 billion this year, while the PBO says it is more likely going to be $20 billion. Who is right? I tend to believe the PBO's crystal ball above the Liberal's spin.

The PBO further projects that there is only a 10% chance that the budget will be balanced in 2019. If we remember, that is when the Liberals said they would balance the budget by. Put another way, there is only a 10% chance the Liberals will keep a key campaign promise from the 2015 election. Imagine if Canadians had known the odds of the Liberals keeping their other election promises. They would have known there was a 0% chance the Liberals would keep their promise on electoral reform, a 0% chance the Liberals would keep their promise to reform access to information, a 0% chance the Liberals would keep their promise to act ethically and responsibly with respect to Canadians and our democratic institutions, but a 100% chance the Liberals would break their promise to keep the deficit to just $10 billion a year.

Besides misleading Canadians by making promises they had no intention of keeping, the Liberals are asking us to blindly follow them further down the red-ink brick road. With 1.6% real GDP growth, and deficits ballooning up to $20 billion, it means that in the event of a fiscal shock, such as the Americans pulling out of NAFTA or a housing market meltdown, the Liberals have left no room to manoeuvre.

If only Canada had a previous government on which to draw parallels. If only we could determine what happens if the government spends recklessly, borrows indiscriminately, and casts aside any respect for fiscal responsibility. Right, we do have that. Trudeau senior spent like a drunken sailor, with apologies to drunken sailors for the comparison. The words “fiscal responsibility” at that time apparently did not translate into both official languages. Subsequent governments needed to cut programs mercilessly for health care transfers and other services to make up for the sins of the father. It seems the Prime Minister has not learned, and Canadians are now doomed to pay the price.

What might we get instead from this trip down the red-ink brick road? Let us look at the numbers from the PBO. By 2021, public debt charges will cost about 11% of total federal expenditures, or roughly $37 billion a year in interest payments, which is $13 billion above what it is now.

There is a saying that for every Liberal policy, there is a victim. Let us see what this money spent on interest could have been spent on instead.

Remember when the Liberals promised, and then reneged, on their $3 billion for palliative care? They could have kept that promise 12 times over every year.

They could finally go ahead and purchase the politically motivated sole-sourced Super Hornets and still have money to buy dozens and dozens of F-35s every single year.

According to the numbers provided by the Canadian Observatory on Homelessness, in 14 months we could solve homelessness in Canada.

With that money, we could provide free tuition for every single student in Canada. We could fund pharmacare for the entire population and have money to spare.

That money would not go as far as it used to, because it would not be enough, unfortunately, to cover the electricity overcharges from the Ontario Liberal Party's green energy scam. A dollar does not go as far as it used to.

The last thing I want to touch on is the PBO's warning on economic downward risks. The PBO says “the most important risk is weaker business investment” and that “increased uncertainty and/or weaker confidence could restrain firms from expanding capacity.”

With the red tape strangulation death of energy east, the total amount of disinvestment from energy companies alone has reached $56 billion. C.D. Howe is saying that business investment in Canada is at its worst level, compared to the U.S., in 25 years. It said to increase investment, we need “faster and more certain regulatory processes, affordable electricity and lower taxes”. What do we get? We get more regulatory red tape and uncertainty, higher prices for electricity because of green schemes, and higher taxes.

In the book Glinda of Oz, which is the final book written in the series by Oz creator Frank Baum, it is revealed that the witches knew all along that the man behind the curtain was a fraud trying to distract us from the truth. We know that this fall economic statement wizard is a fraud as well. There is no progress for the middle class, just higher debt, higher taxes, and a future of slow growth and uncertainty.

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in closing, the member mentioned higher taxes due to our government, but our government is lowering taxes on small businesses. It is at 10.5% currently and will go down to 9% in 2019. I want to ask the member what he means by higher taxes. We have lowered taxes for the middle class from 22% to 20.5%, and we have also increased money for those families that need it the most. I want to ask which taxes he is talking about that are increasing.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is almost like a softball question: what have the Liberals done to raise taxes? I would like to thank my colleague.

The Fraser Institute has shown that the Liberal middle-class tax cut has actually resulted in 81% of the so-called middle class actually paying higher taxes than before.

Under the previous government, we had promised to lower the small business tax to 9%. The Liberals at the time, during the election, said they would do the same and copycat the NDP. What happened when they got in? In the first budget, oops, no small business tax cut. In the next budget, oops, there was no small business tax cut. It took small business people from around the country rising up against the incredible, insulting tax attack on small businesses for the government to finally come through on its promise from two years ago.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his very well documented speech. He provided a very nice overview of the current economic situation.

I was also pleasantly surprised to hear him talk about the savings we might make that could help us provide, for example, a more affordable education to our young people. I commend him on that.

I am sure I know the answer, but does my colleague think that combatting tax evasion is one of the things the Liberals have yet to address? We see incredible cases of tax evasion in Canada, but it is also being done right before our eyes in the House of Commons.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the NDP is right. What is going to happen in 2021 if the spending stays the same is that we will have interest payments of $36 billion. That is money taken away from students. That is money taken away from the poor. That is services we could be providing across the country. Instead, we are going to pay it to foreign banks in the form of interest.

With respect to tax evasion, we have seen what the government's policy and focus is on. It is focusing on sufferers of type 1 diabetes. It is focusing on people suffering from mental illnesses. These are not the tax evaders in the country. These people need help, not taxes, from the current Liberal government.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member from the Liberal Party is talking about how the Liberals are lowering taxes. Nothing could be further from the truth. We know, at least in my riding of Simcoe—Grey, that small businesses are suffering. They know what tsunami is about to hit them with increased taxes, whether it be 54% to 73% or even personal income taxes. We know what happened with the disability tax credit. It was eliminated altogether for those with diabetes.

I would like to ask my colleague what he thinks the cumulative effect will be on these affected individuals and businesses in his local area. Is he hearing from his constituents how damaging this is to families?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear what is happening in my constituency. We are having issues with unemployment. People are coming to our office every day saying that they cannot take any more. It is one more straw that breaks the camel's back. Instead of a straw, the current government is dumping a bale of hay on the camel's back, with higher taxes on small businesses and taking away tax credits, and it goes on. Canadians cannot take any more. The government needs to take a hard look at what it is doing and the damage it is doing to average, everyday Canadians. It needs to take a step back, stop the tax increases, and stop the wasteful spending.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to stand today to talk about the terrorizing of the middle class, which is what I think is going on here.

The Liberals have gone on and on about how they are the champions of the middle class. We are not sure what they define as the middle class. I can tell members a little about the people where I come from. I come from northern Alberta. We are a hard-working bunch. We are typically in the farming and forestry industries and the oil patch and those kinds of things.

What was most interesting to me about this budget implementation bill was when the Liberals came out with the ways and means motion. I was reading through it, and what I came across was very interesting. I must say that it is dry reading, but when I was near the end, I ran across the meaning of beer. I never thought that as MPs, we would be discussing the meaning of beer, but the meaning of beer is in the current budget.

Beer is definitely something folks in Canada consume. I think about $22 billion a year is consumed, and this translates into revenue for the government of about $6 billion. Where I come from, beer is a big part of everyday life. It is a part of what I would consider middle-class Canadians consume. It is in contrast with maybe champagne or wine. I think the vast majority of Canadians consume more beer than wine. If I would make a comparison, I would say that there is somewhat of a class distinction, perhaps, between beer and wine. I would say that the middle class would more likely drink beer than wine.

When the government decides that it is going to define beer, it defines it as “any product (other than wine...)” which to me is very interesting. Why would the government want to define beer as other than wine? I looked at this through the lens of the middle class particularly. This is what the government wants to talk about all the time. This is the budget for the middle class. It is the government that champions the middle class. Why would it want to define beer as anything other than wine? Well, it made sense to me. We need to ensure that the middle class is getting its fair share, and I have laid out the fact that the middle class consumes beer.

[An hon. member]

What do you have against beer?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

I do not have anything against beer. I am saying that the middle class consumes beer. I asked why the middle class would be taxed on beer. What are the Liberals doing with the tax on beer? They are raising the tax on beer. This is the government that continually says it needs to stand up for the middle class. I made the argument that the middle class drinks beer. Why is the government raising the taxes on beer?

It goes on from there. The middle class drinks beer and understands that taxes are being raised, but then the Liberals come up with a formula for how they are going to tax beer. Believe me, it is quite a doozy. The formula is A x B x C = the tax that has to be paid on beer.

Why would there need to be a difference in the tax rate between beer and wine? It seems to me that there would be a fairly simple way of taxing beer and wine, if we need to tax beer and wine. It would seem that the product of concern we are trying to tax is the alcohol. Every bottle of beer I have ever bought says right on it 0.5%, 5%, or 7% alcohol. It seems to me that it would be fairly easy to figure out the volume of alcohol, and we would have a standard rate. For a volume of alcohol, this is how much tax there would be.

However, no, the minister must get involved to determine what kind of beer we are dealing with or what the percentage is. Therefore, in the equation I mentioned earlier, A x B x C, A is for the quantity and litres of beer concentrate, and B is the particular method by which the beer is diluted, as approved by the minister. This is very interesting to me.

Why does the minister need to approve the production of beer on a particular case? Why would that manipulate the changes in the rate of tax that a particular beer company pays? Perhaps it is because one of those numbered companies that we continue to ask about may actually be a beer brewing company. That would be why the minister has to get involved in beer production. He needs to ensure that his beer company does not have to pay as much tax.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

We used the same formula as Harper.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Either way, Mr. Speaker, they were standing up for the middle class. I assume they were trying to lower the taxes on beer, which would make sense if they were trying to stand up for the middle class. However, no, the minister has to get involved with the dilution of beer.

We can see that already, just in my short time speaking about the meaning of beer, that the Liberals definitely do not have the best interests of Canadians at heart.

The Liberals said that they would bring in a carbon tax. It takes energy to produce beer. That means those breweries have to be heated. We live in Canada, a cold place, and believe it or not, it takes a lot of water to make a bottle of beer. All that water has to be kept warm somehow. Now, there is a fermentation process that happens when beer is produced and that creates a bunch of heat in and of itself. However, we still need to keep the rest of the building warm, so therefore we need to use some form of energy, typically natural gas or coal. This kind of energy is now going to be taxed with the carbon tax. This is adding an additional cost to our breweries, which is also increasing the price of beer.

In my last few remaining minutes, I want to talk a bit about the document that was given to each of us when the government tabled its new budget. Interestingly, I thought for sure that if this was a budget for the middle class, it would be straightforward, easy to understand, with no bafflegab in it.

Page 154 of the ways and means motion talks about the provision of information by a master pension entity. I am sure many middle-class Canadians, many Canadians in my riding, have no idea what a master pension entity is. I started to read through it, and I will read some of this so people back home understand what we have to deal with every day when it comes to the Liberal government.

Paragraph (d), on page 156, states:

...an amount of tax deemed to have been collected under any of subsections (5) to (7.1) by another participating employer of the pension plan in respect of a specified supply of the other participating employer to the pension plan during a fiscal year of the other participating employer that ends in the preceding fiscal year, provided that the other participating employer is related at any time in the preceding fiscal year to the particular participating employer, less the amount, if any, determined for B under paragraph (c) of whichever of those subsections is applicable in determining that amount of tax...

This is the budget for the middle class. It is completely understandable and straightforward, lowering the costs for everybody and ensuring that at the end of the year, people will only have to pay $800 more than they paid last year. That is what is going on in the budget and that is what we are going up against today.

I know my colleagues and I in the Conservative Party will adamantly vote against this budget because it does nothing for the middle class.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned that the budget and the bills were hard to understand at times. Legal texts are hard to understand. I have to give him credit, as his speech, in and of itself, was hard to follow. Trying to connect the dots has been a great exercise for me, with all the various avenues he has taken.

At the beginning of his speech, he questioned the definition of “middle class”. I understand he defines it in terms of what people drink. Is it beer or is it wine? I come not from the middle class but from a background where I was one of those working hard to join the middle class, and we enjoyed red wine a lot. That does not define us in any way, shape or form. Nor do the kinds of products we consume.

However, on this side, our definition of “middle class” is more with respect to the capacity people have to pay their bills at the end of the month. That is what is defining our ambition as a government, to ensure families that need it the most get the most money at the end of the month so they can pay their bills, raise their children, and have the opportunities all Canadians deserve for success. That is why we made the Canada child benefit more generous, more progressive, and tax free, while the Conservatives were sending it to millionaires. If that is their definition of “middle class”, then when they increased the TFSA limit, who were they targeting? Was it the middle class? Therefore, I would like to know his definition based of what people earn and their capacity to make ends meet more so than what they drink.

I have a comment for clarification. As we are talking about Bill C-63 and beer, we have done this. A beer concentrate has been developed. We do not want to tax it as a spirit; we want to tax it as the volume of beer it creates. We received this from the industry. We followed through on it, and stakeholders are happy about it.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, every family looks at whether they can pay their bills at the end of the month. The government is raising taxes on everyday Canadians. The average family is paying $800 more a year in taxes. Besides that, it is adding, on average, $500 per person to the national debt of our country every year. That means when we are born, we are born with a $23,000 debt just for being alive and for being Canadian. “Welcome to Canada. You now have a $23,000 debt.”

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

Mr. Speaker, I hate to correct my friend, but we have to get the terminology right. It is the middle class and “those working hard to join it.” I found out that when Liberal colleagues use that exact phrasing, including the Prime Minister, they get a cookie every time. Therefore, if Conservative colleagues are looking for the same opportunity, here is a question about the middle class, which is the obsession of the 1% finance minister, or the 1% of the 1% finance minister, because I want to get the numbers right.

The Liberals promised to curb a loophole in the Income Tax Act whereby people would be paid in stock dividends rather than by salary and would receive a much more beneficial tax treatment. They promised to shrink and close that loophole. It costs the treasury about $800 million a year. Compare that to some of the attacks the Liberals have made on small businesses, where just one portion of what they were going after. They called those “loopholes” and inferred at times that small businesses were tax cheats. That was meant to bring in about $220 million to the treasury. By actually fulfilling the campaign promise, on which the Liberals ran, to close down these CEO stock option loopholes, they would have brought in almost four times as much money.

How many middle-class Canadians does the member know in his riding who are not paid by salary or by hourly wage but by stock options from the companies for which they work?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I did not research it, so I do not know how many people in my riding are paid by stock options. However, what I did research was the price of beer and how many Canadians consumed it. It turns out that 44% of Canadians consume beer. It is interesting that when it comes to beer, nearly a majority of Canadians enjoy their beer. The government is raising the taxes on that significantly, in perpetuity. Therefore, I appreciate the comments we received from the member, but when it comes to closing tax loopholes, obviously the government is closing the tax loophole on beer, ensuring we have to pay a tax on beer.

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River.

Those in Waterloo region are very fortunate. The national unemployment rate is 6.2%, a nine-year low. Kitchener's unemployment rate is just 4.5% and it is experiencing an almost 5% job growth.

Our plan seems to be working. Canada's economy is the fastest-growing economy in the G7. Canada's economy is growing faster than it has in a decade. Job growth is among the highest in a decade. In just two years, over 450,000 jobs have been created. Canada has the lowest unemployment since 2008.

Youth unemployment is the lowest on record. In 2015, the national unemployment rate was around 7% and youth unemployment was double the national average. In my riding of Kitchener South—Hespeler, our doubling of the Canada summer job program has meant that for the past two summers, we have made a half a million dollars available to help social service agencies and private enterprises create summer jobs for young people, which will help them build their work experience, their resumés and equip them with the necessary skills they will need after graduating to secure good, well-paying jobs.

As a result of the excellent growth of our economy, government revenues have grown by more than an estimated $6.5 billion annually, on average, improving our budget to the extent that we are able to index the Canada child benefit two years ahead of our original plan.

In the last month for which I have figures, the Canada child benefit has meant that in my riding of Kitchener South—Hespeler, a total of 10,770 payments were made, benefiting just over 19,000 children. That is more than $6 million a month that moms and dads in Kitchener South—Hespeler have to buy clothes for their kids, shoes, school supplies, nutritious food, and learning and recreational activities. That money can now be spent locally in my riding.

Not only do nine out of 10 families in Canada now have more money to spend, not only have 300,000 children been lifted out of poverty, but economic experts, including the governor of the Bank of Canada, tell us that the Canada child benefit has been highly stimulative, which means that it has been very good at growing our economy. That should not surprise anyone.

The North American economy, Canada's economy included, is consumer-driven. When parents' responsibilities require them to spend on necessities for their children, the economy improves and grows, sales increase, profits rise, and employment increases. Therefore, the Canada child benefit helps parents raising the next generation and, at the same time, helps grow our economy.

As promised in our election campaign platform, we are lowering the small business tax rate from 11% to 9% to help small businesses invest, create jobs, and grow. Dan Kelly, with the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, said, “This decision will pump hundreds of millions of dollars back into the small business community, helping them create more jobs and grow the economy.” Therefore, not only have we improved the situation of families with children and caused the economy to grow, thereby improving business, but we have also reduced the tax burden on household businesses.

We have also been investing in transit, such as the Waterloo region LRT. We are investing in Canada and Canadians. Over the past year, I participated in a number of announcements and investments in my riding of Kitchener South—Hespeler, and I would like to outline some of those now.

There was a $15.8-million investment in Conestoga College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning. As a result of this investment and investments like it, students, professors, and researchers will work at state-of-the-art facilities to advance the country's best researchers. They will collaborate in specially designed spaces that support lifelong learning skills and training. They will work in close proximity with partners to turn discoveries into products and services. In the process, they will train for and invent the high-value jobs of the future. Their discoveries will plant the seeds for the next generation of innovators.

We will be investing $2.7 million in 3E Nano Inc. of Kitchener. 3E Nano produces a window coating that will make it easy to defrost car windows and make windows more energy efficient by increasing energy retention or rejection without reducing clarity.

We will make a repayable contribution of up to $3 million to Grand River Foods Ltd. in Hespeler to increase production and explore new export opportunities.

Our government will provide $96 million to widen Highway 401 from six to ten lanes for a distance of approximately five kilometres, between Hespeler Road and Townline Road. The work includes new high occupancy vehicle lanes and the replacement of two bridges at Hespeler Road and Franklin Boulevard over Highway 401. Once completed, the project will help improve safety and traffic flow by easing congestion and providing faster and more reliable travel and commute times on one of Canada's most important trade corridors. The addition of high-occupancy vehicle lanes will promote environmentally friendly transportation, such as carpooling and the use of public transit. By widening and improving the highways, we can get products to market faster, adding to the growth rate and continued success of our current economy.

We are also building an innovative economy that will create more good jobs for the middle class today and in the future. As part of our innovation and skills plan, we are investing nearly $1 billion over five years to create jobs and accelerate innovation through superclusters.

Superclusters are innovation hotbeds. They are areas of high growth, like Silicon Valley, that bring together the most talented people, the newest technologies, and the fastest growing companies. This is what we want to create in regions across Canada.

This legislation will take the next steps in our innovation and skills plan, an agenda that focuses on people and addresses the changing nature of the economy to ensure that it works for all Canadians. It will enact several key parts of our plan, including $600 million in new financing for clean technology firms and $400 million to put into place the venture capital catalyst initiative.

I want to conclude by mentioning some of the initiatives that our government has put forward. We have put forward an economic plan that has created 450,000 jobs in two years. The unemployment rate was at 7% when we took office and it is now down to 6.2%. The economy is growing faster, at an average pace of 3.7%. Canada has the fastest growing economy in the G7. Nine out of ten families have benefited from the child benefit, and we have lifted over 300,000 children out of poverty.

I want to share that record with the members of the House to show that our record is successful, it is working, and it is working for most Canadians.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is really important as parents that we talk to our kids about financial literacy. Our government put that concept forward and I think the Liberal government has put some resources toward it.

When we teach our kids about financial literacy, it is important that we tell them not to borrow money on credit cards to a point where the debt cannot be paid down.

We just had the government's fall economic update. The Liberal government promised a small $10 billion deficit. This time around it is $20 billion. In the last two years, the deficit has been closer to $30 billion. The Liberals brag about all of the money they are handing out to Canadians, but the reality is that this year alone a family of four will be further in debt by $2,222 approximately. During bad times the Liberals like to spend money. Now they say we are in good times so they are spending more. The deficit is twice the amount they promised. That is Liberal ideology.

Does the member believe in financial literacy for children? If so, does he believe in financial literacy for the government, because it is putting us further in debt even in good times?

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that gives me an opportunity to talk about this further and to address the member's question on financial literacy. One thing I want to say is that the way we grow our economy is by making investments in our middle class and in business. We have lowered the tax rate on small business from 11% down to 10.5%, and will be lowering it even further to 9%. We are lowering taxes on businesses, increasing investment, and increasing infrastructure. The latter include the highest numbers we have seen, with billions of dollars being put into infrastructure. I have seen in my riding how that will help our region. Investments are the way to grow the economy.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw to the hon. member's attention to one concern that I have, which I hope we can correct at some point very soon. That is the fact that the proposed 10 days of unpaid leave of absence for victims of domestic violence might not help very many people. I will point out what I have shared with the member's colleague.

For the many women in particular who are in abusive relationships, 90% of them are also economically controlled by their partner. We can imagine a scenario in which an individual has taken unpaid leave from their job to deal with an issue, to maybe see a lawyer or to take care of some issues in order to be safe, and then come home at the end of the month and their pay is less than what it should be. That will create an unsafe scenario in some families.

I really want to call my colleague's attention to how important it is that this leave be paid if it is to be an effective policy piece by the government. I would like the member's comments on that.

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to express support for this bill and address the question of the hon. member. As a result of the bill, the Canada Labour Code would allow for greater flexibility in terms of vacation days, holidays, and bereavement days. This is something that we wanted to do to ensure that the labour code is particular to the times we live in. We want to continue to work with all of our colleagues to look at ways we can help all Canadians with work-life balance. I want to work closely with my colleague and all members of the House going forward.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague hit the nail on the head when he said that we are investing in Canadians and that it is paying off. When he goes door knocking in his riding of Kitchener South—Hespeler, what is he hearing about those investments, particularly the Canada child benefit and the other investments we are making in Canadians?

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have friends on BBM, where we have a group chat. In our case, the topic was to alert all parents out there that the Canada child benefit would be increasing again in 2019. They were very happy to hear that because they know that the cost of raising their children is increasing and that this will go directly to their families to help them with that and to ensure that they spend more. That spending will go directly to our economy and will continue to boost it.

[Don Rusnak, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-63. We know that when it passes, this very important legislation will continue the government's plan to ensure progress for the Canadian middle class.

We are keeping our promise and delivering on what Canadians want us to do, to build an economy that works for Canadians and their families. A strengthened middle class means that hard-working Canadians and their children will reap the benefits of their work and will be prepared for the economy of tomorrow.

A vital component of that is supporting our small businesses, which are the lifeblood of the Canadian economy. Just last month, the government announced that it intends to lower the small business tax rate to 10%, effective January 1, 2018, and to 9%, effective January 1, 2019. We will make sure that the small business rate is effective in encouraging businesses to grow, buy new equipment, and hire more workers.

I would now like to focus on the state of our economy and the recent measures in the government's fall economic statement, which is a continuation of the government's plan in its past two budgets and last year's fall statement. The government's plan to invest in people and in our country's future is based on the belief that when we have an economy that works for the middle class, we have a country that works for everyone.

The Canadian economy is the fastest growing in the G7, with an average growth of 3.7% over the last four quarters. This is due in large part to increased consumer confidence, a direct result of programs like the Canada child benefit that put more money in the pockets of moms and dads, so they can pay off debt, buy hockey equipment, or buy healthier food. Everywhere we look, there are signs of progress for the middle class. The economy has created over 450,000 jobs in the last two years, and the unemployment rate has dropped to its lowest level since 2008.

Canadian economic growth has accelerated sharply since the second half of 2016. Over the last four quarters, the Canadian economy has had its fastest rate of growth in more than a decade, and growth is forecast to be 3.1% in 2017, significantly above expectations at the beginning of the year.

These gains, coupled with a better than expected fiscal outcome in 2016-17, have resulted in a really positive improvement in our budget outlook. In fact, Canada's fiscal outlook has improved by over $6.5 billion annually, on average, compared to what we were expecting in March, and the federal debt to GDP ratio has been placed firmly on a downward track, with Canada's net debt to GDP ratio projected to remain the lowest in the G7.

How did we get here? In the short term, we did what Canadians asked us to do, by making smart investments to grow the economy, and strengthening and growing the middle class. We asked the wealthiest 1% to pay a little more so we could cut taxes for the middle class. We increased the guaranteed income supplement for low-income seniors. We introduced a new tax-free Canada child benefit, CCB, to replace the previous child benefit system.

The CCB provides greater support to those who need it most: low and middle-income families. Sixty-five per cent of families receiving the maximum CCB amounts are single parents, of whom 90% are single mothers. Nine out of 10 families are receiving more support under the CCB than under the previous system. The CCB has helped lift 300,000 children out of poverty, and by the end of this year, child poverty will have been reduced by 40% from what it was in 2013.

In the fall economic statement, the government proposed strengthening the CCB by making annual cost of living increases starting in July 2018, a full two years ahead of schedule. The government had previously committed to indexing the CCB to inflation starting in 2020, but a growing economy and improved fiscal track means that the government can deliver on this commitment a full two years ahead of schedule.

We are also strengthening the Canada pension plan, reaching an historic agreement with the provinces that will increase the maximum benefit by 50% over time.

However, there is more work to do, and as our plan helps grow the economy, we are investing that growth back in the middle class and those working hard to join it. For those working hard to join the middle class, such as young single workers just getting a foothold in the workforce, the government proposes to offer even more help by further enhancing the working income tax benefit, or WITB. The WITB is a refundable tax credit that supplements the earnings of low-income workers. It provides important income support and helps ensure that work is rewarded. In the fall economic statement, the government proposed to further enhance the WITB by $500 million annually, starting in 2019. This enhancement would be in addition to the increase of about $250 million annually that would come into effect in that year as part of the enhancement to the Canada pension plan.

The enhancement proposed in the fall economic statement will give a needed boost to over 1.5 million low-income workers as they work long hours, sometimes in more than one job, to advance their careers, support themselves, and their families. Whether this extra money is used to help cover the family grocery bill or for work-related expenses, the improved benefit will help low-income working Canadians make ends meet.

The investments we have made in people, in our communities, and in our economy will put more money in the pockets of those who need it most, create more well-paying jobs, and give Canadians greater confidence in their future.

Our budget is a call to action. It calls on each and every one of us to take this moment in history and to make it ours. That is why I would strongly encourage all members of the House to support this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, the last member quoted Dan Kelly from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. It is amazing that he would quote him, given what the CFIB has said about the government's plan and continuing intentions to attack small business. Indeed, Mr. has Kelly stated:

These proposals, while intended to target the wealthy, will hurt middle-class business owners from every sector of the economy. These are shop owners, farmers, doctors, financial planners, homebuilders and trades in all sectors...

As well, Perrin Beatty, the CEO of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce has said:

In 10 years at the Canadian Chamber, I’ve never seen an issue that has generated greater concern among our members.

That is quite incredible. I wonder if the member could comment on that.

Mr. Speaker, before I do, I wonder if you would see whether we have a quorum in the House at the moment.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

On that point of order, we do not have a quorum. Please ring the bells.

And the bells having rung:

We now have a quorum.

The hon. member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River.

[Don Rusnak, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quoting articles from when the government first put out its proposals. I have often said that no government in history has put out proposals and asked for consultation as we have with the minister's tax fairness plan.

We have listened to and heard Canadians. We have made changes to the tax plan. The minister has said from the beginning that he did not want any unintended consequences in terms of tax fairness, and I think that is what has been delivered.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on that point.

The government has told me when they do their polling and focus groups, a lot of their supporters love the notion of consultation. They should ask a more specific question about meaningful consultation. If we remember the actual history of the small business tax proposal, it went out for weeks and even passed the deadline, with the minister saying, “We did it the way we intended to do it.”

It was only when other controversies began to arise, such as when reporters discovered the French villa that had not been disclosed to the Ethics Commissioner, for which the finance minister has now been fined, and when we found out about his numbered companies and a cloud of concern and suspicion started to grow over his head, that the Liberals suddenly developed some humility about what they had been proposing.

The irony is that the loopholes the finance minister had accused small business of using were not loopholes in a legal sense, but were intended to allow for succession, and the finance minister was employing other ethical loopholes and had arranged his own affairs to avoid taxation by putting his assets in numbered companies and moving them to Alberta. It is an interesting way for him to conduct himself.

My question is this. The Liberals campaigned on a promise to close a stock option loophole that exists. However, it only applies to the 1%, generally speaking, this loophole that allows someone to be paid in stock options and to pay a much lower tax rate. The Liberals campaigned and said they would shrink and close that loophole. When I looked through the 300-plus pages, I do not see that happening. I do not see that promise being kept. I am wondering, if not now, then when? Will it take a little more scandal and controversy to bring the finance minister and the government to fulfill its promise to Canadians?

[Don Rusnak, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question, but I disagree with the premise of it.

I went out and spoke to members of the business community in Thunder Bay—Rainy River throughout the consultation period. We received answers from the Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce, small business groups across the riding, and small businesses in Fort Francis. We brought that information to the minister and the department to get the right piece of legislation before this House.

I do not know if the member consulted with his business community, but I certainly did in my riding, and I encourage all members to consult with their members across their regions.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Essex, Softwood Lumber; the hon. member for Saskatoon West, Public Transportation; the hon. member for Drummond, Official Languages.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be sharing my time this afternoon with my friend from Vancouver East, who I know will bring great illumination.

For my friend from Thunder Bay, before he ducks out, I held consultations with my business community in Smithers and in Terrace and received copious amounts of correspondence on his government's ham-fisted, wrong approach to the small business community. If he hearkens back to where this all generates from, he will remember that the Prime Minister, when campaigning for the job of prime minister, said that there is a large number of small businesses that are only set up to avoid paying taxes. I remember hearing that and thinking how offensive that is. It came to me later on as to why the Prime Minister and perhaps the finance minister might think that. It is because the people they associate with use the small business tax code exactly for that purpose. However, when I think of small businesses that I represent in northwestern British Columbia, I think of actual small businesses that take the risk, go out into the marketplace, and try to make some money to feed their family and employ other Canadians.

I know it is a radical thought for the Liberals that this is actually what a small business does. However, some of our Liberal colleagues who are maybe entitled to a few more entitlements than others think of small businesses in a different way. If we followed from their philosophy, then their small business tax plan made perfect sense until we actually applied it to the real world and saw that their changes would inhibit farmers from passing on their farms, fishermen from passing on their businesses, and forestry companies. All these are small businesses that I represent. Only when pushed into scandal and controversy of their own making, did the humility and the ears start to open up a bit for the Liberals and they said that maybe they did not get this small business tax thing right.

Therefore, let us look through the bill at hand today. There are 330-odd pages of something connected to the budget. It would change 20 different laws in Canada, most of them financially connected. We can say this is an “omnibus light” I suppose, yet within these 330-odd pages there are a bunch of things we do not find.

Let me start with the good stuff because that is a shorter list. With respect to the Canada Labour Code, some new flexibility has been brought in for people to take leave to allow workers to make adjustments in their personal life. In a modern economy in 2017, this is welcome. There is also some small support for a geothermal industry. As we know, and as my colleague from Vancouver East knows, there is the whole Site C controversy. We know that when governments make bad energy policies, other good energy options are suddenly forgotten. A bit more geothermal industry in Canada and British Columbia would be welcome.

Let us move to what the majority of this bill would and would not do. In the context of where we are in the Canadian economy, we saw the surprise shrinkage in the last quarterly report of 0.1% of GDP down. That kind of took everyone a bit by surprise. The Liberals are going to have to update some of their talking notes about the robust economy. What is that economy founded on right now? We see Canadians carrying around still the highest personal debt rate of any G7 country, at 167% of disposable income. That is enormous. That is worse than it was in the U.S. at the 2008 financial crisis, just to have some context of where the Canadian personal debt load is harbouring right now. We do not see anything in this bill that would address that.

We also see the exorbitant use of offshore tax havens. The Liberals will get up again and again and say they are going to go after those tax havens and that they have hired more CRA auditors to go after them. The problem with their logic, that they know is a problem, is that the CRA auditors are going after small businesses and individuals because the tax havens, the ones that the Liberals have since signed on, are legal. They allow Canadians to legally offshore if they can afford it. If they are in the top per cent of a per cent, they can pay the lawyers and they can pay the fancy accountants to move their wealth off to a place like the Cook Islands. Therefore, it is kind of strange that the Liberals would sign a new tax haven treaty with a place like the Cook Islands. I do not know about other colleagues in the House, but the small businesses and the middle class and those working hard to join it, people whom I represent, are not able or interested in offshoring their wealth to the Cook Islands. Maybe it is friends of the finance minister who do this kind of thing, or maybe the Prime Minister himself. I am not sure, because we do not know a lot of what they hold, which is again the context of where we are in talking about all of this today.

We also see the stock option loophole. I had a small business before I entered politics and when I contracted out I did not pay people in stock options. When I talk to my middle-class friends and those working hard to join the middle class, I am told that they are not paid in stock options because it is not a normal procedure. In the last election, we New Democrats had actually said that it costs the treasury every year about $800 million, give or take, according to Statistics Canada and Finance Canada numbers. That is $800 million of forgone tax revenue.

We said that does not really generate anything for the Canadian economy. I know it generates more Ferrari sales. It might get a person another villa in France. However, it does not actually do anything for the working people of this country. Maybe we should close those loopholes.

Who agreed with the NDP on this? The Liberals agreed with us. Imagine that; they just cuddled right up to that policy on the left and said to Canadians, “Yes, us too”. We probably should have known better. When we appoint a finance minister like this one, the idea that he would ever do anything to hurt any of his friends at the country club should have been obvious to everybody.

The stock option loophole remains. It is going to cost us another $800 million this year, and next year, as it did last year. People want to know: what benefit does that get us, how many more kids does that help out of poverty, and how many more seniors does that help? Does it help on innovation? No, it does not, because there is a way to close that loophole that allows the true innovators in the tech sector or pharmaceuticals to start new companies off in a proper way, using stock options, not the Bay Street crowd, who just do not need that third villa or that fifth Maserati.

The question to the government is whether it actually believes anything it campaigned on. We are two years in. We are at the midway point. We see what it did to electoral reform. It was the thinnest of veils. When it came down to the point of actually delivering, the Prime Minister said something that hits the arrogance metre at a new level. He said that it was his decision to make, and he chose to make it. That is fascinating. That is a new structure of government that I am not used to, where people elect an individual member of Parliament, that party goes on to form a government, and suddenly the prime minister is bequeathed with all this power, so that he gets to make the electoral decisions he wants. We see that around poverty and other issues.

Let me return to this not-omnibus, near-omnibus bill, and it was the finance minister who sponsored this bill. We have asked him, time and again, to tell us something simple, in order to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest—which is the Prime Minister's standard, by the way: not just not being in a conflict of interest but not giving the appearance of being in a conflict of interest.

We know the finance minister has at least five numbered companies. For Canadians who do not have numbered companies, which is most Canadians, a numbered company allows members to avoid things like with the Ethics Commissioner. Members can have shares that they control—which they would not be allowed to do if it was in their name—in a numbered company, and as soon as it is moved into a numbered company, they can keep control of those shares that are now in a numbered company and beyond the touch of the Ethics Commissioner.

That is fascinating. The finance minister owns other numbered companies. He has two options when he will not tell us what is in them. One of the options is something the minister does not think he needs to do. The Prime Minister said ministers' personal affairs should bear the fullest public scrutiny. That means the public should know what is going on with the personal affairs, the financial affairs of everybody in cabinet. That is broken.

The second option is, with those numbered companies, if the finance minister actually followed through on that commitment that he made too, we would find out that there are other conflicts of interest. We saw this with the whole charade around Bill C-27. We saw this when we offered up a vote to the Liberals. Everyone can remember this; it was just recently. We asked for two simple things. We said that we thought an apology is owed from the finance minister for this entire ethical mess of his own making. We also said we should close those ethical loopholes that have been exploited.

What did the Liberals in good standing do? One after another, they all stood and said no. Canadians are a forgiving people in my experience. If people screw up and it was unintended and they say, “Sorry about that, I didn't mean to do that; here's my apology and here's how I'm going to make good”, most Canadians I know would respect that. That is about being a person of integrity, or a party of a integrity.

What we see from the party, from information, to access to information, and on down the line, is a government that does not believe in its own commitments that it made.

I know our friend from Winnipeg North will be tempted to jump up and say, “Oh, we're such a wonderful government.” However, he has to bear in mind that the promises he made to Canadians, the promises the Prime Minister made, in offering so much hope and change, are starting to look a bit weak, as day after day goes on and promise after promise falls off the attention, and the Liberals' latest argument is that it is better than Stephen Harper's government. I wonder how that pitch would have actually worked. The best argument the Liberals use, to be precise, is that Stephen Harper did it too.

If the Prime Minister had gotten up said this was his commitment to them, that he would do more or less what Stephen Harper did, when all those Liberals voters went out to vote, I am not sure the Liberals would be sitting where they are right now. That is the way elections go.

Having to get parties to actually keep their promises is the job that we are doing now, and on the bill before us, the Liberals missed an opportunity to get it right.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is so much I would love to say in response to the member's speech.

To start off, NDP members like to say that they take this high road in politics. I was in third-party status when we had to bring the NDP kicking and screaming into proactive disclosure. Nothing has happened with the Minister of Finance or any other minister, and I would suggest any member of this House, in regard to violations against the code of ethics. At the end of the day, the Minister of Finance has been very clear.

As we are focusing on Canadians and real life in Canada, and the member challenges what I would say, I would tell the residents of Winnipeg North that we are giving child benefits, giving guaranteed income supplement increases, taking children and seniors out of poverty, giving middle-class tax breaks, and having a tax on Canada's wealthiest. Also, we have had historic negotiations on the environment and on the Canada pension plan. This government has done more in two years than the former government did in 10 years, and every time we do something, the NDP members are consistent in saying no and voting no.

My question is this. Why does the member not stand up for the constituents he represents and vote yes when there are good initiatives coming from the government?

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

Mr. Speaker, if the member will let me know when those good initiatives show up, I will be there.

My friend from Winnipeg is good at spouting the talking points. However, here is one the Liberals did not talk about: the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, which is buried in here.

When a government has pride about something, is really excited about something, and wants Canadians to know about it, then it lets it stand alone in its shining glory. When it is not so proud of something, it bumps up this Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank from $256 million to $480 million—of borrowed money by the way, because the Liberals are running $20-billion deficits to do this. However, they plop this into the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, which does not even have similar safeguards to those the World Bank uses when it comes to human rights; when it comes to the environment, as my friend just mentioned; or when it comes to anything remotely close to being accountable to the Canadian people who are footing the bill for the whole exercise.

The member wants to talk about accountability and transparency and his love for his government's initiatives. I know this does not exist in the talking points, but how about he actually start walking the talk? That would be a good start.

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

Mr. Speaker, I found it quite shocking what was just said in the House by one of the members from the Liberal Party on this issue around how the Minister of Finance has not been seen to have done anything wrong. Maybe the member can confirm for me because I may have read the news wrong, but last I checked, the Minister of Finance was actually fined. He was seen as doing something wrong by the Ethics Commissioner, and he should be paying the price for that. However, maybe I got the message wrong.

On the point the member was making with regard to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, I share his concerns. This is a government, on the other side of the House, that has made these pronouncements about investment in infrastructure in Canada. Last I checked, China is not a province. Last I checked, China is not part of our sovereign nation. Could the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley comment on that, and how, I am sure, he agrees with me that we should be investing in infrastructure in Canada and not abroad?

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

Mr. Speaker, maybe the Prime Minister's plan is the opposite, which is to make Canada a province of China. If we look at the way the Liberals have gone through reviews of state-controlled companies from China buying up technology and aerospace firms, and firms that work alongside the military, we see it has been the Americans who have been raising far more concerns, even in the pick-up of a concrete and construction company that China is looking to buy right now. When I say China is looking to buy, I mean the Government of China. However, it is the Americans who are saying that, if we allow that sale to go ahead, they have concerns with the company and it will not be allowed to operate in the United States anymore, but go ahead and let the purchase go forward.

As for the finance minister, he has been fined. The Liberals stand up day after day and say that the finance minister has done everything right, and in fact, he has gone beyond. Why did he go beyond? It is because he got caught. What type of integrity is that when one does the right thing after being caught?

I have seven-year-old kids, and we talk about this kind of stuff. We try to guide them along the way to do the right thing out of the gate, so then they will not have to pay a fine, admit all these things, and start to suddenly make new-found charitable donations after realizing there is an investigation into their ethical behaviour.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-63. Budgets and budget implementation bills really tell us a lot. They tell us where a government's priorities lie, the political will of the government, so to speak, and how it will tackle the major issues that communities are faced with today. There are a few priorities and initiatives in this budget implementation bill that are welcome, but when we talk about a 329-page document containing 20 pieces of legislation embedded in this giant bill, a few are simply not enough.

New Democrats have been very clear about what we had hoped to see in this budget implementation bill. We wanted measures that make substantial strides in making our country greener and more equitable, measures that would make significant improvements in workplaces so that Canadians could have a better quality of life and seniors entering retirement would not see their savings ripped out from under them, such as what the government is doing in Bill C-27. We wanted an expansion of our health care system. There are a lot of seniors in my community who say they cannot afford their medications. There are a lot of people in my constituency who say they want dental care to be part of our pharmacare system. None of that is in this 329-page budget implementation bill.

The government is so good at saying there is a new nation-to-nation relationship and it wants to do right by the indigenous community. What do we not see? We do not see real action to address historic systemic discrimination against indigenous peoples in this budget implementation bill. We do not see any actions there. The government, despite all of its lofty rhetoric, fancy Facebook posts, tweets, social media, and so on, has failed once again, in my view, to adequately prioritize these important areas for Canadians.

This can be seen not just in Bill C-63, as I mentioned. We can also see what the government is trying to do in Bill C-27 and other tax measures. I will get into that a little. The government suggests that it is making the tax system more fair for Canadians, and yet its consultations—on the small business tax changes, the provisions in Bill C-27, which go after seniors' pensions, and the lack of action in Bill C-63 to address the real issues of the day—show otherwise.

Over the last 30 years, workers have helped our economy grow by some 50%, and yet salaries are stagnating and retirements are becoming less secure. Now the inequality gap in Canada between the richest and the majority of Canadians is growing faster and wider than in other developed nations. The richest 100 Canadians now have the same wealth as 10 million less fortunate Canadians combined. Canada's top 100 CEOs now make 193 times more than someone earning an average wage, and these CEOs had already out-earned the average Canadian's annual wage by 11:50 a.m. on January 3 of this year.

According to the Conference Board of Canada, Canada loses at least $8 billion a year through tax evasion and avoidance by the richest and largest corporations; 91% of this lost revenue goes back to the top 10% of income earners; and 50% of that goes to the top 1%.

New Democrats have been clear that regressive tax measures, such as the CEO stock option loophole, which costs the treasury an estimated $800 million per year, need to be closed. By the way, the Liberals promised that during the campaign. They said they were going to close the stock option loophole. What happened after the election? It was not on the agenda anymore.

The Liberals continue to fail to deliver with Bill C-63. The increasing use of tax havens to avoid taxes costs the treasury an estimated $7 billion per year. The NDP has called for action. The Liberals have yet again failed to deliver in Bill C-63 so that we can direct that $7 billion into much-needed support for Canadians in each of our ridings. The Liberals refuse to do that, and they justify it every day in the House with their talking points, pretending that they are doing right by Canadians.

We saw during the consultations that they floated ideas that do not address the main issues of the day, the things they promised during the campaign. Instead, they chose to target the small business community.

If that was not enough, the government then attempted to target low-earning retail workers, many of whom are minimum wage earners who are just trying to survive in an era when housing costs are increasing and they cannot afford to put food on the table. That is the government's priority.

I think the government did that so it could cast a shadow over the real agenda. They did it so that their friends on Bay Street would not have to be faced with the tax measures they promised they would bring in after they formed government. They did it so they could protect their friends and the well-to-do. As it happens, the Minister of Finance is among them, as we see in the ethical scandal he is mired in right now. Every day we learn more, although sometimes less, because he is working so hard to hide all that information. We are learning, though, that the finance minister is making a decision on Bill C-27, on pension benefits, so that he can, it turns out, benefit himself and his family with the shares he holds in the company.

We also learned that the finance minister is using numbered companies to avoid paying taxes. Is it any wonder the government has turned a blind eye to the priority of tackling where the low-hanging fruit is in terms of redirecting those monies to the treasury?

I do not see measures in Bill C-63 that many of the people in Vancouver East would like to see, and that I would venture to say many Canadians would like to see. Young parents and working mothers, who are often impacted the most, need better access to affordable, high-quality child care, yet we do not see any provisions in the bill for a national child care program. It would be an enormous benefit for women who need child care. It would benefit not only their family units and the children in terms of early childhood development but would benefit our overall economy. The government has failed to deliver on that.

I fail to see in this legislation anything to do with safe, secure, and affordable housing, which a lot of people are struggling with. The government talks a good talk about delivering a national affordable housing program, but where is that in Bill C-63?

Let me close with what Dr. Cindy Blackstock said:

There's nothing new in the budget for First Nations children and their families, in child welfare, or their implementation of the Jordan's Principle, even though they've been found out of compliance with legal orders to stop that inequality. It's a moral issue: is Canada so broke that the finance minister and the Prime Minister have made a deliberate choice to discriminate against little kids?

Bill C-63 misses the mark.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, earlier in this debate, the member for Oshawa talked about financial literacy. Unfortunately, he is regrettably confusing the situation of an individual with that of a country, which is more akin to a business. When one is confident in one's business or one's country, it can be wise to borrow so as to invest in needed infrastructure and to invest in Canadians. I am sure that he was not suggesting that Christine Lagarde, of the IMF, or the World Bank are financially illiterate when they say that Canada's approach is one that should be emulated around the world and should go viral.

In the interest of financial literacy, I would like to know the member's plan. When the New Democrats pushed for a progressive agenda back in 2015, under an austerity bound Conservative budget, how would they have achieved that progressive agenda? We are pushing that forward with the approach we have taken, which is working for the Canadian economy and for a more prosperous and inclusive economy.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Liberal members need to review what they promised during the campaign and the things they are failing to deliver on. It is now two years into the election cycle, and the list of broken promises the Liberals have brought forward is astounding.

On tax measures, the government likes to say that it wants to bring in measures to benefit the middle class and those working hard to join it. How about working hard to deliver for Canadians and less for those who are French villa owners, because that is what the government is doing.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard over and over again, and even through question period today, the government's response to our questions about misbehaviour on that side of the House. The response has been to trumpet the child benefits they have given to Canadians and how wonderful they are. They have even given us numbers, for each riding, as to how much each family has grown in income, with $500, $600, and $700 of income. This has been said over and over again for the past two years. I think it is the only thing they think they have actually accomplished, yet at the same time, we have been told that every family in Canada is now paying $800 more a year in taxes. That is not even including a lot of other things that are coming into play on the tax front.

How do you see their record as far as actually enabling Canadians to have more money to spend versus their fear that the taxman is coming to take it all away?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I just want to remind the hon. members to pose their questions through the Speaker. It makes it a lot easier.

The hon. member for Vancouver East.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I come from Vancouver East. We are not a particularly rich riding. In fact, we are one of the lowest-income ridings in the country. What my constituents consistently have said is that they want a government that will support them by providing the necessary services they depend on. For example, the seniors who are trying to go into retirement were not expecting the government to bring in a bill, Bill C-27, that would actually rip the pension they have earned right from under them so that companies, like the one the Minister of Finance has a personal interest in, would benefit.

My constituents have said that they want to see a national child care program so they can afford to go to work and support their families and their children can get the best support in early childhood development in those early years. We do not see that.

Housing affordability is a major issue in my community. It was the Liberal government back in 1993 that cancelled the national affordable housing program. As a result, our country lost more than half a million units of affordable housing. The Liberals campaigned on bringing back a national affordable housing program. It is now two years in. They say to wait for it, that it is coming. Why is it not here now? Do the people who are homeless today not deserve housing? Why is the government making them wait if it is really going to bring back a national affordable housing program?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is great to be here this afternoon with other passionate speakers we have heard from today on Bill C-63. I would like to present my humble view on Bill C-63, the budget implementation act, 2017, no. 2, which is the second and final piece of legislation to implement budget 2017.

Budget 2017, much like budget 2016, is built on a number of transformational measures our government has put in place that are benefiting Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Our government's commitment to the middle class and those working hard to join it is unwavering. Budget 2017 is delivering results in my riding, my dynamic and beautiful riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge, and across Canada.

We see the results of our plan with an economy that is growing at rate of over 3%. More importantly, approximately 450,000 Canadians now have jobs, most of them full time, and they are now able to provide a better future for their families.

In my riding, Vaughan—Woodbridge, we are seeing the impact the Canada child benefit is having.

In just a one-month period, families in my riding received a total of 9,140 payments that benefited 16,110 children, with an average payment of $470, and a total payout of $4.3 million. That is change. That is hope and hard work. That is keeping a commitment. On an annual basis, that is nearly $52 million going to families in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge. Those are monies that are going directly to help families pay for educational expenses, clothing for their children, and children's sports activities.

In fact, I am proud to say that the Governor of the Bank of Canada commented this week at the Standing Committee on Finance that the Canada child benefit provided a boost to the Canadian economy, a boost to the gross domestic product, of 0.5%. That is something to be applauded.

Our government believes that better is always possible, and I am proud to say that we have now committed to indexing the Canada child benefit, the CCB, a full two years early. Due to a strong economy, the fastest growth rate in the G7, and prudent financial management by our Minister of Finance, the member of Parliament for Toronto Centre, starting in July 2018, families will see their CCB indexed. This measure alone will provide Canadian families with an additional $5.6 billion to support them over the 2018-19 to 2022-23 period. For example, a single parent of two children, making $35,000 a year, will receive $560 more next year. It is tax-free, monthly, very simple, and very effective. They can use this money for books, skating lessons, or as winter approaches, warm clothes.

Governing is about helping families, and I am proud to state that the CCB has lifted approximately, looking at the data from 2013 to now, 300,000 children out of poverty in our country. Again, that is something to be applauded, and I would hope my colleagues on the other side would applaud that and vote for that.

When we speak about growing the economy and increasing the potential growth rate of the economy to improve the standard of living for all Canadians, the focus must be through the lens of innovation. Innovation is something that was absent in this House of Commons for the last 10 years. We need a focus on innovation and on helping companies in Canada innovate, grow, commercialize, and yes, earn money for their shareholders and do well.

Our government is delivering on this agenda. In the past few weeks, the minister of innovation announced the superclusters agenda, something that has been applauded by individuals and stakeholders from coast to coast to coast. It is something I am very proud to support, because it is the right thing to do to increase the capacity of this economy and to get Canadians working in good, high-paying jobs.

In the budget implementation legislation we have before us, we will include this innovation through further investments through the business development corporation. It will include $600 million in new financing for clean technology firms and $400 million that will be put in place for the venture capital catalyst initiative.

When we are thinking about clean technology and venture capital, we are thinking about incubators. We are thinking about people taking risks. We need to be there, partnering with these individuals.

When I think of clean technology, and I see what is happening globally with the amount of renewable energy being put in place to run facilities, whether it is a hospital or a school, Canada needs to be at the forefront. Even today, the Prime Minister was in Toronto with representatives from Alphabet, looking at how technology was transforming the world. We are partnering with these entities.

If we look at our skills training and immigration programs, we want the best and the brightest to come to Canada. We want to harness that human capital. Clean technology is about that. That is where we are going. If I could use a hockey analogy, that is where the puck is going. I was glad to play ice hockey for 20 years of my life, and, to me, that is where we need to be going.

Again, this financing will be put in place with the Business Development Bank, with an increased capital contribution of $1.5 billion to $4.5 billion.

Our government believes in tax fairness. During consultations with small business owners, manufacturers, and professionals, including my own extensive consultations with leading tax experts, we found that tax fairness, done right, both strengthens our economy and our middle class. That is what we will do, and what we are doing.

On this front, Bill C-63 phases out billed-basis accounting practices for designated professionals, but for the law profession, I want to note that we are protecting legal services provided through legal aid or on a pro bono basis, as well as measures are put in place for contingency fee arrangements. In addition, we will give professionals a five-year period to adjust to the new rules. This is both fair and right. This has been done after extensive consultations with these designated professionals.

I have the privilege of representing a riding that contains thousands of private businesses. In fact, the city of Vaughan, which I have the pleasure of representing, along with the member for Thornhill and the member for King—Vaughan, contains nearly 13,000 private businesses. It is one of the most entrepreneurial cities in Canada. I am proud to state that in 45 days from now, people will be able to take the subway, arriving in the city of Vaughan from the city of Toronto. Those decisions were made in prior years. We are executing them and we are quite happy. I would like to invite members of Parliament in the GTA to visit the riding, take the subway, and come visit our great bakeries, restaurants, and tourist attractions.

I am proud to be part of a government that invests in small businesses and that will lower their taxes from 11% in 2015 to 9% in 2019. Promise made; promise kept. It was in our platform, and we have fulfilled that commitment. Businesses will receive up to $7,500 of tax savings. They can choose to invest that in human resources, human capital, or capital equipment, return it to their shareholders, or invest to grow their business. That is what is growing our economy. That is what it means to deliver on our campaign commitments.

As a trained economist, someone who worked on Bay Street, someone who worked on Wall Street, but, more important, someone who grew up on Main Street, in very humble surroundings, I understand that businesses are the main drivers of economic growth and job creation. Our government is committed to ensuring that businesses, whether it is the local bakery, the manufacturer, or the tech startup, operate in an environment that allows them to be successful. More important, as a competitive individual, it will allow them to win and compete globally and take a market share.

Canada is considered an open economy, dependent on trade and global investment. We need to strengthen our bilateral and multilateral relations with our trading partners in other countries throughout the world. We succeed as a country, as a nation and its people, only when we have the foresight to make those policy choices that focus on measures to grow the economy for the long term, not short-sighted policies like augmenting the long-form census, like the prior government did. We need to make decisions based on evidence, based on what works and what does not work. We can only know that with good data. Thankfully, our government put the long-form census in place again.

Trade and investment has literally lifted hundreds of millions of people on this globe out of poverty. In Canada, it has improved the standard of living for millions of Canadians.

As part of Canada's commitment to its global partners, we will now move forward as the first North American member of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. I am proud of this. There are currently 57 founding members of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, including Australia, China, France, Germany, Italy, South Korea, and the United Kingdom. I challenge the members on the opposite side, because I have heard some of the questioning on the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, why we should not be a partner with it, why we should not be at the table there. The Germans are there, the Brits are there, the Italians are there, the French are there, the Australians are there. Why should Canada not be there as well? I have heard that question. I was very disappointed in the other side.

This represents a long-term economic opportunity for Canada and Canadian companies to explore new commercial opportunities. We know that jobs connected to trade on average pay higher and provide better benefits to Canadians. We see that through our ports, whether someone is a longshore person, whether it is in the Port of Halifax, the Port of Montreal, the Port of Vancouver, the Port of Prince Rupert. I am proud that in September we had the preliminary application of the comprehensive European free trade agreement and that our government continues with with its global partners. We must do so.

It is clear that the government's investments in people, our communities, and our economy are working.

We have the fastest-growing economy in the G7 and that is something we should be proud of. We are reinvesting the benefits of that growth back into the people who contribute most to that success.

Our economy is growing faster than it has in a decade, growing 40% faster than the United States or Germany. We all know that as a country we must always assist those who need a hand on occasion and are working hard to join the middle class. Yes, we talk about the middle class, but what does it really mean? What does it really mean to put in place policies to assist them? There are the Canada child benefit, cutting taxes for nine million Canadians and providing over $20 billion of tax relief over a five-year period, and increasing student loans for low- and middle-income Canadians. I can go on and on.

As a nomination candidate, I argued for an increase in the working income tax benefit, and I was very proud to say that our government will move forward with an enhanced working income tax benefit. This benefit is a refundable tax credit that would support low-income workers and provide important financial support to low-income Canadians to improve their financial outcome when working. This is important. A work income tax benefit encourages the labour force participation rate to rise. It was first introduced in a Liberal government under former prime minister Paul Martin, and augmented by the other side but the idea came from us.

In 2015, there were 1.4 million Canadians who benefited from the working income tax benefit, and our investment of an additional $500 million in this expansion is an investment that is, for me as a sort of policy wonk and an economist, something I fully support. This is something that is moving people off welfare to work, encouraging people to join the labour force. It is something very important, that is transformational. It gives people who may be in a precarious job situation, part-time workers, and those earning $16 or $17 an hour a bit more cash at the end of the year, some money for them to put more food on the table and pay for school supplies for their kids. That is what our government, which I am proud to be a part of, is fighting for every day. That is what I fight for in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge. I know my riding is blessed with many entrepreneurs and we are doing phenomenally well with a number of investments from all three levels of government. At the same time, any government should only be judged by how it treats those who are less fortunate, those who need a bit of assistance.

There are many items in Bill C-63, and one of them is to include legislation on flexible work arrangements for federally regulated entities. That speaks to the changing nature of work and the changing nature of responsibilities that families have, whether that is for bereavement leave, for when someone gets sick, or a family member having to augment his or her work-life balance. It is something that we recognize and that is contained in Bill C-63. We all should be proud of it. I hope other employers, even in the private sector, where possible, could put it into effect.

In Bill C-63 we have also introduced changes to the tax code that will ensure that the sale of principal residences by all Canadians remains unchanged, but at the same time that there are no concerns raised by the sales of residences in Canada by non-residents in particular, so that our Canadian housing market will remain strong and stable. We have ensured improved tax fairness for homeowners, something I am very proud of.

In Bill C-63, we have made changes to the Bank of Canada Act, specifying that the bank may make loans or advances to members of the Canadian Payments Association. We clarified some rules regarding CDIC, specifying that the Bank of Canada and CDIC are exempt from stays, where obligations are secured by real property or immovables.

Budget 2017 is the next step in our government's ambitious plan to make smart investments that will create jobs, grow the economy, and provide more opportunities for the middle class and those working hard to join it. If we look at the foundations we have put in place, Bill C-63 continues the investments we need to make in our economy for Canadians. Whether it was increasing the guaranteed income supplement by nearly $900 million so that over one million single seniors are better off today than they were in the beginning of 2015, our government was there. Whether it was listening to the provinces and hammering out an agreement on an enhanced Canada pension plan, we were there and got it done. Whether it was listening to auto manufacturers' concerns and changing their program through the auto innovation fund to remove the strings attached to as to whether the terms of the funding provided is a grant or a repayable loan, we were there, because we know that we need to be at the table in today's economy. Whether it was our skills agenda, we made the strategic investments that we needed to make. Whether it was ensuring that low and middle-income Canadians have access to Canada student grants or assistance so that they can get the education they need for better jobs, we were there.

I am also proud of the Minister of Immigration who yesterday tabled the government's increased immigration levels. I do not really want to use the word “immigrant”, because my parents were immigrants. I look at them as newcomers, newcomers whose hopes and dreams are being fulfilled in Canada on a daily basis.

We know the demographic challenges that we face here in Canada. We understand them quite well. We know the retiree-to-worker ratio and understand that we face demographic headwinds. The only way to solve these challenges it is to bring newcomers to Canada. Canadians from coast to coast to coast are accepting, diverse, inclusive, and tolerant. They will welcome these folks and build an even stronger country.

I was very proud to rise today to talk about a number of measures contained in Bill C-63, which builds on budgets 2016 and 2017. Our government has laid out a road map with the measures in Bill C-63 and has continued to grow our economy, with an unemployment rate now at the 6% level, something we have not seen in many years, with full-time jobs and the labour force participation rate ticking up. Even the governor of the Bank of Canada commented that our labour force productivity over the last two years has increased to levels not seen in over 10 years.

As an economist and someone who is fiscally responsible, I know that the government has done everything with an eye to maintaining Canada's AAA credit rating and a strong fiscal foundation. Our fall economic update shows that we have been able to lower the debt to GDP ratio, the anchor I look at, which will be trending below 30%. It is something that we can all be proud of. It is something that we need to keep our eye on as a government to measure how our investments are doing in growing the economy at over 3%, a rate that has not been seen in a number of years, and creating full-time jobs, over 15,000 a month, and ensuring that we make key investments in the industries where we know that growth is happening and where our innovation strategy is taking hold.

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

Mr. Speaker, first, allow me to say that the hon. member used the Liberals classic talking point, “the middle class and those working hard to join it”.

I say this facetiously, but in Canada there are people who are bilingual and those working hard to join them. The hon. member is one of those and I commend him on his efforts to learn French.

The member addressed an issue with which I totally disagree, and he forget a few very important elements. He talked about the fact that families had more money in their pockets. However, he forgot to say that this money was not available now. We are borrowing this money from our children, because the government is creating a deficit. Our government gave many tax credits to help families with sports activities, artistic activities, student loans, and all of that, but the Liberal government cancelled those.

The member also raised the issue of Paul Martin as the one who killed the deficit in the 1990s. He was a great prime minister, but unfortunately the current Prime Minister is recreating the deficit, and that is wrong.

The member also talked about the 1% who paid more taxes. That is not true. The finance department concluded in a report a few weeks ago that the 1% paid $1 billion less.

Speaking of millionaires, could he identify a Canadian millionaire who hired two nannies and sent the bill to the Canadian taxpayers?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the beautiful province of Quebec for his question.

The results of our plan speak for themselves. Whether it is on the job front, the unemployment rate, or wage gains that Canadians are making, the evidence is clear. Two years in, we have created 450,000 new jobs. We have just indexed the CPP, which is a transformational measure to help Canadian families and reduce poverty. We will continue working on that front.

We will continue working with Canadians from coast to coast to coast. We will continue consulting and working with all our stakeholders to ensure we get things right. We are listening to everyone. Our economy is going the right way. The country is doing great. We will continue to do the good work that Canadians expect us to do.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Vaughan—Woodbridge will have seven minutes and 35 seconds coming to him in questions when we take up this bill again.

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from November 2 consideration of the motion that Bill C-63, A second 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.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand in the House today, 150 years since the very first sitting on November 6, 1867.

Before I move onto this, it is appropriate that I send our thoughts and prayers to friends, families, colleagues, and first responders who attended the church shooting in Sutherland Springs, Texas. Our thoughts and prayers are with the friends, the families, and all first responders in that entire community. Just as they are grieving, we are grieving with them.

I thought about what I would say on the fall economic statement. Today, I will talk about our legacy because, at the end of the day, all of us will be remembered for something. In preparing for this speech, I stumbled across a couple of quotes that I thought I would enter into the records. The first is, “No legacy is so rich as honesty.” That was by William Shakespeare. Over the last two year, we have seen the Prime Minister's actions, his direction and his choice of how he will move forward in his mandate or what he believes is his mandate.

I coached for a long time. I would always tell our kids, when I was coaching hockey, or baseball, or soccer or when I was working with youth groups, that they would go through this life once. At the end of the day, all they would have was their integrity, their legacy. I would ask them what they would like to leave behind, or what would be their brand as they moved through life. When I would worked in schools, I would talked to kids. I would ask them what a brand was. They would say that a brand was the swoosh on a Nike shoe, or it was the great big A&W sign or the bear for A&W. I would tell them that their brand was what people would say about them after they left the room. The kids talked about the the swoosh or all those other items. These are logos and marketing tools, but a brand is really what people say about us.

If we compare governments and prime ministers over the years, Prime Minister Harper took us from back row and second from the left to principled leadership and the front row. That will no doubt elicit jabs from the other side, but I want to offer this. We had a leader who was principled, who put his thoughts always on Canadians, how our policy would impact those who elected us, how we were seen on the world stage with respect to Canada as a collective as one nation, and I have the examples to back it up.

There are those of us who are more concerned about how we are perceived through the lens of others than how our actions are perceived and what our legacy will be. I will use a very recent example.

We have a young Prime Minister who has been in Vogue. He has been seen planking, photo bombing through Stanley Park in my beautiful province of British Columbia. He has been seen with his shirt off. Far be it for me to criticize.

We had a leader who was known for his principled leadership. Now there is a leader who is known for fancy socks or for showing up in question period in a Superman Halloween costume underneath his clothes. I was in the House that day. Many on this side were wondering if he had a new haircut. Somebody said that he was trying to be Waldo. I said no. I said that if we had learned anything over the last two years, it was that he believed he was Superman. I said he was trying to Clark Kent. The Prime Minister left part way through question period and returned quickly. Shortly thereafter in social media was the Prime Minister coming down the stairs showing the large Superman logo. He thought that was very novel and that it would be on the front page of newspapers.

At a time when fishers, farmers, and small business people are suffering, the Prime Minister is being investigated by the Ethics Commissioner. The finance minister is embroiled in an investigation, one that I do not know we ever have seen before. He seemingly has profited since being in office. He introduced legislation that would benefit the companies in which he had assets. We now know that there are more hidden businesses, numbered companies, in the Bahamas. The latest leak in the last 24 hours is that there are more questions. Canadians are hearing about questionable actions, which are leading to more questions.

I come back to our legacy. When I ran in the election, I had an opportunity to speak to a few members of Parliament, a few MLAs, and leaders within the community, who I hold in high esteem. They are really my mentors and I respect them. They put our constituents first. I think the world of Mayor Lyn Hall in my riding. During the course of the wildfires, he led his team with actions, not just words. He helped alongside myself and some of the MLAs as our community grew beyond our traditional population base. We welcomed 11,000 evacuees into our community and looked after them. We opened up our hearts and homes and looked after them.

With true leadership, MLA Mike Morris, MLA Shirley Bond, and MLA John Rustad did whatever they could to ensure that those in our communities were cared for. We do that every day, not just when there are emergencies. Why? Because we care more for how those in the community who elected us are doing than getting a picture on the front page of a newspaper, wearing new socks, walking a red carpet, or taking a selfie. We care about those who elect us. We care deeply about our communities. We care deeply about Canadians.

We have a government that campaigned on promises to Canadians, that said they were ready to lead. They said real change will be coming. Have we ever seen real change. The Liberals announced in their fall fiscal update that they have no plan to get back to a balanced budget. They have no plan, because it is not their money. They have no idea.

When I talk about my family finances, I do not refer to them as my fortune. In my riding of Cariboo—Prince George, there are very few people who can stand before a mike or a camera and talk about their family's fortune. They would probably say they are worried about their family's finances or how they are going to make ends meet. They would probably say they are worried about the fact that Canada does not have a softwood lumber agreement in place.

There is a further concern in terms of one of our number one industries within the province of British Columbia. This past weekend, Tolko, one of the largest mills in my riding and located in Williams Lake, had a massive fire. This added further insult to the fact that we lost 53-million cubic metres of fibre in the wildfires this past summer.

The Liberal government has dithered away any opportunity to get a softwood lumber agreement in place, and hundreds of people have been waiting to see their government stand up for them and fight. Now there is further uncertainty in our communities. There is further uncertainty in our communities because of what the government has done. The Liberals like to say that Canadians are far better off, but the reality is that hydro, gasoline, home heating, health and dental benefits, employee discounts, personal savings, life-saving therapies, and local businesses have all been attacked by them, regardless of what they say.

People at home are listening to this debate today. People in the gallery are listening. I can say that everyone gets talking points. Government members get talking points. When we ask the hard questions that Canadians want us to ask, time and time again the Liberals will stand up and give the same repetitive answer, which turns out to be a non-answer. Why is that? It is because they do not believe they have to answer to Canadians.

There is another quote that I want to mention, “All good men and women must take responsibility to create legacies that will take the next generation to a level we could only imagine.” What level are we talking about for the next generation? Under the leadership of Prime Minister Trudeau, what is the government going to leave to the next generation? The debt we are incurring today, the money we are talking about today, is not free money. It has to be paid back. Who is going to pay that money back? It will be my kids. It will be their kids. The next generation will have to pay it back. That will be the Liberal legacy.

I have stood in the House a number of times since the summer. I have talked about the wildfires and how our communities managed to rally together.

Speaking about legacies, there is a gentleman back home who is very sick. I believe he knew how sick he was during the summer. Regardless of how sick he was, he continued to fight the fires. He continued to lead teams all on his own. He is a local logging contractor whose name is Lee Todd. He is legendary in the Cariboo. However, he was sick, and I am not quite sure how sick, but he flew his personal helicopter to try to spot where the first fires were. He led other local contractors.

In the Cariboo, we do not take no for an answer and we do whatever we can to get things done. Regardless of whether it is prescribed, we just get it done. We do not ask for permission, many times we beg forgiveness afterward, but we get the job done. Nobody knows what tomorrow is going to bring but, for me, one of Lee's legacies is going to be that regardless of his own health and well-being, he continued to lead and do whatever he could. For example, he opened his shop and fed the firefighters and contractors who wanted to save our community.

I throw that in because, again, when we are talking about legacy and moving forward, we have to be reminded time and again that this House does not belong to us. It does not belong to the government or to those of us on the side. It belongs to Canadians. We were elected to be here and be their voices. We have talked about parliamentary privilege over the last year. That privilege is not so we can get to the front of line, ride in fancy vehicles, or attend fancy events. Parliamentary privilege is there to protect the rights of Canadians. This has been forgotten.

We have a Prime Minister and a House leader who wanted to change the standing rules of the House because they thought it would modernize them. They have invoked closure on debate, time allocation, time and again. I know what is going to come from the other side. They are going to start pointing fingers and saying that when those guys were in power this is what they did. Well, I can only speak about my experience. I am a new member of Parliament, as people know. I am fortunate that the good people of Cariboo—Prince George elected me. I have lived every day of being elected with the mindset of asking what my legacy is, because I may only get the chance to be elected once. We do not know how long this opportunity is going to last. Whatever we do, we should try to impact and change as many lives as we can.

Hopefully, people see that they have a fighter and I am fortunate enough to be elected in the next election. Whether it is my bill, Bill C-211, that calls on the government to develop a national framework with respect to post-traumatic stress disorder; our work in talking about the impacts of impaired driving on families, which loss never heals regardless of time; working with my colleagues on this side of the House to hold the government accountable and fight for Canadians; working with colleagues across the way on team Canada approaches, and going to the U.S. to sit side by side with them and presenting team Canada, not being partisan, but team Canada; or whether it is through parliamentary trips, we always have to be mindful of what our legacy is.

I know my time is very short. I want to leave everyone with this last quote, and I have one question after that. John Diefenbaker said, “Freedom is the right to be wrong, [freedom is] not the right to do wrong.” I think that is so important. I am going to leave my colleagues with this. Before the partisan jabs come out, I want to ask everyone in the House what they want their legacy to be and what they want to be remembered for. Is it standing up for someone who is hiding assets and making it harder for Canadians? Fight, fight for Canadians.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by making a comment. It is very easy to make personal attacks. It would be very easy for me to make personal attacks against the previous Prime Minister Stephen Harper. However, I will not do that, because that is not what Canadians want. What I will do is focus on the member's comments about a legacy. One thing that this Prime Minister has proven as part of his legacy is a confidence and a belief in Canadians. That is why this Prime Minister has held unprecedented levels of consultations, which have resulted in some of the measures included in Bill C-63.

Just as an FYI, it is not the Prime Minister who is asking to take selfies, it is Canadians who are asking to take selfies with the Prime Minister. That is a vote of confidence. That is an indication of a great legacy and a great brand.

I will provide the member with a few facts. There are over 450,000 more new jobs today than there were in 2015. In October alone, there were over 30,000 new jobs created. We have had the lowest unemployment rate since 2008. We have had the fastest growth in the G7. Are these not things that the member would acknowledge are a great legacy and that our Prime Minister and this Liberal team can be very proud of?

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

There we go, Mr. Speaker, she answered the question. That is exactly what I said the Liberals are worried about, their brand. She said that it was because of their “brand”. Oh my gosh, the arrogance is staggering.

Let me speak first to this “FYI”. It is not about the brand of the Prime Minister, it is about the policy that impacts Canadians. We know that 80% of Canadians pay more tax under the current government than they did with us.

Let me also talk about the consultations of the Liberals. Whether it is with respect to Bill C-63 or Bill C-55, Canadians are saying that the current government is not listening to them. Therefore, in my file on fisheries, oceans, and the Canadian Coast Guard, time and again, Canadians, whether they are our first nations, stakeholders, fishermen, or farmers, those people at the grassroots are telling us that the Liberals are not listening. They are more worried about their brand than they are about Canadians. That is the problem.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased that my colleague from Cariboo—Prince George has highlighted the legacy of failings of the Liberal government. Also, I very much appreciate that he highlighted that this is not about serving Canadians, it is about branding the Prime Minister. In fact, in the question just a second ago from the Liberal member, she commented on what a great legacy taking selfies was to leave behind. Can members imagine that being one's legacy?

I want to ask the member this. The long-lasting legacy of the current Liberal government will be imposing upon the next generation an unbearable debt load because of the Prime Minister's profligacy in spending. I would ask the member to comment on how our children and grandchildren are going to have to pay for our spending today. This is spending that is for our benefit but that future generations will have to pay.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from Abbotsford. He knows I look up to him, and think the world of him. We are very fortunate to be in the House. We get to learn from and work with great people from all sides. The hon. member for Abbotsford has an incredible legacy that will live well beyond his time in the House.

He talked about the spending of the government. I do not know about you, Mr. Speaker, but I do not go to the casinos. I think we have done fairly well in our lives, but just going to a bank machine is like going to a slot machine. If I get some cash out, it is like I beat the house.

The Prime Minister has never had to worry about balancing a chequebook. He has never had to worry if he is going to have money in his bank account to make ends meet at the end of the day, or how he is going to clothe and feed his family. His government has spent more money on projects that do not benefit Canadians. The Asian investment bank will do nothing to create infrastructure here in Canada. Why is he spending that money? It is because it is helping his friends.

He has no concept that that money has to be paid back. Our kids, like the pages who are sitting with us, when they get out into the real world, do not understand they already have a huge amount of debt they have to pay off because of the government. It is not starting out on the right foot. It is starting out in debt. That is wrong.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring us to the topic of today's debate, which has been completely absent for the last half hour or so. That is Bill C-63, the omnibus budget bill.

This is my first chance to speak to this, so I would like to mention that I read it over the weekend. It is a bill of 275 pages, with 11 different divisions. As much as I am genuinely fond of my friend from Cariboo—Prince George, I was disappointed by his speech, because vacuous rhetoric around the Prime Minister's socks is not as valuable as actually diving in and discussing the bill.

I have read a lot of omnibus budget bills. As for the ones under the previous government, I can genuinely and honestly say that turning page after page of Bill C-38 I moved from anger to grief. I was crying by the time I finished reading it. I am very happy to say that having read Bill C-63, I was nearly very bored. That is a good sign when dealing with a budget bill.

I would like the member to tell me if he likes or does not like the amendments in division 8, part 5, which would allow for flexible work arrangements for employees, or further in that division, the part that would guarantee time off work for families who are victims of family violence.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands is also someone I very much respect in the House, and consider a friend. Usually, she is standing up and saying that was a good speech we did, or we had a good comment.

Our colleague brings up a good point. There are things in the bill that are good, but I would offer this to our hon. colleague across the way. She is a good person. She knows we are here to make sure we are representing and standing up for Canadians at all times.

My 30 minutes was not about the Prime Minister's socks. It was more about how we are more worried about a brand than policy, and how that impacts Canadians. She is a very smart and learned person, far smarter than I am. I apologize, perhaps it was my delivery of my speech, but my message was this. We seem to have gone away from what matters most, and that is Canadians, to what our Prime Minister is wearing. It is more that than what he is bringing to the table, and what he is doing for Canadians, and how far we have fallen. That was the crux of my speech.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives continue to be out of touch with what Canadians really want to hear. I would suggest to members that, while they focus their criticism and personal attacks, whether it is on the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, or the government as a whole, we will continue to remain focused on delivering for Canadians.

When the member talks about things such as “legacy”, I would suggest that the member might want to reflect on many of the positive initiatives of this government, whether it is historic agreements on pensions and the environment; a health care accord in regards to the fine work that the former minister of health has done on that; or tax reform or tax breaks. There is a litany of things that this government has done.

I have many individuals who have given me the distinct impression that this government has done more in two years than the former government did in over 10 years. I would ask the member if he would not, at the very least, acknowledge that there have been many different and positive actions that this government has taken.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

There we go again, Mr. Speaker, the Liberal arrogance.

The member should come out to the communities. Come out to the small rural ridings where the proposed tax plans are targeting the hard-working creators of our communities, the backbone of our economy, and the backbone of our provincial and regional economies. They are attacking them. Eighty percent of Canadians are far worse off under the current government than they were under our government.

In fact, the Liberals talk about all the money that they are spending to make things better. The parliamentary budget officer has even said that infrastructure grants and contribution promises are falling flat. They are not able to get the money out the door. What do the Liberals do? They point the finger at the communities, say that they are not ready, and say it is not them but somebody else.

I am asking colleagues across the way to stand up for Canadians. How do they want to be remembered? What is their legacy going to be? Will it be socks?

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on Bill C-63. It is an honour to do so.

Small and medium-sized enterprises, or SMEs, are the backbone of the Canadian economy. They employ 10.5 million Canadians and contribute to roughly 40% of the country's gross domestic product. They are indeed engines of job creation.

The government is committed to making sure that businesses have the resources that they need to invest, innovate, grow, and create jobs. The Business Development Bank of Canada, BDC, is helping Canadian entrepreneurs achieve their full potential by facilitating their access to tailored solutions, including financing and consulting at each stage of their development. BDC services support the start-up and growth of small businesses across Canada.

BDC is mandated to support Canadian entrepreneurship, with a particular focus on SMEs. It does so by offering financing and advisory services. BDC financing provides business loans with flexible financing options, such as principle postponements and pre-authorized working capital, which help to protect the company's cash flow.

Before I go any further, I would like to inform this House that I am honoured to be splitting my time with the member for Parkdale—High Park.

Through its investments in a broad range of services, from venture capital to quasi-equity and securitization, BDC supports innovative and high-growth companies as they expand operations and scale up.

BDC's advisory services, which include a broad range of business support and consulting provided through a network of consultants, help businesses scale up, improve productivity, and export. Through its pan-Canadian reach, BDC serves nearly 49,000 clients, active in all industries nationwide, through a network of 118 business centres located across Canada.

To further expand its reach to entrepreneurs, BDC leverages its support to SMEs through more than 290 partnerships, strategic relationships, and memberships. Among other things, these partnerships allow BDC to improve support for underserved entrepreneurs, including young entrepreneurs, women entrepreneurs, indigenous entrepreneurs, businesses in Canada's north, social entrepreneurs, immigrant entrepreneurs, and rural entrepreneurs.

BDC also extends its reach and visibility to SMEs by organizing the annual BDC small business week, which was successfully held across Canada this year during the week of October 16. The BDC small business week celebrates entrepreneurship at local, provincial, and national events. It attracts close to 10,000 entrepreneurs at hundreds of events held across Canada.

As an instrument of public policy, BDC also responds to the direction from the government on areas with the most priority. For example, recognizing the importance of venture capital to Canada's economic prosperity, the Government of Canada introduced the venture capital action plan, VCAP, in 2013 and directed BDC to act as an agent of the government in managing the VCAP.

BDC also participates in the development and deployment of the accelerated growth service, AGS, which delivers coordinated, client-centric federal support, including financing, advisory services, and export and innovation support from participating federal organizations. As part of its role in the AGS, BDC collaborates with other organizations in the federal family to operationalize its concept, and to offer coordinated access to government services and programs.

The proposed changes in Bill C-63 to the Business Development Bank of Canada Act will allow the BDC to deliver on key initiatives in budget 2017, and thus improve access to capital for innovative SMEs operating in emerging sectors of the Canadian economy.

SMEs will be the Canadian job creators of the future. In particular, BDC will also be making available new financing to clean technology firms, including SMEs, to help them hire new staff, develop innovative products, and support domestic and international sales. Innovation in clean technology will lead to products and services that will have an impact on all sectors of the Canadian economy. Clean tech has the potential to create thousands of well-paying jobs for Canadians.

The legislative change will also allow BDC to administer the venture capital catalyst initiative, VCCI, which will increase the late-stage venture capital available to Canadian entrepreneurs, and help Canadian start-ups grow and succeed. Venture capital is an essential source of financing for innovative, growth-oriented firms, and VCCI will support the continued growth of Canada's innovative companies.

I am very pleased to see that the Government of Canada is making smart and responsible investments that will result in better jobs and opportunities for all Canadians. The amendment to the Business Development Bank of Canada Act will enable the government to make the required investments in BDC to allow it to implement these important initiatives.

As our economy evolves to a more innovative clean tech-oriented economy, it is important that we make investments today that will pay off for the future generations. Equally important, I believe, is Canada's growing trade economy. Canada's ability to export to foreign markets needs to be leveraged. It is the way the economy of the future will grow, and it is the way Canada and Canadians can diversify their customer base in a changing global environment.

My riding of Newmarket—Aurora is home to many SMEs. I have had conversations with a number of them who already access the services of BDC. It is an important tool and lever in the Canadian economy that, in my frank assessment, is underutilized at this point.

Many SMEs are not aware of the services offered by BDC. I believe that changing the Business Development Bank of Canada Act, creating investment, particularly venture capital investment, will be the way for those SMEs to tap into and access federal government support, and also to access venture capital support, both at early age as start-ups and as they mature when they need additional capital to expand their already successful operation.

I hope that all sides of the House will agree that supporting SMEs, supporting innovation, and supporting the creators of jobs today and what will be the creator of jobs in the future is something that we can all get behind. I urge all members to support Bill C-63, particularly those with an affinity and fondness for the proposed changes to the BDC, because these investments will improve the BDC, thereby improving the opportunities for SMEs across Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite was focused on one bank, but I would like to focus on another that is mentioned in this budget implementation bill.

The Liberals have made a choice to now make an enormous investment in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. This is a government that ran on a platform that it would make substantive investments in infrastructure development here in Canada. Whether it be Collingwood or Wasaga Beach, my home town of Creemore, or otherwise, that infrastructure is desperately needed to make sure that small businesses are successful and, quite frankly, to make sure moms can just get their kids to school.

The fact of the matter is the Liberal government has made a choice. It has chosen to invest close to half a billion dollars in a different place, in China. The last time I checked, China was not a province of Canada nor Canada a province of China.

Why is this investment in infrastructure being made overseas, not here at home where we really need it?

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's affinity for infrastructure investment. I was with her in her riding when we announced infrastructure spending at the hospital at CFB Borden. I was happy to be there with her and share some of the good news with some of her constituents, who I can assure members very much appreciated that investment in infrastructure. As the member mentioned, it is very much needed, not only in her riding but across Canada.

However, our investments in infrastructure and in the infrastructure bank, indeed any investments we make, as any Canadian does, are made with a look to getting a return on that investment. We need to look globally around the world for how we can leverage Canadian expertise and Canadian capital to get the best return on that expertise and capital. That is the benefit of investing globally. This not an either/or proposition. Of course, we will continue to invest in Canada and all the provinces of Canada, but we also need to keep investing globally to be a player in the global infrastructure world and to make sure there is a return on investment for Canadian investors, wherever they choose to invest their capital.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his attention to SMEs.

If the government of the day paid attention, it would see that world investment is shifting toward renewable energy, not fossil fuels. Yet the current government has been chastised by both the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development and the Auditor General for not only refusing to provide the schedule for how it is going to meet its commitment to remove perverse subsidies for the fossil fuel sector, but also for the pathetically tiny shift in fossil fuel write-offs in its budget, which we are debating here today. My understanding is that it simply would move from 100% write-off to a 30% write-off, and that this will continue up to even 2021.

Could the member tell us, given his interest in SMEs, his government's schedule to finally remove the perverse subsidies, which amount to almost $6 billion a year, and of that amount, how much is reduced in this bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always nice to hear from the member for Edmonton Strathcona. We had an opportunity last week to sit together at the special hearing of the international trade committee when the Prime Minister of Ukraine was here. It was nice to see her there. I know that we share either Ukrainian heritage or a large Ukrainian contingent in our constituency.

As a member of Parliament, not necessarily a member of the government, I do not have any inside information on that schedule. However, it is not an either/or proposition. This government supports both the oil and gas sector and clean, green technology. I do not think we should be ashamed of that. I do not think that is something bad. I do not think we need to make enemies of certain sectors in this country as a way of pushing a different agenda. There is room in the Canadian economy and the Canadian landscape for both industries. It behooves our government, and it is actually incumbent on us, to support industries that create jobs for Canadians, and I am proud to be part of a government that chooses to do that. I hope we do it for a very long time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin today by acknowledging that not only are we marking the 150th anniversary of Confederation this year, but on this very day are also celebrating the 150th anniversary of the first meeting of this very Parliament. It is an honour to speak on such an auspicious occasion.

I rise today to speak about the second budget implementation act, Bill C-63. I will address key parts of this implementation act, which I know will have a positive impact on and benefit the residents of my riding of Parkdale—High Park.

Over the last two years, I have heard from my constituents on issues that affect them and their families daily. I have heard their concerns and what they would like to see addressed by the government. I know that the positive measurers included in this proposed act will help to resolve my constituents' most pressing concerns.

Canada has the fastest growing economy in the entire G7, and as a government, we are dedicated to reinvesting the benefits of that growth back into Canada to better the lives of my constituents in Parkdale—High Park and, indeed, all Canadians. Our government will lower taxes on small businesses, offer more support to families through the Canada child benefit, enhance the working income tax benefit, and also advance indigenous reconciliation.

There have been 500,000 jobs created since 2015. Over 1.5 million low-income workers will receive support to advance their careers and provide for their families. Canada's unemployment rate has dropped from 7.1% in September 2015, just before the last federal election, down to 6.2% in September of this year. Youth unemployment figures across the country are also at historic lows. Building on this positive growth, our government is enhancing the working income tax benefit by $500 million, which will benefit 1.4 million Canadians. Additionally, to encourage entrepreneurship and innovation in our communities, we are lowering the small business tax from 11% to 9%.

This is a strong budget that will benefit people from coast to coast, including my fellow residents of Parkdale—High Park. This will be done by ensuring tax fairness, thanks to this new budget implementation act. It will put Canada's most skilled, talented, and innovative individuals at the heart of our future economy, creating more jobs both in the short term and the long term. We will also be implementing an agenda that addresses the changing nature of the economy to ensure that it will work for all Canadians.

This legislation allocates $400 million for the venture capital catalyst initiative. This will directly benefit start-ups, entrepreneurs, and small businesses in Parkdale—High Park and right around the country. It is the small business owners, like those in the neighbourhoods of my riding, like the Junction, Swansea Village, and Parkdale itself, and Bloor west village that not only stimulate our economy but also support the families living in our very community.

In the last couple of years, it has been a pleasure to engage in conversations time and time again with small business owners in Parkdale—High Park, who make up the fabric of the fantastic neighbourhoods where we live, and shop, and raise our families. I also held a town hall with small business owners at the end of September. I listened carefully to their concerns and relayed those concerns back to cabinet and the minister.

Our government has responded. As a result of this important feedback, we are determined to limit any changes in the tax treatment of passive income to 3% of Canadian businesses who hold more than $1 million in their corporate accounts. We have also decided not to move forward with measures relating to the conversion of income into capital gains.

I know that many of my constituents work long hours, and sometimes maintain more than one job to advance their careers and to support themselves and their families. Therefore, I will address the working income tax benefit, because this zones in on so many millions around this country, the hard-working Canadians, whether they live alone, with families, or are supporting seniors. In fact, the working income tax benefit is particularly zoned in on those living alone, who are now, according to the most recent census, the most common type of household in the entire country. For those people, it will alleviate the stress of managing the cost of housing and living expenses throughout a given month. For a single person balancing escalating costs, it will ease the transition back into the workforce. It will also reduce income inequality and help to reduce poverty in this country.

In addition to assisting working Canadians, we are acting on our priority of supporting communities' most vulnerable people: children and families in need of additional resources. We are doing so through this budget implementation act by enhancing the Canada child benefit. Once we heard from families across the country, our government took measures to cut taxes on Canada's middle class, as well as to introduce the Canada child benefit, a much-warranted change that creates tax-free benefits targeted to help those who need it the most.

The new Canada child benefit has already been tremendously successful. In fact, it informs a lot of the economic growth I referenced in the first part of my remarks. As the result of this very program, nine out of 10 families already benefit from the CCB, and 300,000 children have been lifted out of poverty as compared to the year 2014-15. The impact of these measures cannot be underestimated. This impact is being felt by families who contribute to our communities and local economy by investing back into communities with things like piano lessons at High Park Music, swimming lessons at the Parkdale Community Recreation Centre, or simply by purchasing healthier food for one's kids at the various farmers markets in my riding.

As a result of the enhancements to the Canada child benefit, in 2017-18, more than 1.2 million will have benefited in the province of Ontario, my home province, and they will continue to receive additional support. Why? Because our government has made a commitment to further strengthening the Canada child benefit to make sure it keeps pace with the cost of living. Starting next July, two full years ahead of schedule, the tax-free Canada child benefit amounts for families with two children will go up by approximately $200. It does not stop there. The following year, those families will see about $500 more.

One of the major concerns I have heard in conversations with many of the parents and families living in my riding of Parkdale—High Park is the cost of raising a family. In order to effectively address this, we are allocating more support for families, through the CCB, to help meet the numerous ongoing costs of raising a family. As the father of two young boys, I understand what it means to raise a family. I have also heard from countless people in my riding about those challenges. We are working in a targeted way to address the needs of those people in my community and in communities around this country who need the help the most.

The stats are quite overwhelming. In my riding alone, 10,290 children benefited from the Canada child benefit in July. The average payment that month was $510 per family, for a total of $3.255 million distributed to families in the riding of Parkdale—High Park. In addition to the benefits received by my neighbours through the new and enhanced programs I mentioned, this budget implementation act also includes measures that would entrench and fortify our commitment as a government and nation to reconciliation with indigenous persons.

As Canadians, we must continue to take a critical look at our past as we contemplate the future of our relationship with indigenous persons. It is vital for all of us to establish a spirit of reconciliation so that Canada's next 150 years leave a positive legacy. I am honoured, distinctly in my role as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Heritage, to be working with the Minister of Heritage on advancing our government's efforts to preserve, restore, and revitalize indigenous languages. This goes beyond the celebration of our collective history. It is an opportunity to begin to correct the impact of harmful government policies like the colonial legacy of the residential school system has had on indigenous communities.

Recognizing this, the budget implementation act would invest $90 million over the next three years to support indigenous languages and culture. That includes $69 million in new funding to support things like language classes and culture camps, developing learning materials, and recording indigenous languages through the aboriginal languages initiative. Funding would also support the use of technology to preserve oral histories and the creation of other interactive educational materials. These investments would build tangibly on our government's commitment to working with indigenous persons to co-develop, in the spirit of true reconciliation, an indigenous languages legislation that would help to preserve, protect, revitalize, and promote indigenous languages in this country.

We are investing, as a government, based on the positive gains that have come as a result of Canada's fastest economic growth in nearly a decade, by enhancing the measures that support our small businesses, families, and hard-working people, and furthering our commitment to reconciliation. I urge all members of this House to vote in support of this bill to advance these important initiatives.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I too feel very honoured to be standing to speak on the 150th anniversary of the first sitting of this place, and it is important that we are talking about the budget implementation act.

The one thing that is not clear to me as of yet is this Chinese infrastructure bank, where we are spending half a billion dollars. I know the communications adviser for the minister suggested that it is going to create jobs here at home. I am not sure what fantasyland that is from, where spending half a billion dollars in China building infrastructure is going to create jobs here at home for the middle class.

I would appreciate hearing a strong rationale, in terms of why the investment of half a billion dollars of taxpayers' dollars is going to help the middle class here at home and create jobs.

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

Mr. Speaker, the short answer is that by improving our relationships with foreign nations, including diversifying our trade and investment portfolios, we are stimulating the economy here at home. Our commitment to infrastructure is unprecedented. Our commitment to infrastructure investments is unprecedented. What we are doing with the Asian infrastructure bank is indifferent in terms of what we are investing here. We are working toward building the economy by promoting infrastructure development. That includes developing greater ties with diverse partners around the planet, including the Asian side of the equation.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have been calling attention, along with colleagues from the other side, to a particular part of the budget implementation act around the unpaid leave for victims of domestic violence. I would like the member to comment on perhaps an unintended consequence of an unpaid leave for domestic violence. Many people will not be able to access an unpaid leave in a situation of domestic violence, because often victims are controlled economically by the abusive partner at home. Therefore, coming home with a paycheque that is less than it was before and then having to explain to an abusive partner why it is not the same amount, I think my colleague would understand how that would be a huge barrier to victims accessing this leave. I wonder if the member would agree that it needs to be a paid leave for this instance.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for the intervention, because it highlights an extremely important issue. We have heard time and again about the importance of leave in the context of the domestic violence situation and gender violence in this country and around the planet. Our government takes this issue very seriously, in terms of ensuring there is flexibility in terms of arrangements, that people are empowered and not unempowered, and that people do not fear reprisals to accessing leave. It is something that needs to be studied and examined by our government. I would hope that this kind of important intervention gets studied closely at committee when the budget bill is being evaluated.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on one thing that the member mentioned at the beginning, and that was the change in the economy in Canada, in particular being the fastest growing economy in the G7. This speaks directly to the budgets that have been presented by this government and what this government has been doing over the past two years. I wonder if the member would like to elaborate on that point.

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

Mr. Speaker, in my brief response, I would say that it is demonstrating that the notion of investing in an economy to stimulate it has proven to be a successful formula. That is exactly what the head of the IMF said when she came here, that she hoped the Canadian experiment would go viral around the planet. The fact that we are doubling five of the G7 nations and are 40% larger in terms of economic growth than our American neighbours demonstrates that when we took the courage of conviction and campaigned upon a platform to invest in an economy, we did just that. It can be proven to work, and it can be proven as a winning formula that helps us succeed in terms of building the growth that we all desperately want. That is not a partisan issue. Creating jobs and boosting the Canadian economy is something we all share. How we are going about doing it is something we are responding to in terms of what Canadians told us. We believe strongly in that conviction, and we will continue to do so.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we resume debate, for the benefit of all hon. members, we have passed the five hours of debate on the motion before the House since the first round of speeches on the motion. Accordingly, all of the interventions from this point on will be limited to 10-minute speeches, followed by five minutes of questions and comments.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that I did not get under the wire for my 20 minutes, but I will try to keep my comments confined to 10.

I am pleased to speak to the budget implementation act, but I would like to create a bit of context before I get into a couple of details contained within it. In the 2015 election campaign, the Liberals made specific promises to Canadians. They promised that they would have tiny deficits of $10 billion a year and that they would get back to balanced budgets during their time in office. They also indicated that dollars would be spent predominantly on infrastructure in the provinces and territories.

The first thing we have to recognize is that everything they have done since, in terms of the budget and budget implementation acts, has violated their promise to Canadians. The Liberals made a promise about what they were going to do with respect to deficits and how they were going to spend Canadians' money. That was an important promise, and it is shameful that they are breaking that promise.

The Liberals are breaking their promise at a time when it is not necessary. I will acknowledge that had the economy been struggling, they might have had to provide a bit of stimulus. However, they took office with a surplus budget and a growing economy. The Liberals are quite proud to say that the economy is going well, so why do they need to spend all of this extra money? That is an important place to start.

There are three areas that the government directly controls. It controls the creation of an environment that would be positive for jobs, opportunity, and growth. It controls bringing money into its coffers through our tax system, and it obviously controls how to spend that money. I would suggest that these three functions need to be carefully aligned. In this budget, which deals predominantly with the expenditure side of things, the government is completely out of alignment with the other three features. We need an environment that is going to create success. We need a fair tax system, and we need to have a reasonable spending plan.

I would like to touch briefly on tax generation. Not only do the Liberals want this $20 billion deficit with no plan for getting back to balanced budgets, but they are desperately looking for ways to get more money. The interesting thing is that they have floated out a whole bunch of ideas, but they have never done anything that would impact the personal wealth of the Prime Minister, the finance minister, or their Liberal friends who are enjoying some tax benefits that most of us do not enjoy.

The small business tax was an idea that was floated out by the Liberals. It would have hurt our small businesses in terms of how they dealt with passive income and how they would grow their companies. However, the Liberals did nothing with respect to tax avoidance schemes that are used by their wealthy friends.

The Liberals floated out the idea of taxing the health benefits of teachers who make $80,000 a year, yet they are not going to worry about shares that are held in a company like Morneau Shepell and the finance minister's introduction of legislation around pensions.

The Liberals also talked about taxing employee discounts. They realized that the accounting nightmare of charging taxes on the value of a Big Mac would be a little over the top, so they walked away from that idea very quickly.

The Liberals are denying disability tax credits to people who have diabetes. They said they would hire more nurses who would review the paperwork that has already been done by doctors and nurse practitioners. They were considering hiring nurses for the Canada Revenue Agency to review the paperwork, so they could justify their denial of disability tax credits for diabetics.

Free advice for the government would be that it perhaps should be spending those dollars for nurses on more people to look at tax havens and tax-avoidance issues. Very clearly, there is one set of rules for the Prime Minister and his friends and another set of rules for the rest of us.

I will now go to tax expenditures, the other part of the budget. I will start small and work up to some of the larger issues. Money matters. How Liberals spend hard-earned tax dollars really matters. I have some examples of how they are choosing to spend money. If people were to walk a one-kilometre circle in this area, they would see a cup, which apparently cost $2.5 million. It is some sort of structure sitting on Sparks Street. They have chosen to build a $5-million hockey rink. If people were to walk a little further, they would know that City Hall has a beautiful skating rink all year round, but Liberals chose to spend $5 million for a hockey rink that I believe is going to be open for about a month.

Just yesterday, we heard that $10 million is going to a private business to build a Club Med in Quebec. There are many in my riding who would say that if the government is going to subsidize and support the resort industry, there are many who be very happy to be at the table and receive $10 million. However, there was a reason, when Conservatives were in government, that we did not do that kind of thing. It was because we did not believe that kind of corporate handout was to the benefit of anyone.

I have to speak about something in this particular bill that I have had no reasonable explanation for. Nothing has been said by the Liberal government that gives me any comfort that this will be money well spent. That, of course, is the half a billion dollars going to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. That is in division 5, part 2. The original explanation from the finance minister's communications person was that this is going to create jobs here at home and will help the middle class. What fantasy world would someone have to live in to believe that giving half a billion dollars to an Asian infrastructure bank that is building bridges and roads in Asia is going to create jobs here at home and help the middle class? I would note that if there were opportunities abroad, Canadians are not precluded from bidding on those jobs anyway. There has been no reasonable explanation for that half a billion dollars. When I was in Yellowknife not so long ago, I saw a huge need for infrastructure there.

This leaves me a couple of minutes to talk about creating an environment for success. The north is a great example. It created a moratorium on oil and gas drilling and decided to turn significant areas into parks. The premier of the Northwest Territories said that southerners want all of the north to be their park. Southerners are taking away their dreams and hopes, and creating a nightmare for them. They are putting a carbon tax on them and they are going to be not only the most impacted by climate change, but the ones most impacted by a carbon tax, with nothing to support the impact that is going to have. They are taking away jobs and opportunities, imposing additional costs, and destroying a community.

In conclusion, I suggest that the budget implementation act is a follow-through on broken promises from an election campaign. It would go after law-abiding small businesses to grab dollars wherever the Liberals can and create an increasingly negative climate for investment. Although there may be a couple of measures that are reasonable and supportable, the BIA 2 would simply continue a very flawed fundamental approach by the government to the finances of our nation.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the reality of the situation is that Canada's economy is growing the fastest of the G7 countries. This government has made serious choices investing in people, investing in children, and investing in infrastructure and programs. The result of what this government is doing that we have seen over the last number of years is an improvement. Our economy is stronger than it ever was during the time of the Conservatives.

My question for the member is very simple. Is she as excited as I am that Canada's economy is number one, in terms of growth, in the G7?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what I talked about was having a government that sets a structure for success. If the Liberals want to suggest that things that happened two years ago were to blame for it, then I think they had better also give us credit for what happened two years ago, because we saw this country through the global recession, we created many free trade agreements, we got rid of red tape, and we moved things forward in a positive way. Certainly, they can thank us for that, as they are enjoying that benefit. However, what I did indicate was that I am really worried that what they are doing and how they are spending money will take us right back to where we started from and put us in a very difficult position.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, earlier when responding to a question, the member mentioned division 2 of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank agreement act that is being created through this BIA. We know from experience that previous governments have refused to join this. There is a Japanese-led Asian Development Bank, Japan being an ally, that we would like to collaborate with. For the half billion dollars that the government is putting into this, we get a 1% share of the votes, which is barely anything. Now we learned that last year, in 2016, this infrastructure bank, led by the Chinese government, is actually financing two pipeline projects, one in Azerbaijan and one in Bangladesh.

I would like to hear the member speak about this cognitive dissonance we see from that side of the House, where the Liberals would actively impede the success of the Canadian energy industry here in Canada, putting a lot of energy families out of work, while supporting the middle class in Asian countries.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has just expressed things perfectly with respect to this infrastructure bank and what it is doing. However, for the people who might be listening on this 150th anniversary, this is not about Canada's responsibility with respect to foreign aid, as we all believe we need to step up to the plate when there are tragedies in other countries. This is about Canada investing almost half a billion dollars overseas. Other than making us feel good and making us part of this global community, there has not been one good rationale why the Liberals would not follow the recommendations of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal and provide support for our first nations children, yet they are happy to put half a billion dollars into something that will not benefit Canadians.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I note that the current government is using the same line that was used by the previous government, which is that Canada is leading the growth among the G7 countries. Unfortunately, I have heard some recent economic data that suggests to me that the economy may not be doing as strongly as the government would like to portray. The GDP actually shrunk in August, and we are on track to maybe end the year with a more modest GDP growth of around 2%.

My question has to do with what the member would like to see the current government do in order to create a stronger production base in Canada for value-added production. I know that we rely a lot on our natural resources in this country, but what would she suggest the government do to try to get more value-added production and create those better jobs here in Canada?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague brought up a very important point. Although we have had some reasonable and strong economic growth, there are number of flags out there that we need to pay attention to. I met with the Prospectors & Developers Association of Canada, and mining exploration in this country is way down. We have a softwood lumber agreement. Not only is value added important, but let us get the softwood lumber agreement fixed. There was an opportunity when the Prime Minister was meeting in the U.S. shortly after his election when he had the willingness to solve this problem. He failed and we need to get that fixed. That will certainly impact British Columbia, and provinces all across Canada.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on the subject of Bill C-63, the budget implementation act, 2017, No. 2, today. Specifically, I am pleased to talk about the government's plan to invest in people and communities to build a stronger, healthier, better Canada.

If we were to ask Canadians, the vast majority of them would say they are very proud of our public health system. The 2017 federal budget recognizes that and includes over $37 billion in transfers to the provinces and territories under the Canada health transfer.

A prosperous country such as ours also needs a comprehensive strategy on drugs and other substances. When it comes to cannabis control, the current system is obviously not working. It does not do a good enough job of protecting Canadians' health and safety, especially not our youth. It is often easier for our children to acquire cannabis than cigarettes.

As everyone knows, our government plans to legalize and strictly regulate cannabis. This policy is necessary and has two main objectives: on the one hand, to keep marijuana out of the hands of youth, and on the other, to deprive criminals of any profits from illegal cannabis sales.

In advance of the government's plan to legalize cannabis, budget 2017 allocated several million dollars to public education programming and monitoring activities.

Taxation is one of the key factors that will play an important role in ensuring that our objectives are met. As the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have clearly stated, taxes must be low from the beginning, and the federal, provincial, and territorial governments must continue to work together to guarantee a coordinated approach. Co-operation is critical, and the federal government wants to engage our provincial and territorial partners in order to develop a coordinated approach to cannabis taxation.

This second budget implementation act lays the groundwork for such a partnership. It amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to allow the Minister of Finance, on behalf of the federal government and with the consent of the Governor in Council, to enter into coordinated tax agreements with the provincial and territorial governments on cannabis taxation.

All governments must endeavour to maintain an effective level of taxation over time, one that helps balance our social and health objectives, the risks associated with the illicit market, as well as our tax priorities. All levels of government will have a significant role to play. It is important to remember that the framework for the production, sale, and distribution of cannabis for non-medical purposes will be based on the sharing of responsibilities. The federal government will be responsible for granting licences for production, cultivation, and manufacture, while the provinces and territories will be responsible for granting distribution and retail licences.

It would also be much better to have a coordinated approach on the taxation side of things. Legalizing cannabis will help the government increase tax revenues, but it is important to keep in mind that that is not the primary objective here. The primary objective of legalizing marijuana is to try to keep marijuana out of the hands of children and keep the profits out of the hands of criminals.

The best way to do that is to have a coordinated approach to taxation across the country. As the Minister of Finance said, we have to get this right and we have to work with the provinces and territories. Budget implementation act, 2017, No. 2 will implement the framework for this coordinated approach when cannabis for non-medical use becomes legal in Canada, the intention being that this occur at the latest in the first half of 2018.

As I said, taxation is one of the key factors that support the objectives of cannabis legalization, but it is not the only one. The government plans to take a number of measures to regulate non-medical cannabis. There will also need to be investment in awareness and education programs to inform Canadians, especially young Canadians, of the risks to both health and safety associated with cannabis use.

Although access to cannabis for non-medical purposes will be restricted and strictly regulated, various federal agencies will also be required to do more. Public awareness campaigns will help inform Canadians about the dangers of driving under the influence of cannabis and other drugs.

Police forces will also need new tools to better detect drug-impaired drivers. Physical inspections at companies that produce cannabis will be necessary. We heard this during the Standing Committee on Finance's cross-Canada pre-budget tour. I am very pleased to see that the fall economic statement tabled last week allocates significant funding to the development of a new framework to regulate and restrict access to cannabis.

As I just mentioned, I was pleased to see that the fall economic statement allocates significant funding to the development of new legal frameworks. Health Canada, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Canada Border Services Agency, and Public Safety Canada will all receive funding to ensure that they have the resources they need to issue licenses, conduct inspections, enforce all the aspects of the cannabis bill, and conduct meaningful public awareness and outreach.

In conclusion, the government's intention is to legalize cannabis for non-medical purposes in Canada. Legalization will keep cannabis out of the hands of youth and keep profits out of the hands of criminals. To support this dual objective, coordination between governments is essential. We are committed to working with the provinces and territories. The budget implementation act, 2017, No. 2 is part of the federal government's ongoing efforts in that regard.

I urge all hon. members to support this important legislation. It will help us give our children and grandchildren a stronger, better, and healthier Canada.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague spent a fair bit of time speaking about the cannabis legislation and the government's attitude and contributions toward this. I want to focus a bit on education.

Up to last week, the government had committed the grand total of $9 million over five years, dedicated toward the education of our youth in advance of the cannabis legalization, which is to happen in about seven months. We heard at committee that the states of Colorado and Washington spend that amount every year, with a population one-seventh of Canada's, showing and highlighting the absolute lack of investment by the government on education. Embarrassed by that, last week the government announced that it would spend another $36 million over five years for education, but only when it was exposed in committee that it had failed so miserably in the regard.

My question for the hon. member is about tax policy. The federal government unilaterally announced a certain tax proposal at the last federal-provincial ministers conference and caught a lot of provinces by surprise. I wonder if my hon. colleague could expand on this. Could he tell members of the House what the government's policy will be toward taxation of cannabis? How much will the tax be? How much will it raise? How will it be shared with the provinces?

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his question and comments. Before I answer his main question, I want to say that I reject the premises of his question about the government's intentions with respect to implementing cannabis education programs.

Certainly our goal has always been to put a program in place to deter cannabis use through education. As the date approaches and we coordinate our actions with the provinces and territories, Canadians will see more and more proof of the government's plan to launch major awareness campaigns about issues associated with cannabis use. Those campaigns will target youth in particular as well as the general public.

To get back to my colleague's main question, the reason I gave this speech and the reason these measures are in the 2017 budget implementation act No. 2 is that we want to make sure the provinces, the territories, and the federal government coordinate their actions. This is a long-term undertaking that we will accomplish together.

I would ask my hon. colleague to be a little more patient and give the provinces and territories time to negotiate with the federal government. That is how we will keep taxes as low as possible and eliminate or significantly reduce the sale of cannabis by organized crime.

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

Mr. Speaker, for decades, separatist MPs in my region worked hard to prove that the federal government could not work. They worked hard to prove that the federal government was not interested in the riding. Those MPs did not actually do anything. All they did was obstruct the role of the federal government.

Since I have been here, we have managed to bring more than $100 million in extra funding to the riding, mostly through the Canada child benefit, as well as through a number of other programs. Nearly $30 million has been invested in other programs.

People are starting to see that the federal government has a role to play in the regions in Quebec.

I would like to know whether my colleague from Hull—Aylmer has had a similar experience.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the question from my hon. colleague from Laurentides—Labelle. I can assure him that I have some good news on this and that the federal government has certainly shown leadership when it comes to investing in Quebec. The Canada child benefit is a major part of this budget. We saw in the economic statement that we are going to invest in this benefit anew.

In my riding, Hull—Aylmer, in my colleague's riding, and in every riding in Canada, this new social initiative has benefited every Canadian, especially those with children and those in need.

This is an important investment. It proves that the federal government can play an important role together with the provinces in eliminating poverty everywhere.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak before the House regarding “A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measures.”

We would not know it from the name, but this is one of the most exciting bills being considered by Parliament this session. With the passing of this bill, my colleagues and I will be doing what we came here to do: serve our communities and our country.

Early this morning, I arrived in Ottawa on an overnight flight, after a weekend back home in my riding of Surrey Centre. My time away from the Hill gave me a chance to meet with constituents in my riding office, at community events, and over coffee. I would like to thank everyone who came out to my recent “Chai with Sarai” event.

As with every weekend, I boarded my return flight, appreciative of Surrey's diverse, hard working and altruistic population. I also left looking forward to Surrey's bright future. Everywhere I looked, I saw new businesses, new developments, and new residents. In fact, Surrey is one of the fastest-growing cities in all of Canada. That makes us one of the fastest-growing cities in the fastest-growing economy in the entire G7. Just last month, we added a whopping 35,300 new full-time jobs and $9 billion more to the government coffers due to the great economic growth resulting from an agenda of innovation and growth.

It is a good time to be a Canadian. With this budget implementation bill, we can put the benefits of Canada's growth back in the hands of the people who made it happen. We get to put money back in the hands of families.

I have always been proud of our government's Canada child benefit and what it does for Surrey Centre. In fact, the benefit ensures that $800 million a year tax-free goes to families in my riding. This measure goes a long way toward ensuring Surrey families will not have to make the choice between school supplies or new skates for their children. However, in the words of our Prime Minister, “better is always possible”.

One year ago, when I spoke regarding the implementation of the 2016 budget, I was happy to note that our government would be indexing the Canada child benefit to inflation starting in 2020. This year, I am even happier to note that we will be moving forward on this measure two years ahead of schedule. Thanks to the strengthened Canada child benefit, a single parent of two making $35,000 a year will receive $560 of richly deserved non-taxable dollars the next fiscal year..

Our commitment to families goes beyond finance. Bill C-63 would also create greater flexibility in the way employees could take paid and unpaid leave. This would ensure that more workers would see an increase in family time and a healthier work-life balance. In this regard, and in all that we do, our government believes in the importance of leading by example.

This is not the only way we are making it easier to be a worker. Our newly enhanced working income tax benefit will provide $500 million to low-income workers, starting in 2019. This comes on top of the $250 million increase that has already come about through pension reform.

Many Canadians work long hours to join the middle class, and it is our duty to send support their way. Currently, the working income tax benefit benefits 1.5 million Canadians, including more than 200,000 in British Columbia. It boosts these numbers and helps more Canadians pay their rent, put food on their tables, and make the sometimes jarring transition to full-time work after a period of unemployment. It also ensures that those living alone, the new most common type of household according to the 2016 census, do not slip through the cracks. These new measures work together to ensure financial security to Canadians of all backgrounds.

This includes small business owners. We recognize that small business is the expression of middle-class Canadians' passion, hard work, and great ideas. We want to applaud entrepreneurs and employees who make our communities so dynamic. We have lowered the tax rate for small businesses by almost one-fifth, from 11% down to 9%, to ensure small-business owners have the financial environment they need to thrive.

However, one cannot talk about entrepreneurship without discussing innovation. To me, innovation means Surrey companies like Safe Software Incorporated, whose Feature Manipulation Engine software allows companies worldwide to manipulate reams of geographic data as easily as we might watch a Facebook video. It means Surrey companies like Orello Hearing Technologies, whose novel, inexpensive hearing aid is poised to disrupt the industry and dismantle the systemic barriers that face Canadians with hearing disabilities. To me, innovation is the reason I often see people's eyes light up when I mention my province of beautiful British Columbia.

This is why I am glad to see our government enacting the innovation and skills plan included in budget 2017. We have already set aside $950 million for the creation of technological superclusters. Members are likely familiar with many tech clusters already. Many of them know the reputation of places like Silicon Valley, Tel Aviv, and the Toronto–Waterloo corridor. Clusters bring industry, government, and academia together to foster great ideas and energize economies. B.C.'s own digital technology supercluster is poised to stand out as an example to the world of developing and harnessing virtual and augmented reality in ways that benefit industries from gaming to forestry.

With this budget implementation bill, we would pour an additional $400 million into our venture capital catalyst initiative and invest $600 million in green technology firms. As my Vancouver to Ottawa flight consistently reminds me, Surrey is three hours behind Ottawa when it comes to time zones. However, Bill C-63 would ensure that we are years ahead when it comes to innovation.

Surrey is home to almost half a million people. That is half a million residents hoping to see their dreams become reality. They are dreams like those of our entrepreneurs, who aim to disrupt our outdated world views and leave their mark on our society, dreams like those of our newest residents, who want to feel at home and at peace in a city or country that may still seem unfamiliar, and dreams like those we all share: to live in financial security and spend time with those we care about. By continuing to implement the 2017 budget, Bill C-63 would help make these dreams a reality, and I encourage all MPs to vote in favour of it.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what the member conveniently left out of his speech was any reference at all to balanced budgets. Members may recall that when the Prime Minister was telling Canadians why he should be the Prime Minister of this country, he made a lot of promises, many of which he has already broken. The big one that matters to future generations is that he promised that within the term of his government, four years, he was going to return to balanced budgets, just the way the previous government always balanced its budgets and left surpluses. In fact, what the member has failed to mention is that there is nothing in this budget that would actually return government to balanced budgets so we will not be leaving future generations with a huge debt load for the spending we do today. How will the member explain to the next generation the fact that his government has broken its promise to return to balanced budgets, and in fact, has no plan to return to balanced budgets?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think Canadians want any advice from a past government that ran deficit after consecutive deficit. In fact, the Conservatives left a country that was lacking in infrastructure, that had depleted infrastructure, and that was lacking in social programs, which put us far behind. It is like deferred maintenance on a house. One can only patch a leaky roof so much. The actions this government has taken are to bring this house, this beautiful country of Canada, back into the 21st century, where middle-class Canadians will have a good standard of living, where middle-class Canadians can expect good public transit, and where middle-class Canadians can expect a good education for their children. That is the priority of this government, and that is the priority this country elected us for.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear that my hon. colleague has connected with constituents, as I do at my “coffee with Don” in my riding.

My question on the budget has to do with the critical areas of housing and infrastructure. My hon. colleague and I both come from British Columbia, and he would well know that there is a housing crisis in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia and in other areas of the country. An entire generation of Canadians cannot afford to buy a house, and now, increasingly, cannot even afford to rent a place in the Lower Mainland. It is affecting businesses, slowing our economy, and crushing the dreams of a generation of people who cannot live in the place they grew up in.

I would like my hon. colleague to tell me what in the budget will produce affordable housing for British Columbia. How many units will be produced in the Lower Mainland as a result of this budget?

Second, on the infrastructure the government was elected to produce, can he please tell me what major infrastructure projects the budget will fund in British Columbia?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I share a lot of flights with the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway, and I want to remind him that “Chai with Sarai” sounds a lot better than “Coffee with Don”. However, I welcome his method to connect with his constituents.

Our government has committed over $11 billion on the national housing front. We have committed to a national housing strategy. This is our government's commitment not to have a patchwork or knee-jerk reaction but to come up with a comprehensive strategy, working with all stakeholders—the provinces, the municipalities, and the charities that run the current programs to take people off the streets and put them in housing—to bring more Canadians into proper homes and help those who are having affordability challenges, specifically in the Lower Mainland. We want those who have been born and raised there to be able to live in their own homes. I am committed to working with the government on that.

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned that in his riding of Surrey Centre, there is a population of 500,000, and 35,000 new jobs have been created. It is similar to my region of Kitchener and Waterloo. I want to ask how the investments have helped in his region and how job growth has increased because of those investments.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the infrastructure announcements have helped in terms of the ability to actually build new housing. In my riding of Surrey Centre, public transit had not been increased in over 20 years. It was 1986 when the last fixed light rail or transit line came in for the Sky Train. No expansion had ever been done. Due to the commitment and the $50 million given to create the plans for the new LRT line, we have seen more high-rises, more condos, and more apartments being built than ever before. That comes from the commitment investors, developers, and the business community have seen this government making in terms of building infrastructure to provide quick and affordable public transportation.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I should first announce to all members that I will be concentrating my remarks today more on the budget tabled on March 22 of this year than on Bill C-63, which I am sure all members understand is the BIA, or the budget implementation act. That act would, of course, enact certain provisions contained in the budget. Since they both flow together, all my remarks will be primarily concentrating on the budget itself.

First and foremost, in my opinion, at least, budget 2017 was a terrible budget. In fact, I do not think it would be unfair to say that it was a socialist budget. I use that term, because I am reminded of the famous words of former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher, who once opined that the reason socialism will never work is that eventually socialists “run out of other people's money.” Unfortunately, the Liberal government has not figured that last part out. I believe it thinks money grows on trees, because it is spending it like drunken sailors, thinking there is a never-ending supply of currency. We all know that this is simply not true, but perhaps that is a debate for another day.

What I will attempt to do today is talk about why I believe this socialist budget is so bad. This budget tabled March 22 is basically a combination of two things: it is a budget of broken promises, and it is a budget of higher taxes. I say higher taxes because we know, based on a recent study by the Fraser Institute, that fully 81% of Canadians considered to be in the middle class will now be paying $840 a year more in taxes than they were before. This comes from a government that is proud to stand in this House day after day to say how it has lowered taxes for the middle class. In fact, it has not. It has done just the opposite.

It is also a budget filled with broken promises. As one of my colleagues quite correctly pointed out just a few moments ago, when the Liberal government was running for election in 2015, it promised to run modest deficits of no more than $10 billion a year for the first four years, and then by election year, 2019, it would return to balance. Has it done that? Not at all.

In fact, what is truly alarming is the fact that when asked the question, both the Prime Minister and the finance minister said that they did not know when the government would return to a balanced budget. In my opinion, the reason they did not know is that they could not answer the question. They have absolutely no idea how to get back to balance, and if they do, when that would take place.

If the chief executive officer and the chief financial officer of any corporation said to their board of directors that they did not know when they would be perhaps returning to a profitable situation, I would suggest that both those officers would not be long in their jobs. I think that is what is going to happen in this case. The Government of Canada is, in effect, a corporation, a business, albeit a very large business. If the chief executive officer, that being the Prime Minister, and the chief financial officer, that being the finance minister, do not know when they could return to balance, I believe they should be fired, and I think they will be fired come 2019. It is not just the fact that they made promises they cannot keep. The truly alarming situation we have in front of us is that they simply do not know the answer to a very simple question: when will they return to balance? They cannot even give an approximation of when they will return to balance, and that is truly frightening.

Canadians expect more of their government. Canadians expect more of any government. However, for a government to freely admit, and to take some pride in admitting, that it will be running deficits that could go on in perpetuity, and that it does not know how to get back to balance, there is no pride in that, only shame, and the Canadian public is finally starting to figure that out.

I would suggest to my friends opposite, if they truly care about the Canadian taxpayer, as they so often repeat in this place, they would take immediate steps to try to find out how to return to balance. Second, they would implement provisions within their own spending regime to get back to balance. It is not that they have a revenue problem. They have a spending problem.

Some would argue there is an easy way to get back to balance, and that is to raise taxes. Quite frankly, I think my friends opposite are taking that to heart because they seem to be raising taxes on just about everything. That is not the way to run a government.

Conservatives believe in lower taxes and balanced budgets. That is a foreign concept to many on the opposite side of the aisle, I am sure, but it has proven to be effective in years past. Also, if the government truly wants to return to balance, it should start listening to some of its former colleagues. Prime Minister Stephen Harper, for example, returned to balanced budgets after a few years of serious deficits, caused by the worldwide global recession. I suggest to my friends opposite that they take a page out of that playbook and look at what they need to do to return to balance. It would certainly not be by spending, like they are today. It is about fiscal restraint, a foreign concept to many of the members opposite.

If the finance minister wants to prove his competence to the Canadian public, he should start looking in the mirror whenever he delivers an economic forecast and economic update, because we know now, if we did not before, that the finance minister, encouraged by his Prime Minister, is in the middle of a very serious conflict of interest.

I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that every single person in the country, from the time they first achieve cognitive thought, knows the difference between right and wrong, and what the finance minister has done by attempting to hide $20 million in shares in a numbered company in Alberta is simply wrong. The Prime Minister and the finance minister have a choice to do what is right, and do what is right for all Canadians. I sincerely hope they do. The right course of action would be for the finance minister to step down and the Prime Minister to accept his resignation.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-63, A second 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.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Pursuant to order made on Wednesday, October 18, I wish to inform the House that, because of the statements made earlier today, government orders will be extended by 27 minutes.

Resuming debate, the hon. Minister of Employment.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to rise in this place and talk about the budget implementation act.

Before I talk about that bill, I would like to talk about the measures that the government has taken to date to give all Canadians, particularly the middle class and those working hard to join it, the opportunities they need to succeed.

To start, we raised taxes on the 1%, so that we could lower them for the middle class. We then brought in the new Canada child benefit, which has lifted hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty. As a result of our CCB, nine out of 10 Canadian families are getting more in benefits than they did under the previous system. Compared to the previous system of child benefits, the CCB is more generous, and it better reaches those who need it the most.

Recently, as announced in the fall economic statement, we are helping those who need it most by enhancing the Canada child benefit, indexing it to the rising cost of living. We are also strengthening the Canada pension plan, increasing the benefit for workers by as much as 50%. This will not only help those who are retired now have more money in their pockets, but it will also help future retirees save enough for a dignified retirement.

On top of that, our government is doing more to help those working hard to join the middle class, by enhancing the working income tax benefit by an additional $500 million per year starting in 2019. We know that many people work long hours, sometimes in more than one job, to advance their careers and to support themselves and their families. By letting low-income workers take home more money, the working income tax benefit offers real help to 1.5 million Canadians.

The steps we have taken to date are having a positive impact on our economy, and for Canadians. Optimism is on the rise, and for good reason. Job creation is strong, with over half a million new jobs created since we took office, and the unemployment rate is at its lowest level since 2008. Youth unemployment is at a historic low, and Canada is the fastest growing economy in the G7 by a wide margin, growing at an average rate of 3.7% over the last year, which is the fastest pace of growth since early 2006.

Growth is forecast to be 3.1% in 2017, significantly above expectations at the beginning of the year. The fiscal outlook has improved by more than $6.5 billion annually, on average, from what was projected in budget 2017 last March. That is why we are here today, to consider and discuss the important measures contained in Bill C-63.

I will briefly describe a few of the key elements.

This budget implementation act supports the middle class and those working hard to join it by protecting the rights of federally regulated workers when they request flexible work arrangements from their employers.

Canadians increasingly face pressure to balance work and family responsibilities. We all know a single parent struggling to find balance or someone taking care of an aging parent, or even someone who is supporting a spouse through chemotherapy. Our government was elected on a commitment to give workers and federally regulated workplaces the right to request flexible work arrangements, and we are delivering on that commitment. Things like flexible start and finish times or the ability to work from home will benefit both employers and employees, through increased productivity, lower absenteeism, and greater retention.

Budget 2017 also contained a gender-based analysis, ensuring that the implications of budgetary measures on men and women are considered thoroughly. Our government believes that having meaningful and transparent discussions around gender and other intersecting identities will help us better understand the challenges that Canadians face, and help us make informed decisions to advance the goals of gender equality, fairness, and stronger workforce participation. We know that our prosperity relies on the participation of all Canadians, so our efforts are focused on ensuring our growth as a country leaves no one behind.

Our government also recognizes that young Canadians today face challenges when it comes to finding and maintaining good, well-paying jobs. Many young Canadians tell us that not being able to get meaningful work experience is a significant barrier to getting a good job. While internships can give young Canadians the hands-on work experience they need to make that successful transition to the workplace, some internships, in particular those that are unpaid, can be unfair and exploitative.

The budget implementation act proposes to eliminate unpaid internships in federally regulated sectors where the internships are not part of a formal education program. These changes would also ensure that unpaid interns who are part of an educational program are entitled to labour standard protections, such as maximum hours of work, weekly days of rest, and general holidays. It is the right thing to do for our young people trying to gain the necessary work experience to enter the labour force.

Small businesses are a key driver of our economy and a cornerstone of communities across the country. As our plan works to grow the economy, small businesses see the benefits of that growth with lower taxes. Our government committed to reducing the small business tax rate to 9% from 11%, effective January 1, 2019, while ensuring that Canadian-controlled private corporation status is not used to reduce personal income tax obligations for high-income earners rather than supporting small businesses. This means up to $7,500 in federal corporate tax savings per year that will help entrepreneurs and innovators do what they do best.

Our government's plan to grow the economy is indeed working. Because of our strong economic growth, we continue to invest in the middle class and those working hard to join it. Whether it is ensuring that more families can pay for the high cost of raising a family, ensuring more low-income workers can make ends meet, or implementing flexible work arrangements, smart investments like these will ensure that more Canadians have a fair chance of success.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I applaud the government for moving forward on a number of changes to the Canada Labour Code.

I would like to hear the minister's comments on some of the unpaid leave provisions, especially those for victims of domestic violence. I brought to the House's attention that unpaid leave for victims of domestic abuse may prevent many women from accessing that unpaid leave because of the dynamics or things that happen within relationships in which victims are often controlled economically by their partners. Being able to access unpaid leave may be a barrier for them, because coming home with a paycheque that is less than it is supposed to be may cause the abuser to take it out on the victim.

I am asking the government to be open to making this paid leave, so it is accessible to all victims of domestic violence.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member obviously has compassion for women living in violent situations. The leave that is included in this act is intended to address just that. We know that oftentimes one of the prohibiting factors for a women fleeing domestic violence is whether she will be able to take leave and return to the job as she sorts out the details of her life that have to be sorted out when leaving a partner, especially in very urgent situations.

I am proud that this leave is thoughtfully included in the types of leave available to all people experiencing domestic violence, but, generally speaking, women. It is an incredibly important acknowledgement that this government understands that women need that time to settle their affairs, so they can move forward into either safe spaces or new circumstances and have their jobs protected while arranging their affairs.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister this specifically. I know how important the student summer jobs program is to the students and young people in my riding and how its near doubling in funding has helped increase the number of jobs and, in some cases, given these students their first jobs. Could the minister comment on what she is hearing about that program right across the country?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. Part of my summer was spent meeting with students all across the country in the various communities I had an opportunity to visit to talk to them about how that experience was transforming their lives, not just in terms of their ability to earn a bit of money to put toward either school or their other expenses, but also often to gain that tangible first-time job experience. In one community I visited, the executive director of a not-for-profit organization had started with that organization as a Canada summer jobs' student. Can members imagine that 25 years later she was actually running the program?

You are absolutely right. Our government committed to doubling the Canada summer jobs funding, and that is in fact what we have done. This investment has enabled MPs all across this House to ensure that students in their ridings are getting that formative job experience. As well, students all across the country are receiving a variety of experience from the really great organizations that are contributing to the wellness and social fabric of their community, or from entrepreneurs who are running small businesses.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I just want to clarify that I am sure the hon. minister did not mean I was absolutely right; she meant that the hon. member for Avalon was absolutely right. I just want to remind hon. members to speak through the Chair.

We have time for a very quick question. The hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, people have told me recently that under federal jurisdiction in the non-union sector, if employees are sick they do not get any pay. There is no requirement for paid sick leave under the Canada Labour Code. Of course, this leads to people coming to work sick, or they are being punished for being sick because they lose a day's wages. Does the hon. minister have any thoughts on amending the Canada Labour Code to require employers to give three or four paid sick leave days a year to the non-unionized workers of this country?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague raises an important part of my mandate. Of course, it is on the mind of the Prime Minister that we need to make sure that those who are most vulnerable, often those who are young or working at low wages, have the best possible scenario in their workplaces. That is why we have just started consultations looking at the Canada Labour Code and how we can improve it to protect, most poignantly, those very vulnerable workers. I look forward to working with him regarding those consultations and hearing the member's thoughts on what needs to be included in the revision. The Canada Labour Code was last thoughtfully looked at in its entirety in the 1960s, and I am very much looking forward to that work.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-63, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measures.

When it comes to budgets, it is extremely important that we do everything in our power to meet our fellow citizens' sustainability requirements. Sustainable development has three pillars. Yes, one is economic, but there are also the social and environmental pillars. It is through the lens of these three pillars that I will analyze the bill before me.

First, I must point out one troubling fact. Yesterday, we learned from the paradise papers that fundraisers who are very close to the Prime Minister were implicated in this tax haven scheme. However, Bill C-63 contains no concrete measures to fight tax evasion or tax avoidance. It leaves the CEO stock-option tax loopholes untouched and does not demand the co-operation of major corporations.

It is a little ironic considering that in question period today, we in the NDP asked dozens of questions, trying to find out what the Liberal government was going to do to stop billions of dollars from going to tax havens. We were told that the government is going to continue doing the same thing, so there is nothing new. The Liberals are not going to change any laws to stop this tax evasion and put an end to this scam, which is currently legal. Indeed, they are allowing many millionaires and billionaires to put money in tax havens and avoid paying their share of taxes. As a result, Canadians are seeing a reduction in services as well as an increasing fiscal burden, all because some people refuse to contribute what they should. If we had more money, we could do much more than we currently are to complete our shift towards green energy.

In addition, before the budget was presented, we wrote to the Minister of Finance and asked him to include certain provisions to make our society fairer and greener. Unfortunately, none of those provisions were included. I will come back to that in a moment.

Bill C-63 does contain some positive measures. For example, it would change the Canada Labour Code to allow federally regulated employees to request greater flexibility from their employers, and it would also expand the tax incentives for geothermal projects. However, these incentives pale in comparison to the changes that are needed.

COP23, the climate change conference, starts today in Bonn. In 2015, when the Canadian government went to Paris, the Prime Minister said, “Canada is back”, but unfortunately, Canada was back with Stephen Harper's old targets and almost the same measures. There was very little progress.

I want to quote an article from Le Devoir, published on October 31, entitled “UN on Climate: 'Catastrophic' gap between commitments and actions”.

On Tuesday, six days before COP23, the UN's environment chief warned that there is a 'catastrophic' gap between the national greenhouse gas reduction commitments and the reductions that would be needed to keep global warming below 2°C.

In short, there have been some lofty promises, but countries are not taking the necessary measures to follow through on them.

In an economic update, and with the climate change conference opening today, we would have expected a number of measures to support the shift to clean energy. Unfortunately, there is virtually nothing there. We made some recommendations, as I mentioned, in a letter to the Minister of Finance.

The Lancet Commission on pollution and health recently published a very important report. It is an extraordinarily well researched scientific report written by health experts.

I would like to read their conclusions, which are very important. Clearly, when it comes to sustainable development, issues related to society, the economy, and the environment all go hand in hand. We are zeroing in on a huge and serious problem. Indeed, dangerous climate change is having serious consequences on people's health. We are currently talking about pollution, but this is also about climate change. I would like to quote the summary of the report from the Lancet Commission on pollution and health:

Pollution is the largest environmental cause of disease and premature death in the world today. Diseases caused by pollution were responsible for an estimated 9 million premature deaths in 2015—16% of all deaths worldwide—three times more deaths than from AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria combined and 15 times more than from all wars and other forms of violence. In the most severely affected countries, pollution-related disease is responsible for more than one death in four.

Why is fighting climate change and pollution in Canada so important?

Unfortunately, Canada's efforts have been quite weak. We sent a number of recommendations, including, for example, introducing a massive energy efficiency program. A group of people recently came to the Hill to talk to us about the importance of fighting climate change, and one way to do so is by investing in energy efficiency.

Energy efficiency creates jobs because people are needed to do the renovations or other related work. It also improves the living conditions of people living in poorly heated homes by reducing heating or air conditioning costs. Finally, the negative repercussions of pollution and climate change are also reduced. There would be benefits everywhere. The Liberal government has done nothing.

When discussing climate change and the environment, it is also very important to consider all of the recommendations by the Green Budget Coalition regarding the 2018 budget. All of those recommendations should have been adopted by the current government. One of them is very important: international climate change financing.

Clearly, we suffer, but let us think about the countries that suffer the most, the poorest countries. Those countries must be supported so they can adapt to climate change. We are the main emitters, but they are the main victims.

For example, the federal government could increase its financial participation through a tax on bunker fuels used in international aviation and maritime transportation. Aviation and maritime transportation do not currently contribute to the fight against climate change. Taxing the bunker fuels they use would be a way of redistributing money and assisting in international climate financing. There are a lot of other solutions, but my speaking time is ending. I would have liked to have the time to talk about the circular economy that could also be put forward. Those are examples of what is missing in Bill C-63, in this economic review.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member spoke about tax avoidance, economic updates and what the government was doing about tax cheaters. Could he give the House an update about the so-called inappropriate spending of over $2.7 million of taxpayer money that was used on satellite offices ? Has any of that money been paid back or will all of it be paid back, including interest?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would indeed like to talk about the fight against tax evasion and tax avoidance, as Canadians really want to know what is happening in that regard.

After the Panama Papers, now we see the Paradise Papers, and they include the name of the Prime Minister of Canada’s own chief fundraiser.

So, when the Liberals are asked if they will truly fight tax evasion and why they are not taking action, we understand why. It is because they are too close to those who abuse the system. We need tax reforms to correct this as soon as possible.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what is not in this budget update bill is the most troubling. In the budget the Liberals tabled, which I know by heart, on pages 149 to 150 were a lot of promises to support the conversion toward a cleaner energy Canada, but the vast majority of the dollars would not come until after the next election.

The Auditor General has been calling on the government to move forward on its commitment to deal with, reduce, and phase out the perverse subsidies for the fossil fuel industry. The grants and subsidies amount to more than $6 billion a year. Could the member speak to how disappointing that is and how little the government is doing to deliver on its commitments?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona for her extremely important question.

I say this in almost all of my speeches because it is very important, but I forgot to mention it today. The $1.3 billion in subsidies to the fossil fuel industries could quickly be reinvested in renewable energy and energy efficiency. This would help us truly transition to a low-carbon economy, something that needs to be done right now.

Another thing is that the government always forgets the north. This is where renewable energy is most needed, but there is almost nothing in the Liberals' budgets. I will repeat the recommendations from the Green Budget Coalition. They are there in black and white, and this is not the first time the Coalition has said so. It recommends that we take back the money allocated to subsidies for fossil fuels and use it to transition towards clean energy. This is urgent, but unfortunately, the government is still twiddling its thumbs.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Avalon asked a worthy question about the NDP. I think $2.7 million were spent on satellite offices. It was an abuse of taxpayer dollars. How much of that money has the NDP actually paid back to Canadian taxpayers? They are owed that money.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am trying to stay calm. My colleague knows that this case is in court. I can assure the member for Winnipeg North that not only will the ruling be in our favour, but the members of the Board of Internal Economy, those who hid behind closed doors to prevent us from saying what we have to say, will owe us an apology. I do not mind saying this. We will defend our case in court. There is no doubt about it.

The truth is that we used to hear about the Panama papers, but we now have the paradise papers. Whose hands are dirty and whose credibility is being questioned in this whole story? It is once again the Prime Minister's chief fundraiser. We did not get any answers about that today during question period. It is disappointing. We need action, but nothing is being done.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-63, the budget implementation act, 2017, No. 2. This bill implements certain measures from budget 2017.

Since our party was elected, we have applied ourselves to investing in our economy in order to make it work for the middle class. We reduced taxes for the middle class and implemented a fairer and more equitable non-taxable Canada child benefit based on income. Accordingly, the benefit is more advantageous for those who are most in need and helps them to pay for activities, warm clothing, and school supplies or to save for their children’s education.

For example, in my riding, Alfred-Pellan, more than 17,000 children from 10,000 families benefited from the Canada child benefit last year. More than $5 million went directly into these families’ pockets, and they were able to spend the money in local stores or to pay for sports and cultural activities offered by local businesses or organizations. Obviously, this measure is advantageous not only for families, but for the economy as a whole. Each of us benefits from strong economic growth.

We also enhanced the financial security of Canadian seniors by improving the guaranteed income supplement and ensuring that eligible seniors are enrolled automatically. We also lowered the retirement age to 65, and improvements will be made to the Canada pension plan starting in 2019. We also instituted a tax credit and employment insurance benefits for family caregivers. This is a very important file for me, since I was a caregiver for my mother for many years. I am proud to see what we have accomplished in this area to give family caregivers access to measures providing financial relief.

Of course, we launched an ambitious infrastructure program to stimulate the economy, create quality jobs, and build modern, green, and sound communities. This is in addition to our historic investments in social housing, which will help meet major needs in affordable housing in our communities. We are also investing in loans and bursaries programs, as well as in innovation. All of these measures foster the well-being and individual growth of all Canadians, helping them achieve their full potential. That was a quick overview of some of our budget measures.

Let us now talk specifically about Bill C-63, one of the cornerstones of our budget. This bill contains various measures and 10 minutes is hardly enough to talk about each one. I will focus on one measure that I think is especially important for Canadians, one that amends the Canada Labour Code.

I will read the part I am talking about for the benefit of my colleagues and those watching:

Division 8 of Part 5 amends the Canada Labour Code in order to, among other things,

(a) provide employees with a right to request flexible work arrangements from their employers;

(b) provide employees with a family responsibility leave for a maximum of three days, a leave for victims of family violence for a maximum of ten days and a leave for traditional Aboriginal practices for a maximum of five days; and

(c) modify certain provisions related to work schedules, overtime, annual vacation, general holidays and bereavement leave, in order to provide greater flexibility in work arrangements.

In short, our government is creating provisions to ensure that federally regulated workers can ask for more flexible working conditions.

If we are honest and realistic, we know that these are the types of measures that will help women most. Women are often the ones who need to strike a work-family balance because they are more likely to be responsible for childcare and household tasks, compared to men.

These measures will allow workers to ask their employer to change their work schedule, for example, in order to adjust to their children’s daycare or school schedule, or to telework on PD days. These are only two examples of a number of family situations that can require a flexible work schedule.

Division 8 will also create new leaves, specifically three days for family obligations. When your child is sick or a close relative is in the hospital, you want to be there to provide care and ensure his or her well-being. Federal employees will get these days off for family obligations.

We are also instituting leave for domestic violence. Women who make the decision to leave a violent environment are vulnerable and experience extreme stress. Often, they cannot report to work for a few days, and they do not know what type of leave they can ask for to justify their absence. This 10-day leave may encourage women who have been victims of violence to get out of a violent environment knowing that they have leave they can use without being penalized.

This amendment to the Canada Labour Code is a concrete example of our government’s determination to improve the living conditions of middle-class workers. Although a number of employers already have work-family balance measures in place and offer flexible work schedules, by amending the Canada Labour Code, we are clearly and officially saying that this is no longer a matter of choice.

It is a key principle and an important right. Workers are entitled to ask for flexibility and leave to balance their family and work responsibilities. People should not have to choose between their job and their children. In 2017, it is high time that the workplace adapted to diverse family situations and the obligations they entail.

I will close by pointing out that families and the middle class are at the heart of our commitments and the measures we are implementing. A strong economy is beneficial for the entire country, and it is based on families and a middle class who have access to quality jobs, who earn enough income to be able to spend, and who have access to opportunities unleashing the full potential of individuals and businesses.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to economic viability and the direction, the Liberals always said that they would have a small deficit of $10 billion. Now it is actually more than double that. The debt is increasing at a rate not seen before. There is no projection of when they will balance the budget. We now know that the tax laws that have been introduced target the middle class, protecting those who are very wealthy and the friends of the finance minister and the Prime Minister. Eighty per cent of the middle class are paying more tax now, about $840, than they were before you took office two years ago. Why are you taxing the middle class and protecting and sheltering those wealthy Liberal friends?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Again, I want to remind the hon. members to address their questions through the Speaker.

The hon. member forAlfred-Pellan.

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

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

I know the opposition is somewhat obsessed with the amount of the deficit. What we need to keep in mind, however, is that the more important figure is the debt-to-GDP ratio, which was 32.5% when we came to power. It has shrunk steadily since then to 30.5%, and it will continue to shrink.

Furthermore, based on our projections, that ratio will reach its lowest point since the 1970s. We brought it down to that level thanks to a healthy economy and a plan that is working. Revenues are up, and people are confident.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we welcome the changes to the Canada Labour Code that would allow employees more flexibility at work and also prohibit unpaid internships.

I would like the hon. member to respond to a couple of things. What really would help those working hard to get into the middle class would be a federal minimum wage and pay equity legislation. Those things need to happen to have an impact on those vulnerable folks and those who are not making enough money to make ends meet.

My final comment is that the unpaid leave for victims of domestic violence would pose a barrier, especially for those women who are poor. We know that women who suffer in relationships of domestic violence are often economically controlled by their partners. Their ability to access unpaid leave to deal with issues like lawyers and child care and to then go home and interact with someone who now knew they had brought home less income and wanted to know why would be a huge barrier for women trying to access unpaid leave. I encourage the government to be open to making that leave paid leave so that it is accessible to all women.

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

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

I am always surprised when the NDP opposes some of our key measures that primarily benefit low- and middle-income people.

For example, in the 2016 budget, we introduced the Canada child benefit, which reduced child poverty by 40%. The NDP voted against it, but we are now going to make it even better. I cannot believe the NDP was against that. It is an honour for me to be here to talk about the initiatives in our 2016 and 2017 budgets that put Canada back on track for growth, job creation, and prosperity.

Since coming to power, we have put Canada back on the path toward the kind of growth that is good for the middle class and everyone.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize my colleague from Alfred-Pellan, who provided us with information.

However, I will try to debunk what he has said, as it is not consistent with the facts.

I am pleased to rise in the House to discuss the second bill to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measures.

First, I would like to give a reminder. This Saturday, November 4, was the second anniversary of the Liberal government coming to power.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

I am not certain that all Canadians are applauding. It is limited, here, to one side of the House. What are the results of those two years? Only broken promises.

Through the Chair, I would like to inform those watching on television that I do not want to be alarmist. I only want to share facts. Canadians have enough judgment to be able to understand what is really happening and they will not be blinded by words or by flashes from the various cameras that follow the Prime Minister around.

During the election campaign, the Liberals went out to meet Canadians. Among other things, they said one important thing. They said to trust them, to vote for them, that they would create a slight deficit of $10 billion, and they assured their dear fellow Canadians that they would return to a balanced budget in 2019. They applauded earlier, but we cannot hear them now. They talked about $10 billion the first year; they finished the year with a deficit of $18 billion. This year, the deficit will be $20 billion. In 2018, it will be $18 billion. I remind you of their promise because it is a fixed date election. In 2019, they were to return to a balanced budget. Their economic update mentioned $17 billion. They talked about a balanced budget in 2019, but if I add it up, that makes $73 billion dollars in deficit over the four years that the Liberal Party is in power.

They have admitted that he budget will never be balanced. What hypocrisy and what a lack of respect for the Canadians who trusted them. That is unacceptable, but we are stuck with them for the next two years. We will live with the situation, but everyone needs to know that we, as the opposition, will be doing our work.

They promised transparency and a new way of governing. Wow! The Minister of Finance acts like a king who thinks he is above the law. He states that he created a blind trust for his company in which he has shares, Morneau Sheppell. It took two years and hard work by the opposition to make the minister take action. A few weeks ago, with assistance from the commissioner, he was able to understand the form, deposit his assets and opt for a blind trust. You have to take people for… I will not finish that sentence. People at home are able to finish it.

He tabled a law regarding pension plans for Canadians. Until recently, he was a shareholder in Morneau Sheppell. We know what Morneau Sheppell does: the company manages pension plans. So he is both judge and jury. Indeed, he establishes a law and his fellow shareholders and colleagues benefit from that law. How much money does the Finance Minister receive—I am not talking about his salary as a parliamentarian—as a shareholder in Morneau Sheppell? He receives $65,000 per month.

Let us not forget his villa in Europe and the numerous companies we keep pestering him about because we want to know exactly what they are about. It is because we suspect that the Minister of Finance has other sources of revenue. He is giving us no reason to think otherwise.

If he does not want to come completely clean, that is his choice, but until he does so, some doubt will always linger. We live in a democracy, not a dictatorship. The minister and his Prime Minister are not above the law. They have no right to take advantage of honest Canadians. That will conclude my opening remarks.

I will now focus on Bill C-63, an omnibus bill. Last week, my colleague for Carleton asked the Speaker for an analysis of Standing Order 69.1 introduced by the Liberals last June. I will read it to make sure everyone understands:

(1) In the case where a government bill seeks to repeal, amend or enact more than one act, and where there is not a common element connecting the various provisions or where unrelated matters are linked, the Speaker shall have the power to divide the questions, for the purposes of voting, on the motion for second reading and reference to a committee and the motion for third reading and passage of the bill. The Speaker shall have the power to combine clauses of the bill thematically and to put the aforementioned questions on each of these groups of clauses separately, provided that there will be a single debate at each stage.

This government has hidden a lot of things its Bill C-63. In June the Liberals put in place regulations, but they are not even able to manage the application of a regulation they implemented three months earlier. They are all mixed up in the management of a regulation. Imagine how the government manages finances.

We can also talk about the Asian Bank. The March 2017 budget presentation announced $256 million for the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. In today’s bill, however, we see that it is instead $375 million U.S. After converting, that gives $480 million Canadian. No problem, they will spend recklessly and then try to take money out of the pockets of middle-class Canadians. In other words, the omnibus budget implementation bill proposes something that was not originally provided for. As a result, Mr. Speaker, you have the authority to split the components of the bill.

The other problem is that the extra $224 million is being invested in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank instead of the Canada infrastructure bank. We are investing that money in a bank in Asia. That is one way of looking at things. This inconsistent and irresponsible government is spending recklessly.

The Fraser Institute confirmed that over 80% of middle-class families pay more taxes than they paid under the Harper government. Wow. They say one thing and put money in one pocket, but they take twice as much out of the other pocket. More money is being taken from middle-class Canadians. That statement is not from the Minister of Finance, it is from the Fraser Institute, which I trust.

In closing, I cannot give my vote of confidence to this government and its finance minister, who is determined to tell honest Canadians that he is a man worthy of his office. In my opinion, a finance minister must be above any doubt or reproach regarding credibility and integrity. He must comply with the law and be whiter than white. This finance minister, however, is very grey, bordering on black.

I would encourage the Minister of Finance, our national Superman, to come back to reality and to be sensible in managing Canada’s public finances.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the consistent comments we get from the Conservative opposition is concern about the deficit. It is important to realize a bit of the history of deficits. When Stephen Harper was prime minister, he inherited a multi-billion dollar surplus and turned it into a multi-billion dollar deficit, even before the Canadian recession got under way. Year after year, the Harper government had nothing but deficit after deficit. In fact, I suspect we would find that the Harper government accumulated more in those annual deficits than in the history of any other prime minister, in terms of real dollars.

Given how disastrous the Harper government was in dealing with the deficit, why should any government take advice from a Conservative government that did so poorly and generated so little in terms of actual economic activity, especially compared to what we have done in the last couple of years?

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has a very colourful way of speaking. However, speaking in a colourful way does not necessarily guarantee coherence. In 2007, the debt-to-GDP ratio was the lowest ever, and members cannot say whatever they want in the House.

I would like to add that we left the House in order. When we left the government to the Liberals in 2015, there was a surplus. In 2016, there was an $18-billion deficit and, this year, there will be a $20-billion deficit.

We cannot call that responsible government. The government has only been in power for two years. It is unacceptable. I will also mention what the Liberals actually did to hurt Canadians: they eliminated the universal child care benefit; eliminated the child fitness tax credit; eliminated the arts tax credit; eliminated the tax credits for post-secondary education and textbooks; eliminated income splitting; and cancelled the tax break for SMEs. They also reduced the TFSA contribution, cancelled the tax credit for public transportation, and more.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to listen to this discussion. The Liberals are pointing out that the Conservatives ran seven straight deficits in the House between 2008 and 2015, although they did balance the budget in the last year. The Conservatives are yelling at the Liberals about another six to 10 deficits in a row. Listening to the Liberals and the Conservatives accusing each other of running deficits all the time is not very productive. What both parties have in common is that they are not willing to address the fundamental basics of deficits.

Deficits are easy, and Canadians know it. It means that we are spending more money than we are taking in. The Conservatives did it after a recession, so at least they had the economic conditions in which we had to prime the economy from 2008 to 2011. The Liberals are going into deficit when the economy is firing on all cylinders. Traditional Keynesian thinking would be that a government runs deficits in poor economic times and pays down those deficits in good economic times. I am not sure what economic philosophy the Liberals are following. The bottom line is that a government has to have its revenue match its expenditures.

Would my hon. colleague suggest that the government cut spending right now, or would he agree with New Democrats and say that we have to raise some revenue, in an equitable manner, maybe by restoring the corporate income tax up a couple of points so that we can get the budget back in balance by getting more revenue into government?

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, who acknowledges that the Conservatives practised sound management during an astronomically serious financial crisis, and that Canada was the first country to recover. Thank you for acknowledging that.

I suggest that we stop spending without a plan. There is always the possibility of running a deficit in a specific context. However, the plan must be to return to a balanced budget. The government must practise responsible management.

Some programs are poorly managed. For example, the clean water and wastewater fund (CWWF) is an infrastructure program. The government is giving municipalities a certain amount of time to make a decision and present their projects. It is closing the window as much as it can. This leads to increased costs. Then, it changes the rules. In my riding, there are municipalities that did not submit projects because they could not satisfy the requirements. The Liberals can extend the program, but they are choking municipalities so that they do not have to pay.

Let us be honest, let us respect our regions and Canadians in general, and let us practise sound management of the country’s budget.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Order. 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 Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, the Environment; the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, National Defence; the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan, Public Services and Procurement.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today about Bill C-63, the budget implementation act, No. 2.

This bill includes key measures of our government’s second budget, which will create jobs, grow our economy, and provide all Canadians with more opportunities for success.

Before I move into the details of Bill C-63, I would like to provide a brief update on the strength of the economy as we reach the midpoint of our mandate.

In 2015, we assumed office in the wake of 10 long years of a Conservative government that had run multiple deficits, despite promises to the contrary; that had cut essential services, despite the needs of hard-working Canadians; and that had led to the weakest economic performance since the Great Depression, despite claims of being a champion of growth.

Over the last two years we have turned it around, thanks to some smart investments, which have included lowering taxes for nine million Canadians; creating the Canada child benefit plan that is putting more money in the pockets of nine out of 10 families, an average of $2,300 per family, and lifting approximately 300,000 children out of poverty; making enhancements to CPP, OAS, and GIS, all of which is improving retirement security and the quality of life for seniors; adding scholarships, bursaries, debt relief, and training for students in adult learning; and creating a national strategy on innovation and climate change to foster a competitive and sustainable economy.

When we take the cumulative effect of these measures and add them to the $180 billion we have earmarked for infrastructure spending to build better transit, roads, bridges, and clean water initiatives, we see concrete evidence of an economy that is heating up. Specifically, unemployment has dropped from 7.1% to 6.2%, the lowest since 2008. The debt-to-GDP ratio is forecast to drop below 3.1% this year, the lowest in nearly 40 years, on the way to and over the next five years. Half a million jobs have been created since we were elected, the best record in over 14 years. Together these indicators demonstrate how, in just two years, we took a workforce that was sluggish and underperforming and transformed it into the fastest growing economy in the G7, with an average of 3.7% GDP growth over the last four quarters. These results are ones that every member in this House should celebrate.

To keep the momentum going with regard to our economic performance, we are proposing a number of additional measures in this bill, which represents the second phase of the budget implementation act for 2017. Let me highlight a number of those now.

I will start with the measures to support the middle class and those working hard to join it.

This budget implementation act protects the rights of federally regulated workers when they request flexible work arrangements from their employers. Flexible work arrangements include flexible start and finish times, the ability to work from home, and new unpaid leave to help employees manage their family responsibilities. These work arrangements benefit many women who continue to do the majority of unpaid work in the home.

Budget 2017 was the first budget in Canada's history to include a gender statement. It seeks to present a frank and honest analysis of the impact the budgetary measures will have on women. In addition, in its fall economic statement, the government announced that it would strengthen the Canada child benefit by indexing it to annual increases in the cost of living effective July 2018, which is two years earlier than planned.

What this means, in practical terms, is that for a single parent with two children and income of $35,000 the Canada child benefit will contribute an additional $560 in the 2019-20 benefit year towards the cost of raising his or her children.

Beyond strengthening the Canada child benefit, starting in 2019 we will also add $500 million to the working income tax benefit, sometimes referred to as the WITB. This will put more money in the pockets of low-income workers, including families without children and the growing number of single Canadians. These two actions alone will boost the total amount the government spends on the WITB by about 65% in 2019, increasing benefits to current recipients and expanding the number of Canadians receiving this support, which is essential for those who need it the most.

Finally, our government is going to help small and medium-sized businesses by lowering their tax from 10.5% to 9%, effective January 1, 2018, and then again January 1, 2019. This will provide a small business with up to $7,500 per year in corporate tax savings to reinvest in and grow its business. These kinds of savings are crucial for small business to grow, which is the engine of our economy.

The steps taken to date are having a positive impact on our economy and for all Canadians. Optimism is on the rise, and with good reason. Job creation is strong. As I said, there have been 500,000 new jobs created in the last two years, most of them full-time.

Growing the Canadian economy helps the government improve its record. Canada's financial situation remains solid, and the government will see to keeping the debt-to-GDP ratio on its downward trend.

Every Canadian deserves to benefit from this economic growth. The government has lowered taxes for middle-class Canadians and has committed to ensuring that the tax system does not offer unintended benefits to the wealthiest Canadians or those with high incomes.

For all these reasons, I urge all hon. members to vote for this bill that will benefit all Canadians.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the parliamentary secretary in his role in justice. I am deeply concerned about the lack of access to justice by Canadians. We heard a major report on CBC today about how many people are having to represent themselves in court, causing further delays in the judicial process and ending with some serious cases being dropped that should proceed.

In my province of Alberta, even though the provincial budget may be stressed for dollars, it has increased legal aid, yet in this budget, we see no increase whatsoever for legal aid so that all Canadians can have access to justice, including middle-class families.

Can the member speak to that and to why this budget update does not include additional monies for legal aid, which is a pressing need in the country?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying how proud I am of the work the Minister of Justice is doing on this side of the House to advance access to justice. She is doing so in several concrete ways. First, with regard to our judicial appointments process, we renewed that process so it would be open, transparent, and focused on merit-based appointments. In the last two years, we have appointed 130 judges. In my hon. colleague's province, I am very proud to tell her that she has received 19 new federal judges since we have taken office. These are extremely capable and well-respected individuals who reflect the best this country has to offer. Simply by having them on the bench, we are enhancing justice.

We are also providing additional training. We have topped up legal aid in the last two years. We are running two pilot projects on providing additional legal services and advice to victims of sexual assault so they can have access and have their day in court. All these things together are speeding up trials and enhancing access to justice.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the key promises the Liberals made in 2015, before they were in government, was to invest $120 billion in infrastructure. The Conservative Party supported the idea from the get-go; indeed, it ran the largest infrastructure program in Canada when Mr. Lebel headed the infrastructure department. This program had planned investments totalling $80 billion, which was unprecedented in Canada.

That said, what I find interesting is that, today, two years after the election, very rarely do we hear about a specific project benefiting from the $120 billion that have supposedly been invested since 2015.

I wonder if my colleague is able to name a single project in a single province that has benefited from this $120-billion investment in infrastructure.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

I thank the member for his question, Mr. Speaker.

We are no longer at $120 billion; since we have increased our investments in infrastructure, we are now at $180 billion. Among others, these investments are funding projects in Montreal, Quebec, aimed at expanding and improving public transit. This is great news for the people of Montreal and Quebec.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, in the member's last response, he talked about services to Canadians.

Canadians have benefited from the Canada child benefit, seniors from the guaranteed income supplement, and WITB gives the most vulnerable Canadians more money in their pockets. However, it is on the services to Canadians, where we saw the past government cut jobs in EI processing and call centres, and the Phoenix fiasco that began with the 700 jobs cut from payroll departments, that I would like a comment.

Can my colleague comment on where those reinvestments are being made in the public sector, so that Canadians can get the services they expect and deserve?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague, who is a role model for every member on this side, for his thoughtful question.

In short order, one of the ways we are reinvesting in the public sector is by showing good faith when it comes to collective bargaining. The Conservative opposition spent 10 years eroding labour rights. On this side of the House, we believe in every single member of the public service who provides world-class service to Canadians.

I want to thank the hon. member for all of the work he does in that portfolio.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise in the House to discuss Bill C-63, which arises from the budget, of course. On March 22 the Minister of Finance introduced his second budget, which basically seeks to create growth for the middle class and those who work hard to join it.

The idea is very simple: when we lend a helping hand to our fellow citizens in need, the whole society benefits. Lowering the income tax rate for the middle class was the first thing we did when we came to Ottawa. That was a tax cut for 9 million Canadians.

The official opposition party, who supposedly is the champion of taxpayers, voted against that initiative. Today we can perhaps see why: the Conservatives voted against that initiative possibly because we also raised the income tax rate on the wealthy.

The second measure we put in place to ensure more inclusive growth in Canada was the Canada child benefit. Again, the principle is very simple: those who need it more will get more help, and those who need it less will get less help. The previous approach from the Conservatives was to send cheques to millionaires. No matter one's revenue, everyone got the same cheque. To add insult to injury, they made it taxable. In Conservative la-la land, the principle of equity simply does not exist.

Under our plan, almost 18,000 children benefited from the Canada child benefit in Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, which is my riding. Families received an average payment of $510, which is non-taxable. The Canada child benefit directly impacts families and local businesses in Glengarry—Prescott—Russell.

The official opposition likes to talk the talk on defending the taxpayer, but when it comes to walking the walk, well, they voted against our plan and in favour of a plan that would tax families, which they still defend to this day. I would like to see them quote that particular impact in the Fraser report.

The question is on whether this plan is working. The answer is yes. The unemployment rate in eastern Ontario in September 2015 was 8.7%. Today, it is almost 2% lower, at 6.8%. The economy in Canada has added more than 500,000 jobs in less than two years. We have the lowest unemployment rate since 2008, and our economy is growing faster than any of the G7 countries.

This year, GDP growth will be 3.7%. This better-than-expected rate of growth means that the government will be able to index the Canada child benefit two years ahead of our original plan. That will mean an increase of $560 a year for a mother with two children who earns $35,000. We know that this will directly contribute to our country's economic growth. We are not the ones saying that. It is the Governor of the Bank of Canada.

What is more, we are enhancing the working income tax benefit by $500 million as of 2019. That is another measure that will have a significant impact on workers in my region. We are able to implement these measures because of our strong economic growth, and we are doing so while ensuring that the debt-to-GDP ratio continues to drop.

I would like to take a few moments to talk about the reason why we decided to carefully invest rather than make cuts. We cannot talk about deficits without mentioning the infrastructure deficit in Canada. None of the mayors in my riding are asking the government to cut infrastructure programs. This year, for the first time ever, the community of Maxville will finally have access to water thanks to a federal investment of $15 million. That is going to make a real difference in the lives of Maxville residents.

What is more, there has been talk about expanding Highway 17/174 for 40 years. With the announcement of light rail, $50 million will be allocated to build the interchange at the intersection of Highway 174 and Trim Road. This will have a direct impact on people who commute to Ottawa and on those who will be travelling to Trim station to take the train. More work remains to be done, but this is a step in the right direction.

I could name other infrastructure projects in Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, but the point is that there is tremendous need for our communities. As I have said before, not a single mayor is asking me to cut funding towards infrastructure.

What is the legacy we want to leave to our children and our children's children? We could balance the budget at all cost and kick the can down the road for major repairs to infrastructure, or we could own up to our responsibilities and reduce the infrastructure deficit so that our children and our children's children can benefit down the road. I choose the latter approach, because it is the responsible approach. If we have a leaky roof, we cannot simply balance the family budget in the hopes that the leaky roof will go away. We must take responsibility.

We are doing this because although the Conservatives supposedly balanced the budget during their 10 years in office, they did so by ducking their responsibilities towards our municipalities. “Too bad, so sad” was their refrain as they told our municipalities that their citizens would have to wait for clean drinking water and that fixed-income seniors, the most vulnerable members of our society, would have to wait for social housing. However, the fact that we have an aging population did not come out of nowhere. We need to make sure that the decisions we make today have an impact on tomorrow.

That is why I am proud that we are investing $11.9 billion in social housing. These investments will help seniors, single mothers, and women in domestic violence situations. We know that one of the barriers women face in trying to leave an abusive relationship is a lack of housing. Incidentally, I would like to thank the Centre Novas, which continues to advocate for the most vulnerable women in Glengarry—Prescott—Russell.

This goal is within reach, because we have chosen the path of investment and growth. Our track record on growth is good, the best in the G7, but we need to keep the momentum going.

The more our companies prosper, the better it is for our economy. In order to spur that growth, we are investing $400 million over three years in a venture capital catalyst initiative that will help young businesses scale up to the next level. With leveraged funds from the private sector, we could be looking at a $1.5 billion injection into our economy.

We will also honour our promise to our small businesses to lower taxes to 9%, down from 10.5%, by 2019. This will leave more money in the pockets of our entrepreneurs, so they can in turn invest it in their businesses.

In closing, Bill C-63 to implement certain provisions of the budget supports the growth of the middle class and helps those working hard to join it. The tax cut for the middle class, the Canada child benefit, the improvement of the Canada pension plan, the investments in our sewer systems and social housing, the tax cut for small and medium-sized businesses, the working income tax benefit, the improvement of the guaranteed income supplement—all of these measures help the middle class and those working hard to join it. Strengthening this class will benefit society as a whole, and I am proud to support this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Glengarry—Prescott—Russell attacked us a bit in his speech when he said that the Conservatives had forgotten the municipalities. That is a bit rich because when we were in government, following the recession, we set in motion the economic recovery plan that allowed every municipality in Canada to benefit from an $85-billion infrastructure plan that did not include a portion for social housing. It was entirely for municipal infrastructure such as bridges and waterworks.

By the end of that economic recovery, we had the highest job creation rate in the G7 with 1.2 million jobs created. How does the hon. member explain his government's decision for the past two years and especially in the past few weeks to do away with the regional development minister position for good?

How does that reflect any respect for the municipalities in Canada's rural regions?

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would put it to my colleague that we gave power back to the members of Parliament. In his province of Quebec, it is the role of Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions, and in mine, FedDev is still the one investing. No one has lost their voice. In fact, I made several announcements aimed at helping several businesses in my province. We do not need a minister. All members have a voice in cabinet. They have only to speak to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development. I am certain that he would be most attentive to Quebec's concerns.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to what my colleague said he liked about the budget. My question concerns something that, surprisingly, is not in the budget. During the last two election campaigns in 2011 and 2015, the Liberals were very firm in their promise to cap the amount that can be claimed through the stock option deduction. Tax fairness is actually quite important to the middle class everyone keeps talking about. The Liberals repeatedly promised to address this perceived iniquity, and yet, they went back on their promise as soon as they came to power.

My question for my colleague is as follows. Why did the government decide to renege on its promise to close a tax loophole that only benefits wealthy CEOs?

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

First, Mr. Speaker, stock options do not only benefit wealthy CEOs. They also benefit start-ups. Sometimes, it is the only option they can give investors. I like that the hon. member reminded us of the promises we made during the election, because I, too, remember a promise the NDP made during the same period, which was to balance the budget. Today, the New Democrats are saying that they want us to invest more in the fight against tax evasion, although we have already invested more than $1 billion. I wonder how the NDP would go about investing more while still balancing the budget. Perhaps we should ask the new leader of the NDP, as we are unsure what his position is. Will he balance the budget at all cost, or will he decide to invest?

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

Earlier, Mr. Speaker, we heard our colleague opposite speak of the recession that happened when his party formed the government. Back then, revenues were at an all-time high. Oil was selling at $110 a barrel. All of these resources boosted revenues. Now that oil is selling at $40 or $50 a barrel, sound management was needed in order to provide Canadians all of the benefits we have been able to offer. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I could not agree more, Mr. Speaker, and would like to thank my colleague for his fine question. Indeed, the Conservatives often talk about how they only went into deficit during the recession, and yet, the recession happened in 2008-09, and the largest deficit in the history of Canada was recorded in 2010. It had reached $62.5 billion. The Liberals are not even close to that number yet. We have decided to invest in infrastructure because that is what every municipality has asked us to do. As I said earlier, I have yet to meet a mayor who has asked us to stop investing in infrastructure and to stop offering support. We have not gotten that request from a single mayor.

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

Mr. Speaker, hon. colleagues, dear Canadians who are watching us, I just want to say, “wow”. One hundred and fifty years ago, on November 6, 1867, the first Canadian parliamentarians from Upper Canada and Lower Canada, as well as the colonies of New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Nova Scotia, gathered here in a federal Parliament for the first time. It was surely to have a debate, but I imagine that first day must have been rather solemn. I do not know if they started any work that first day. I imagine they wanted to get started right away on working hard to build a federation from coast to coast. It must have been extraordinary to take part in achieving that dream.

I wanted to take a minute or two to say that I agree with what my leader said about his vision of the country, and his take on the parliamentary system and the role of parliamentarians. I was impressed by his speech.

Certainly, I want to thank the Prime Minister for taking the time to deliver a speech on this solemn day. I also found it extraordinary that four former prime ministers were here today. I appreciated the speech of the House leader of the New Democratic Party and that of the Bloc Québécois member who took the time to say a few words despite his opposition to our great federation.

I am more mature now as I begin my third year as MP than I was at the very beginning. There are three things I consider important and that I would like to bring back to the Canadian political agenda. If I come to Ottawa every week, it is not to talk about rights but about duty. It is not to talk about about pride, but about honour. More importantly, it is not to talk about entitlements but about each individual's responsibility and their role in community development.

Guided by these three beacons that shape my approach to parliamentarism and Canadian politics, I come here each week in an attempt to improve things in this country, even only a little bit.

I would like nothing more than to be able to speak at length in this House about the Constitution of Canada, the role of the provinces in our constitutional order and the dialogue that Philippe Couillard would like to open about Quebec's place in Canada.

I would like to talk about our founding peoples, linguistic rights, creating new provinces to pursue Canada's territorial and economic expansion, as well as international relations and Canada's role in the 21st century in light of all the world's emerging powers on all continents who are challenging us in ever more extreme ways. I would also like us to discuss our vision of federalism for the hundred years to come.

However, I cannot talk about that today, as the government is busy introducing a bill to confirm and put in place the budgetary measures which were announced in March, as is the custom in this great Parliament.

We returned to the House two months ago, but we have not touched on the constitutional debates and the international relations debates I talked about, debates I would really like us to have here. This all started in July, when the government put forward its tax reforms, which amounted to tax hikes for small and medium-sized businesses. It really botched those reforms. Just two weeks ago, the Minister of Finance presented his economic update. He tried to convince us that his tax reforms are working well and that he merely adjusted a few elements of it in response to what he heard from Canadians.

Simply put, the tax reform is a thing of the past. It is moot. The government backtracked thanks to some very good work by the official opposition of Canada and our leader, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle. Every sitting day from September to November, our leader proved to Canadians that the tax reform benefited the rich, those who want to avoid paying taxes, and, it bears mentioning, even the Minister of Finance, as we all know. The whole thing is absolutely unbelievable.

The reform benefits the rich rather than ordinary Canadians—the workers, the mechanics, the labourers, the farmers. The Liberal economic update is merely a repeat of the same measures and broken promises we have seen from the beginning of their mandate in 2015. The only thing that is new is that they are going to lower the overall tax rate for small and medium-sized business.

Once again, that was nothing really new, since the Liberals had announced it during the campaign. They first decided not to keep that promise, but faced with the political uproar created by their ethical scandal, they thought they might present a gift to shift the media's focus. It did not work.

Then, at the end of September, the scandal linked to the finance minister himself, personally, was uncovered. This is not a debate about whether this is a good policy, nor is it a debate on the tax measures he wants to bring in. Indeed, thanks to research done by our party and by some investigative journalists, it became clear that the Minister of Finance was in a total conflict of interest, both personally and with respect to his significant financial assets. He made his fortune by working very hard, good for him.

According to the Liberal members, Morneau Shepell, and the government, everyone believed that the Minister of Finance had taken his fortune, including the $20 million he owned in Morneau Shepell shares, and placed it in a blind trust back in 2015. That was not the case. For the past month, I have been expecting him to stand up in the House and make a formal apology. In the end, he made a donation to charity, which is nice, but he has yet to apologize to Canadians.

We have been talking about this issue for a month and a half. There was also the property in France, which he hid from the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, as well as Bill C-27, which directly benefits his family business, Morneau Shepell. The proof is right in front of us: the Minister of Finance is in a direct conflict of interest. He has yet to apologize to Canadians.

Yesterday, it emerged that the Liberal Party of Canada's own chief fundraiser is implicated in tax avoidance schemes involving tropical tax havens south of here. The news has made this government even more of a laughingstock.

Today, on this 150th anniversary of the first parliamentary sitting of November 6, 1867, four former prime ministers, unfortunately, had to witness a question period that I found to be shameful and that did not focus on the issues that we should be discussing. As I said, we should be discussing the Canadian federation, the coming century, and how to always strive to make Canada the best country in the world.

Instead, we are talking about this government's hypocrisy. We are talking about the things it does that create conflicts of interest. In short, we are talking about its real intentions, which are to help interest groups, not Canadians. These interest groups, whatever their cause, may be chartist groups that go through the Supreme Court to impose new policies on our country rather than coming and fighting in the House, economic interest groups, like the finance minister and his Bill C-27, or groups that fight for the government's own party. What is worse, the Liberals are shamelessly claiming that theirs is a feminist budget. I have never heard anything so ridiculous in my life. Well, perhaps that is a bit of an exaggeration, but even so. This should not be a feminist budget. It should be a Canadian budget for all Canadians.

Since when does a government have the nerve to rise in the House and claim that a budget has been put in place for a particular group, to cater to a certain ideology or stripe, or individual interests? How does this government have the nerve to talk about a feminist budget? What would happen if it was a masculinist budget? It is completely ridiculous.

What have the Liberals done in the past two years? They have eliminated tax credit after tax credit, to the point where, according the Fraser Institute, a typical Canadian family with two children is now paying $840 more in taxes a year.

It is unprecedented in Canada for a government to run a deficit that is double what was promised with no plan to balance the budget. That is the Liberal government.

Rather than celebrating the Constitution on this 150th anniversary, we are celebrating the Liberals' hypocrisy.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member referred to the issue focus. Let there be no doubt. We have a Prime Minister who has been focused from day one. When he was first elected as leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, he established that his priority was Canada's middle class and those working hard to be a part of it. Then we can look at the first piece of legislation, the first budget, the second budget, and the many other things our government has done. The common thread is how we can enhance Canada's middle class. That is about as focused as I have ever seen, and I have been a parliamentarian for 25 years. We have a Prime Minister who is focused on Canada's middle class.

Why does the Conservative Party, which continues to be out of touch with Canadians, not recognize that instead of focusing its attention on being critical of personal issues, it should be focusing on listening to what Canadians want? They want a healthier economy. They want a government that is sensitive to the needs of Canadians in all regions. Our government is delivering that. Why does the Conservative Party continue to be out of touch with what Canadians want?

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

Mr. Speaker, with all due humility, from day one, and we have seen it more than ever in the last three months, the government has been focused on enhancing the privilege of the Liberal elite. It has focused on enhancing the privilege of the Liberal bagmen. It is trying to work for interest groups. That is why the budget is called the feminist budget, when it should be called the Canadian budget.

On the contrary, from 2006 to 2015, our focus was to govern the country in all aspects, not just for one class but for all Canadians. That is why we would never have called it a feminist budget and only talked about the middle class. We were always talking about Canadians. Every day our leader, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, stands in the House of Commons and talks about the mechanics, the farmers, the tractor repairmen, the person who does haircuts, the pizza man, those who work on the ground, the people who send taxes every day to the government, to the House of Commons, so we can govern the country. The focus should be to govern the country.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague talked about the budget, how it created a distraction for Canadians, and how it was very confounding. In fact, it is not focused, as my colleague across the way mentioned. It is a distraction from very severe tax loopholes and evasions, and some judgment calls.

My hon. friend mentioned that this was a feminist budget. However, Canadian women today are still making 74¢ to the dollar compared to men. There has been inaction on pay equity. It has been very superficial.

Is my friend concerned at all with some of the issues around the Asian infrastructure bank? In budget 2017, it was to be $256 million over five years. Now, under Bill C-63, that amount would increase to $480 million. Is he concerned about that kind of distraction as well?

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

Mr. Speaker, I also have read that we have no assurance there will be any return for the people in Canada on the money we invest in Asian Infrastructure Bank. It is like a blind trust in the Chinese financial world. It is probably to get a deal on free commerce with China, which I kind of understand, but the Liberals should try to have better tactics to come to that end.

It is distraction after distraction. Two weeks ago, when we spoke about the finance minister, they came out with Bill C-24 to change the titles from ministers of state to ministers. It is complete nonsense. It has been like that for two years.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak today again about our budget. I have been talking with constituents in my riding of Hastings—Lennox and Addington about a few of the highlights from our fall fiscal update and it has been going over really well.

I hear all the time about how important the Canada child benefit has been for helping families. To take a snapshot, in the month of July of this year there were a total of 8,710 tax-free payments made in my riding, which benefited 15,860 children. The average payment was $610 for a total of over $5.3 million. This happens every month and it has been doing a lot of good by injecting money into our local economy.

I was impressed to hear the announcement that we will be expanding the tax-free Canada child benefit to keep pace with the increasing cost of living two years ahead of schedule. We can do that because our economic plan is working. The economy is booming, with over 500,000 jobs having been created since we came to office, most of them full time. I will get back to that.

I was reminded recently that it was close to this time two years ago that I was on the campaign trail in the town of Stirling in my riding. I was going door to door and came up to a playground that had several young mothers there with their children. I stopped to say hello and of course we talked about what our party was proposing to do to help families. The Canada child benefit was a huge hit and the reason is that low and middle-income families have needed extra help.

We promised to help families who needed it the most and we have kept that promise. The tax-free Canada child benefit has lifted over 300,000 kids out of poverty.

In a riding like mine with higher than average child poverty rates, this has had a huge impact. It has put more money into the pockets of those who need it the most. They have been able to spend it to put food on the table and clothes on their kids' backs, and pay for books, sports, arts programs, and broadband Internet.

This is so important since the data shows that with the rising cost of living, a family of four in the western part of my riding had to pay almost $1,400 more for groceries in 2016 than it did five years earlier.

The Hastings-Prince Edward poverty round table and Hastings-Prince Edward Public Health have rightly pointed out that income is one of the best predictors of health. We know that when money is tight, healthy food is one of the first things to be cut in order to pay rent and other bills. In order to save money, people may skip meals, eat fewer vegetables and fruit, drink less milk, and fill up on high-calorie, low-nutrient foods because those foods are cheaper.

The result of this unhealthy diet is an increased risk of chronic disease and poor growth and development in children. This affects everyone. In comparison to food-secure households, annual health care costs are 23% higher in households with marginal food insecurity and 121% higher in households with severe food insecurity in Ontario.

The Canada child benefit is tax-free money upfront so families can use it whatever way they want for their kids. For some that is as fundamental as putting food on the table and clothing on their kids' backs. For families in a stronger position, that can still mean help for sports or arts programs, or both. The point is, since it is not a tax credit that tends to only help families who already can afford to spend money up front, we are able to help even more families who need it most.

In the eastern part of my riding, the Food Policy Council for Kingston, Frontenac and Lennox & Addington has pointed out that 24.6% of all families in the area are single parent families, with 80% of these being female led.

Given that there is still an unacceptable pay gap where women in Canada are earning only 87¢ to every $1 earned by men, these mothers can use help. In the cases where it is the dads or grandparents, they are getting help as well.

Living under the low income cut-off after-tax group is 15.4% of the population of the Lennox and Addington area, and 25% of youth between the ages of 15-24 live under the low-income thresholds.

There is a clear need for help in my riding, and so we are helping to lift kids out of poverty.

Of all the things that our government has done, the Canada child benefit is the one that I am the most proud of. Even if it were for this measure alone, I hope that all members in the House will be supporting this fiscal update, but that is not all, there is more good news.

Combatting poverty and giving people the tools to find work is important to constituents in my riding. The Hastings-Prince Edward poverty round table has put together an employment and security working group to work on this issue. Our government will help. We know that individuals in families who are working hard to join the middle class should not have to struggle each month just to make ends meet.

We are proposing to strengthen the working income tax benefit. This is a refundable tax credit that puts more money in the pockets of low-income workers and gives people a little extra help as they transition to work. By letting low-income workers take home more money while they work, the working income tax benefit encourages more people to join the workforce and offers real help to nearly 1.5 million Canadians who are working hard to join the middle class.

We are investing an additional $500 million in the program every year starting in 2019. We will be working closely with the provinces and territories to find the best ways to expand this program and giving an update in our next budget. This is being well received. The Canadian Labour Congress has pointed that for the second year in a row the feds are taking steps to improve lives of low-income Canadians with the working income tax benefit. The National Housing Collaborative also pointed out that extra help for the working poor is welcome news in the fall economic statement.

Finally, I would like to return to how we are doing this. Our government's economic plan is working. We are putting money in the pockets of those who need it the most and working to rebalance so many inequities that exist in our society. We have improved the guaranteed income supplement for low-income seniors and strengthened the CPP. We cut taxes on the middle class and raised them on the wealthiest %1. We are investing in the infrastructure programs, innovation, and green technology, which is making our economy more resilient and creating the jobs of the future. We are also stimulating the economy through the Canada child benefit.

As a result, we are seeing Canada have the fastest economic growth in a decade and the best in the G7. That is excellent news for jobs with over 500,000 created since we came to office, and most of them full-time, including 35,000 created in the last month and 17,500 of those created under youth employment which is very positive and once again, something that is so important within our rural communities to try to create as much employment as we possibly can.

That is a plan that is worth supporting. Our infrastructure investments are really making a difference to increase the productivity of our businesses. We need to be able to make investments that increase productivity. We need to make investments that will decrease the inequalities that exist within our society. We need to increase investments into climate infrastructure, innovation, and resiliency so that we create an economy that is going to benefit all Canadians.

In the redistribution of that wealth through the Canada child benefit, through the working income tax benefit, through the increase to the guaranteed income supplement, we rebalance the distribution of wealth within our society that we have been talking about for over a generation that has gone too far in one direction. We need to balance the economy so that we can grow our middle class because when the middle class does well, then we all do well as Canadians, especially in our local economies.

The great thing about the Canada child benefit is that every cent of that money is spent in our local economies. If we talk about building rural sustainability, that is how we go about building sustainability in rural communities. Increases in the guaranteed income supplement, increases in the CPP, these are all things that are going to put money in the pockets of those who are going to spend it and that is great for our economy, great for creating jobs, and great for rural sustainability.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his comments outlining all of the money the Liberals are spending. It is spend, spend, spend, but what he failed to say is that the spending is resulting in an $8-billion increase in interest per year over the next four years. It will go from $24 billion a year in interest payments to $33 billion a year by 2021. That does not bode well for the next generation. My children and grandchildren are going to be forced to repay that debt.

The other thing my colleague commented on is investing in infrastructure. On this side of the House we are all for spending on infrastructure. In fact, we did a great job of that, but the current government is investing in infrastructure in Asia, no less. How can the member say that he is supporting the middle class when he is actually taxing the middle class? My children and grandchildren will be paying for infrastructure in Asia when in my riding there are bridges that need to be replaced, roads that need to be resurfaced, and water treatment facilities that need to be upgraded. There is light rail transit that is being built that could be extended farther on into Cambridge if it were not for the spending, spending, spending in Asia and other places that is not helping Canada at all.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, investing in infrastructure is a no-brainer. We need to improve our economy in every area. We want to increase the amount of trade that exists within our world. We do not want to rely on one single market. An avenue to get to that trade is to invest in them and they will invest in us. It balances out, in the end.

What is most important, the member is absolutely correct, is that we need to invest in and build local infrastructure so that our companies can be competitive on the world stage. However, it goes beyond roads and bridges, which are very important. I come from a rural riding and, believe me, I know how important roads and bridges are. It is also investing in innovation and the jobs of the future. It is not just a one-size-fits-all, that we do one thing in one area and it will benefit everyone. We need to take a multipronged approach, and that is what this government has done. It has focused not just on infrastructure but on the redistribution of wealth, building up the middle class, innovation for future growth, and jobs for our youth, the next generation, and our kids' generation.

As far as the amount of money we are spending in those areas, let us face it, we have made the investments and now there is 4.5% growth, the highest growth in the G7. We have the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. Therefore, our plan is working, and we will continue to work on that plan.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am really happy the hon. member talked about poverty, because whenever I meet with food banks or community groups, month after month, year after year, food bank use goes up, sadly. It is not just seniors but people who are working and students. Every year, it goes up. I was really hoping to see some kind of solution or proposals in this budget to help fight poverty. The agriculture committee did consultations on the food strategy, but to deal with food insecurity, we need to make sure that people are making enough money to buy good, healthy food. I was wondering if the member could comment on basic income and raising the minimum wage.

He also brought up pay inequity, which he said is unacceptable. I am wondering what kind of pressure he is putting on his government to make sure that women are getting paid for equal work.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member and I are on the same page completely. I could not agree more that pay equity is very important. It is important to our government, and we are going to take measures to move in that direction. However, it is an evolution, not a revolution. There are measures we put in place. Just tying the Canada child benefit to the cost of living, I am sure the member would agree, is another great step in trying to decrease the level of inequity and the level of food insecurity around poverty that exist. There is so much more that needs to be done, I could not agree more. We are on the path to get that done, but we need to do it in a responsible and evolving way. The approach that we are taking as a government tries to balance those two key issues that we need to be concerned with. Like I said, I totally agree that we need to do more work in these areas.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure and privilege to be able to rise to speak inside in this beautiful chamber.

Today, being November 6, is a very special day worth noting. We had four prime ministers sitting in the gallery. We had speeches by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the NDP representative, and the leader of the Green Party. They stood and recognized just how fortunate we parliamentarians are to be here, representing the interests and the will of Canadians in every region of this beautiful nation.

I want to start my comments by reflecting on how much I truly and genuinely appreciate representing the residents of Winnipeg North and the confidence they have expressed in me over the years. Having said that, let me get into the debate that is currently under way.

I have had an opportunity to ask a number of questions today and on a previous day when we listened to many opposition members speak about the budget. I want to reflect on some of those things I have been listening to. The most telling statements from the Conservative benches seem to focus on the deficit, which I have attempted to address by talking about how that deficit is not as bad as they try to portray it.

I asked one of my colleagues across the way if he could explain how Stephen Harper had turned a multi-billion dollar surplus he inherited as prime minister into a multi-billion deficit even before a recession got under way. At the end of the day, he continued to have deficit after deficit, accumulating more real dollars in overall debt as a direct result, in all likelihood more than most any prime minister.

I also asked my colleague why we in government should be taking advice from the Conservatives based on their historical perspective. The answer was interesting. He said, “Look at what we Conservatives did while we were in government”. My colleague talked about the debt-to-GDP ratio, as if that would excuse what the Conservatives did in terms of the size of the debt. Personally, however, I thought it was a good answer. The member has something there. The fact is the debt-to-GDP ratio is something that needs to be taken into consideration. It is something the government talks about. We have a very successful debt-to-GDP ratio that continues to go down. That is very healthy for our country.

In one sense, the Conservative member, unwittingly no doubt, conceded that the real issue is the debt-to-GDP ratio. On that account, the government is doing exceptionally well, especially compared to other industrialized nations, in particular in Europe, including the United Kingdom, and other countries like the United States and Australia. In comparison, Canada is doing exceptionally well.

If we are looking at results, there is a long list of things the government has accomplished in just two years. I will reflect on a number of those. At the end of the day, we have seen an economy that is envied around the world for what we have been able to accomplish. It is significant. There are over 450,000 new jobs. How does that compare to the former Stephen Harper government? In 10 years under that government, there were just over a million jobs; in just two years under ours, there are 450,000 jobs and counting. I would argue that the economic policy of this government is working. We are seeing significant signs.

One of my friends across the way talked about focus and asked why this government was not focused. I indicated that we are in fact focused, indeed very focused, on Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it. However, it goes even beyond that. Listening the last week or so to the opposition benches, and to be fair to the Conservatives, they are not alone, the longer we are in government the closer the NDP and Conservatives want to be. They want to focus on the negative as much as possible. They want to engage in character assassinations in the House, but we will continue to remain focused on what is important to Canadians. That is something this Prime Minister and our caucus are committed to doing, because we were given a specific instruction by our Prime Minister long ago to work with our constituents. Our responsibility is to bring their ideas to the House of Commons and what they have to say, as opposed to bringing Ottawa to our constituents. It is materializing in a very real, tangible way.

If we look at the last couple of budgets or initiatives this government has entered into, we get a better understanding why the economy, relative to any other country in the world, is doing as well as it is. We recognize that a healthy economy means investing in Canada's middle class. It is the middle class and those striving to be a part of it that drive the economy. That is how to create jobs: having confidence in the middle class.

I talked about the legislation, I believe it was Bill C-2, that set in place some of the things that enabled us to have that tax cut for Canada's middle class. We literally puts hundreds of millions of dollars, going into the billions of dollars, into tax cuts for Canada's middle class. Those tax cuts were in good part covered by the special tax increase on Canada's wealthiest 1%. We made great enhancements to the Canada child benefit, investing hundreds of millions of dollars in the children of our country, and lifting tens of thousands of them out of poverty. We saw the same thing done with our guaranteed income supplement, which again resulted in tens of thousands of seniors being lifted out of poverty. We are increasing the disposable income of Canadian, and by doing that we are seeing them invest that income in our economy. Finally, after seeing 10 years of very little, we see a government that is investing in our infrastructure in a very real and tangible way. Not only does it create jobs for today, it creates opportunities into the future.

On that particular note, we can talk about the agreements that have been achieved to invest in Canadians' future.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the member opposite talked about what the real issue is.

The real issue here is that the average Canadian is actually paying more in tax, because they have a Liberal government. It is not really that complicated. Small businesses now are going to see an increase in their tax rate to about 73%, and my colleagues, as physicians or those in other professions, are being driven out of the country because of these high taxes. It is an opportunity taken away from them to practice medicine in this country they love. They would rather go to the United States where they can actually take care of more people. This is the type of thing that Canadians are facing with the Liberals.

I have a pretty simple question for the member opposite. When is he finally going to stand up to his government and say that these taxes are unacceptable and that he is going to the other side?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that will never happen.

The Conservatives have a story and want to stick to that story. They do not care about whether it lines up with factual truths. Just take a look at the person who is actually getting those child benefit increases, who had the—

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

Let me think who it is. It is the doctors who told me they would be paying more taxes. I guess they do not know how to do math—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Excuse me. I want to point out that I am trying to hear the answer, but I am having a hard time, as I am hearing some interference.

It seems to have calmed down a bit. I will let the hon. member continue.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my concern is that the member is chewing into my time, but I suspect it will be added.

The member talks about small businesses, but get this: we have now put in place a massive reduction in taxes for small businesses, from 12% down to 9%. One would think the opposition benches would recognize it, but this is the difference. This is the reality of government policy by us that does not necessarily abide by the type of script or scenario the opposition wants to try to portray to Canadians. They will distort the facts. They will distort the reality. It is all a part of being out of touch with Canadians.

Whether it is small business or the middle class, the average Canadian is benefiting from the many initiatives undertaken by this government over the last two years, and they will continue to do so, because we in government will not take them for granted. We are committed to working hard for each and every Canadian, because we want to make a better society for all of us.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Winnipeg North spoke about opposition members wanting to stick to a script. One script the Liberal government has stuck to almost slavishly over the past two years has been to talk about the middle class and those working hard to join it. I do not know if it is a little later in the evening or if the member across the way is ad libbing a little, but he really enriched the discourse with some new permutations of that phrase through the evening. He talked about those “aspiring” to join the middle class. It was very poetic and I did want to give credit where it was due.

The question I would like to ask my colleague is about the allocation of federal transit funding among the provinces. The government has chosen to allocate transit funding mostly according to existing transit ridership, as opposed to population. My home province of Saskatchewan comprises more than 3% of Canada's population, but we are getting only about 1.5% of federal transit funding because our current transit system does not have as large a ridership. I wonder if my fellow Prairie MP is advocating for a fair share of transit funding for our province.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that my fellow prairie member of Parliament should be delighted with the fact that we have, for the first time in the history of government, seen in excess of $2 billion allocated for rural communities. All sorts of communities will be provided an opportunity to establish priorities as to how they would like to see that money spent.

At the end of the day, no matter what region it is, we will see a commitment by the national government to infrastructure and to asking municipalities, provinces, territories, and others to get engaged to assist us in establishing those priorities. In co-operation and working with the stakeholders, we are seeing record amounts of projects under way. They are fuelled with hope, because we have a national government that is prepared to invest in Canada's infrastructure.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-63. I intend to focus on commitments made by the government of the day, and the previous government, on the phasing out of inefficient or perverse subsidies for fossil fuels.

This commitment was made repeatedly since 2009 to the G20, including by the Liberal government in 2016. Canada, Mexico, and the United States committed to remove these perverse incentives by 2025. The government has voiced a commitment to phase them out in the medium term. The question then arises, as we move at a snail's pace, what exactly is the medium term?

The government also committed to take action to reduce greenhouse gases. They made that commitment in Paris, and we are now hearing from world leaders that this appears to be a sliding commitment on behalf of the Government of Canada, leading into the climate meeting in Bonn.

I would like to start off reminding those in this place of what the Prime Minister's mandate letter said about the phase-out of these perverse subsidies. The mandate letter for the finance minister is very clear.

First, his mandate was to work with the President of the Treasury Board and his colleagues in the cabinet to review tax expenditures and other spending to “reduce poorly targeted and inefficient measures, wasteful spending”, and ineffective initiatives.

Second, his mandate was to work with the Minister of Natural Resources to “enhance existing tax measures to generate more clean technology investments and work with the provinces and territories to make Canada’s tax system highly competitive for investments in the research, development, and manufacturing of clean technology.”

Third, the Minister of Finance was mandated to work with the Minister of Environment to fulfill the government's “G20 commitment and phase out subsidies for the fossil fuel industry over the medium-term.”

It does not end there. The mandate letter for the finance minister also says that if the government is to tackle climate change, the work must be “informed by performance measurement” and “evidence”. Then the mandate letter says that the government has committed to a “higher bar for openness and transparency”, and that the Prime Minister expects the minister to deliver on these commitments during this mandate in the first four years. However, two of those years are gone and we are now sliding into the third year.

What has a leading international entity said about Canada's sliding commitment to addressing greenhouse gases, including our commitment to remove the perverse incentives?

Jose Angel Gurría, the Secretary-General of the OECD, has expressed great pain at the sliding commitment. He says it is “a bit of a paradox” that Canada seems to be espousing the political will to reduce greenhouse gases, but does not seem to be going down that road. However, in the United States where the political will is gone, they have moved far ahead of Canada in taking action. He also stated that, “While at the same time, the local situation is showing that speed of reduction is not as fast as one would have wanted”, that emissions in Canada should have fallen 17% from 2005 levels, and instead the drop has been more like 2%. He also stated that Canada is “on a path where, by 2030, you may not be able to get to the target.”

It is very concerning. Therefore, it is not only Canadians expressing concern about the lack of commitment of the government to deliver on its commitments to reduce greenhouse gases. There will be growing concern about the failure to deliver the commitments to the G20 and their commitments in Paris.

This is reiterated by Canada's Auditor General in a letter sent by him on June 2 to the chair of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. It states:

This audit focused on whether the Department of Finance Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada, in a manner consistent with their respective roles and responsibilities, supported Canada’s 2009 G20 commitment to phase out and rationalize inefficient fossil fuel subsidies while providing targeted support for the poorest.

It continues:

Overall, we found that [these departments] did not define what the 2009 G20 commitment to phase out and rationalize inefficient fossil fuel subsidies means in the context of Canada’s national circumstances.

The Auditor General then continues, and states:

We found that since 2009, six subsidies to the fossil fuel sector were reformed by legislation. Other tax measures for this sector were not reformed. We also found that the Department of Finance Canada did not consider all tax measures to determine whether they were inefficient fossil fuel subsidies under the commitment. The Department also did not develop an implementation plan with timelines to support the phase-out and rationalization by 2025 of remaining tax measures that are inefficient fossil fuel subsidies.

The Auditor General closes with this, which states:

...without a clear understanding of the fossil fuel subsidies covered by the G20 commitment and without an implementation plan with timelines, the departments cannot ensure that they are providing the support needed for Canada to meet the commitment by 2025.

Clearly serious concerns are being raised, in all quarters, about the failure of the current government to deliver on its commitments both to reduce greenhouse gases and to take more expedited action to remove the perverse subsidies. In this budget, the government appears to be partially addressing Canadian development and Canadian exploration expense deductions. With respect to the removal of these subsidies, it may be noted that the Canadian exploration expense deduction used to be 100%, but is now being slid into the Canadian development expense deduction, which is 30%. It is hard to tell from what is in the budget document how much further the government is going, but clearly it is not rapid enough to meet the demands of the Auditor General.

It is important to consider that these corporations can continue to defer the deductions. Therefore, while the budget document appears to suggest that by a certain date, which I think is 2021, they can no longer claim them, the corporations can hold those off and claim them at an end date. Therefore, we may have hundreds of millions of dollars being claimed in the near future, at a time when we need to be spending that money on supporting renewable energy.

Why is this of deep concern? I have gone through the reports where people have been adding up the subsidies and grants for the fossil fuel industry. It adds up to an astounding $5.8 billion a year, so the government has a long way to go, given the meagre measures it has in this budget document.

Therefore, the obvious question for the government is this. When will it step up to the plate, move this forward, and respond to the call by the Auditor General to provide a plan of action and a timeline? Further, is it going to begin to become transparent, instead of holding discussions on these perverse subsidies behind closed doors?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a simple question for the member. We are always hearing how the Liberal government feels that it has been so invested in making sure that the lives of average Canadians are improved, whether it be with this budget bill or with those previous. I would like to have the member's comments on how she is finding her constituents in Edmonton are reacting to this budget bill. Does she believe that this is helping her citizens, or are there things that the Liberals should be focused on to make sure that Canadians are better off than they are currently?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, indeed I am hearing the same kinds of concerns that all members in this place are hearing, particularly given that I am from Alberta. We know there is a downturn in the oil industry and a depleted price for oil and gas. Today I read another report on how many oil field workers are trying to get into training so they can get into the renewable sector. However, we do not see a cent from the current government towards a just transition. I am proud that the Government of Alberta is working on a strategy with unions and workers in Alberta and trying to move this forward, but where is the strategy? People across Canada need work. There are a lot of people being laid off. People want to work. They do not want to go on welfare. They want to look after their family. They would probably prefer to go back to the communities that they came from. The renewable sector can clearly provide a lot of jobs, as it has around the world. Therefore, I am deeply disappointed that there are lot of things that are not in this budget that would help Canadians obtain employment in the new energy economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I like to think we have seen a great deal of sympathy in terms of what is taking place in Alberta. Being from the Prairies, I know there has been a great deal of concern, which goes well beyond my province. In fact, all Canadians want to see Alberta play the prominent role it has, and that I ultimately argue continues to play in Canadian society.

To try to give an impression that the government is not working for Albertans is just wrong. The member across the way talks about energy and energy jobs. We have pipelines that have been approved. We have a minister of infrastructure who has worked with other ministries to ensure that some of those infrastructure projects are expedited as much as possible to assist the province of Alberta. This is in addition to all the other benefits I was able to highlight, at least in part, such as the Canada child benefit, which is putting more money into the pockets of Albertans.

Can the member tell me what she believes the former Conservative government did that we have not done in terms of assisting the province of Alberta?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I want to compare the two. I was pretty clear in my speech that it is not what I am calling for, it is what the Auditor General, OECD, and what all those countries that will be gathering in Bonn are calling for. Canada made big promises but is failing on delivery.

Frankly, I did not just speak to Alberta. I hear it day after day in my riding, and I know there are a lot of people from across this country, the Maritimes, Quebec, Ontario, and B.C., who have come to work in the oil industry in Alberta. Everyone knows there is a downturn. A lot of those young folk call me and ask what they can do to get into the renewables sector, because they know there is a lot of potential for jobs. There is a waiting list for the renewable energy program at the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology.

For heaven's sake, when is the Liberal government going to step up and give some of the money over to help with this just transition?

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to speak to the second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measures.

First, I would like to recognize the citizens of Shelford who trust me and allow me to serve in the House. It has been a great privilege for me to represent them for the past two years.

Also, as the municipal elections were held yesterday in Quebec, I want to thank the 250 candidates who ran for the various public positions in my riding. Of the 250 candidates, 20 mayors and 124 councillors were elected last night, and it will be a pleasure for me to work with each one of them for the betterment of our community.

As a preamble, I would like to point out that the government's plan to invest in the economy and to strengthen the middle class has yielded good results for my constituents in Shefford. Since the government was elected, the unemployment rate in my region has steadily decreased, and it is now—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier is rising on a point of order.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are now debating Bill C-63. The member for Shefford just used up two or three minutes of his time to thank the candidates in yesterday's elections. We could all do the same for the 78 ridings in Quebec and thank our colleagues who ran for office. He should move on to the heart of the matter, which is Bill C-63.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Usually we let members direct their comments as they see fit. It may seem that they are taking a different direction, but they usually come back to the relevant subject. I will let the member for Shefford continue and I am sure his speech will be very interesting.

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was just saying that the unemployment rate has dropped steadily and is now at 4.1%. That is a 40-year low.

Massive job creation and the Canada child benefit are boosting consumer confidence. This key measure, which is more focused and more generous than previous benefits, has channelled $115 million into my riding since July 2016. That tax-free money was distributed to 22,000 children in my riding. It has put more money in the pockets of 15,000 families so they can invest in their children, enabling them to participate in sports, arts, ballet, and more.

At the same time, the middle-class tax cut and major infrastructure investments have helped support and grow my riding's economy. Our government is funding a new aquatic centre in Shefford. This major infrastructure project will enrich the daily lives of people in my community while creating economic growth and well-paid middle-class jobs. Other parts of my riding are benefiting too. There is going to be a bike path in Waterloo, cultural events in Valcourt, a community centre in Rougemont, water and waste water infrastructure in Ange-Gardien, and so much more.

I also want to convey to everyone in my riding and indeed to all Canadians that the two budgets tabled by our government are working and producing meaningful results in creating jobs, strengthening the middle class, and helping others to join it. For two years now, our government has worked tirelessly to boost the economy and improve the financial situation of Canadians who could use some support.

One measure that I am particularly proud of is how we improved income security for low-income seniors. Canadian seniors who live alone and are the most vulnerable could receive up to $947 more annually in the guaranteed income supplement top-up benefit. Thus, our government is improving the financial security of 900,000 seniors across the country, including 3,000 in my riding.

Another key measure was the increase in the student grant program, which will allow students to focus on their studies and continue working hard to realize their dreams without having to worry about student debt. We have increased Canada student grant amounts by 50%, thereby helping over 350,000 students in Canada. On the heels of budget 2016, budget 2017 offers immediate help to those who need it most and helps guarantee everyone a real and fair chance of success.

More specifically, budget 2017 is part of the government's ambitious plan to make smart investments that will create jobs, grow our economy, and provide more opportunities for the middle class and those working hard to join it. It puts the skilled, talented, and creative people of Canada right at the heart of a more innovative economy of the future, an economy that will create jobs for the middle class of today and tomorrow.

I want to stress the fact that the investments that our government has made in people, our communities, and our economy are working. Among the G7 countries, Canada's economy is growing the fastest, and we are reinvesting the profits from that growth into the people who are contributing the most to this success. Thanks to this solid economic growth, the government has enjoyed better results and has been able to do more to help people in the middle class. For example, we kept our promise to lower the small business tax rate. The rate that was 11% in 2015 will drop to 9% in 2019.

Small businesses are key to growing our economy. We are committed to giving them full support to grow, invest, and create stable, well-paying jobs for the middle class. We also enhanced the Canada pension plan.

In that vein, I applaud the Quebec government's initiative, which adapts the Canadian formula to Quebec society. The Canada pension plan will get a boost from coast to coast to coast thanks to the Government of Canada's efforts.

This means young workers and young families can rest assured that they will have a better and more secure retirement. What they save now will be returned to them at the end of their working lives.

Of course, there is also the working income tax benefit. Just like everywhere else, some people have trouble getting off social assistance. They find it difficult to choose between getting back into the job market and continuing to receive social assistance. The measures we just announced will enhance this tax credit, which will make it easier for people to choose to go back to work, get back into the job market, and contribute more to society because they know they will get a tax credit, they know the federal government supports them, and they know that, financially, going back to work makes sense.

The budget implementation act we are debating today has the same objectives as previously stated, namely to grow our economy and to support the middle class and those working hard to join it. For example, more flexible work arrangements are being provided to federally regulated employees in order to help them balance their work and personal responsibilities. In practical terms, this measure will ensure they have more flexibility to take vacation and other annual leaves, such as up to 10 days of bereavement leave to deal with the loss of a loved one. There would also be more flexibility in granting unpaid leave for employees to manage various family responsibilities. Through those measures, the government is showing compassion and taking concrete steps to make life easier for hard-working people.

Students are not being forgotten. In my riding of Shefford, 160 organizations received $1.2 million over the last two years, to create 380 jobs. That is a major achievement.

Budget implementation act, 2017, No. 2 will also enable us to pursue our innovation and skills plan through an investment of $600 million in clean technologies and businesses.

It is an honour for me to be part of a government that works very hard to strengthen the middle class, grow the economy, and help families in tangible ways. I am convinced that our budget is excellent for my constituents. They give me confirmation of that every day. On their behalf, I congratulate the government and acknowledge the thousands of constituents in my riding who put their trust in me.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned near the end of his remarks that the budget is good for the middle class. A recent study has shown that 81% of middle-class families are paying more taxes now than they were two years ago, when the government took office. The average middle-class family is currently paying $840 more in tax than it did two years ago.

I want to ask my colleague the same question I asked a colleague earlier, who sort of skirted around the answer. Why would the government, through the budget implementation act, be investing millions of dollars in an infrastructure bank that would benefit Asians but would take money from middle-class families in Canada to pay those taxes? How does investing in infrastructure in Asia help middle-class families in Canada? In fact, it would hurt them by making them pay for something they will never get to use.

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to respond to the preamble of my colleague's question.

Here are the facts. We lowered taxes for middle-class Canadians as soon as we took office in 2015. That was an important measure that we wanted to put in place, and we kept our promise. We also created the Canada child benefit, a historic measure for Canadian families. It puts extra money in the pockets of Canadians. On average, families receive $540 per child. These measures are better targeted, more generous, and tax free.

I would like to remind my colleague that, just recently, we lowered taxes for small businesses. It was a first step. Next year, in 2018, we will lower them again. Finally, in 2019, the small business tax rate will be 9%.

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

Mr. Speaker, by way of information, the riding of Shefford, which my colleague represents, is next door to Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, which means that we share some realities. For example, the agrifood sector is important to the economic development of both our ridings.

As it has been said several times since the beginning of this debate, the problem with this budget is what is missing from it. Since I was elected, people in the agrifood industry have been asking me why there is nothing for them in the budget and why the government is not thinking of them. The only mention of the agrifood industry in the last budget was when the Minister of Finance said that he discovered during the consultations that the agrifood industry was an important economic sector. At least he recognized that.

For their part, milk producers ask me why they are not getting any real compensation for the losses they will incur when 17.7 tonnes of European cheese appears on the market. They are asking me why the export permits were shared among processors and distributors. They want to know why they only got a small innovation program which was used up in a week. People from supply-managed sectors constantly ask me why the budget does not contain any strong measure which would show that their sector will really be protected and that the government is not only paying lip service to supply management. That is what I am worried about.

The fact is that the member mentioned not a single measure in his speech. We would have known if he had, because we would have heard him promote it to his riding's agrifood sector. Why did he not do so?

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, who represents a riding which borders mine. It is always a pleasure to talk with her.

The government is fully committed to protecting supply management, since it is a priority for us. As my colleague said, we are strongly in favour of supply management. That said, 350 million dollars were made available for the agrifood sector in Canada, including 250 million dollars for agricultural producers and 100 million dollars for processors. I think it is an excellent measure which helps them innovate and increase productivity on their farms.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am always pleased to rise in the House, especially to speak to the fall economic statement.

I want to begin by thanking my leader for the excellent speech he gave today for the 150th anniversary of what we have become. He demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is a statesman. I am very proud to stand side by side with him. He is a great man.

Let us talk about the fall economic statement. This fall, we were treated to even more scandals. Unfortunately, I think that the Minister of Finance has lost the confidence of the House. He should have done the right thing. He is responsible for the country's finances, but he hides his assets from Canadians. Every member is required to declare all their assets to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner within 90 days, but it took him two years to do so. It is unbelievable and very troubling. We have been asking questions for over a month, but as everyone likes to say, it is question period not answer period. We have yet to get an answer from across the way.

Yesterday, we learned of the existence of the Paradise Papers. Who is named in these papers? The Liberals' friends. If anyone was wondering if the Liberals learned anything during their 10 years in purgatory, the answer is probably not.

At the time of the Gomery commission, I was working at the National Assembly and had friends who worked for the Liberal Party. Today, those friends say that the more things change, the more they stay the same. It saddens me, because they used to be staunch Liberals, and they lost their jobs because of the Gomery commission. I believe that the more we dig, the closer we get to a second Gomery commission. That would be sad.

I liked what my NDP colleague said about the fall economic statement, that the most striking thing about it is what it does not say. It has nothing to say about farmers. They are not mentioned at all. They got $250 million, far less than we Conservatives had promised them. Let us talk about that $250 million. Within a week, there was not a cent left. Farmers are still coming to see us at our constituency offices because they do not understand why this program only lasted five days. I do not understand it either.

The 9% tax cut the member opposite was talking about is all well and good, but it was not even the Liberals' idea. It was Stephen Harper's government that wanted to do that 9% tax cut. They took that idea from the Conservatives and put it out there as their own. That is what bothers me. It is one thing for them to come up with their own ideas, but I would like them to be honest and say that this was not their idea. They have set themselves up as saviours, but they stole that idea from the Conservatives because they could not come up with an idea of their own. That is pathetic.

The Liberals have to look at other parties' platforms to come up with their own. Maybe they should give that some thought, because what we are seeing nowadays is pretty pathetic.

What saddens me is that the more things change over there, the more they stay the same. I am not saying there is nothing good in Bill C-63. Some things in it are good, but many more are bad. The Liberals should have split the bill in two so we could vote on the parts that make sense. As it whole, it does not make sense.

I will not vote in favour of a bill that does not give Canadians the truth. We are getting used to this now because the Liberals are often all about the smoke and mirrors, but dig a little deeper, and things start to not make sense. It is sad because this is no longer the Liberal Party of Canada; it is a one-man party, the Prime Minister's party. His selfies are all over the place. I am sure Canadians are picking up a hefty tab for all those photos. I think that is a real shame.

The Liberals are claiming these are the facts, but that cannot be entirely true; either that or there are still things we do not know, because the parliamentary budget officer, or PBO, is saying exactly the opposite. He is saying that over 80% of middle-class Canadians are paying more tax than before. This statistic comes from the PBO, not us, and the Liberals over there are trying to tell us that that is not actually true.

We are used to seeing the Liberal Party give with one hand and take away with the other, but one day they are going to have to be consistent. If they cannot come up with sensible tax breaks of their own, they are going to have to stop pretending that they have. They are taking things from another party's election platform because they are unable to keep up with the times.

What saddens me most is that the Liberals are not listening to Canadians. They travelled around a lot. They did a bunch of consultations, but they did not listen to anyone they consulted. The same thing happened with small businesses. The official opposition parties had to rise in the House and organize round tables for the Liberals to realize they were headed in the wrong direction. People had to badger and hurl questions at them for three straight weeks before the Liberals finally came to the realization that what they were doing made no sense.

For three weeks now, practically a whole month, we have been asking questions about the finance minister's ethics. The finance minister is the one who manages Canadians' money, and yet he cannot even answer our questions, even now that the Paradise Papers scandal has erupted. There will come a point where the more newly elected Liberals, who were not around for Gomery and who certainly do not want to end up in a similar situation, will have to start asking questions. Perhaps they will get more answers than we have been getting.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague across the way for her speech. She is also a member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food, and I thank her for her excellent work.

My colleague said that we stole their ideas. It is all well and good to have an idea, but putting it into action is another thing altogether. I think the government should be very proud of doing that successfully.

I have a question for my colleague regarding our budget and the great things we have done. Take summer jobs for example. Last summer, I had the opportunity to travel around my riding and meet with students and employers. They had good things to say, since we doubled the number of jobs.

I would like to ask my colleague if she had an opportunity to travel around her riding and hear from students and employers, knowing that we doubled the number of jobs.

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

Mr. Speaker, to answer my colleague, yes, I like to travel around a lot, too. I am a grassroots politician. It did some good, but at what price? One has to think about that.

When you say that, yes, we are the ones who thought of that, I would point out that, two years ago, you were the ones elected. It was already in our platform and that is what we would have done, but we were not elected. You were.

Before saying something and taking someone else's ideas, you should have thought about it first. You did not think about it.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I would like to remind the member to address the Chair. I am sure that she was talking to the members opposite and not to the Speaker of the House.

The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

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

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

We have talked a lot about spending today. My question is about the income we are depriving ourselves of. The member ended her speech by talking about the Paradise Papers.

Does she believe that the government should be much more aggressive in combatting tax evasion? The people in my riding talk to me about this. They do not believe that everyone is paying their fair share.

One Thursday evening in January, 70 people came to my office to watch a one and a half hour documentary on tax havens called The Price We Pay, which, by the way, is an excellent Quebec documentary. We should be proud of Brigitte Alepin, Harold Crooks, and Alain Deneault, who have been documenting the situation with tax havens for so many years.

We need to do something. Right now, we are leaving billions of dollars in other countries because we do not have any real measures to combat tax havens. The government may well have voted in favour of the motion the NDP moved in the spring, but a month later, it was signing a new agreement with another tax haven.

My question for my colleague is as follows. Do we need to ask the government to be more aggressive in combatting tax evasion? The answer we have been given by the Minister of National Revenue is that the investigators are looking into the situation and that the government has allocated $1 billion to combat tax evasion. Today, with the Paradise Papers, we see that they will tell us that what is happening is completely legal.

The laws need to be changed. That is what needs to be done. Does my colleague agree?

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

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

Of course, it is important that Canadians and Quebeckers have the impression that everyone is paying the same kinds of taxes. We often hear that that is not currently their impression. As for tax havens, of course I think we need to address this problem.

Today the Minister of National Revenue often repeated the same answer. However, looking at all the names listed, we saw that they were friends of the Liberals. My advice to the minister would be that she speak to her boss and get a list of his friends. She would also get their phone numbers.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour for me to rise today to speak to Bill C-63.

This bill is excellent news for my constituents in the riding of Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas and for our ambitious city of Hamilton. Our city properly earned the title of “ambitious city”. It is a city that is on the move, with one of the hottest real estate markets in Canada and one of our city's lowest unemployment rates since 2015. At the heart of Hamilton's success is a new wave of investments from our Liberal government, from the private sector, and, of course, the new wave of entrepreneurship that is happening.

Since the beginning of this government's mandate in 2015, more than 89,000 children in the city of Hamilton have received tax-free payments, equalling a total of $30 million, through the Canada child benefit. That is absolutely fantastic news for middle-class Hamiltonians and it is amazing news for our children. I am proud that our government has worked so tirelessly to help raise these children out of poverty. It gives me immense pride to see that through Bill C-63, we will be strengthening the CCB.

We are reaffirming our belief that by investing in the middle class, we are strengthening and growing Canada's economy, which, by the way, is the fastest growing economy in the G7.

I would like to highlight the provisions in Bill C-63 that put in place measures to give greater flexibility to Canadians working in federally regulated industries to balance work and family responsibilities, such as greater flexibility for annual vacation days and holidays, more bereavement days in the event of losing a loved one, and more unpaid leave for family responsibilities.

Our government recognizes the importance of having strong labour rights for Canadians. One just has to look at our current NAFTA negotiations to see that our government is fighting the good fight for workers' rights. Through Bill C-63, constituents in my riding like Cathy, who works for the CRA, will have improved rights. By providing employees with the right to request flexible work arrangements from their employers, by providing employees with family leave, by providing a leave for victims of family violence, by providing a leave for traditional indigenous practices, and by modifying certain provisions related to work schedules, overtime, annual vacation, general holidays and bereavement leave in order to provide greater flexibility in work arrangements, this government is demonstrating its commitment to our dedicated civil servants. Workers' rights are extremely important to me and my constituents in Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas.

I was recently contacted by a grade 5 student in my riding. Her name is Natalya. She asked me what our government was doing that made me proud. I was delighted that a grade 5 student was reaching out to me, engaged, wanting to know what I felt most proud about with respect to what our government was providing. I was very happy to share with Natalya the many things that our government had done that made me extremely proud. We have a strong record and the strength of the economy is evidence of that.

Today, the provision for workers' rights in Bill C-63 also makes me exceptionally proud. For decades, Canadians and Hamiltonians alike have fought for fair workers' rights and this provision is helping to enhance workers' rights and needs. The provision provides for people in a time of need when they feel most vulnerable and fragile, the loss or sickness of a family member, or the experience of domestic violence. It also acknowledges the importance of indigenous spiritual practice. The bill would help the marginalized as well as recognize indigenous spiritual practices.

Bill C-63 would also make important investments in clean technology. This legislation is going to take the next steps for innovators and creators. Our government's innovation and skills plan focuses on individuals, and addresses the changing nature of the economy to ensure it works for all Canadians.

Bill C-63 would enact key sections of our plan, such as $600 million in new financing for clean technology firms. Our government is also showing that being responsible stewards of the environment that our children will inherit and creating prosperity are not mutually exclusive. Rather, we are proving that being green and growing our economy go hand in hand to create health, wealth, and a prosperity for all Canadians.

Bill C-63 also designates $400 million for the venture capital catalyst initiative. As I mentioned earlier, my beloved city of Hamilton is becoming a Canadian hotbed of innovation and creativity. Indeed, Hamilton is an attractive place to live and start a business. It offers many attractive circumstances to investors and people who wish to move: more affordable housing than its sister cities a short drive east down the QEW; an easily accessible nature trail system that takes one to the most beautiful spots that are largely unspoiled in the Niagara Escarpment, in which Hamilton is nestled; the nearby world-famous Niagara wine region; its three major post-secondary institutions, McMaster, Mohawk, and Redeemer; and the fact that it is a major transit hub. All of these facts mean that Hamilton is home to a rapidly growing number of innovators and creators.

One only has to look at the growing number of start-up incubators and young professional networks that are mushrooming to see that this is true, whether it is Hamilton's innovation factory working with small business people to help them grow, Hamilton HIVE, which is a growing network of young professionals who are succeeding in the business world and teaching young people how to succeed as well; The Forge at McMaster University, which supports new tech companies and students interested in entrepreneurship by providing co-working space at McMaster Innovation Park in downtown Hamilton; other innovation co-working locations like CoMotion 302 or The Seedworks Urban Offices, which are providing space and allowing community start-ups to thrive; or the CoBALT Connects, which is both a network of spaces and people for artists to work and create in.

All of these things show that Hamilton is open for business for start-ups, innovators, and young professionals. The $400-million venture capital provision is outstanding news for them. Our 21st-century economy needs these fire starters and innovators. We need their ideas, their hard work, and their passion.

Let me talk about one of Hamilton's young fire starters. I recently met with Geordie, a McMaster graduate who started his own tech firm. He took a huge risk starting his own small business, but he had a brilliant idea, and with hard work and determination, his idea has taken off. Now he employs many middle-class individuals, and collectively their ingenuity and visionary outlook on life are having a positive impact on our society. I am proud that we are lowering the small business tax rate to 9% by 2019, and also extremely pleased that we are investing in small tech firms like Geordie's.

Our government recognizes the fantastic work that our tech sector adds to our industry. It is fantastic that our government is making such a significant investment in venture capital to help create the conditions for success for these brilliant and creative minds. They are creating the businesses that will ensure the future of meaningful, well-paid, middle-class jobs and prosperity for Hamilton and Canada.

This bill introduces many measures that make me confident that our government is a careful steward of workers' rights, entrepreneurship, and our economy. Bill C-63 is good for Hamiltonians and Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about policies aimed at enabling indigenous spiritual practices. I would be curious about her thoughts on some of the critical comments made about faith by the Governor General and supported by the Prime Minister. I would be curious to know how that squares with that.

She also spoke about the NAFTA negotiations. This is an important point, because she praised the way the NAFTA negotiations have been used as a vehicle for the Canadian government to try to push, for instance, for changes to American right-to-work policies. Those are obviously contentious policies and are much debated within the United States. However, we are seeing a government that is not prioritizing Canadian economic interests in those negotiations. We are seeing a situation where the government is putting at risk our economic position in these critical negotiations, because frankly, it is prioritizing trying to push social change in the United States instead of standing up for Canadian workers. I am concerned that we are not advancing our interests and that there is a big risk to Canadians and Canadian jobs associated with that.

I wonder if the member can comment on whether she thinks our priority in these negotiations should be protecting Canadian interests or trying to influence social and political change in the United States.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the first matter, I remind my colleague that we are the party of the charter. With respect to rights and freedoms, including religious rights and freedoms, we support these rights. I am delighted that in this legislation we are talking about today, we include indigenous spiritual practices. That is further evidence of the support and strength of the charter.

With respect to the NAFTA negotiations with respect to labour rights, we are holding firm. There is no question that in these negotiations we are working very hard to ensure that Canada comes first and that we get the best deal for Canadians. I would like to reassure my colleague that it is exactly what we will be doing at the NAFTA table.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked a lot about workers in Hamilton and protecting workers' rights, and also today, my colleague from Hamilton Mountain introduced a bill to protect pensions.

I would like to know my colleague's opinion, considering that in the 2015 election campaign, she promised many things to her constituents in Hamilton. I would like to hear what she told them about protecting workers' pensions and what she has to say to them now about the fact that, since this government came to power, it has not introduced any bills that include amendments to better protect workers' pensions, like the workers in Hamilton. Bill C-63 also does nothing in that regard.

What does she have to say to them?

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the proud daughter of a steelworker, I can assure everyone that workers' rights are something that have always been very important to me. The protection of pensions is important. In my own riding in Hamilton, I have heard heart-wrenching stories from Stelco employees about the issues they have faced and gone through.

I want to assure this House that the protection of pensions is an important issue for me. I look forward to discussions with the opposite side so that we can come to an agreement on how we can balance protecting pensions with ensuring that businesses continue to thrive and people are willing to invest.

With respect to the comments today, in this bill there are protections related to work flexibility. The Canada Labour Code would be amended to ensure that there were more flexible work arrangements for employees. Families would have a maximum leave for family issues. Victims of family violence would have a maximum of 10 days when they experienced family violence. As I have said, traditional aboriginal practices would have a maximum of five days.

What we are trying to do is ensure that workers have rights and that those rights are protected. We are very proud of what would be implemented with this bill.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Sherbrooke will have five minutes of speaking time today. He will be given another five minutes when the House resumes debate on on Bill C-63 at a later date.

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

Mr. Speaker, five minutes is not a lot of time to go over the reasons why we must oppose the bill.

To me, we must oppose this bill for many reasons, including for its lack of substantive measures for fighting tax evasion and for the problems raised a few minutes ago at the Standing Committee on Finance regarding the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. We have a lot of problems with this bank. It raises a lot of questions.

Let us start with the fight against tax evasion. Yesterday, there was another leak regarding the Paradise Papers. According to an army of lawyers representing wealthy Canadian clients, everything is legal, there is no problem, everything is fine. They are entitled to do this, there is no problem.

That is precisely the fundamental problem that we tried to address in question period in the House today. The government should have addressed this issue in its Bill C-63, the budget implementation bill. It failed to so yet again. There is no measure in place to make illegal what is morally unacceptable or what we might describe as legalized fraud.

They use tax treaties like the ones with the Cayman Islands and Barbados and tax agreements to avoid double taxation. Those tax information exchange agreements are supposed to give us information about taxpayers who have interests and accounts in the Cayman Islands, but the fact is, the government has had a tax information exchange agreement with the Cayman Islands since 2010. That is where Mr. Bronfman had his tax-free trust, which apparently netted him some handsome returns.

Agreements like those, like the one with the Cayman Islands, legalize what should be illegal. Those information exchange agreements were supposed to provide information to the revenue minister and the finance minister in exchange for that tax benefit, if I may call it that.

It is becoming clear that the revenue minister is once again completely in the dark with respect to the information hidden in those tax havens. She never got any information. Information leaks and data about Canadian companies and interests in that country reached her at the same time as they reached the rest of the public.

What, then, is the purpose of these tax information exchange agreements? We get no information, but those who register their trusts, their companies, their subsidiaries, and their shell companies over there get tax benefits. We get nothing at all out of the deal.

It is time for our government to step up and review our tax treaties. It also needs to review schemes like these, which allow rich taxpayers to get out of paying the Canadian government what they owe. These people benefit from our infrastructure, our roads, our public transit, and our health and education systems, but what do they give back to society in return? Zilch. They stash their wealth in overseas accounts and contribute nothing to the development of our communities and our country.

Now more than ever, it is time for the government to take action on this issue. With Bill C-63, the government missed its opportunity to take action and show that it really does intend to solve the problem. Now we see that it has been infiltrated by people who are exploiting the system and the status quo to get out of paying their fair share of taxes. Today, we really have to wonder what the government's true agenda is.

The other thing I wanted to mention is the Asian infrastructure bank. Close to $500 million of Canadian taxpayer money will go to creating a bank in China that will be controlled primarily by China. This bank will invest in Chinese interests and in privatized Chinese infrastructure projects. We saw the same thing here with the Canada infrastructure bank. This is shameful. We need to speak out against this bill for the sake of Canadians, perhaps even for the sake of people overseas.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Sherbrooke will have five minutes and 21 seconds when debate on this bill resumes.

The House resumed from November 6 consideration of the motion that Bill C-63, A second 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.

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct pleasure to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-63, the budget implementation act, no. 2. The bill would implement certain provisions of our government's second budget, budget 2017, that was tabled in the House on March 22.

Following in the footsteps of budget 2016, budget 2017 offers immediate help to those who need it the most and helps ensure that everyone has a real and fair chance of success.

In the 2015 campaign, when we knocked on doors we listened to Canadians, how they were struggling to find jobs and pay for their families, or working extremely hard to make ends meet. We listened to them and we invested in Canadians, in our communities, and in our country.

That is why the first thing we did as a government was to lower taxes for the middle class and raised them for the wealthiest 1%.

We introduced the Canada child benefit that helped nine out of 10 families and lifted over 300,000 children out of poverty.

These investments made by our government in our people, in our communities, and in our economy are now bearing fruit.

We have been able to add nearly 500,000 new jobs in our economy in the last two years. Just this past October, 89,000 full-time jobs were created. The steady rate of job growth has led to the unemployment rate dropping to 6.3%, the lowest level in over a decade.

Additionally, due to the historic investments made by our government, youth unemployment is also at the lowest level in decades. In Brampton West, I had the privilege this summer to visit many local organizations taking part in the Canada summer jobs program. This program helps provide essential experience for youth all across Canada. Our government doubled the funding and doubled the number of jobs for students. In Brampton West, organizations were able to hire over 150 youth through the summer jobs program. That is real change.

Our economic policies have also made a mark on the international stage. Canada has seen the highest growth rate of all G7 countries, with our economy growing at an average rate of 3.7% over the last year. As a result of of this strong economic growth, our government is able to invest more in Canadian families and our communities.

In our fall economic statement, we announced a number of measures aimed toward ensuring that those in the middle class and those working hard to join it share in the success we achieve as a country.

We announced further action to strengthen the Canada child benefit. When it was first announced, the Canada child benefit helped provide more money to nine out of 10 families and lift 300,000 children out of poverty. This was significant for the people of Brampton West.

Starting in July 2018, the Canada child benefit will increase with the cost of living, two years ahead of schedule. In my riding of Brampton West, this means that a single parent of two making $35,000 will receive over $560 more next year tax-free for books, for skating lessons, or for warm clothes for winter for their children.

Additionally, our government announced an enhancement of the working income tax benefit. By letting low-income workers take home more money, the working income tax benefit offers real help to over 1.5 million Canadians. Our government is doing more to help those working hard to join the middle class by enhancing the WITB by an additional $500 million per year starting in 2019. These changes will encourage more Canadians to enter the workforce and further boost our economy.

Now, let us talk about our job creators. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy and they help create jobs in our communities and throughout the country. That is why in our fall economic statement we announced that the small business tax rate would be cut from 10.5% currently to 9% in 2019. This will provide small businesses with up to $7,500 in tax savings per year to reinvest in their businesses. For a local small business in my riding of Brampton West, such as AJ's Bar and Grill, this means more money to hire new employees and expand its services.

The steps we have taken since being elected have helped create this environment of growth and optimism. Bill C-63 looks to build on our policies and bring more prosperity for middle-class Canadians.

This budget implementation act would support the middle class and those working hard to be part of it by protecting the rights of federally regulated workers when they seek flexible work arrangements from their employers. Some of the ways we are helping Canadian families balance work and family responsibilities are by providing greater flexibility for annual vacation days and holidays, more bereavement days in the event of losing a loved one, and more unpaid leave for family responsibilities. These changes would greatly impact the young families in Brampton West who are just starting out in their lives.

Our government also recognizes that many young Canadians are undertaking internships to gain hands-on experience. While internships can help young Canadians make a successful transition into the workforce, some internships, in particular those that are unpaid, can be unfair. The budget implementation act proposes to eliminate unpaid internships in federally regulated sectors where the internships are not part of a formal educational program. These changes would also ensure that unpaid interns who are part of an educational program are entitled to labour standard protections, such as maximum hours of work, weekly days of rest, and general holidays.

It is a well-known fact that our government is committed to strengthening the middle class by promoting strong, inclusive economic growth in Canada and around the world. Investments in high-quality infrastructure contribute to long-term growth and a better quality of life for people at home and abroad.

As part of Canada's commitment to engage, collaborate, and invest with other global partners on development projects in Asia, Canada's decision to apply for membership in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank was announced in August 2016. Canada's investment in the bank will be included as part of Bill C-63. This would help sustain growth in Asia and represents an opportunity for Canada to further engage in multilateral infrastructure efforts that support inclusive economic growth at home and abroad. By doing this, we would contribute to global economic growth, and help Canadian companies to explore new commercial opportunities.

The steps taken in budget 2017 and Bill C-63 address the very real issues facing Canadians every single day. Our government plans to strengthen the middle class and ensure that Canadians have the support, resources, and confidence they need to succeed, create jobs, and grow our economy.

I am proud to be part of a government that is committed to improving the lives of so many people across our country. I am proud to support this piece of legislation, and I encourage all members to do the same.

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

Mr. Speaker, as usual from that side, we hear about the middle class and those trying to join it, and that this budget is so good for them. The Liberals talk about how they are lowering taxes on the middle class when, of course, those taxes were lowered on, if you can call it, the upper-middle class, people who are making $150,000 or $200,000 a year. Middle-class people who are making $40,000 a year or less got absolutely nothing. The Liberals could have lowered the taxes on that group and helped all Canadians, but instead they chose to leave them out and lower taxes on the people above that.

However, I really wanted to ask why the Liberals left out the big fish. Why did they not follow up on their promises about closing the tax loopholes that CEOs use when they are paid in stock options? It would have netted the government $750 million or so and really sent a message that it was going after the people who really could pay more of their fair share.

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to set the record straight. One of the first things we did as a government was lower taxes on the middle class and raise them for the wealthiest 1%. We introduced the Canada child benefit, which has helped nine out of 10 families in Canada and has taken 300,000 kids out of poverty.

With respect to my hon. member's question, I would like to remind him that it is our government that invested over $1 billion in CRA to fight tax evasion and aggressive tax planning. Because of that, we are well on our way to recouping over $25 billion. We have identified more than 627 cases, which have been transferred for criminal investigations. There have been 268 warrants and 78 convictions.

We will continue to work hard every day for a tax system that is fair for all Canadians.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear the hon. member elaborate on the measure that is going to provide flexibility. The changes in Bill C-63 would allow more flexibility for families when they need an opportunity for some special time for a variety of issues.

Could my hon. colleague elaborate on the flexibility side as well as on closing the many loopholes in the tax system? Both are important issues for Canadians to know more about.

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what my hon. colleague said is extremely important and true. That is why this bill would put measures in place to give flexibility to Canadians working in federally regulated industries to balance work and family responsibilities. There would be greater flexibility for annual vacation days and holidays, more bereavement days in the event of losing a loved one, and more unpaid leave for family responsibilities.

I believe other programs we have implemented, such as the Canada child benefit, will also assist single parents who may need help in these specific cases.

There are a lot of good measures in this bill, and I hope my colleagues, even on the other side, support this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to give a speech on Bill C-63, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measures. This is an omnibus budget bill.

In speaking to this, I wanted to also start with the big picture. Most of the speeches in this place since we began the debate at second reading of Bill C-63 have not delved very much into Bill C-63 itself. I plan to go into it in some detail. Most of the speeches have dealt with the general question of how much we, depending on which side of the House we are on, like or dislike the budget itself. There are some big picture comments I also want to make.

In debates in this place, the Conservative official opposition members berate the government for spending too much and adding to the debt. It is as though we have forgotten how to distinguish between the deficit, which is rising, and debt. Debt is a more permanent condition, and unfortunately, it is very hard to eliminate debt once it has been added on. We have not reduced any of the $150-billion addition to the national debt accrued under former prime minister Stephen Harper. The debt increased quite a lot in that period, although in the final term, we saw a balanced budget. Deficit is an issue of concern, but not nearly as much as debt.

In looking at the deficit and deficit spending, this current Liberal government was elected promising to run a deficit, although a much smaller one than the one we now see.

Here is what concerns me on the subject of government spending and increasing deficits. We are actually in a situation in this country where we need more, not less, government spending. The strictures on spending the current government appears to feel constrained by on things that need to be addressed come from an unwillingness to spend more than the large spending announcements that have already been made, which were for needed spending.

We need spending on infrastructure across Canada. In a sense, we have been like a homeowner who has deferred maintenance on the home in order to afford the other things we need in our household budget. However, deferred maintenance adds up. When the deferred maintenance is on water works and sewage systems, bridges and roads, and social infrastructure, such as affordable housing, and those things come home to roost, we need to spend more.

At the same time, there is a deep aversion to raising taxes. There have been a lot of claims that the opposite side has raised taxes a great deal. The reality, which I support, and it was in the Green Party platform to reduce the tax on small business to 9%, is certainly applauded. However, we in the Green Party are urging the government to look at the need to raise taxes on large, profitable multinationals.

The tax on large business was, in the year 2000, 28%. It is now down to 14%. It certainly should be raised, because if we look at the percentage of our total government revenues that come from corporations versus individual citizens, the portion on individual citizens has gone up while the portion on large corporations has shrunk dramatically.

As the economy is recovering, and that is good, there certainly is no reason or excuse to not go after, as my hon. friend from South Okanagan—West Kootenay just pointed out, the big fish. The big fish are in offshore tax havens. The big fish are in large, profitable multinationals. Going after people who are seeking to avoid, or worse, criminally evade, taxes should be a top priority.

I note, and it is a personal story, but I think it is quite bizarre, that my daughter, who is a university student, reported to me that the CRA is wasting tax dollars asking for proof of various items on her income tax return. She is a student. She is not making enough money to pay much in taxes or anything in taxes, I think. However, she is being asked to provide proof of the cost of books. I said that it was bizarre, and she said that another friend of hers is doing the same thing.

I would suggest that CRA could adjust its sights on millionaires and billionaires as opposed to students. I think that would be something most Canadians would support.

Turning to Bill C-63, I have to say that I read it with a growing sense of happiness. No doubt it will surprise people that anyone on the opposition benches would. However, when I pick up an omnibus budget bill I still have a sense of, I guess, PTSD from having read the omnibus budget bills in the 41st Parliament, particularly Bill C-38, which destroyed our environmental assessment regime and wrecked the Fisheries Act; and Bill C-45, which devastated the Navigable Waters Protection Act, removed the inspector general for CSIS, and various other measures that had nothing to do with each other.

Reading Bill C-63 confirms in my mind the strong need to simplify our tax code. When we talk to tax accountants, they generally agree that it would be wonderful if the Minister of Finance went in for root-and-branch tax reform to simplify the tax code to remove so many boutique exemptions. I commend the Minister of Finance for removing a number of boutique exemptions, but the tax code, and therefore the omnibus bill we have before us, is very complex on very specific items, such as straddling tax years and figuring out how to deal with different derivatives and the use of various tax mechanisms, such as going through trusts or going through additional corporations and how we end up taxing.

For the most part, I actually find myself wondering if I am going to vote for this particular budget bill if we can make some amendments. I want to point out the areas I like in this bill and the areas I think would benefit from amendments.

As it is an omnibus budget bill, I am pleased to see that there has finally been a tepid move, although it could go much further, to eliminate some of the fossil fuel subsidies. This was a large-ticket commitment in the Liberal campaign platform. Most of the large fossil fuel subsidies remain in place, despite a pledge in the Liberal platform to eliminate subsidies for fossil fuels.

This would be a parallel and needed measure that would go along with eliminating the market distortions that are created by both subsidizing fossil fuels and failing to put a price on dumping waste into the atmosphere. That is equivalent to having a municipal waste dump where there is no tipping fee. People are not encouraged to avoid dumping if it is free. That is why a carbon price makes sense, but we need to move to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies.

The move that is happening here is in relation to changes to the Canadian exploration expense. This happens to be in part 1 of Bill C-63. It would change the tax treatment of Canadian exploration expenses to reduce the tax deductions that are available now from 100% to about 30%. By the way, the way this is structured has created an incentive for accelerated drilling prior to this kicking in in 2019. This could be an unintended but environmentally damaging period. I am holding in my hands advice from Bennett Jones to that corporate sector suggesting that if any oil and gas companies can hurry up and start exploration activities and get commitments in writing before 2019, they can continue to take advantage of the 100% deduction on capital expenses.

I also welcome the changes to the donation of ecologically sensitive lands. I worked on this, back in the day, on the now defunct National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, repealed in the omnibus budget bill, Bill C-38. We worked to persuade the minister of finance of the day, the Right Hon. Paul Martin, to create special tax treatment for the donation of ecologically sensitive land. The revisions in Bill C-63 continue along that road to clarify and improve that system.

I am not at all unhappy to see the follow-through on the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. This is part of Canada's development portfolio. We still lag far behind the commitments made by previous governments, including every government back to Lester B. Pearson, Jean Chrétien, and the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney, who all committed that Canada's development assistance should equal 0.7% of our GDP. We are nowhere near that, but certainly the provisions around the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank are welcome.

There are a number of other provisions I was pleased to see, particularly those in the Canada Labour Code that would provide more flexible work arrangements and give Canadians prescribed statutory time off work to recover after experiencing family violence. I would like to see those sections amended. I would like to see that time off work as paid leave. I would like to see a single woman without children receive some assistance if she has been the victim of violence. There could be some tweaking of provisions in there.

I am very happy to see the new tax treatment for geothermal energy and an Energy Efficiency Act.

There are many provisions in a bill of 275 pages, but I will stop there and say that I am generally pleased with the contents of this bill.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is fascinating to listen to the areas the member so ably commented on, many of which she has been talking about for some time. I am pleased to see that she is tentatively a supporter of the bill. She knows how important it is to be able to pass this kind of legislation.

I would be interested to hear more about the tweaking of flex leave and the areas where we can better help families throughout Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always tempting as a member of the opposition, particularly the leader of another party, to spend most of one's time in Parliament talking about what is missing. I could fill up 10 minutes with what is missing and what I would like to see in a budget.

Under the family flextime arrangements with employers, there will be a maximum of three days of family responsibility leave and leave of up to 10 days for people who have been the victim of family violence. There has already been commentary on this, and we will undoubtedly hear good suggestions at committee. For example, I support what the United Steelworkers have said, which is why not have paid leave for people who are the victims of violence, including family violence? I say this because it is traumatizing. Obviously, anyone who has been the victim of violence within the family, including if one's child has been the victim of violence, cannot go to work the next day. These are very compassionate and important changes to the Canada Labour Code, but we might want to go further and consider paid leave. I certainly would.

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, does the member have any comments about what the previous speaker talked about, the $25 billion that is soon to be recovered by the government from tax cheats and whether she thought that perhaps some of this might be related to any of the people named in the paradise papers, including the Liberal Party's fundraising chair?

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

Mr. Speaker, globally we have had a real epidemic of the super-rich deciding to be super irresponsible. The super-rich, the 1% globally, hide wealth in offshore accounts in ways that ensure they are not taxed. That is so irresponsible. We have been in the grip of neoliberal theories of the trickle-down economy, which argue that when the rich do really well, we will all do well. Gus Speth, the former head of the United Nations Development Programme, has said that in the context of the trickle-down economy, a rising tide “lifts only yachts.” I think that is the case with that particular economic theory.

We seen those who are doing super well not paying their fair share. In the post-Depression era in the U.S., when there was huge economic growth under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the top tax bracket was 80%, yet they had stunning economic growth figures. I will not comment on anyone personally, although the hon. member for Edmonton Griesbach has invited me to do so. What I will say is that anyone who is a tax cheat should have their assets discovered and pay their fair share regardless of whom they know or where their friends in high places may be.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Leader of the Green Party for her speech. Given her vision, which is the most unifying possible, I would like to ask her a question.

Is she comfortable with the idea that, with respect to the items that were not included in the initial budget or the supplementary documents, it would be a good idea to afford the Speaker the possibility of dividing the vote on these items? I think that is of interest to my colleague as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. He is right as always.

In the House of Commons, we now have the new Standing Order 69.1, which allows the Speaker to divide the elements. The elements that were already in the budget can be voted on in an omnibus bill. However, with respect to the measures and elements not mentioned in the budget, I believe it is a good idea that the Speaker allow separate votes for the distinct elements that were not included in the actual budget.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-63, which would implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament in March, 2017. Before I get to the crux of Bill C-63, I would like to set the broader context in which it has been introduced, because it is important for all of us to understand how our government's actions to date have impacted the Canadian economy.

As my colleagues know, every month, Statistics Canada releases a labour force survey that includes a selection of data about the performance of the Canadian economy, including the number of jobs added that month and the rate of unemployment. For decades, once every 30 days, governments of the day have awaited with bated breath to see just what Statistics Canada had to report.

Allow me to read the opening paragraphs of the most recent labour force survey, released this past Friday by Statistics Canada. They read:

Employment increased by 35,000 in October, and the unemployment rate rose 0.1 percentage points to 6.3%. Employment gains in the month were driven by full-time work (+89,000), while fewer people worked part time (-53,000).

On a year-over-year basis, total employment rose by 308,000 (+1.7%), with full-time work increasing by 397,000 (+2.7%) and the number of people working part time declining by 89,000 (-2.5%). On a year-over-year basis, total hours worked were up 2.7%.

The unemployment rate trended downwards in the 12 months to October, falling 0.7 percentage points over this period.

Those are the numbers from Canada's national statistics agency on Friday, and they speak for themselves. More broadly, since forming government we have added 500,000 new jobs to the Canadian economy. October marked 11 straight months of job growth, and 90% of new jobs created are full time. Meanwhile, unemployment is at its lowest rate in nine years. It is clear that our government's plan to create jobs and grow our economy is working.

Budget 2017 and Bill C-63 are the continuation of that work, the continuation of our demonstrably successful efforts to spur inclusive economic growth.

Now I would like to turn to some of the details of the plan, beginning with enhanced support for workers and skills training.

Sometimes our lives change suddenly and our work schedule needs to change significantly in response. Our government is giving Canadian workers the flexibility to adapt when these changes arise. Bill C-63 would make substantial improvements to employment insurance. We are providing $310 million in additional tax relief to support Canadians who have taken on the important responsibility of caring for a loved one. We are investing $886 million to increase flexibility in parental and maternity benefits, extending the benefits to 18 months from 12 months, so new parents have the flexibility to meet their diverse needs.

We are also making substantial investments, $2.7 billion, to be precise, to boost skills training and employment supports for unemployed and under-employed Canadians. Because we hear from so many Canadian workers who are choosing to pursue new skills in today's rapidly changing economy, we are going to invest $132 million to expand the flexibility of employment insurance for those who seek to fund their own personal skills development.

These efforts are complemented by a range of initiatives by our government to support workers, including our recent announcement that we are enhancing the working income tax benefit, or WITB, for low-income workers. For a single mom, a more generous working income tax benefit, combined with a stronger Canada child benefit, will mean more money for books, skating lessons, or warm clothes for winter.

Let us now speak about the budget's focus on affordable housing. I come to the House from an exciting career as a city planner. One thing I learned from that work is that without secure, stable, and affordable housing, every other goal our citizens strive to achieve becomes secondary. Without adequate shelter, families struggle to raise their children, to get educated, to find and keep employment, and even to stay healthy.

One of the many communities I am proud to represent in Halifax is called Mulgrave Park, a public housing neighbourhood. It is a vibrant community in our city's north end that really embodies the best of what our city has to offer: neighbours offering caring and loving support for each other. This past winter, I was proud and deeply moved to announce that our government would be investing $5 million dollars toward much needed improvements in their community infrastructure. These investments will make a real difference in the day-to-day lives of the people who live there, and they have told me as much with their smiles and their warm embraces.

Indeed, investments in affordable housing are always worth it. That is just one reason I am so thrilled that budget 2017 drastically increases the government's spending on affordable housing to $13.5 billion. Just imagine the lives it will change across this country.

I will turn now to the government's innovation agenda. Many will recall that back in March, some dubbed budget 2017 the “innovation budget”. The budget does focus very intentionally on innovation, and for good reason. The nature of our economy is evolving and we must ensure, as it evolves, that it works for all Canadians. The budget demonstrates that we are focused on building up Canada as a world-leading innovation economy to create jobs and grow the middle class by supporting innovators and equipping Canadian workers with the tools they need to succeed.

For example, the budget invests $1.26 billion in the strategic innovation fund, giving Canadian innovators access to a simpler and quicker funding application process to attract new, high-quality business investments. This is of great value to all Canadians, including my riding of Halifax. I have said many times that I believe Halifax has what it takes to put Atlantic Canada on the leading edge of innovation. Look no further than our growing tech and clean-tech sectors or the runaway success of our oceans sector, which last month became a finalist to become a supercluster under the government's innovation supercluster initiative. These are the kinds of projects that will help Canada be a leader in the industries of tomorrow and why every dollar the budget puts toward innovation is a dollar well spent.

Members may be wondering how the budget would better protect our environment. Meaningful and timely action is required if we are going to protect the majestic natural environment that defines and nurtures Canada. One of the most significant ways we are addressing environmental challenges in this budget is through green infrastructure, with an investment of $21.9 billion over the next 11 years. This major investment would allow us to mitigate and adapt to climate change through projects that reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, promote clean air and safe water systems, and uphold renewable sources of power. In particular, it makes a substantial investment of $83 million to enhance climate resilience in indigenous communities, as well as $18 million to implement a climate change and health adaptation program for first nations and Inuit communities.

As someone who does in fact believe in the science behind climate change, I am particularly excited that the budget includes $73.5 million to establish the Canadian centre for climate services. This centre of expertise would make climate science more accessible and support decision-makers as we address climate change.

The last topic I must address today is how our budget will foster what we call “inclusive growth”. Our government was elected on a promise to create the economic conditions for every Canadian to succeed and to leave no one behind. Investments in inclusive growth include $7 billion over 10 years in affordable child care, an investment that would create 40,000 more high-quality, affordable child care spaces across Canada. It includes funding to improve gender and cultural sensitivity in the judiciary, $100 million for a new national strategy to address gender-based violence, $74 million to enhance the career transition services program for veterans, and $17.5 million to establish a centre of excellence on PTSD.

For our youth, it includes $12.5 million to reduce barriers to education through the Canada learning bond program and $38 million to help low-income youth transition to post-secondary education and work through Pathways to Education Canada.

For indigenous communities, it includes $89.9 million for indigenous languages revitalization, $828 million to address health challenges in first nations and Inuit communities, and $165 million to support indigenous students by increasing access to post-secondary education and skills training.

These are the kinds of investments that will transform Canada for the better, along with the others I mentioned in my speech today, and countless additional initiatives I did not have time to address here today. I hope my colleagues from all corners of this place will agree that our plan is working for Canadians and will vote to keep this spectacular momentum going by voting in favour of Bill C-63.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech, to which I listened closely.

He started by talking at length about the job market. We are all seeing a certain uptick in a number of ridings, and mine is no exception. The unemployment rate is falling, which means more people are working and paying employment insurance premiums.

Since this should mean a corresponding increase in revenues, why are we still facing a situation the government does not seem to have considered, namely that fewer than four out of ten workers qualify for employment insurance when bad luck strikes and they lose their jobs?

Why does the bill before us not address this issue?

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, as the parliamentary secretary mentioned, an incredible investment has been made in the employment insurance program. When investments like that are made across the country, it will in fact be a benefit that accrues to all Canadians, as the economy as a whole is raised up by that. This, in conjunction with the tremendous investments in workforce training for those seeking a transition to a new job or those seeking to transition into the workforce in the first place, will have a tremendous effect in every corner of our great country.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to read in the Toronto Star today, which is very often the public mouthpiece of the Liberal Party, that the revelations contained in the paradise papers that key Liberal insiders and bagmen were gaming the tax system added to the still unanswered questions about the finance minister's practices and actions and “reinforce the impression that this government is [not only] out of touch with the concerns of ordinary Canadians...[but quite possibly] in league with those who would rig the game in their own self-interest.” It concludes that the Liberals were happy to allow the rich to play by their own set of rules.

Does my hon. colleague agree with the Toronto Star?

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I find it highly ironic that the question is coming from the member. Under his government, there was a 10-year period where the poor in Canada became poorer, the rich became richer, and the middle class were ever more squeezed with a flat or negative income growth. I can understand the opposition party's obsession with such reports, as he referred to today, given the tremendous economic success our party is having in Canada right now. Of course, those members are looking for a distraction from all of that.

Particularly, in the case of the story mentioned by my hon. colleague, it is also understandable that when a party sees another party coming up in its fundraising rearview mirror, it might have a distraction to offer for that as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, in the questions around what is technically by the Liberals' own definition an omnibus bill, I suppose we can often ask what is in it and what is not in it. We see in the 300-some-odd pages that the Liberals have not found the space to keep their commitment on closing an important loophole for Canadian CEOs. It may not be obvious to many middle-class Canadians and those working hard to join it, that when people are paid in stock options, they pay a much lower tax rate.

The Liberals actually campaigned two years ago to begin to close that loophole to make it much more restrictive and to only apply that to innovation companies when it was a true incentive as opposed to what it usually was, which is a tax dodge. The Liberals tried to characterize the small business sector that way.

Therefore, my question is this. The Liberals did not find room in the 330 pages in this omnibus bill to close the loophole and keep their commitment. Could my friend give us a time when he actually thinks the Liberals will follow through on the promise they made to Canadians over two years ago?

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, although we are able to walk and chew gum at the same time, we are not able to do everything at the same time. Clearly, right now our focus is on the middle class. As we all know now, Canada has the lowest small business tax rate in the G7. We have the fastest-growing economy. The effort that the Liberal government is undertaking to grow the economy and create more jobs is working brilliantly in Canada. We look forward to always doing better in the future.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-63, A second 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.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member truly reflects and embodies the Conservative Party in opposition, which is so much out of tune and out of touch with reality. The Conservatives have no problem distorting truths in order to substantiate a specific theme that they want to espouse. They have no reservations about character assassination, and they have no problem saying things that are just not true.

The member talked about Canadians wanting to see an investment here in Canada, and they are seeing that investment. There is far more investment than with the Stephen Harper government, in which she was a member and a cabinet member. We have record high amounts being invested in Canadian infrastructure. In every region of this country, this government is building. The commitment towards Canada's infrastructure is higher in this government than in decades and, I would argue, quite possibly in the history of Canada.

Will my colleague across the way not recognize the truth and say that we have a significant investment in Canada's infrastructure in these last two budgets? If she does not believe that, can she tell me of another national budget, in particular that the Harper government quite possibly introduced, where there was a stronger commitment to Canada's infrastructure? Tell me when that occurred.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to state that if we want to talk about character assassination, why is it the Minister of Finance gets to tell the member for Milton that she cannot do math? What is that all about? The last I checked, the member for Milton is actually exceptionally competent and well qualified, and should not be diminished in this House.

The issues with regard to the Minister of Finance are actually public. The Ethics Commissioner has been clear.

With respect to my speech, and the things I spoke to, yes, this bill increases taxes on beer. Yes, this bill actually makes a choice to invest in infrastructure outside of Canadian borders as opposed to at home.

My question for the member would be, why is it that $2 billion in infrastructure money lapsed last year instead of being invested in places like Collingwood or Wasaga Beach, or Adjala–Tosorontio, where people actually need that infrastructure investment? That lapsed money could have made a meaningful difference not only in my riding but across the country. The Liberals do not have their act together, and do not feel that they can invest in small communities.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her speech.

I would like to know if her position has changed. We in the NDP have long been concerned about tax evasion. In my opinion, my colleague's government missed multiple opportunities to address a situation that is unacceptable to middle-class Canadians. The recent events reported in the news are highly alarming. They clearly show that Liberal Party fundraisers are evading taxes with impunity.

Does the member think the government should be doing more to stop this hemorrhaging of money we so desperately need to provide services to Canadians who actually do pay their taxes?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, I do have concerns about people who avoid taxes, one of them being our Minister of Finance. He has made a conscious choice to avoid paying taxes here, inheritance taxes.

The Liberals expect to place a higher tax rate on those individuals who are farmers, physicians, and small business people across our country. Tax avoidance is a problem in this country, and we have seen that most recently with these paradise papers. I do hope that the government acts swiftly and actually takes action, albeit we have not seen them take action on their own Minister of Finance. Why would we expect them to take action on anyone else?

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Youth)]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to rise in the House today to support Bill C-63, the budget implementation act, 2017, no. 2.

On October 27, the hon. Minister of National Defence introduced Bill C-63, and we have taken the next steps to ensure we maintain the job and economic growth of the past two years. I will explain why I think Bill C-63 presents our government and the House with a way forward to provide for current and future generations.

The record growth that we have witnessed over the past two years is clear proof that this government's plan is working. Last Friday, Statistics Canada published their most recent labour force survey for October 2018. Our economy generated half a million jobs from the time we formed our government two years ago until this past weekend.

The majority of these jobs are full-time. In October, 90,000 full-time jobs were created in Canada. I am particularly proud to note that Quebec, which is home to my riding of Vaudreuil—Soulanges, is leading the way when it comes to job creation in Canada. In October alone, 33,000 new full-time jobs were created in Quebec. What is more, Quebec's unemployment rate is now lower than the national rate.

This government's economic plan is working because we remained focused on Canadians' priorities, those that will have the biggest impact on our economic growth, namely investing in our families, lowering taxes for the middle class, and supporting the success of our SMEs.

I am also proud to say that employment was up in October, particularly for young people between the ages of 15 and 24. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister for Youth, I am honoured to see that our plan to help young people is also working. Programs, such as Canada summer jobs, are working. They are giving 35,000 more young Canadians across the country work experience every summer.

The strength of our economy shows that more young people than ever are finding jobs and kick-starting their careers. We are helping young Canadians get the skills they need to succeed through new investments in innovation and job training. In September, we announced a $73-million investment to create 60,000 new student work placements over five years in co-operation with universities, colleges, and polytechnics.

To see that our investments in young Canadians are working is enough, in my view, to support the measures of the second budget implementation act as part of this government's broader economic strategy. However, our plan does not stop with our young people.

This government's strategy is comprehensive and focused on areas that matter most for our middle class. That is why our first-ever act as government was to lower taxes on the middle class and increase them on Canada's top 1%. It is why we introduced the more generous and tax-free Canada child benefit, and most recently indexed it to the cost of living as it continues to rise. For the same reasons we recently committed to lowering the tax rate for small businesses in Canada to 9% over the next 15 months. Because of these bold policies, Canada is now the fastest growing economy in the G7. We have the most competitive small business tax rate and the lowest overall tax costs for small businesses. With nearly 99% of companies in Canada being small businesses, it is important to ensure that we build an economic system that works for them, allowing them to grow and flourish for years to come. However, there is always more work to be done, and better is indeed always possible.

Therefore, to continue on the incredible success that we have seen in the last two years, we must work to implement key portions of the 2017 budget. Bill C-63 would do just that. Allow me to highlight some key points that will mean the most to my community of Vaudreuil—Soulanges.

The budget implementation bill no. 2 takes steps to implement our innovation and skills plan, which focuses some of our investments where they matter most in helping Canadians navigate the changing landscape of the 21st century economy. By doing so, we will create a labour force that works for Canadians.

Bill C-63 seeks to implement a $1 billion innovation and skills plan as part of budget 2017, with $600 million toward new financing for clean tech firms. This is welcome news and goes beyond the bold steps this government has already taken to protect our environment and grow a green economy in 2017 and beyond.

We have already tripled investments in clean tech since forming government only two years ago. This goes hand in hand with the government's commitment to a clean growth economy, including the $2 billion low-carbon economy fund and the $21.9 billion in green infrastructure outlined in budget 2017. By prioritizing clean growth, the proposed budget implementation bill pushes our government's plans for a green economy further than ever before.

By seeking a balance for our economy, Bill C-63 will keep our support on track for the middle class and those working hard to join it. It aims for balance in other areas of our economy as well. The budget implementation bill seeks to put in place measures to ensure that Canadian workers will have greater flexibility in achieving a healthy work-life balance, helping those with families and sick loved ones to spend more time at home when they need to.

I am lucky to be the father of two beautiful children, Ellie and Anderson. I am lucky to serve my community and build a better country for my children at the same time. I am also lucky to have an incredible partner in helping meet these challenges and finding that balance between my responsibilities as an MP and as a father.

This is challenging. It is a challenge that many Canadians, including those in my community, know all too well. More Canadian families than ever before must find new and innovative ways to strike that balance as parents who work to support their children and who spend time with them at home.

That is why this government extended parental leave in Canada from 12 to 18 months at 33% of the parent's income. The budget implementation bill takes the next steps in our plan and would give Canadians more flexibility in federally regulated industries to have a better work-life balance, allowing more room to take vacation and holidays when they need them, to take care of a family member, and to prepare to grieve after losing a loved one.

Canadians deserve the opportunity to live and work in a way that best accommodates their aspirations, their families, and their choices. It is our duty as MPs to help them any way we can.

Bill C-63 contains significant measures that are necessary to securing the future Canadians expect. Those measures include strengthening our green economy, more flexibility for federally regulated employees, and the implementation of certain measures in budget 2017.

I encourage all members of the House who share these values to support Bill C-63 and, in so doing, support the middle class, our small businesses, and our economy.

I encourage those who are still unsure to take a look at our government's economic update. We have the lowest overall tax rates for small businesses and the fastest economic growth in the G7. We have cut taxes for the middle class and provided support to middle-class families. Wages are up and child poverty is down. We have invested in our economy, and we have helped create over 500,000 jobs in the past two years.

Our plan is working. Now it is time for all of us to support Bill C-63.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have three questions for the hon. member. It is very important that we have a budget that represents where Canadians are now, and takes us in the direction of prosperity for all Canadians. He is the parliamentary secretary for youth, and the Prime Minister is the Minister for Youth.

The first question is this. Does he think it is fair that previous governments had a minister for youth, but the Liberal government does not have a minister for seniors, who are the largest growing population? There are more seniors than youth. It is the largest growing demographic in Canada and yet it is being ignored by the government. Does he think that is fair?

The second question is about taxation. Does the member think it is fair that taxes are going up, but they say taxes are going down? Canadians are hard pressed, and it is a growing problem.

Third, does he think it is fair that the Prime Minister and the finance minister are not paying their fair share of taxes?

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will first tell my hon. colleague that young Canadians are grateful that they have a Prime Minister who is taking a hands-on approach to ensure they have all opportunities available to them, something that, unfortunately, did not exist over the last 10 years, when we saw very minimal investment in young Canadians.

When we consulted young Canadians across the country, one question we heard most of all was where were their opportunities, the investments that previous generations had seen so they had opportunities to find jobs, start small businesses, and receive the tools necessary to succeed. We heard them loud and clear, and that is why we are investing record amounts in providing opportunities for young Canadians to go to university and get the skills they need to find the jobs they are looking for. We have invested in the Canada summer jobs program to ensure they have more opportunities to put money in their pockets and gain valuable work experience. We are also investing in skills training and co-ops, with the creation of 60,000 placements in our most recent budget.

That is what young Canadians have been asking for, and that is what we are providing to them after 10 years of minimal investment in youth.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I have two very simple questions for him.

The Liberals keep saying that they are working for the middle class and they boast about the upturn in the economy, but there are two things worth mentioning here.

It would seem that if wealth is truly being created, then the distribution of that wealth is not entirely equitable. I am not sure how the Liberals define middle class, but in a riding like mine, where the median salary is roughly $32,000 a year, needless to say that no one will be getting any of the Liberal government's tax cuts.

Why did the Liberals not see fit to help these low income workers and put in place a plan to raise minimum wage to $15 an hour?

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

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

First, we not only lowered taxes for the middle class, but we also brought in the Canada child benefit, which is putting more money in the pockets of nine out of ten families and that money is not taxable.

In my riding of Vaudreuil—Soulanges, that represents $72 million for families. I am sure that the numbers are roughly the same in my hon. colleague's riding.

We have put in place a number of ways to lower taxes for the middle class and to invest in the middle class. That is what we will continue to do for the next two years.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today on the Hill there are many youth from Boys and Girls Clubs throughout Canada. I know that one person in particular, Abbie Matheson, is spending the day shadowing me. The minister of youth spoke this morning and welcomed them.

I am wondering if he could comment on how important this budget is to get it right for youth so that we can prepare the youth for tomorrow and so they fully have the opportunity to succeed.

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will join my colleague in welcoming Abbie to Parliament today.

It is very important that we get this right, and the reasons are simple. First, the rate of unemployment, before we came to office, for young Canadians was double the national average. We needed to do something about that, and we have, by investing in skills training, investing in growing our economy, and ensuring that there are more jobs in the Canada summer jobs program, as well as the co-op placements.

However, above and beyond that, we owe it to the next generation of young Canadians to ensure that they have all the opportunities that every single one of us in this House had, every member of Parliament, which previous generations of governments gave them by investing in their generation. That is what we need to do, and that is what we are going to continue to do.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this summer and fall, there was bad news for Canadians all over, from this government.

We first had the spectacle of the government going out and talking about raising taxes for small businesses, the business community. The Liberals themselves have admitted that the business community is the driving force of our economy. This created a huge amount of uncertainty in the business community. We heard time after time how extremely angry the business community was getting over this so-called proposed tax. The government's own caucus members revolted and they gradually tinkered with the proposal, but it has still left an extremely bad taste among the business community.

Then we had the spectacle of the finance minister who took advantage of a loophole. We now understand he is the only minister on that side who took advantage of the loophole in not declaring all of his shares according to what is required by law and by practice.

What is important to note is that it was the Minister of Finance who did it. The finance minister is the individual who gives confidence to the market, who gives confidence to the economy. He is an important individual with respect to Canada's economy. If he himself cannot just follow the basic rules of accountability set out in Parliament, and uses a loophole, that has sent out a terrible impression. The government has lost a huge amount of confidence among Canadians.

Lo and behold, we now have the paradise papers coming out. The day before yesterday, we saw a picture of the Prime Minister and his chief Liberal fundraiser Mr. Bronfman hugging each other. What does that picture say? On one side, the Prime Minister wants to raise taxes on the business community, while on the other side, his chief Liberal fundraiser is hiding money so he does not have to pay taxes in this country. One is raising taxes on business and the other is trying to avoid paying taxes. Guess what. They are the best of friends. Is that the kind of message we want to send out to Canadians and people around the world as to the state of Canada's economy?

The Liberal member before me talked about what the government is doing. The Liberals forget the fact that our Conservative government laid the foundation for where our economy is going.

We did have some good news. There was a small deficit. Instead of reducing the deficit, the Liberals increased their spending. They have now put us on a course where we do not know what our grandchildren will be paying in the future for the Liberals' spending. One would think that, with their own children, the Liberals would at least be prudent. Have they been? No, they have not been prudent. They keep spending money that they do not have, with a deficit. They could have given Canadians a huge amount of confidence.

The point is this. Canadians are worried about the actions being taken by the Liberal government. They are very worried about their future. Contrary to the Prime Minister's “sunny ways”, Canadians are now worried about where the government is going. The Liberals do a little tinkering here and a little tinkering there, and then they say they are going to raise taxes and stop the credit for diabetics, until there is a backlash and we see them running away. Why can we not have a sound economic direction coming from the government?

When the Liberals were in opposition, they said they would do this and do that. The Prime Minister said on the world stage that Canada is back, but he has forgotten the fact that for 10 years we were all working very hard. The minister himself knows very well how hard we worked to get Canada on the world stage, and yet they go there and say that nothing had happened.

I just heard the minister of youth say the Liberals put money toward skills development. Hello. Excuse me. He just needs to look at the record and he will see who started that program.

It was the former Conservative government that started that program. The government is taking advantage of what the former Conservative government did and to mask that by saying it is the advocate of all of those thing. No, that is not the way it is.

Let us talk for a minute about the direction the government is going in. We should talk about the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. The bank was designed by China to increase its own influence in that part of the region. It is part of China's foreign policy. We do not have any problem with China's foreign policy, but why should the Canadian taxpayers be paying to promote China's foreign policy? Why should we be paying into this bank, which is primarily based in, and set up by, China? We have an Asian Development Bank that we are partners with and are on its board of directors. It does the same thing. I do not see any reason why we, as a member of the Asian Development Bank, suddenly have to give taxpayers' money to promote some other country's foreign affairs interests. That is another wrong decision by the Liberal government.

As we stand and look around, I am sorry to say that Canadians do not feel comfortable with the government's direction. We hear this time after time from business people and everyone else.

Now, the government is talking about the middle class. I just read a CBC article that discusses who is in the middle class. It says that the middle class are making almost $80,000. As my colleague just said, the average income in his riding is $35,000. Where the hell is the middle class the Liberal government is talking about coming from? People making $80,000 are the middle class. I am sorry, but that is not the situation of many Canadians.

The point coming from this budget is that instead of sunny ways, we are getting darker days coming forward. I do not know where the economy is going. We on this side of the House stand at every opportunity to point out to the Liberals what they are doing, what Canadians want, and why they are on the wrong track.

This budget will not in any way provide any kind of comfort to Canadians who are working very hard. Canadians pay their taxes. Ask Canadians, and they will pay their taxes. However, the friends of the Liberals, as we have found out from the paradise papers, are not paying their taxes. They are trying to hide from paying taxes. Who are these rich friends? Who do they belong to? They do not belong to the NDP Party. They do not belong to the Conservative Party. They belong to the Liberal Party, the party of the rich. It is the rich who are trying not to pay their fair taxes.

Let us look at one very simple thing. The chief Liberal Party fundraiser, Mr. Bronfman, is now the best friend of the Prime Minister. He hosts Liberal fundraising dinners for him. He calls his buddies, the rich guys, and tells them to come. Then they lobby the government, so they can find the loopholes to avoid paying taxes.

Is that the kind of government we want, where government officials and their friends use their influence to create those loopholes not to pay taxes? A prime example is the finance minister and his use of loopholes, and now Mr. Bronfman and all the others are using loopholes. They said they did not break any laws. It is not about breaking laws; it is about accountability and being honest. They are all taking advantage of what is available in Canada.

I say this to the other side: sunny days are over for Canadians. We will hold the government accountable, and in 2019 Canadians will speak.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague said at one point that he did not know where the economy is going. I do, and I can fill him in on that.

We have the lowest unemployment rate now. We are the leading economy in terms of growth in the G7. The government is investing in children. The government is investing in lowering the small corporate tax rate. The economy is heading in a great direction.

The member also mentioned that he believes the previous government laid the foundation for what we now have, for what we are experiencing now. I simply do not buy that. The Conservatives had 10 years. If they had held office for only two years and somehow had made the policy decisions that we have, I might be inclined to believe that. However, the Conservatives had 10 years and they were unable to accomplish it.

How does the member justify that comment?

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is straightforward and simple. They have been in government for only a year and a half. A government does not suddenly come to power and cause massive change in that short time. The foundation of these policies was laid by our Conservative government before the Liberals came to power.

No matter what the member says, whether he believes it or does not, the facts do not change that it was the policies of the Conservative government that laid the foundation for the very strong economy these guys are trying to take credit for.

My question for him is very simple. Where is the Prime Minister? Canadians are upset. Canadians do not know where this economy is going. He should be telling Canadians what he is going to do about it, instead of raising taxes, having his friends hide their income from taxes and his finance minister not even following the accountability laws of our country.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

Unfortunately, I missed part of it. Perhaps he spoke about the fact that we were discussing this morning, among other things, the possibility of the Speaker of the House separating out certain elements that were not included in the initial budget. An omnibus bill is always a complex matter for us, and we are wondering whether we should support it or not. The question is whether the subjects that were not announced in the budget initially could be voted on separately.

I would like my colleague to comment on that.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, no matter if it is an omnibus bill or anything else, we have an opportunity to talk about the issues we want to talk about. We can pick up the issues that we feel the government is wrong about and talk about them. It is not a very big hurdle if we are debating a question that we feel is important.

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. member referenced the Asian infrastructure bank buried deep within this omnibus bill, a type of bill that I remind the House the Liberals said they would not put forward. The Liberal government plans to give $500 million to that bank. Could the hon. member speak to the risks associated with Canadian taxpayers investing money in that bank that will go to China?

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is simple and straightforward. There is no benefit for Canada going into that bank. That bank is an arm of China to increase its influence in Asia, because that is where that money will go. It has nothing to do with the Canadian taxpayer. We get nothing out of it. We are just putting money in there. What is the point?

We are already partners with the existing Asian Development Bank and are doing the same things with it. There is no need for us to do anything with the newer Asian infrastructure bank that is promoting the foreign interests of the Chinese government.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, today I have the great honour and pleasure to speak to Bill C-63, the budget implementation act, 2017, no. 2.

In recent days, we have seen that there is a great deal of interest in the budget, and for good reason. In 2015, Canadians made a choice. They could choose between a government that would continue to slash investments in Canadians or a government that would invest in Canadians.

We made the very well-thought-out decision to invest in Canadians. From the outset, we cut taxes for the middle class and we raised them for the wealthiest 1% in Canada. The choice was crystal clear: we chose to take this money and reinvest it in the middle class.

Furthermore, in our election platform we promised to provide a significantly higher Canada child benefit.

The increase in the Canada child benefit is having a major effect on the Canadian population. The investment is providing middle-class Canadians and Canadians who have a hard time making ends meet with more money to invest in their children and their families.

In my riding of Sudbury alone, we are seeing 7,100 payments a month, benefiting over 12,270 children. The total investment coming into my riding every month as a result is more than $4 million, and that is repeated across Canada. We are seeing this on a monthly basis. The effect is significant, because with the old system the Conservatives had put in place, everyone received the same amount of money. In my riding we would only have received $1.3 million of investment a month under it. We are now seeing $4 million. It also has an effect on small businesses.

People can play sports now because they have more money. They are able to invest in their children's education and activities. Just putting bread on the table, ensuring a healthy lifestyle, is important. I am really proud that we are seeing that on a daily basis.

As we conveyed this month, we also want to continue investing in small business.

Small business is the backbone of our economy. That is why a few weeks back the Minister of Finance announced reductions in the taxes on small business from 10.5% to 10% next year and 9% in 2019. That will be the lowest tax rate on small business in the G7. Many other countries do not have this low rate of tax.

The reason we want a low rate is very simple: we want small business to continue to invest, grow, and expand their businesses across municipalities, provinces, and nationally. It is key for our economy that we allow small business owners to continue investing and growing, because it results in middle-class jobs that stimulate the economy.

We are seeing the effects of the increased Canada child benefit and reduced taxes on the middle class. The middle class are reinvesting money in our economy. Over the last few years, we have seen 450,000 new jobs created in Canada alone. The unemployment rate has been dropping since, and is actually at its lowest level since 2008. In my riding of Sudbury as well, we are seeing the lowest unemployment rate in years, even though we have the mining sector in my area, which is not doing that well. However, we are pulling through and the economy is doing well. We are looking forward to the mining sector coming back up, and the effect it will have on our economy in the natural resource industry in Sudbury and northern Ontario.

I am also quite proud of the fact that we have invested in veterans. The previous government had cut services and benefits for veterans drastically in the hope of trying to balance its budget. We believe in reinvesting. We have done that by starting over and bringing back a lot of the veterans' services offices, investing in caregivers for veterans, and investing in the possibility of veterans furthering their education. This is going to have a profound effect on veterans, and we are not done. We will continue to invest in our veterans in Canada.

Another thing I kept hearing about on the campaign trail was infrastructure and housing, and how there had been lack of investment and direction by the previous government over 10 years. It did nothing on the housing side, which had become almost a crisis situation in Canada. We are investing a record amount of capital to ensure that the housing services industry in Canada for the people who need it the most is operating properly and efficiently. That is why $11 billion was announced in the last budget, which is in addition to the money already invested in the 2016 budget. We are continuing to invest in housing in Canada, and that has played a major role in the social determinants of health, which has a major and important impact across Canada.

In that housing envelope, it is key that we are also investing in off-reserve housing for indigenous individuals. I am seeing that in my riding of Sudbury. People had come to me pleading that we continue the investments in housing in Sudbury. The the last budget addressed that properly. The envelope for off-reserve housing alone was increased to $225 million.

When we talk about indigenous peoples, an additional $3.4 billion was tabled in the 2016 budget. Where will this money go? It will go to infrastructure and health. We know there is a complete lack of investment in these sectors. The indigenous population is increasing and we need to invest in them. That is why I was so proud that we are doing what we said we would do on the campaign trail and investing in the infrastructure and health of indigenous communities. This is not just a one-time thing: it has to be a continuing investment over the next generation. I hope it will continue.

Another important investment made was with respect to youth employment. We promised to increase youth employment across Canada, and youth unemployment is now at an all-time low in Canada. In my riding alone, we have seen over 280 jobs for youth created in 2017 alone. On top of that, we want to ensure that the necessary conditions for youth employment are done properly. That is why we eliminated unpaid internships. Basically, if someone is going to be doing internships, they have to be rewarded properly for the work they do.

During the election campaign, we promised to invest in the economy, in infrastructure, and in first nations and veterans, and we are keeping our promises to Canadians.

I would also like to mention the major investment we are making in superclusters. Canada is currently holding a competition to choose five Canadian groups to receive an investment of more than $900 million over the next few years. By investing in five different engines of growth in Canada's economy, we hope to double the jobs they create.

Our party wants to create more jobs for Canadians and improve the quality of life for Canada's middle class. We are going to continue working on this goal. That is why the supercluster program will really have a positive effect. We want to help Canadian groups in the agriculture, mining, forestry, and fisheries sectors. We have received more than 50 funding applications from groups in these sectors. There are now nine groups across Canada in the running for the funding announced in the budget.

These are the things that will transform Canada and create the jobs we so sorely need. Our goal is to create that wealth. That is why I am very proud to support Bill C-63, to ensure a brighter future for all Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, the government is investing $500 million in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. That bank is currently funding two pipeline projects, one in Azerbaijan and another in Bangladesh, while the government has worked to kill northern gateway. The Prime Minister says one thing and does another with respect to Trans Mountain. The government's mismanagement of the energy sector has resulted in the cancellation of energy east.

Would the hon. member for Sudbury not agree that, instead of funding pipeline projects in Bangladesh and Azerbaijan, it would be better to build pipelines here in Canada to get Alberta energy to market?

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, clearly the hon. member forgets the last 10 years when no pipelines were built by the previous government. We are on the cusp, and have certainly allowed Trans Mountain to move forward. We need to realize that industry will decide if it wants to invest in pipelines across this country. We want to make sure that the regulatory framework is there, and that it is a solid framework that Canadians can believe in. We have done that. We made sure that all aspects, environment, social, and indigenous communities, were properly consulted, something that had not been done by the previous government. We have done that, and now it is up to industry to decide if it wants to build its own pipelines.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I would like to talk about the environment. As members know, Fiji is presiding over COP23 in Bonn, which is in its first week.

An article currently in Le Devoir is headlined “Commitments too weak to avoid climate disaster.” It issues a warning about our weak greenhouse gas emissions reduction commitments, which could result in disaster situations.

There is a tiny measure for geothermal projects, but does the member not think we should be going much further? For starters, the government needs to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies. It is ridiculous that we are still spending billions of dollars on fossil fuel subsidies, when we made an international commitment quite some time ago to eliminate them. There is nothing to encourage greater emphasis on the energy shift towards renewables.

Why did the update not include a more serious plan? We are currently at COP23, in the middle of a conference on climate change.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his important question.

With regard to the investments that we proposed in budget 2016-17, I would like to say that, when we talk about superclusters, we are talking about economic sectors that we want to transform in order to make them greener and more successful.

That will help us to meet our targets with respect to the environment. It is important to continue to invest because we firmly believe that investments in the environment go hand-in-hand with the economy. We need to strike a balance. That is what our government is proposing to do, and that is what we are continuing to do right now.

I am proud of the many initiatives that have been put forward, including those involving superclusters, which will create jobs while helping to make Canada's economy greener.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a question about the form of the bill. It is a mammoth bill, with many pages, that affects a number of departments. However, the Liberal Party promised during the election campaign that it would not introduce any omnibus bills like this.

Is my colleague disappointed with the form of this omnibus bill?

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is an ambitious bill because there are a number of things that need to be accomplished. We made promises to Canadians during the last election. We need to make sure that we meet those objectives, and that is what this bill does.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise this afternoon to speak on Bill C-63, the budget implementation act.

During the last election, the Prime Minister criss-crossed the country, running on a platform entitled, “Real Change: A new plan for a strong middle class”. Given that BillC-63 would directly impact the middle class, as the policies and actions of the government over the last two years have, it is a fair time in this debate to ask how the middle class is faring under the Liberal government.

To begin with, the taxes of the middle class are going up. I know the mantra of the government is to say that it has cut taxes for the middle class while increasing taxes for the wealthy, except that is plainly false. According to one study recently issued by the Fraser Institute, 81% of middle-class Canadians have seen their taxes go up, on average, by $840 a year. For every tax reduction that the government has announced, supposedly targeted at the middle class, those cuts have been offset by tax increases elsewhere. In other words, this is a government that gives with one hand and takes with the other. What the bottom line means for the pocketbook of the vast majority of middle-class Canadians is that their taxes have gone up, not down. So much for a plan to strengthen the middle class. Instead of a plan to strengthen the middle class, what we really have seen from the government is a plan to nickel and dime middle-class Canadians.

The Prime Minister, who portrays himself as such a champion of middle-class Canadians and ran on a platform that was centred on the middle class, has led a government that has done such things as eliminate the public transit tax credit. I do not think there are many multi-millionaire CEOs who get around on public transit. Perhaps there are some and for those who do, the public transit tax credit pretty much meant nothing to them, but for the tens of thousands of Canadians who go to work each and every day by public transit, the public transit tax credit meant something to them, something that the Liberal government has taken away. So much again for a plan to strengthen the middle class.

Then there was the mean-spirited attempt by the government to tax employee discounts. In other words, the government decided to go after waiters and retail workers who might have gotten a discount on a pair of jeans or maybe a cheeseburger at the end of a long shift. I guess that is what the Prime Minister means by being compassionate. I guess what the Prime Minister means by standing up for the middle class is going after retail workers, going after waiters, and going against the most vulnerable members of our society.

Of course, we now learn that the Prime Minister has a new target, namely, diabetic Canadians, because the government is making it harder for diabetic Canadians to take advantage of a disability tax credit. Before the Liberal government was elected, about 80% of applicants received that tax credit. Today, it is the exact opposite: about 80% of Canadians are denied that tax credit. The average cost to a diabetic Canadian annually, in terms of cost for care and so on, is about $15,000. I know that for the silver-spooned Prime Minister and his multi-millionaire finance minister, $15,000 is chump change.

However, for the vast majority of Canadians, $15,000 is a lot, and $15,000 on anything can make the difference between putting food on the table and paying down a mortgage to stay in one's home. Instead of helping those diabetic Canadians who incur, on average, $15,000 in expenses annually, and instead of helping to make their lives as littler easier, the government is making it more difficult for them to receive that tax credit. It is absolutely shameful. It is just disgusting.

Of course, in the last few months, the Prime Minister announced that he was going after another group of middle-class Canadians, namely small business owners and farmers. He insulted them. He called them tax cheats. The Prime Minister's solution to deal with these middle-class tax cheats, as he called them, was to, without consultation, try to ram through some of the largest changes to the Income Tax Act in more than 40 years, which in turn would result in massive tax increases on small business owners and farmers, mostly a middle-class group of people that the Prime Minister calls tax cheats.

Well, as it turns out, the real tax cheats are not hard-working, middle-class small business owners who create jobs and take risks. No, the real tax cheats are the Prime Minister's friends and cronies, including none other than Stephen Bronfman, who was the Prime Minister's leadership campaign chairman. He was the chief fundraiser for the Liberal Party. We know from the paradise papers that he has been funnelling millions of dollars to tax-free offshore accounts in such places as the Cayman Islands. If the Prime Minister is looking for tax cheats, he should not look to the middle-class small businesses and farmers, but he should look among his own friends. I think he would find plenty of tax cheats among them, including his chief fundraiser.

What is the deal in terms of hiking taxes on middle-class Canadians, shaking down waiters and retail workers, declaring war on small business owners and farmers? There is really a very simple explanation, which is that over the last two years, the current government's spending has been absolutely out of control.

We all remember when the Prime Minister made the commitment to Canadians that he would run short-term deficits of no more than $10 billion in the first year and no more than $10 billion in the second year, but not to worry, because Canada would return to a balanced budget in 2019. However, what we have seen from the government instead is a deficit in the first year that was more than twice what the Prime Minister promised. This year, it is going to again be twice as large. Instead of a plan to return to a balanced budget, we see no plan at all. Indeed, there is no end in sight to the writ red ink. The government is projected to add as much as $70 billion in new debt by the end of its term in 2019. Talk about fiscal vandalism. As a result, the government has tried to find revenue wherever it can.

The Liberals have been looking to shake down and squeeze hard-working middle-class Canadians. The Prime Minister offered Canadians a new plan to strengthen the middle class, but what he has actually delivered is a plan to shake down middle-class Canadians. Bill C-63 is all about that. Sadly, it should come as no surprise. We have seen a Prime Minister who has not kept his word, who breaks promises, who says one thing and does another, and who genuinely believes there is one standard for middle-class Canadians and another standard for Liberal elites, himself and his finance minister. It is why he was so busy working overtime to target middle-class small-business owners, while doing absolutely nothing to increase taxes on big multinational publicly traded companies.

Bill C-63 deserves to be defeated.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I always enjoy hearing my colleague speak, including during question period when he is not asking a question.

I want to address something the member said at the beginning of his speech. He talked about the middle class and how it was not being helped out. He said, “so much for strengthening the middle class”. However, we know the economy is thriving. We are the leading country in growth among the G7 countries. More is being invested in the middle class, as we can see. This party believes that when the middle class is doing well, the economy is doing well.

Given the fact that the economy is doing well, does the member not believe that creating a strong middle class makes a strong economy?

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

Madam Speaker, the government inherited a strong economic foundation as a result of nine and a half years of prudent Conservative economic policies. Quite frankly, over the last two years the Liberals have been doing everything to screw it up. That is really the fact of the matter.

The member talks about the economy doing so well, but in fact there has been a slowdown in GDP. GDP is expected to be less this year than it was in 2015. With respect to jobs created, nearly half of those have been created in the public sector rather than the private sector, which is not sustainable. With respect to the relatively minor drop in the unemployment rate, a large part of that is attributable to the fact that labour participation rate has decreased.

Therefore, I beg to differ when the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands says that the economic picture is rosy. It, in fact, is cloudy and stormy.

[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.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Joliette for his well thought out speech.

He spoke about tax havens, and I would like to remind him that several experts have mentioned that they are in effect a legalized scam. I still cannot believe that more information has been revealed last Sunday. After the Panama papers, we now have the paradise papers. We now know that the Liberal Party's top bagmen, the people very close to the Prime Minister, profited from tax schemes that can be described as a legalized scam. The hon. member mentions that it is unbelievable that this is not included in the economic update.

In his opinion, what does it mean that there is nothing in the bill about doing away with tax havens?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Drummond for his intervention.

The paradise papers reveal a huge scandal. As far as I know, it is the largest document leak we have ever seen pertaining to tax havens. What do they reveal? Thousands of Canadians are using this scheme lawfully, or right up to the very line of legality. What do we learn from them? We learn that former Canadian prime ministers, both Liberal and Conservative, are on that list and that the Prime Minister's bagman and close friend was caught red-handed.

Now we begin to see why the Liberals seem so unwilling to address this problem. Their own cronies are the ones benefiting from it. This has to change. Canadians needs to stand united, challenge the government, and speak out. We need to demand change. The government is increasing its debt load and slashing services, while claiming that its hands are tied and it has no other choice. Meanwhile, its millionaire friends head down south to tax havens with their golden tickets. This has to change.

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

Madam Speaker, would you mind calling quorum? I think it would be worthwhile. Before my colleagues continue the debate, I would like to confirm that we have quorum.

And the count having been taken:

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

We do have a quorum in the House at the moment.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech today.

My colleague talked about everything that has been going on with the Minister of Finance over the past few weeks.

Does the hon. member think that the Minister of Finance has the confidence of every Canadian?

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

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

The Minister of Finance is supposed to pass legislation affecting the economy and guide his government on economic matters. We now know more about his business interests and might wonder whose interests he is serving. Is he governing for the entire population or for his company?

Just before being appointed Minister of Finance, he was still a senior executive at his company. He recently announced that he would sell millions of shares, but for the past two years were his decisions primarily motivated by how they could potentially benefit his company financially?

When I moved a motion to combat tax evasion in Barbados, every member of the Liberal Party voted against the motion with one exception. We wonder whether the Minister of Finance had a say in that. We know that his company has a subsidiary in Barbados. On the company's website it says that its work on Canadian pension funds includes arrangements in Barbados and people are invited to contact the company. When the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister, and the entire government are making decisions, whose interests are they serving? That is the question. This seriously undermines our trust in him, that is for sure.

[An hon. member]

A blatant conflict of interest.

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

Madam Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity today to speak in this debate about Bill C-63, the second act implementing the budget tabled last March in this place. It is a big bill. It is 329 pages and would amend 19 pieces of legislation. It is unfortunate that in recent years budget implementation bills have become so enormous, and the government has allowed so little time for their debate and study, that we cannot possibly discuss them effectively.

This bill changes labour laws. It lays the foundation for Canada's membership in the Asian infrastructure bank. I know there have been points of order raised about whether the bill can be legally considered an omnibus bill under the new Standing Order 69.1. I will not comment on that, but its sheer size is concerning.

One would think that in all those pages, there would be a lot of good news for Canadians. There are a few bits of sunshine there, particularly in provisions that would change the labour code to make the workplace a more flexible place and put in place some protections for unpaid interns. We in the NDP would like to see some of these provisions go a bit further, but in general, we salute any measures that recognize the difficulties workers face these days. These changes are certainly a step in the right direction.

There are some other things I was happy to see, such as support for geothermal projects, although it is tepid, as my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands said. There is a reduction in subsidies for the fossil fuel industry.

There are some good issues raised in the bill, but really, there could have been so much more good news in such a huge bill. We are very disappointed about what is actually missing.

Before the budget was tabled last March, the NDP sent the finance minister a letter outlining some of the things we thought could and should be done to really help average Canadians, really help the middle class and those wanting to join it.

I would like to talk a bit about the items that are missing from the budget. These are truly missed opportunities to help Canadians. First is pharmacare. I know the parliamentary budget officer came out with a report only recently that showed that we could save over $4 billion a year in Canada if we instituted a universal pharmacare program that offered free prescription drugs to all Canadians. That is right. We could save billions of dollars while providing free prescription drugs. Canadians would be wealthier and healthier.

The finance minister did not have access to that report, so perhaps that is why he did not include it in the budget, but there were other, earlier reports, just as credible, that estimated even larger savings, more than $11 billion a year, under the same program. The Liberals voted against an NDP motion last month that simply called for talks with the provinces to begin within a year to look at how such a program could be structured. I am hoping this is not a case of the government not wanting to give credit to the NDP for such a good idea, which would make life better for all Canadians, and that by next spring they will quietly slip universal pharmacare into the 2018 budget. Better late than never.

Another item the Liberals forgot to include in the 2017 budget, and the 2016 budget for that matter, was their promise to do away with the CEO stock option tax loophole. That would have saved Canadians over $750 million a year. The Liberals promised that in the last election. They decided not to go after CEOs. Instead, this summer they went after small businesses across the country. They are going after the small fry, the minnows, instead of the big fish.

Speaking of big fish, we also asked the finance minister to enact legislation in the budget to close down offshore tax havens. Now the paradise papers have shown us why they might not have wanted to do that. It was to protect the Liberals who are using these offshore tax havens to avoid paying their fair share of taxes in Canada.

It is a little ironic to hear the Conservatives asking the finance minister about Morneau Shepell's tax shelter in Barbados, when it was their government that signed the tax treaty with Barbados to allow Morneau Shepell to avoid paying its fair share. However, the inaction on the part of the Liberals is just as disappointing. In fact, they keep on creating offshore tax havens. They just signed a new treaty with the Cook lslands.

We also asked the finance minister to institute a $15-an-hour minimum wage for federal workers. This would have been a great signal to the country that the federal government recognizes that many hard-working Canadians cannot possibly live on the minimum wages they receive for their work. Now the move for a $15-an-hour minimum wage has been taken up by the governments of B.C. and Alberta, and hopefully that good policy will spread across this country. Hopefully, the federal government will make that move for federal workers in next year's budget.

We also asked the minister about the eco-energy retrofit program. I would like to spend some time on that subject. It is one that is close to my heart. I actually tabled a private member's motion that called on the government to reintroduce the eco-energy retrofit program, because it is one of those government initiatives that is actually a win-win-win-win for the government, the economy, homeowners, and the environment.

This popular program ran from 2007 to 2012 and helped hundreds of thousands of Canadians retrofit their homes, lowering their energy bills by 20%. It created thousands of good local jobs and reduced greenhouse gas emissions by three tonnes per year for each house.

While the program cost the federal government $900 million over five years, it leveraged more than $4 billion in retrofit investments by Canadian families. The government got five times the economic impact from its investment. When homeowners invest in new windows, insulation, and other energy-saving projects, when they shop at building supply stores in their own communities, that money circulates through their communities and across the country.

When I talk to the Canadian Home Builders' Association here or in my riding, they remind me of the huge positive impact that program had on their members and homeowners everywhere. They really noticed the negative impact when the program was, unfortunately, cancelled.

The government wants infrastructure investment. It wants to reduce carbon emissions. It wants to help the middle class. The eco-energy retrofit program would be a perfect way to do all of that, a proven way, something the federal government could get started on right away, because it has been done before. I know it was the Conservative government that did it before, and the NDP have been reminding the Liberals that it is a good idea, but it is really too good an idea to let partisan politics get in the way.

I could go on, but I think I will stop here. Suffice it to say that Bill C-63, like the budget itself, has been a huge missed opportunity for the government and for all Canadians. We will all have to wait until next year for an improvement, but it will be more than a day late and a dollar short.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I would like to ask my colleague to clarify something for me. Since coming to power, the Liberals have been talking ad nauseam about the middle class, which has a very different definition depending on the speaker.

In my riding, the average salary is about $32,000 a year. When I take a look at the various Liberal measures to support the middle class, it seems that people need to earn between $80,000 and $100,000 a year to benefit from them. I am referring to, among other things, the tax cuts that do not affect low earners, or most of my constituents.

Given the positive economic times we are currently experiencing, wealth is being created, but why are the Liberals not doing a better job of distributing this wealth by implementing such measures as the $15-per-hour minimum wage, which would give those who earn the least some room to breathe?

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

Madam Speaker, the Liberals, as we hear ad nauseam, talk about how they want to help the middle class, and then they introduce tax measures that lower taxes for people who make $80,000, $150,000, or $200,000 a year. They do almost nothing for people who make $50,000 a year and do nothing for those who make less than $45,000 a year.

That is a huge number of Canadians. I do not know the exact number, but probably the majority of Canadians make less than $45,000 a year. One of the first times I rose in this House a couple of years ago I asked a Liberal colleague that question. He went on about how his constituents were applauding him for that move. I looked online to see what the average income was in his riding. I found out that 80% of the people in his riding would not benefit at all from that tax measure.

It is amazing that the Liberals think they are helping the middle class, when they are doing nothing for them.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am quite puzzled by my colleague's lack of interest in some of the initiatives in the bill.

Let me reference a couple of the things the bill would do. The bill would put measures in place that would give greater flexibility for Canadians working in federally regulated industries to balance work and family responsibilities. It would increase flexibility for annual vacation days and holidays, provide more bereavement days, and provide more unpaid leave for family responsibilities.

The member is a New Democrat. He is a member of a party that touts itself as being progressive in the House. How can he stand up and vote against these initiatives when the time comes to vote?

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague was not listening to my speech because I specifically mentioned those issues are some of the few things that the NDP really likes in the budget. We support them, but Bill C-63 is an omnibus bill. We only have one choice and that is to vote yes or no to the whole bill. That is the real tyranny of omnibus bills. If we could fix that, it would help us support those issues.

We would love to support them. We want workers to have more flexible workplaces. We want to protect unpaid interns but we cannot do that when it is one of the few little nuggets of gold amidst this huge pile of stuff that we really do not like. We do support those things but they are in an omnibus budget bill so we are forced to vote against the bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. He is obviously very familiar with the circumstances of the people in his riding. That is to his credit.

I would like to ask him whether he is optimistic that the NDP will be successful and the Speaker will rule that it is possible to have a separate vote on the elements that were not announced in the initial budget.

That would be a good thing because when we hear the comments of our colleague opposite, we lose hope and that fuels cynicism.

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

Madam Speaker, I am hopeful, because if we could split these huge bills into smaller parts, it would improve the way that we work in the House. There are just so many different things in these huge budget bills, for example, 19 changes, 19 statutes. It is very difficult to vote for them en masse in any real meaningful way.

Yes, I am hopeful that we will come to a good resolution with respect to this legislation and others like it will be split.

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

Madam Speaker, it is an honour today to rise to speak on Bill C-63, which would amend the Budget Implementation Act.

Before I get started, I want to give a quick shout-out to my mother. It is her 70th birthday and I am far from home. I say, “Thanks, mom”.

A year ago, I tabled a bill, Bill C-312, for a national cycling strategy. In our country, we have seen soaring health care and infrastructure costs and we need to address our greenhouse gases. In the spirit of Bill C-312, I biked across my riding this summer. My riding is 8,500 square kilometres that consists of 10 nations, seven municipalities, and three regional districts. I had an opportunity to engage people in communities. I visited over 28 communities and had over 20 town halls. My speech today is really a reflection of what people wanted to see in the budget, what they want to see happen in their communities, and what they did not see.

The government likes to talk about a robust economy, job creation, and a growing economy, but that is not being seen in my riding of Courtenay—Alberni. In fact, it is the opposite. Raw log exports have gone up tenfold in 10 years in the Alberni Valley, for example. Port Alberni has been identified as the city in British Columbia with the highest poverty rate. A third of children are living in poverty.

My riding needs a marine economy that works for it. We need to rehabilitate the sockeye salmon fishery. It was in a critical stage last summer and the decline of the stock has cost the local economy millions of dollars, but the multiplier effect is in the tens of millions of dollars. We need urgent investments in stock enhancement, rehabilitation, and salmon protection. The government likes to tout its oceans protection plan, but in its coastal restoration fund, it forgot places like the Somass River, which is critical for the sockeye in British Columbia. It is the third-highest returning river basin in coastal British Columbia.

There are great opportunities to create jobs in the port, which is the only deep-sea port on the west coast of Vancouver Island. The Port Alberni Port Authority has put forward some excellent projects that we hope the government will consider. They would create thousands of jobs in my riding. This is a place that had the highest median income in Canada in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, and now has one of the lowest median incomes in Canada. The people of the Alberni Valley sent buckets of money to Ottawa when times were good. They are hoping they will get the same return, and they are not seeing that when they need it the most.

There are excellent opportunities in the aerospace sector. In my riding, there is a global leader, Coulson Aviation, which is selling firefighting expertise and technology around the world. It is that Canadian story, where it is not doing business here in Canada because of regulation and because the government is not doing local procurement. We need government to act on opportunities within our communities.

My riding has a great university, the Pacific Coast University for Workplace Health Sciences, which is helping to unlock the potential of the 1.2 million Canadians who are out of work or injured in the workplace. We need to make this a priority. This would grow the GDP in our country, help empower people, give people hope who need it the most, and get workers back to work who have been injured in the workplace.

Seniors in my riding and across the country are demanding support for pharmacare, health care, affordable housing, and home care. My riding has an aging population, one of the highest median ages in the country. It is an urgent situation and we need support for initiatives and these important needs. Affordable housing is a huge issue in my riding as well. The spillover from Vancouver is going to Vancouver Island, Victoria, and Nanaimo. It is now going to rural communities, where housing affordability is becoming the biggest issue. The government made an announcement that it is investing $11.2 billion over 10 years in affordable housing, but when we look at it closely, it is $20 million in the first year and $300 million by the next election. That is giving people false hope about the government's real commitment and real change to grow the middle class and help those who are not in it. This is urgent.

There are situations that are of serious and immediate concern. We have an opioid crisis, a fentanyl crisis, that is impacting our communities. In Port Alberni, for example, the Port Alberni Shelter Society, which is a group of people who are relying on local funds to open an overdose protection centre, needs urgent funds from Ottawa to keep that going. It is calling upon Ottawa to make sure this is identified as a national health emergency so that we can help combat that crisis.

We have great people in our communities who are working with people on the street. I have cited case studies here in the House about the cost-effectiveness of putting a roof over someone's head versus having someone live on the street. We know it makes sense.

People are concerned in my riding. They are concerned about the economy. They are concerned about social development and infrastructure. They are concerned about climate change. Floods, forest fires, storms, and seasonal changes are having a significant impact on our environment and our economy.

One thing that I noted on my journey, when going to the remote indigenous communities in my riding, was the people who are earning $235 a month on income assistance in rural communities with 70% unemployment. That is unacceptable. In many of these communities, people have to travel to the grocery store, which is 45 minutes to an hour and a half away. Therefore, for people living in Hesquiat, it is $50 each way to go to the grocery store just to buy groceries. That leaves them $135 to get by on for clothing, medicine, and to survive. This is taking place here in Canada.

Fortunately, on October 1, John Horgan and the B.C. provincial government implemented an increase of $100. However, people are still left with $335 to pay for the water taxi to get to the grocery store, and we know they are not buying fresh food because they cannot afford it. This is at the same time that the Nuu-chah-nulth communities have been in court for over a decade. They had won their court case for the right to catch and sell fish, but the Government of Canada appealed that decision. It appealed that decision twice, not once, and twice it was thrown out by the Supreme Court of British Columbia. Instead of doing what it promised to do, which was to work on a nation-to-nation basis, it appealed and fought first nations in court. This is the same government that says that its most important relationship is with indigenous people, yet it is fighting them in court.

People earning $335 a month are not looking for a handout, they are looking to do business with Canada and be a partner in Canada. That is the word from my friend Curtis Dick. My friend Ken Watts quoted his father the late George Watts, who said that they are just looking for “their rightful place in this country”. These are communities that cannot access the fish that are swimming right by their villages. They can be part of this great story of Canada. They just want to feed their families. They want to grow an economy that works for everybody, and be a partner in this nation. They run on the principles of isaak, and that is respect. That is how they have approached Canada.

Canada needs to come back to the nations with the same respect. They need to get to the negotiating table and invest money. However, in this budget there is no money to give back to the nations. They have spent $12 million instead of investing in programs because their food, economic security, and rights are a priority for them. Why will the government not, as an urgent priority, at least get the money they have spent in court back to the nations and stop spending taxpayers' money? Canada must have spent tens of millions of dollars fighting the very people with whom it says it has its most important relationship. As a priority and a way of life, the people of Nuu-chah-nulth live by “hishuk ish tsawalk”, which means “everything is one”. In their traditional territories, which they call their ha-houlthee, they treat everyone as one, and everything is interconnected. When the Leviathan II went down, these same people were pulling $5 and $10 out of their jars to buy gas to go and look for people from another country who were missing, because we are all interconnected.

It is time for Canada to do the right thing, to invest in ending poverty in these nations, and end these discriminatory policies of the past. I hope the government is listening today.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I want to join him in wishing his mother a very happy birthday. She has every reason to be proud of her son's work.

We know that making a budget is all about making choices, whether it is a personal budget or a government budget. There are always more expenses than income. However, the Liberal government deliberately chose not to crack down on tax havens, which is causing us to lose at least $8 billion a year, each and every year.

Is retrieving that money not the key to providing the funding necessary to meet the member's many goals?

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

Madam Speaker, a part of the speech I wish was able to get to about governing and choices. It is about choosing to ensure people have roofs over their head. It is choosing to resolve a court case with indigenous people to ensure they can access the rights we know they already have, and have won in the courts.

Instead, the government is choosing to protect CEO stock option loopholes, Bay Street, and tax havens. This is shameful. People in my community are dying. People are living without hope. We need to re-instill their hope by ensuring they are put first and foremost, which the policies of the government have not demonstrated.

The middle class-tax break has been forgotten. The government forgot about everybody earning $45,000 a year or less. However, people can put their money in offshore tax accounts. The government protects CEOs on Bay Street, instead of doing the right thing.

I appreciate my colleague and his important values. Canadians know this is wrong and fundamentally unacceptable.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, in 2015, the NDP promised to balance the budget. The member talks about tax evaders and whatnot. We have invested a billion dollars to go after the tax cheats and offshore tax evaders. I am curious to find out if the member tells his constituents that if we had balanced budget, we would not have been able to do that.

We are not sure yet if his new leader will promise to balance the budget as well, which effectively means those members would not be able invest any dollars to go after tax evaders. Have the New Democrats changed their policy or do they still have the “steady as she goes“ policy?

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

Madam Speaker, it is really rich to hear my colleague from the Liberal government ask me about balanced budgets. The Liberals are running soaring budgets and creating policies to protect the very wealthy. Instead, they could be closing tax havens, investing that money into paying deficits, or into projects and opportunities for my community and people who need a lift up. Rather, the government is protecting its friends on Bay Street. We have seen that time and again.

Why would the Liberals not follow through with its promise to close CEO tax loopholes, and not support their commitment through an motion the NDP to close tax havens? They are sitting idly by while people have no roofs over their heads and are living without access to medicine. They are not dealing with their real promise to make Canada's indigenous peoples their most important relationship.

If the member came to my riding to see how the government is treating indigenous peoples, he would be ashamed, and so would the government. The Prime Minister has been to my riding and has met with the nations. He made a promise that he would resolve this court case, but he has not followed through on that.

The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans said this would be a priority. However, the Liberal government has dragged its feet, just like the Conservatives and the Harper government did. The Liberals are leaving people to struggle every day to put food on their table and get to the grocery store.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member talks about reducing of poverty. The government came forward with the Canada child benefit. It has had a significant impact on child poverty, and it will be indexed to the cost of inflation in this new budget implementation bill. I know it will improve the lives of my constituents who are struggling.

Could the member comment on this great new policy that has helped lift 40% of children out of poverty?

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

Madam Speaker, I invite the member and his government to visit my riding. I live in a place with the highest child poverty in British Columbia. One-third of the children live in poverty. The member could come and learn what a national child care plan would do for people in our communities, what it would do to end indigenous children being in care or what giving money to the nations would so they could move forward and stop more children living in care. This was an opportunity. The child care tax benefit does not solve that. However, a national child care strategy and working with indigenous people would do just that.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak to the budget implementation act. The bill is supposed to be the Liberal government's plan going forward for managing the country's finances and for implementing policies that will make Canada a better, stronger, and more cohesive society. However, Canadians who elected the Liberal government to achieve that will be sorely disappointed. In fact, the bill would do the exact opposite.

Members may recall that when the Prime Minister ran for election, he promised Canadians many different things. He has failed to deliver on many of those. For example, he promised Canadians that he would run a prudent government, that he would run only small deficits of about $10 billion. We know that promise is out the window. We know the Prime Minister promised solemnly that he would balance the budget within his term of government. Over a period of four years, he would run a few what he called small deficits and then he would return to balance. We now know the Prime Minister has no plan whatsoever to return to balanced budgets.

The budget implementation act would normally be a bit of a pointer, a signpost to the future, indicating that on such and such a date the government expected to be back to balance and to manage the finances of our country in a way that would not burden future generations with huge debt. We all know that when we run a deficit, at the end of the year, we are short some money. This money is either going to come from taxpayers or it is going to come from borrowing. Sadly, the government is committed to doing both. It is going to borrow heavily to finance its deficits and it is increasing taxes on so many different things, contrary to the promises the Liberals made to Canadians. Now we are at the end of the year and the government is even further in debt. Every year a deficit is run, the debt grows larger. That is what the budget implementation act would do. It shows Canadians, quite starkly, that the government does not know how to manage its finances.

The Prime Minister is now saying to future generations of Canadians, our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren, that the government will spend widely today on itself and it will let future generations pay all that money back. By the way, he does not have a plan to balance budgets any time soon. It might be 10, 20 or 30 years out, but those kids can bet their boots that when they grow up, when take over the reins of power and when take their rightful place within Canada, they will have a huge debt hanging over their heads and they will have to repay it somehow, with interest.

That is the story of this budget implementation act. The act effectively would solidify the Prime Minister and his government as being spendthrifts and tax-and-spend Liberals. We have often hear the phrase tax-and-spend Liberals. It is true. It is in the DNA of the Liberals to tax Canadians to death and spend their money on their own priorities rather than on the priorities of Canadians.

This is an example of taxing to death. Since the Prime Minister was elected, he has increased taxes on hydro, gasoline, home heating, and health and dental benefits. Recently, he went after employee discounts. Imagine a McDonald's worker late at night, finishing off a shift, having a Big Mac and some fries. Now the Prime Minister is stepping in with his finance minister and saying that the burger will be taxed because it is an employee discount.

It goes on. The Liberals have eliminated income splitting for couples. Shame on them. This was a way of recognizing that Canadian couples deserved the kind of treatment afforded to single people.

The Liberals eliminated post-secondary tax credits, which helped parents educate their children so they would have good-paying jobs when they came out of university or trade school. They are even going after diabetics. Members will recall in the last few weeks that the government was caught with its finger in the cookie jar so to speak. It was disclosed that it is going after diabetics by taking away their ability to apply for the disability tax credit. The following week, it was disclosed that the Liberals were going after the mentally ill. We know that for half a year, they have been going after small business.

The Prime Minister promised solemnly that he would go after the rich fat cats and stand up for the middle class. Clearly, the middle class does not include small business people, diabetics, those who receive employee discounts, or the mentally ill. It is a scandal what the Prime Minister and his government are doing. They are breaking promise after promise to stand up for the middle class.

Today, 80% of middle-class Canadians pay more tax than they did before the Liberals came to power. It works out to about $840 more each year that middle-class Canadians pay in tax. The Prime Minister will not acknowledge that during question period. He hides behind talking points. He talks about the middle class and those working hard to join it. He never defined the middle class, which certainly does not include diabetics, those who receive employee discounts, the mentally ill, or the autistic. It does not include small business people, like the pizza shop owners in my community of Abbotsford. They have kids who work hard in those pizza shops, trying to make a living. At the end of the day, the government told them that it wanted to tax them even more. If they left money in their company, it would tax it at a rate of up to 73%. Imagine, 73% of tax on hard-working small businesses.

Then there is the scandal of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, or AIIB. Instead of investing billions of dollars in building our own infrastructure, whether it be roads, bridges, urban transit, our ports, airports, inland ports, and seaports, the Prime Minister recently announced that Canada would join the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. This is a Chinese-led bank that will invest exclusively in Asia, not in Canada. There are no investments in Canada. They are all in Asia. He said that it would create jobs in Canada.

I would like to see the Prime Minister's plan for using the AIIB to make infrastructure investments in Canada and to create jobs. There is no guarantee that will happen. In fact, today Canadians already have the right to bid on jobs that are funded by the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. The reason Canadian companies do not get those jobs is because many of those bidding processes are ripe with corruption. Therefore, Canadians have difficulty competing in that marketplace. This will not change with the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. Half a billion dollars of Canadian taxpayer money is what the Prime Minister has put into the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. This money will be spent in Asia, not creating jobs at home, not building infrastructure here.

We know the Prime Minister is immensely fond of China. This basic dictatorship that is China he has lauded, because it is efficient. It gets things done. Imagine that. He should be lauding Canada and how we are getting things done, and we are doing it by respecting human rights and the highest environmental standards.

Then we can talk about the broken promises on electoral reform. Remember that process?

The Prime Minister promised that the last election would be the last one under the first past the post system. He broke that promise. He held consultations across Canada that were a sham, and then he dropped it all. The Prime Minister misled Canadians, and come 2019, Canadians will hold him accountable.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member talked about the debt, and I will come back to that a bit later. We have made significant investments in the middle class and in infrastructure, have reduced taxes on the middle class, and made enormous investments in infrastructure. All of that is paying off. The GDP growth rate is the best among the G7 countries. In my riding of Nepean and in Ottawa, the unemployment rate is the lowest in the last 10 years. Last month alone, we created 35,000 full-time jobs in Canada.

When we look at Canada's debt from 1997 to the current date, only between the years 1997 to 2008 did it actually go down. We have made a commitment to keep the debt to GDP rate low and are willing to do that. Can the hon. member comment on the growth rate we are achieving and our intention of maintaining a lower debt to GDP ratio?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, the fact that Canada is experiencing growth and job creation today is because of a Conservative government that invested heavily and responsibly in infrastructure before 2015. It kept taxes low on Canadians, moved infrastructure projects forward, and was supportive of the resource sector.

Today, we know there are lots of red flags in our economy. We know that foreign investment is fleeing Canada. It is avoiding Canada because we do not have regulatory certainty anymore. When a company from abroad wants to invest in Canada, it asks how long it will take to get its project approved, and it is told that it could be many years, or maybe never. Therefore, it is not going to be investing in Canada.

That is the sad part of this Liberal government. It has overturned all of the goods things our previous Conservative government did to lay the basis for a sound economy.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like the member to return to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank for a second. As a former trade minister, the hon. member knows a lot about how these international commercial arrangements in fact work.

I find it strange that a government that promised infrastructure in Canada for Canadians is now resorting to promising infrastructure and legislating infrastructure for Asian billionaires. Can the hon. member expand upon this, based on his tremendous experience with commercial agreements and international trade?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, when we were in government under Stephen Harper, we looked very carefully at the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and said no. Why? It was because it did not promote Canada's interests. It was not going to create jobs in Canada. As my colleague said, it would be creating jobs in China for Chinese billionaires.

Another thing that will happen as we help the Chinese build out their Asian infrastructure is that we will improve their competitiveness and that of other Asian economies and undermine our own. We should be investing in Canada. That is the sad thing about the Liberal government: it invests in infrastructure in foreign countries, which will create an unlevel playing field between them and Canada when it comes to competitiveness.

The government takes $2.6 billion of Canadian taxpayers' dollars and puts it into something called the green climate fund at the United Nations that is supposed to help other countries mitigate or adapt to climate change. There are no safeguards; there is no oversight of this money. When this money gets sent abroad, guess what happens? In many cases, it falls through the cracks and disappears without any accountability. That is not the kind of government we ran. We were a strong Conservative government that was financially accountable, and accountable to taxpayers. That is what we are not seeing from the Liberal government.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to support Bill C-63, a second act to implement certain provisions of the 2017 budget.

We have come a long way since we were elected in 2015. I am proud of the record of our government, which is now more than halfway through its term in office. When I was the president of the Regroupement des gens d'affaires de Boisbriand, I remember that the economic conditions were bleak and sluggish. Now that the 2008 economic crisis is behind us, let us be proud of our economic numbers. Canada weathered the 2008 economic crisis better than any other G7 country, and that is something Canadians can be proud of.

During the last election campaign, we proposed an ambitious plan for Canadians. This plan was based on solid evidence and a belief that the entire economy would benefit if we invested in the middle class, in our workforce, and in training for our young people and workers. The numbers now speak for themselves and show that this inclusive plan is working.

Statistics Canada’s labour force survey of October 2017 shows that our economy created more than 500,000 new jobs since we came to power. The Canadian economy is growing faster than it has in more than a decade, and the unemployment rate has fallen to its lowest point since 2008. There is more good news: the most dramatic rise in employment was in Quebec, with 18,000 net new jobs in October 2017, mainly in the manufacturing sector.

Our plan is working. Today, more Canadians are employed, and the situation will continue to improve thanks to a plan that works. I would like to mention a few measures that directly affect the people in my riding, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles. They include a tax break for 9 million middle-class Canadians, the introduction of the new Canada child tax benefit, and the improvement of the Canada pension plan, to ensure that future generations of workers can enjoy a dignified retirement.

Since its introduction in July 2016, the Canada child tax benefit has put more non-taxable dollars in the pockets of thousands of Canadian families. When the Canada child tax benefit was established, the additional money in parents’ pockets had an immediate effect on consumer confidence and economic growth. The increased confidence this money gives families had an immediate impact on economic growth. This is excellent news.

The credit also benefits all children, unlike the tax credits for child fitness and children’s arts proposed by the previous government. In Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, 10,300 families are receiving more money thanks to the Canada child tax benefit. Also, 18,870 children directly benefit from a $530 monthly payment per family. This amount is non-taxable.

These numbers speak for themselves. The Canada child tax benefit has lifted hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty, and we are moving forward with improvements to our government’s key measure. That is why we intend to increase the Canada child tax benefit annually to keep up with the cost of living starting in July 2018, two years earlier than planned.

I will give an example: for a single-parent family with two children and a yearly income of $35,000, this increase represents an additional non-taxable $560 next year, which can be used for books, skating lessons, or warm clothing for the winter.

Another of our government’s key measures in Bill C-63 is obviously the lower income tax rate for small and medium-size businesses. Once again, no sooner said than done. As promised in our 2015 election platform, we are delivering on our commitment to lower the income tax rate for small and medium-size businesses.

That rate, which was 11% in 2015, will drop to 9% in 2019. That is excellent news for the Rivière-des-Mille-Îles businesses and business people who were more than willing to participate in a pre-budget round table with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance when he was in my riding in January 2016.

This great news will give our dynamic businesses more breathing room, allowing them to make capital investments, do renovations, buy new equipment, and even hire more staff.

A number of high-profile Quebeckers also welcomed the news. Here is what Michel Leblanc, president and CEO of the Chamber of Commerce of Metropolitan Montreal, had to say:

The tax cut announced by the Minister of Finance this morning is excellent news for small and medium-sized businesses in all sectors. Our economy is strong, and this announcement will make it even stronger. It is important to keep stimulating investment and making our businesses more competitive. Small businesses are the economic backbone of Canada and metropolitan Montreal. Reducing the tax rate will have a positive impact on our economy as a whole.

I fully support that statement because, when I travel around the four cities in my riding, business people tell me that this measure will help them.

Finally, budget 2017 puts the skilled, talented, and creative people of Canada at the heart of a more innovative economy of the future, an economy that will create jobs for the middle class of today and tomorrow.

For our government, relying on innovation also means relying on the know-how of Quebec and Canadian society. The role of elected officials is now to focus on the economy of the future, invest in their fellow citizens, and give the workers of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles the tools they need to succeed in this economy. It also means educating businesses to help them benefit from new free trade agreements like CETA.

Many measures have been taken to put Canada in a leadership position within the global economy. First, we invested $225 million over four years to identify and address skills gaps in the economy and help Canadians to be as prepared as possible for the economy of the future. Next, we created a new strategic innovation fund that will serve to attract, support, and grow Canadian companies in dynamic and emerging sectors, such as agrifood, which is a very strong sector in Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, digital technology, green technologies, and advanced manufacturing, thanks to an investment of $1.26 billion over five years. We also offered greater support to superclusters of companies that innovate in key sectors such as digital technology and green technology and that have the greatest potential to accelerate economic growth, thanks to an investment of up to $950 million over five years starting in in 2017-18.

I have always been proud to say that the greatest strength of Canada and of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles lies in its skilled, hard-working, and creative workforce. I am very proud of the measures in budget 2017 and their positive impact on my community.

I am confident that our plan will help our country prosper, both now and in the years ahead.

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

Madam Speaker, one thing I did not hear was any mention of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.

It just seems strange to me that up until this point, and I have not been in the House for all of the debate but for a fair bit of it, none of my Liberal colleagues have commented on the fact that we are spending all these dollars for infrastructure in Asia, which taxpayers in Canada will be forced to pay for.

I am happy to invest in infrastructure; we all are, but my children and grandchildren will pay for that infrastructure in Asia. That is a bit of a question for me.

Could my colleague enlighten us as to why we are spending money on infrastructure in Asia?

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for talking about infrastructure.

He knows that we need to invest in infrastructure, and it is one of our key measures. In my riding of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, construction will soon begin on the REM project, the Réseau électrique métropolitain, a 67-kilometre urban transit system with 27 stations. It is a significant investment in terms of infrastructure which will ensure the people's mobility in the greater Montreal area.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech but I did not hear anything about a certain issue that is making headlines.

There has been a lot of talk about the Panama papers, but last Sunday, people got the shock of their lives. Canadians are appalled by what the paradise papers reveal. These documents show us that the Liberal government's chief fundraiser and the Prime Minister's great friend was caught in what experts are actually calling a legalized scam.

When will my hon. colleague tell us their position, then? Why does the update feature no clear position on combatting tax evasion? Could it be because friends of the party are off limits?

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Drummondville, a fellow member of the Standing Committee on Official Languages. We always really enjoy working together. Here is my answer to his very relevant question.

It is very important. Our government has invested in putting a stop to these tax schemes and to tax evasion. We are making sure the tax system is fair to everyone. We will find out who is hiding income and assets abroad and who is trying to avoid paying taxes, and we will make them face the consequences.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague came out with some excellent points in her remarks. In my riding of Nepean, 23,000 children benefited from the Canada child benefit program, with an average amount of $490, totalling about $6.2 million.

I would like my hon. friend's comments on the investments we have made through cutting income taxes for the middle class, the investments we have made through the child benefit program, and investments we have made to infrastructure, which has allowed GDP growth.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, as my colleague said, this is a key element of our budget and our platform.

I care about helping the families and businesses in my riding succeed. I am proud to say that, since coming into effect, the Canada child benefit has helped 18,830 children in my riding by giving 10,300 families an average of $530 per month tax free.

When families have more money in their pockets, the whole economy benefits. Jobs are up in Quebec and across Canada. That alone shows that our approach is working.

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

Madam Speaker, in the last election the current Prime Minister looked Canadians in the eye and promised that, if elected, the Liberal Party would run budgetary deficits of $10 billion per year for the first three years and then return Canada's books to balance in 2019. What a far cry from the reality we are living in today. The government's spending is completely out of control. It is running deficits two and three times larger than initially promised, and it has absolutely no plan to get back to balance. This is not what Canadians voted for.

Our Conservative government left office with back-to-back surplus budgets, a growing economy, and a record that included the best recovery from the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. We on this side of the aisle are proud of that.

During the election campaign, the Liberal Party promised that its $10 billion deficits would be spent primarily on two things: infrastructure and tax cuts for the middle class, oh, and for those working hard to join it. I am afraid that my colleagues in the Liberal Party might be suffering from collective amnesia, because not only have they spent far more than they promised, but they have done the exact opposite of what they promised.

First, let me talk about the government's poor record on infrastructure investment.

Bill C-63 includes half a billion dollars spent by the government on infrastructure in Asia. Yes, members heard me correctly: not Canadian infrastructure but Asian infrastructure. Bill C-63 provides Canada with a less than 1% stake in the Chinese- controlled Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. The projects in which this bank will invest are determined by the interests of the Chinese government. Considering the sort of virtuous signalling we have seen from the government during the NAFTA negotiations, it comes as a bit of a shock that it would be willing to hand over half a billion dollars to China to spend as it wishes. Do not take my world for it. The following is taken from the Toronto Star about the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank:

The United States opposes the institution, warning that it would provide loans to developing countries without requiring any caveats about the environment, labour rights or anti-corruption reforms, as are typically included...from the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.

I would have thought that the Liberals, who spend so much time on their image, would like to be seen as standing up for the environment, standing up for labour rights, and standing against government corruption, but I guess when push comes to shove they focus on their own best interests.

I understand that trade with China is a priority for the Liberals. The Prime Minister has made that clear by his several cash-for-access fundraisers attended by high-ranking Chinese officials. However, is it really worth forking over this sort of money with no guarantees?

There is all this talk about Chinese infrastructure, but what about Canada? This week we learned that there are massive delays in federal infrastructure spending. Billions of dollars are being carried over year after year in unspent funds as the Liberal government cannot figure out how to get shovels in the ground and get projects under way.

It seems clear to me that it is becoming increasingly clear to Canadians that the Liberal government is spending more time trying to build bridges, fix roads, and prepare water pipes in China than it is here at home in Canada. Again, this is not what Canadians voted for in the last election.

One other thing that Canadians did not vote for in the last election was the Liberal government's attack on middle-class Canadians, the very people it claims to want to help.

We all know that small business in Canada employs 70% of private sector workers. In Canada, 55% of businesses have fewer than four employees. An attack on small business is an attack on ordinary hard-working Canadians. Where would the jobs be if it were not for small business?

This summer in an attempt to quietly sneak by Canadians, the Liberals introduced a number of tax measures that would have had devastating effects on Canada's farmers and small business owners. The backbone of our economy, small business owners, were targeted as tax cheats.

For weeks and months after the plans were made public, my office was inundated with calls, emails, and visits from my constituents, who could not believe that the Liberal government would be increasing their taxes so high that they might have to fire staff, close up shop, or relocate their businesses to other countries. I am sure my colleagues in the House all were recipients of those emails and phone calls.

I heard from one constituent who lives in Elmira. He runs a financial service practice in the greater Waterloo region. He shared with me this email, which states that, for the first 12 years of his self-employed life, it was a real struggle. Trying to run a business and balancing a young family of four children, it was not easy. In 2011, after a particularly bad day, he considered packing it all in, but he didn't. He continued to persevere and try new ways to build his practice. In the summer of 2012, he took the biggest risk ever and he bought a practice from another adviser. That meant taking on a $250,000 debt to do that. He also incorporated at that time, on his accountant's advice. He then took an even bigger risk, hiring two staff members to help him run a more efficient practice. In 2015, he had paid off the $250,000 loan, bought another practice for $500,000, and hired another staff member. He feels he's paid his fair share of taxes, both corporately and personally, over the years. Now he is being told that small business owners are wrongfully using the tax system, unfairly and perhaps crookedly. That is not right, he says.

I also heard from a veterinarian operating a clinic for large animals. His clinic not only employs Canadians but also sponsors four local fairs, two soccer teams, a baseball team, two hockey teams, three plowing matches, two 4-H clubs, a dance studio, and a local volunteer fire department. He sent me an email, which states that, as a veterinarian, he has worked hard over many years to reach the pinnacle of his profession. He's spent many years in university studying veterinary medicine and many more years building his practice and working very hard to serve his clients and their animals. The government referring to his use of the tax laws as a manipulation of loopholes makes him feel ashamed of the success he has strived to achieve. He asks if he is expected to apologize for the success and the rewards he has earned. He says this is divisive, inflammatory, and flies directly in the face of the Canadian dream many of us share: that from hard work comes success.

I heard from a farm family in Elmira who are afraid of what these changes will mean for a farm that has been in the family for generations. The owner wrote as follows:

These proposed changes, will add uncertainty and complexity to farmers and small business owners across the country. I am particularly concerned with the impact these changes would have on succession planning. It is unacceptable that the government of Canada would make it easier and more beneficial from a tax perspective for a farmer to sell their farm business to a stranger, rather than their own child or grandchild. This type of policy threatens the tradition of the Canadian family farm.

Lastly, I would be remiss if I did not mention my friend Mike from Tri-Mach. I was glad the Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, visited Mike last month to share our positive Conservative plan to lower taxes on the middle class and small business. Tri-Mach employs more than 100 Canadians and has been considering—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I apologize. The hon. member for Kitchener—Conestoga will have a minute and a half left following question period. We need to get on to statements by members. I am sure members will look forward to his last minute and a half, followed by questions and comments.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-63, A second 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.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The hon. member for Kitchener—Conestoga had a minute and a half remaining when I so rudely cut him off before question period. The hon. member for Kitchener—Conestoga.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I was so politely interrupted, I was talking about my colleague Mike from Elmira who operates Tri-Mach. Tri-Mach employs more than 100 Canadians and was considering expanding its business in my riding, but it has halted those plans as a result of these proposed tax changes. Additionally, he and other business owners I have heard from have been contacted by American investment firms to expand their businesses in the United States rather than in Canada due to these tax increases. The uncertainty these proposed tax changes have created will not go away easily. The damage is done.

Canadians have been sold a bill of goods. In 2015, the government said it would do one thing and has spent the past two years doing exactly the opposite. It is time for it to rein in its out-of-control spending and end its attack on middle-class Canadians. The interest costs on this debt alone are exorbitant. This year, over $24 billion goes to just pay the interest; that is billion with a b. That number increases by another $9 billion per year by 2021, just four years from now, to $33 billion each year just to pay the interest. This is not even reducing our national debt by one nickel and just goes out the window as interest.

Think of where that money could have been better spent. Even our defence budget is not that high, and there are dozens of other initiatives that should be receiving this support. Why not invest some of that money, for example, to stand up against persecution and for religious freedom in the Middle East, Iraq, Syria, and North Africa?

In 2003, there were 1.5 million Christians in Iraq, but today there are only around 150,000, yet the Liberal government eliminated the office of religious freedom. What amount was saved by that? Five million dollars, or .02% of the amount we spend on interest. The government has many misplaced priorities.

There is far too little effort going into Canadian infrastructure, into restraining spending, into reducing the tax burden on my children and grandchildren, and into encouraging small business success. I simply cannot, in good conscience, support this irresponsible economic policy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe the member made reference to Tri-Mach as the company with concerns in terms of future employment and so forth. I would like to assure the member that different businesses have different approaches. Overall, when we take a look at what is trending in Canada today, what we will find is a high sense of optimism and hope, and that is realized in very tangible ways.

The member just commented on one business with which he has concerns. What we do know is that close to half a million jobs have been created in the last two years, most of which was done in the last year. We have seen a tangible commitment to have small business tax reduced down to 9%. There are so many wonderful things within this budget implementation legislation in terms of the prospect of future jobs the member commented about.

He might want to rethink how he is going to vote if he believes, as I do, that Canadians want to see the generation of the type of job numbers we are seeing today. That is a strong positive. Obviously, there is a far better sense of opportunity. We have far more jobs being created today than Stephen Harper ever created in his 10 years. They got about one million in 10 years, while we are talking about close to half a million in two years. That is good news for Canada's economy and having an overall healthier middle class.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure where to ramble on with my answer to that rambling question. I would like to remind my colleague that they often speak on the other side about the incredible growth in the last couple of years. We all understand that the global economy is doing very well right now.

When we were in government, we also experienced the best job growth in the G7. However, because the numbers were not as high as they are now, the members opposite point to that as failure. The time we were producing those jobs through our government policies was through an economic recession. Currently, we are not in a recession and there is no reason to keep spending and spending, especially when we are borrowing the money on the backs of future generations.

Then he talked about the small business tax reduction. That is a bit of a joke, because we all know in this House that there is no way the Liberal government would have followed through on that commitment were it not for the extreme pressure put on it by ordinary Canadians asking for this reduction, as well as the pressure put on by all the opposition parties, recognizing the Liberal government had not lived up to its campaign promise. The Liberals knew that if they did not do that they would have to answer for it.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague spoke about the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and about being able to build infrastructure in Asia using Canadian funds.

When we look at having an opportunity to use Canadian investment dollars to build infrastructure here, unfortunately we find, with projects such as LNG and other opportunities to move our natural resources to other places in the world, that it is a bit ironic that we are holding back our own natural resources while helping other countries build ports, so that they can move other people's natural resources into their communities.

Could the member talk about some of the serious issues concerned with this Asian infrastructure bank?

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the glaring questions we are dealing with is the investment of nearly $500 million in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, with virtually 1% control over what that money will be used for. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that, if we invest money in infrastructure in Asia, paid for by hard-working Canadian taxpayers, that is infrastructure spending that cannot happen here.

In my own riding I have bridges, water treatment facilities, and roads that could be resurfaced. We have the light rail transit system, which is nearing completion in the Waterloo region. Currently it is scheduled to go from the north of Waterloo to the south of Kitchener with an extension of the bus service down into Cambridge.

If this money that is available for infrastructure were spent in my area, we could finish this project now. It is a misplaced priority, and that is the reason I cannot support this irresponsible economic policy.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak to Bill C-63. I am going to take a moment to go back to the campaign, before I get into my comments on this piece of legislation.

During the campaign, we put forward a really ambitious platform, one that focused on the middle class and those working hard to join it, one that focused on investments in people and in communities much like my community and home town of Whitby. We did this very strategically and very deliberately to ensure that Canadians knew they would be electing a government that would have their best interests at heart, that would look out for them, that would ensure we had a strong middle class, which is a sign of a thriving economy, but also to look at the most vulnerable in our communities and ensure we were looking out for them in the plans that we brought forward.

I have been listening to the debate on Bill C-63, and there were a couple of points that I will address in my comments, which require some clarification. Three points were brought up quite a bit yesterday: criticism of our feminist budget; the fact that this is an omnibus bill; and concern about our investment in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. I am going to tackle each of those items in my comments.

First, what is most disheartening was the criticism around the fact that this is a feminist budget, that we have approached it in a very feminist way. The fact that the 2017 budget was the first time we had a gender statement in a piece of legislation, especially as important as budget legislation, is critically important. It is a sign of a government that understands that policies we put forward have a disproportionately negative impact on women, and as the vulnerability of women increases, so does the impact that they could possibly have.

I really want to emphasize that women of colour, racialized women, indigenous women, women with disabilities, women with different sexual orientation, women who belong to religious groups, and women who are too old or too young face significant barriers in this country. To have a budget that looks at the intersectionality of vulnerable groups and applies a lens to decide and evaluate how those policies can impact women of various groups negatively, and how we can adjust the policies to ensure that they are benefiting from the policies we put forward, is a really important component of this piece of legislation. I am particularly proud of it because it has this intersectionality lens that has been put forward. It really speaks to the fact that not everyone is part of the middle class and it is incumbent upon us, when we look at a gender-based analysis, when we look at the intersectionality of other components that provide barriers for women, that we do so cognizant of the fact that we have individuals who are not part of our middle class, who are seriously working hard to join it, who are struggling on a day-to-day basis, and we have made sure we are looking at those individuals.

I now want to move to the conversation around this being an omnibus bill. I could reassure members that it is not. Everything in the bill relates to the budget. It is about growing communities. It is about growing our country. It is about investing in Canadians, investing in young people, investing in our future. It is about investing in innovation and skills. We know that making investments in these things today will ensure longevity, a promising future for our children and for our grandchildren.

I am going to rewind a little. As we came out of our election and looked to implementing our budget, we did a couple of things. We cut taxes for middle-class families and raised them on the top 1%. Many of the families in Whitby are middle-class families. Many of those families have children.

When we introduced the Canada child benefit, it was for families to be able to use that money, not to wait to get a tax rebate later on. They were able to get that money right away, so they could use it for books, sports programs, good nutritional food, or daily activities. The Canada child benefit has helped nine out of 10 families, providing more money to those families to pay for they things they prioritize, and has raised hundreds of thousands of kids out of poverty.

When we look at the impact of the Canada child benefit in Whitby, 12,000-plus payments have been made, benefiting over 21,000 children in my riding alone. Let us look at that across the country, when we are talking about making investments in our future. We have done so with the most ambitious social policy in the Canada child benefit.

In Whitby and in the Durham region, we have invested in public transit. We have invested in clean water and waste-water infrastructure. We have invested in our colleges, Durham College and UOIT, and in our seniors.

This plan is working. Two years in, we have the best fiscal growth in the G7, and since being elected have created 500,000 new jobs, most of them full-time jobs. When we talk about our young people really struggling to get out of college or university and to do things with their life they want to do, these kinds of numbers, including decreased unemployment, really give a boost to Canadians and give them confidence.

I will take my last couple of minutes to wrap up and talk about Canada's leadership globally, and the investments in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. We are engaging in multilateral infrastructure efforts. We are renewing our commitment to engagement around the world.

When we look at our sustainable development goals, sustainable development goal no. 17 is around partnerships. We understand as a country that we cannot achieve the sustainable development goals of 2030 agenda to leave no one behind if we do not take the time to make those investments and to develop those very strong partnership. We have taken leadership to do so. We will continue to do that, because those 17 goals and 169 targets are very much interconnected. We understand that, and through that investment, we will help to ensure that the most vulnerable in our world also thrive.

This piece of legislation is really about ensuring that we have a sustainable future for our children and our grandchildren. We are making smart, strategic, green investments in our communities at home. We are ensuring that we are growing the economy. Our plan is working. We are putting more money in the pockets of Canadians and ensuring that we are taking leadership on the world stage.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is certainly raising matters that my colleagues and I would like to see the government committing our budget dollars to.

Regrettably, we are in fact falling down on the commitments that we have made. So far, we have only committed a little over half of what we committed for international aid, for climate mitigation adaptation. We committed to having a 50-50 balance in our global assistance for adaptation and mitigation, and that most of that would go to grants, not to loans, and through public dollars, not through private dollars. However, Canada is taking the complete opposite direction.

We have just heard that the head of the OECD is deeply disappointed in Canada's falling far behind in our commitments to reduce greenhouse gases.

I wonder if the member could speak to what she sees in this budget that will in fact shift us toward what we committed to.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we decided that we were going to put a price on carbon pollution, to put a price on the things that we do not want. We decided to invest in green infrastructure. We wanted to ensure that we have communities, roadways, and bridges. We wanted to ensure that we have infrastructure that we can use now, and infrastructure that is sustainable into the future. Those are the investments we have been making in communities to allow us to meet the climate target.

Our government has made investments, as I mentioned, of over $700,000 in clean water and waste-water treatment in Whitby. It might not seem like a big deal, but we are ensuring that our communities are safe, that our water is safe. We are making investments that are sustainable and forward-looking.

These are the types of investments we have made through this particular piece of legislation.

We must keep in mind that it is not just about one component. It is about investing in skills and innovation. It is about investing in an innovation agenda that allows us continuously, with a dynamic approach, to look at climate change and at ways in which we can reduce our impacts on and footprints in the world.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the wonderful speech she gave today about how the government is empowering Canadians and lifting them up at a time when they need our help, at a time when they need their government to be reaching out to partner with them and not be dictatorial in how we approach things.

My colleague has travelled internationally. She has represented our country at a number of engagements around the world. I ask her today, in all that we do in this country and how we are seen globally, is our government on the right track in being there not just for our citizens at home but also for those who depend upon us around the world?

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development, I can tell the House that we have recently introduced our feminist international assistance policy. We are certainly taking a leadership role in how we work and demonstrate Canada's strength around the world.

I have had an opportunity to travel to many different places, where we speak very strongly about human rights, where we speak very strongly against female genital mutilation and about the fact we do not want girls forced into marriage. We want our children in schools. We want to ensure that we are making investments that will help countries not only to develop in a way that will allow them to combat climate change but also to grow and become economically viable so that one day they will be able to trade with Canada.

We are focused on ensuring that women and girls stay at the centre of our policies. We cannot eliminate poverty and we cannot reach our sustainable development goals if we leave 50% of our population behind.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to this particular bill. As members know, Bill C-63 looks at different provisions within the Government of Canada and the budget tabled in the spring of this year. It looks to see what needs to change for government to respond effectively to Canadians, and to ensure that their requests and expectations of their government are being met.

I know that many of my colleagues on both sides of the House have already spoken and given tremendous applause for this budget. They have certainly recognized that the investments we have been making as a country are smart investments, long overdue in many cases, but very smart, wise, and strategic with respect to meeting the growing needs of Canadians for jobs, infrastructure, and business development, allowing everyone the opportunity to move forward in this country. That includes many aspects of what government is involved in.

We talk a lot about skills training and trades, providing education to people who need it, and supporting our educational institutions. We talk about innovation and research, new models, and new ways of doing things for Canadians, always helping them to find better ways of making that a reality. We talk about how we need to do more with respect to social infrastructure, housing, and supporting families and children. Those have been the key policies of our government since the day we took office. The Prime Minister has made no apology about the fact that we are a government that came to office to lift up Canadians and the middle class, and to provide the long overdue infrastructure and supports they need in this country to be able to continue to grow and contribute.

We know that we are a strong nation. We know that, as Canadians, we are strong people. However, we always know that we can do better. No matter how good that job is today, we know we can do better tomorrow. That is what makes us the great country that we are. Therefore, when we talk about providing for child benefits in Canada, we may already have had a system that has contributed benefits to Canadians, but we can always do better, and that is what our government did. Will there be other ways to change and improve as we go along? Whenever we see a need to make that happen, and there is a better way, we are a government that has always been open to doing that.

We talk about how we are able to invest in our communities. I know that opposition members will sometimes say that the government is spending too much money. In many of our communities across Canada there has been tremendous neglect of infrastructure over a long period of time. If we want those communities to grow and contribute to the country that we are building together, then we need to invest in them. We need to invest while believing that they too can do better, and they know they can.

When we talk about all of these things, they are broad strokes. However, I am a member of Parliament who came to office to represent a riding that was neglected and left behind. Why? It was because it was rural, remote, indigenous, and was so far away from the centre of power that its needs were often not recognized. There are many areas like the riding I serve, the great riding of Labrador, that exist across Canada. Many of those ridings have been neglected. Why is it that when we came to office there were hundreds of boil water advisories on reserves and inadequate housing after 50 to 100 years of governments in Canada? Why is it that we came to office realizing that those who are rural and remote in Canada still do not have connectivity, who cannot access online services or be a participant in the global economy we are building? That is not building Canada together; that is about building a country and leaving distant people behind. If we are going to build this together, we have to work together and invest together.

I have a riding that is getting paved highways to remote communities for the first time. When I came into politics a number of years ago, no road existed to these communities. It was through the support and lobby of governments and partnerships that roads were built to connect these communities. In the last two years, we have invested nearly $100 million to pave those roads and bring those communities together.

We have launched a program to provide infrastructure to connect rural, remote, and indigenous communities. We have allocated $500 million for broadband across Inuit regions, regions like the one I represent. Today, people in many of these communities cannot go online. They cannot send me an email today if they want to, because they do not have the ability or the infrastructure in their communities to do so. Is that how we want to continue to run a country? No, it is not. As a government, we have seen the need to invest in every corner of the country to allow people to rise up and participate.

We know there are challenging issues. I talk about connecting communities with roads, bridges, and technology, but there are so many other challenges faced by rural and remote areas around the country, which our government has had to tackle. Many of these challenges, as we know, have been around the trauma that has impacted many indigenous Canadian, many of whom I represent. This government recognizes that the residential school survivors in Newfoundland and Labrador were left behind.

When the apology was made to the survivors of residential schools, those I represent were left behind by the Government of Canada. Now they have been included. In a couple of weeks, the Prime Minister will go to Labrador to personally apologize to the survivors, to right a wrong in Canadian history. That is what we should be doing in government. If we are to lead, we have to own up to the black marks on our record as a country and make those things right. When we are talking about reconciliation, we are talking about making those things right.

I went to a reception a few minutes ago in the Speaker's lobby for the Indspire Awards across Canada. I met a young Inuk lady named Donna. She is a doctor. I met another young first nations lady named Ashley. She has been a role model for youth. I look at what those two ladies have accomplished, despite the many challenges they have faced in indigenous Canada, and what tremendous role models they are. They are so many more out there who are unrecognized.

I want to highlight some things in my own riding. When I came into office, 5 Wing Goose Bay, for example, had no official mandate from the former government. It lived in fear every day that the military base would close. It did not have a contract that was extended more than two years in a 10-year period. Now 5 Wing Goose Bay has a mandate and investment under this government. The investment in two years at that base has grown from $15 million a year to $30 million a year. We have been able to establish full Inuit-crown relationships and invest in many of the social issues that have plagued Canadians around the country, including some in my riding.

There have been unprecedented investments in indigenous housing projects, infrastructure, fisheries development, in all the pieces that are so valuable in building communities. However, we still have a lot of challenges and we need a government that has vision and leadership to lead us through those challenges. When I think of what is happening with Sears workers today, my riding went through the same thing with Wabush Mines, where 1,600 pensioners lost 24% of their pensions.

Are there things we can do to continue to improve upon our record as a government and make life better for Canadians? There certainly are, and we will work together to make that happen.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have posed questions to the parliamentary secretary around a court case the Nuu-chah-nulth has been involved in with Canada for over a decade.

Over 10 years ago, the Nuu-chah-nulth and Canada went to court. The Nuu-chah-nulth won and reaffirmed their right to catch and sell fish in their territories. The Government of Canada, the Conservative government, appealed and delayed, and appealed and delayed. Both times in the Supreme Court of Canada, it was thrown out in favour of the nations and the government was ordered to get to the table and negotiate.

The current government has not done that in a meaningful way. In fact, these nations are often in remote areas. They cannot access the very fish running by their communities. Most of them are living on income assistance, which up until a month ago was $235 a month. To go and get groceries for some them, it is $50 each way, leaving them with a mere $135 to buy food, medicine, and clothing.

They want to find their rightful place in our country. They want to be out fishing and not in court. Therefore, when the government talks about its most important relationship, why is it fighting its most important relationship in court?

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the member opposite, because it gives me an opportunity to talk about how our government has preferred negotiation over litigation. There are dozens of examples of how we have been able to resolve cases outside of the court system so people can move forward, especially in indigenous regions of Canada.

The unfortunate thing is that indigenous people have not had the fortune of having a historical attachment to resource development. I firmly believe it is a trend we need to change going forward. I have been very active in saying to the Government of Canada that new allocations around things like fisheries resources need to be looked at in the context of the aboriginal governments and indigenous people to see how these people can benefit from a resource that is directly on their shores.

Historically, governments of the past have allocated these resources to other interests. In my case, there are resources off the coast I represent adjacent to indigenous communities that are fished by people from other regions of Canada, and even quotas are owned by fishers who live in the United States. How did that happen in Canada?

I agree it is a historical trend that has to be corrected going forward. However, I am never convinced the courts are the way to do that. The way to do that is to work together to ensure these things do not happen in the future.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a perfect example of what the parliamentary secretary just said about not being in accord with Bill C-17, which hopefully we will get passed soon and have this dealt with that way.

It was great she mentioned access to resources. The Prime Minister was recently in my riding and announced $247 million, maybe the biggest announcement ever, for infrastructure. For time immemorial, the northern premiers and politicians have been arguing that the resources are there but we cannot access them.

On top that, for a lot of the rural and remote communities, there are infrastructure projects for almost every community I have announced so far, which have put so many people to work. We now are basically at full employment economically.

Has the member had the same experience in her riding with investment in infrastructure and the great economic benefits that has had?

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to work with the member for Yukon the last couple of year in the House of Commons. At one point, he was actually my seatmate. I know how passionate he is about his riding and the north.

What the member has said is absolutely accurate. Many ridings like his in Yukon and mine in Labrador and other remote indigenous ridings across Canada have been left behind for a long time. When the Government of Canada steps up and invests $270 million in infrastructure in Yukon or $200 million in infrastructure throughout my riding of Labrador, it creates jobs. It not only creates jobs, but it allows people the opportunity to go back to school, to do skilled trades, to become equipped for those new opportunities that are now on their doorstep. It is really giving a tremendous sense of hope that has not existed.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to debate Bill C-63, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measures. I find the “other measures” part interesting. It almost indicates that it may be an omnibus bill, despite the protestations to the contrary. It certainly seems like an omnibus bill. One would have hoped we might have been able to apply the provisions of Standing Order 69.1. Of course, the government carefully worded that Standing Order change to specifically eliminate the provision to budget implementation acts. However, I digress. That is certainly a debate that would be joyfully had on another occasion.

This bill further indicates the problem with the Liberal government. It has a spending problem. Time and again, we have seen the Liberal government commit to tiny deficits of $10 billion, small one-time deficits over three years, and to quickly return to balanced budgets by 2019. However, that is not happening and yet we see reckless spending time and again, like, for instance, $212,234 on a budget cover. We cannot invest in the priorities of Canadians when money is recklessly spent by the Liberal government.

Looking at the projections going forward, we see at least $100 billion in new deficit spending over the next six years, far beyond what was promised by the Liberals in the last election campaign.

It is intriguing. On the day before Christmas eve of last year, the government, through the Department of Finance, released its long-term economic and fiscal projections. Already the Liberal finance minister has projected that he will once again release these figures later in the year. I suspect we will all be feverishly refreshing finance.gc.ca to see these new figures released, perhaps on Christmas eve or perhaps on New Year's Eve. Either way, I am sure it will not be done with much fanfare.

When the figures were last released on December 23, 2016, we saw that the government would not be able to balance its books until at least 2055. That means high school students graduating this year, at the age of 18, will not see a balanced budget until they are 56 years old. They will spend nearly their entire working career dealing with the reckless spending of the Liberal government. That is 30 years. My children, who are now three and one, will spend this time paying for the reckless spending of the Liberal government.

It is not just Conservatives who are saying this. In fact, the parliamentary budget officer is saying similar things.

In the October 31 report entitled “Economic and Fiscal Outlook”, the parliamentary budget officer predicts that program spending will continue to rise every year until 2023. Public debt charges will also rise, surging from $24 billion this year to $38.5 billion by 2023. A lot of hard-earned taxpayer money will be going to service debt. The parliamentary budget officer predicts that the federal debt itself will also rise every year, reaching a total of $700 billion by 2023. It is unprecedented for our national debt to grow so steeply in the absence of a world war or global economic crisis. Moreover, such incompetent fiscal management is both inexcusable and intolerable.

Throughout the debate on the original budget tabled on March 22, I received a number of emails, phone calls, and letters from people in my riding. They were concerned that taxes were being raised on families, students, small business and, particularly in my riding, on family farms. Now, we see this going even further, with taxes being raised on those suffering with type 1 diabetes. This is all being done to garner more money for the government's out-of-control spending.

Last spring I received an email from a constituent in Arthur, Ontario. I should mention that Arthur, Ontario, is known as Canada's most patriotic village. As we lead into Remembrance Day later this week, I want to comment on the bravery of our brave men and women who serve today and have served in the past.

A constituent from Arthur wrote,“I feel compelled to pass on this feedback in regard to personal income tax, as I recently filed our taxes. We're virtually a single income family, as my wife makes less than the personal basic amount. We saw very limited changes in our income and deductions in 2016 relative to previous years. However, our tax refund is 50% less than it was in 2015. I know we are not alone, as others have told me similar stories.”

This is reflective of the changes the Liberals undertook in their first two budgets, which included cancelling the fitness credit for kids in sporting activities, the arts credit, the textbook credit for those undertaking post-secondary education, and the public transit tax credit. Time and time again, the Liberal government has made hard-working Canadians pay for its fiscal mismanagement.

What is more, the burden is being placed on the middle class. A recent study found that 87% of middle-class taxpayers are paying more in income tax now than they were just two years ago, as much as $800 more per year.

In division 2, clause 176, of Bill C-63, we see the government sending money overseas. In fact, the Liberals are sending nearly half a billion dollars to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. Canadians may have heard about the bank, but for those who have not, let me read from the Department of Finance backgrounder. It says:

Founded in January 2016 and based in Beijing, the AIIB is an international financial institution focused on addressing the estimated US $8 trillion infrastructure gap in Asia.

Just last week we found that the Liberals will be delaying $2 billion in infrastructure spending here in Canada, yet half a billion dollars would be sent for overseas infrastructure projects. I think of my riding of Perth—Wellington and so many of the important infrastructure investments my municipalities are calling for. I look at places like West Perth and the town of Mitchell, which are looking to put in a second bridge and a second water crossing to connect the two sides of the town and to allow the flow of the water system to be more efficient and with a better flow capacity. There should be funding for that, but we have yet to see the government reopen the new building Canada fund to allow for investments in important infrastructure, such as roads and bridges.

I think of places like Arthur and Drayton, which have important waste water projects that need to be undertaken to allow those communities to continue to expand and development. I look at places like Perth South and the town of St. Marys, which are continually updating their roads, bridges, and important infrastructure to make sure those towns remain viable.

I look at places like Stratford, where there is strong cultural infrastructure and they are looking for funding through the Government of Canada, yet we see $2 billion in domestic infrastructure spending being delayed. The government sees fit to send half a billion dollars overseas, rather than investing in important projects in Perth Wellington and across Canada.

I was very pleased recently to be named by our leader to serve as the shadow secretary for interprovincial trade. I note that division 10, part 5, of the budget implementation bill deals with the implementation of the Canada free trade agreement. This alone could take hours and days of debate in the House, but we are not being given that opportunity. The free trade agreement is 353 pages long but has 147 pages of exceptions and exemptions, especially those related to the sale and import across provincial boundaries of beer, alcohol, spirits, and wine.

The government has not acted on interprovincial trade, and this sham of an implementation of the free trade agreement does not address the true interprovincial trade barriers that exist within Canada. We must work together to remove those trade barriers to see our communities and small businesses prosper.

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was a little all over the place in the number of points he was trying to make, but I want to clarify something. At first there was mention of a reduction in taxes, but then it was half a refund. We all know that a refund really has nothing to do with a reduction in taxes, so we need to clarify that.

One of the things that is important is the increase in the Canada child benefit and the indexing of that benefit. I do not know about the member opposite's riding, but that benefit brings about $6 million a month into my riding. When we talk to local businesses in my community, they tell us it has been a boon for them, because those people in my riding are shopping locally and are helping those small businesses.

Speaking of businesses, the member mentioned the global economy. Certainly the larger businesses in my community, such as Team Eagle, Horizon Plastics International, and National Shunt Service, are all working very hard to compete in that global economy, and they appreciate the work we are doing on the international stage in securing trade agreements that are good for Canadians.

Can the member speak a little about the international trade agreements and the Canada child benefit?

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned that I was a little all over the place. It is tough to get in a lot in 10 minutes. I note that she was a little all over the place as well in her question. However, she had a couple of points. Let us talk about free trade deals. I am very proud to be part of a party that implemented trade agreements with over 50 countries when we were in government, including the European Union, which is one of the largest and richest trading markets in the world.

She talked a little about small businesses. That is awfully rich coming from a Liberal member, after the Liberals spent the last three months calling small businesses tax cheats and accusing them of hiding their money and trying to cheat the tax system, when all the while we knew it was this finance minister and his Liberal friends who were really the ones doing all they could to avoid paying taxes. It was this finance minister who held shares in a company he regulates. It was this finance minister who forgot about a corporation he owned in France that housed his French villa.

It is rich to hear the Liberal government talk about small businesses, when in fact, for the past three months, it is the one that has been accusing them of being tax cheats.

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

Mr. Speaker, in my riding, tackling climate change is of the utmost priority, especially in the Comox Valley. We have heard loud and clear support for an eco-energy retrofit program, similar to what the Conservatives had in the last government, which they killed because it was so successful. It was one of those things the NDP had in common with the Conservatives when it was up and running. We would have liked to have seen it extended. In fact, we would like to see the government of the day take it on and bring that program back.

I received an email last night from Jason Jackson, who is an energy systems designer at Hakai Energy Solutions. He said, “As our company hears the thoughts and motivations of homeowners, we understand that those ready to invest in renewable energy are immediately demotivated by the fact that, unlike other regions of the world, Canada has no public strategy and provides no financial incentives directly to home and business owners that want to participate in the clean energy economy.”

The opportunity is right in front of us for people to actually have self-determination over their energy dependence and also to help move us forward in tackling this huge challenge we have. Does the member support bringing that program back to where carpenters and electricians could get into homes to help install clean energy? Does he support the NDP's call to bring that program back and to call on the government to do so with urgency?

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, regarding the eco-energy retrofit program, certainly in my riding of Perth—Wellington, it was a very popular program, as was the home renovation tax credit. Both were very popular and important to organizations, carpenters, and home builders.

Recently, members of the Stratford & Area Builders' Association have brought up this very topic, whether it is a home energy retrofit or a home renovation tax credit, like the one provided in the Conservative platform in the last election. Both programs were hugely valuable to Canadian families and those in the industry. It also worked to help drive the underground economy into the public. These types of programs force those who would normally operate underground, under the table, to go into the public sphere to file things legally and on the up and up. It allowed these families to receive beneficial tax credits but also encouraged those within the industry to do so legitimately.

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to rise today. I intend to focus the majority of my remarks in the brief time that is available to me in speaking specifically to part 4 of this bill. It states:

Part 4 amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to allow the Minister of Finance on behalf of the Government of Canada, with the approval of the Governor in Council, to enter into coordinated cannabis taxation agreements with provincial governments. It also amends that Act to make related amendments.

Before speaking to the rationale and requirements of that part of the bill, I would like to make an observation on behalf of the constituents of my riding in Scarborough Southwest. My community is a working-class neighbourhood where many families struggle making ends meet, particularly families with young children. Census Canada tells us that nearly 57% of the children in some neighbourhoods are living below the poverty line. I have gone into those communities and seen the remarkable, and often unrealized potential of those children. We have not done enough for them over decades.

When we introduced the Canada child benefit, we were able to substantially increase the amount of funds that went into those families on behalf of those kids and in those communities. I want to share with every member of this House the positive impact that it has had. That money did not go into savings accounts or investment instruments. It went into the fridge, new shoes, new programs, and opportunities for those kids to participate in their community. It created new potential for those kids.

I wanted to say thanks to this House, and to all those who supported that investment, because it has made a huge difference to those families. Over 90% of the families in my riding benefited substantially from the implementation of the Canada child benefit. It has made a difference in my neighbourhood even beyond those families. Others have benefited substantially from this investment, such as those running small businesses in my community like a barber shop, grocery store, or kids' shoe store, and those who provide a place where someone might go and get a little recreation or fast food.

Of all the things the government can do, changing the lives of children and the quality of life in neighbourhoods is something that we can all be proud of. I want to share that pride and my appreciation with every member of this House. It is something we can agree is the right thing to do.

Speaking of the right thing to do, I want to talk a bit about the implementation of the cannabis bill. Members of this House have often heard me rise to speak to this. I want to provide a little insight into how the taxation scheme and investment at all three levels of the government are important to achieve the public purpose goal of changing the way cannabis is controlled in this country.

Currently, we have a system of cannabis control that is predicated almost entirely on criminal prohibition with significant legal consequences for those who break the law. We have seen the failure of that system where the young people in our country use cannabis at the highest rates of any country in the world. The cannabis they use is produced and sold by individuals involved in a criminal enterprise who have no concern for the health and safety of our kids, and do very little, with the billions of dollars in profit, that is helpful to our communities. Rather, they invest in other harms.

Our purpose is that we need to do a better job. I think that would be agreed across this country. We may have different ideas on how to achieve that, but I believe there is overwhelming consensus. We need to do a better job of protecting our children from the potential health and social harms resulting from the early onset use of cannabis, or from using cannabis of unknown potency and purity, or from buying cannabis from a criminal enterprise.

We also recognize that one of the harms that has been far too often visited upon young people in our society is criminalization and the impact of a criminal record. When I talk to parents across the country about the fears they hold around cannabis, they fear for the health of their kids, and whether they will achieve healthy social outcomes, complete school, or hang around with people they do not want around their kids. They are also afraid that late at night the kid may be pulled over by the police and end up with a criminal record.

We have tried our very best to respond to those things, but we do not believe that a prohibition, whether criminal or civil, is sufficient. The right way to manage all of the potential social and health harms of this substance is by investing in a significant regulatory framework predicated on public health principles intended to reduce those social and health harms. Based on the experience of other jurisdictions, we believe the only way to achieve that public health framework is by lifting the prohibition.

I have heard people ask why we do not just merely decriminalize it, but that leaves the prohibition in place. We cannot regulate the distribution or the production of a substance that is merely decriminalized, because it remains prohibited, so we have brought in a different system. Simply regulating a substance and its production and distribution will not achieve everything that needs to be achieved.

It is necessary for a government to make investments in such things as public education, because there is so much misinformation, ignorance, and myth associated with this substance. We need to clear up that fog. We need to make sure people have good information. We need to make sure our young people know the facts and know what will make a difference for them.

Our government has committed to investing $46 million in a public education campaign to make sure that information is available to our kids, to their peers, to their parents, to teachers, and to health professionals. That is an important investment that needs to be made.

We also want to ensure that we invest in those organizations that are given the responsibility of enforcing these new regulations, to administer this new system and the testing that needs to be in place. We have invested close to $440 million in Health Canada. We have invested another $161 million in law enforcement for those things. In order to make those investments, we have had to make them up front.

Part 4 of the bill also enables us to enter into negotiations and discussions with our provincial counterparts through our minister to ensure that a taxation system is imposed upon a regulated supply of cannabis, which will ultimately result in a price that is both competitive with organized crime's price and also would not provide an incentive for individuals to begin to use this drug.

Those are important discussions that need to take place between the Minister of Finance and his provincial and territorial counterparts to establish a harmonized taxation regime, so that discussion has begun. Our finance minister has met a number of times with his federal, provincial, and territorial counterparts. Senior officials in our government have met with provincial government officials to begin those discussions, and a consultation process will begin shortly, which will be public. We will engage with all stakeholders on this important issue. We believe in public consultation.

That is why part 4 of the bill is so important. We want to make sure the resources are available to those who are given the task of regulating, managing, and administering this system—putting that infrastructure in place, making sure it is appropriately funded, and making sure we make the investments that put substance behind our words and reality behind our intentions.

If our intentions are to do a better job of protecting our kids, if our intentions are to take this criminal opportunity away, take those billions of dollars away—the easiest money organized crime ever made—and create a harmonized taxation structure that would support those goals but also produce the revenue that could be reinvested in prevention, research, treatment, and rehabilitation, those are the things that make this amendment and part 4 a worthwhile endeavour, an appropriate investment.

I would ask every member of the House to support that initiative so that we may achieve the things that we all agree on. We need to do a better job of protecting our kids. We need to protect the health of Canadians. We need to take opportunity away from organized crime. We need to protect our kids from the threat of criminal sanctions. All those things could be achieved through appropriate investments and changing the legislation.

I thank members for their thoughtful attention to my remarks.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was going to ask a question about the Liberals' infrastructure bank, which I truly believe does not work in favour of rural Canada at all, but given the flavour of the hon. member's words, I will ask him a question about marijuana, which I asked in the House last week.

First, let me say that I absolutely agree that its use should be decriminalized and that we need a strong educational program as this moves forward. There is still a debate in my riding about whether it should or should not be legalized, but I know the government is heading down that path.

The people in my riding of Kootenay—Columbia want to be part of the future from an economic perspective and have formed a co-op in the West Kootenays to provide a solid way of moving forward with outdoor growing of marijuana through a co-op, so it would be a single source that the government has to deal with. There are about 120 people who have expressed interest in being part of that co-op. When we look at concerns about things like how to manage quality control, there would be a grading system in place to know what the percentages are for the health part versus the euphoria part. It is manageable, but so far it appears that the Liberal government only wants to include large corporate growers as part of the economic future for marijuana.

Will the government try to provide opportunities so that small growers who work together co-operatively in a co-op can be part of the future? I can pretty well assure the member that, if that is not the case, the illegal growing of marijuana will continue in Canada.

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, at some point in time, we could perhaps have a greater debate on the merits of legalization versus decriminalization, but I would simply and succinctly say that experience has shown us that one cannot regulate that which is prohibited, and decriminalization maintains a prohibition. It simply replaces a criminal sanction with a civil sanction, but the prohibition remains in place, and as long as there is a prohibition, there cannot be a regulated supply or distribution system. That is why I believe so firmly that, in order to get this right, we have to lift the prohibition in order to implement a proper and comprehensive framework for the regulation of production and distribution.

With respect to the specific question that he asked about the opportunity for small growers and craft growers, I can assure the member that the regulations Health Canada has brought forward do not in any way impede the participation of small business. In fact, the overwhelming majority of licences that have currently been issued have been to companies with fewer than 100 employees and, therefore, qualify as small businesses.

There are, of course, very strict regulations in place to ensure that the purity and potency can be known and verified before anything moves to market. Those standards are in place to protect the health and safety of our citizens, so we will not compromise on those, but we will not, in our regulations, impede the participation of the small business owner or the small craft producer. As long as they are willing and able to abide by the strict regulations that are being put in place, they should be able to participate in the market.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member has been a public servant his entire life, serving his community in Toronto and rising to chief of police. I was wondering if he could tell the House what he has heard from other chiefs of police and what the government is doing to assist police forces in implementing the legalization of cannabis.

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been very much engaged in consultation with my former colleagues in public safety. What they have told us unequivocally is that, in order to address law enforcement capacity issues for the enforcement of these regulations, they need training, access to technology, and resources. We have listened, perhaps better than any other government, in my experience. I have been doing this for 40 years, and I can say that from my experience, I can recall dozens of times where very complex legislation was basically thrown over the fence to us and we were wished good luck with it. Instead, we have been working with law enforcement leaders in this country for over two years. We have listened to what they said they needed, we have responded to that, we have announced up to $274 million to make those investments in training, technology, and resources that they said they needed, and we will be there to help them be ready.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Brandon—Souris, Fisheries and Oceans; the hon. member for Vancouver East, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship; the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, Employment Insurance.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Burnaby South.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this has been a very wide-ranging debate today on the budget bill, as it should be. I am going to add to that wide-ranging discussion of what we are faced with here in the House. I am speaking to Bill C-63, and it is the second budget implementation bill. I regret to say that I will be voting against the bill, and I hope to outline in this speech why that is the case.

In a nutshell, there are many things in this bill. It proposes to bring into effect new spending and new regulations with which I do not agree. There are many things that are not in this bill that I would like to see; for example, money for a national pharmacare program or more money for housing, which is of such critical concern in my riding of Burnaby South. However, that money is not there.

I want to bring to the attention of the House today that I am voting against this bill in part to protest and bring attention to the way the current government presents information to the public. In many cases, data are used to promote certain economic activities; the data that are used by the government are badly distorted, whether on purpose or through incompetence; or it is just plain wrong.

In the last Parliament when I would get up and talk about budgets, especially on the science portfolio, which I oversee for the NDP, I would ask for the presentation of data adjusted for inflation, for example, if they are looking at longitudinal data. I remember the Conservatives telling me that was some socialist voodoo economics, but in fact it is just a realistic way of looking at how money is spent over time.

I have not heard back from the current government, but I expect to be heckled a bit as I go through this talk today.

I would like to bring attention to the way the government throws around job-creation figures. As we did with the Conservative government in the last Parliament, we often get hyper-inflated numbers of job creation that always tie back to the budget, the spending, and those types of things. The Prime Minister's cabinet members are talking about jobs associated with their plan to ram a pipeline through British Columbia. That is of course the Kinder Morgan pipeline. If members will recall, this project was approved and the Prime Minister broke his promise to British Columbians and said that he would thoroughly review the project to see how many jobs and what would be the effect on the environment. However, he did not do that, and the Liberals are pushing it through against the wishes of the provincial government, most first nations communities, mayors and councils, and millions of British Columbians. Therefore, what I take specific issue with is the way the Liberals portray their job-creation numbers, not only in relation to the budget but in this specific case.

When the Prime Minister announced the approval of the pipeline, he said he would create 15,000 new middle-class jobs, and we see this in the budget document where we hear about all the jobs that the spending would create. However, in this case with the pipeline, the Prime Minister and his other ministers and parliamentary secretaries have said that this would create “15,000 new middle-class jobs”. This is repeated over and over. This is a lot of jobs; 15,000 jobs is a big number, and people might be tempted to overlook the environmental damage and the damage to relations with first nations that this might create, and they might support the project if, in fact, the figure of 15,000 jobs were true, but it is not. Really, the number is straight out of the mouths of the pipeline company proponents, the spin doctors, right onto the lips of the Prime Minister and of the parliamentary secretaries who defend the pipeline, and of the entire Liberal caucus in British Columbia, which is also solidly behind pushing this pipeline through our province.

The Prime Minister's ministers in cabinet repeat this number over and over again, so I feel it is important to delve into the number because it exposes the incompetence and duplicity of the current government when it comes to its economic statements. The first thing to note is that 15,000 jobs that the pipeline supposedly is going to create is just plain wrong, according to many analysts—for example, Robyn Allan, who has written extensively on this and testified both as an expert to the National Energy Board and on her own in many publications, is taking on this number firmly and convincingly.

Ms. Allan is no slouch. She is a former president and CEO of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, the vice-president of finance at Parklane Ventures Ltd., and senior economist for the B.C. Credit Union. She is an expert witness on economic and insurance-related issues right here in Ottawa. She has taught money and banking, public finance, and micro and macroeconomics in universities. She has written numerous articles and books. If we were to call a witness to talk about how many jobs a project or a budget would actually create, this is the type of person we would want to advise us.

According to Ms. Robyn Allan, this number of 15,000 jobs associated with the Kinder Morgan pipeline is six times the number of temporary construction jobs actually presented by the company in its National Energy Board application. The Prime Minister, the parliamentary secretaries, the cabinet, and the B.C. caucus are all saying that the Kinder Morgan pipeline will create 15,000 jobs during its construction. However, that is contrary to what the company presented in its documentation to the National Energy Board. Therefore, the government has inflated this number sixfold. If we extrapolate that over other parts of the budget and other parts of the claims by the government, this makes us doubt almost everything that it is putting forward.

The 15,000 jobs number comes from a fantastical calculation based on a doubling of the amount of construction time this proposed pipeline is allowed to take. The pipeline is supposed to be constructed over two years. This 15,000 job number comes from a four-year construction period. Therefore, according to Ms. Allan, “Trans Mountain's estimate of 15,000 construction workforce jobs is a scam. The more realistic figure is less than 20 per cent of that size.”

Therefore, when Canadians are here listening to this debate in the House about the Liberals and their fiscal plans, the latter are flat out telling falsehoods about what we can expect with respect to one of the biggest projects in the country. They downplay the environmental damage that just one spill from this pipeline or its construction would create in communities right across British Columbia and have artificially inflated the number of jobs that will be created.

What is also important is the second part of the Prime Minister's statement that these jobs will be middle-class jobs. These 15,000 jobs the government claims will come from this pipeline are not permanent. This is of course from documents submitted by the company to the National Energy Board, which state, “Once the proposed Expansion Project is complete, operating and maintaining...[this] Pipeline system will result in approximately 90 new operating positions”. In fact, we will never see the Prime Minister stand up and say that he has justified this pipeline because it will create 90 permanent jobs; rather, he uses the inflated number of 15,000 jobs, which is clearly wrong.

The idea that these jobs are middle class is also wrong. Kinder Morgan president Ian Anderson was here at committee and admitted that he hires temporary foreign workers, and that those are the workers who will be hired to build this pipeline. Therefore, these 15,000 are not full-time middle-class jobs, but 90 full-time jobs, and perhaps 2,000 or 3,000 temporary construction jobs filled by temporary foreign workers.

What is worse, Kinder Morgan has contracted with CLAC, which is not an official union. It is not, for example, the BC Building Trades union. Therefore, it is skirting the unions in British Columbia that would ordinarily protect workers in order to make this happen.

Once we actually start looking at the facts from the company and the National Energy Board, we see that this 15,000 job claim is wrong. We have temporary foreign workers, we have temporary jobs, and we have 90-full time jobs. That is hardly worth rupturing our entire relationship with first nations people or local communities. In fact, 45% of British Columbians oppose this pipeline, and 30% are strongly opposed and are willing to take action to stop it. Many people who have not been to British Columbia are not aware that we do not have treaties with the first nations there, and they have significant rights. We are seeing this play out right now. We have 18 court cases, many of which were filed by first nations, including one yesterday by the Squamish Nation challenging the legitimacy of the review process for the pipeline.

Therefore, I would suggest that the government go back and take a look at these numbers for real and come back with realistic numbers that we could debate more fully.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member about the indexing of the Canada child benefit in the budget implementation act. We know the Canada child benefit has had positive impacts across the country, including in the hon. member's riding. Could he could tell us what he has heard from his constituents about its benefits for low and middle-income Canadians, such as reduced child poverty, and if he is happy to hear it will be indexed in the future?

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to tell the hon. member about what my constituents are saying about what I was speaking about. In fact, in 2014, 125 of them were arrested for trying to stop the pipeline. Thousands and thousands have protested against it. I polled my own riding, and 75% of those in Burnaby are against it.

They are really mad at the government, which keeps outlining in false way the benefits from this pipeline in order to spread the mistruths the company itself puts forward. I definitely listen to my constituents, and they care about this.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am going to do something I rarely do, which is to forgive the hon. member for Burnaby South for not speaking to the bill before us, because I passionately share his opposition to this wrong-headed project.

I would like him to expand on the theme. He carefully laid out how Kinder Morgan's claims that it will create vast numbers of jobs are completely erroneous, but what was not mentioned in his speech was the threat to jobs by building Kinder Morgan. The largest trade union in northern Alberta representing oil sands workers is Unifor. It attempted, as I did, to intervene in the process. It attempted to enter evidence into the record before the National Energy Board that Kinder Morgan threatened jobs as a direct threat to the Chevron refinery, which I believe is either in the member's riding or very close.

Could he comment on the threat to jobs at the Chevron refinery if Kinder Morgan proceeds?

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy the member's interventions and really appreciate her support on this issue.

Of course, the threat to jobs in Burnaby or the rest of British Columbia is not covered by examinations at the National Energy Board, because the government relies on the process created by the Conservatives, which is to limit debate and stop cross-examination of companies. As a result, we really get a very pro picture of almost all projects.

The Prime Minister had said he would change the process and would send the pipeline proposal back to the drawing board. He immediately broke his promise, did not revise the process, and here we are.

Getting to the hon. member's exact point, we do have a refinery in Burnaby that I support. However, what has happened is that Kinder Morgan is pinching off supply to that refinery and it is in danger of closing. I fully support those jobs, which are good, union-paying jobs. It is a shame the government is not paying more attention to the welfare of people in British Columbia.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for talking about jobs. As someone from a coastal community who ran a chamber of commerce, I understand how important it is to protect the marine economy for our jobs. There are over 100,000 people who rely on a clean ocean for their jobs in coastal British Columbia.

As my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands just mentioned, we need to do everything we can to protect jobs in coastal British Columbia. We also have an opportunity to build a marine economy for the future. Where I live in Port Alberni, we want to build a marine economy through enhancements and investments in our ports, through investments in rehabilitating our salmon, investments in salmon restoration, and habitat protection and salmon enhancement.

Perhaps the member could talk about the jobs that are being threatened by this proposal and future opportunities for coastal British Columbia, which British Columbians are going to stand up and fight for, and how important it is that we listen to British Columbians. If we underestimate the will of British Columbians, we will find out what people in my community know, that when logging was taking place in 1993, the largest civil disobedience in Canadian history took place when good jobs and the future of the economy we created in Clayoquot Sound were threatened.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the government says that it is an evidence-based government that makes policy based on evidence, but basically it decided that this pipeline was going to go through no matter what, and then it fit the facts to support its case. Of course, one would perhaps expect that from an undergraduate writing their first paper, but not from a government that is supposed to run the country. The Liberals need to take in more evidence and, in fact, they need to cancel this project.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-63, A second 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.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to speak to Bill C-63 today. The budget implementation act, 2017, no. 2 includes key measures from the government's second budget, which outlines the second phase of the government's plan to make smart investments that will create jobs, grow our economy, and provide more opportunities for every Canadian to succeed.

Thanks to these smart investments and an overall commitment to equity, the government is ensuring that Canada's best days are still ahead.

Before I get into the budget implementation bill, I want to talk about the measures the government has taken so far to give all Canadians, including those in the middle class and those working hard to join it, the opportunities they need to succeed.

To begin with, we asked the wealthiest 1% to pay a bit more in taxes in order to be able to give the middle class a tax cut. That tax cut for the middle class benefited nine million Canadians, and we are very proud of that.

Then we brought in the new Canada child benefit, which has lifted hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty. As a result of our CCB, nine out of 10 Canadian families are getting more in benefits than they did under the previous system. Compared to the previous system of child benefits, the CCB is more generous and better targeted to those who need it most.

In the fall economic statement released on October 24, the government announced that it would strengthen the Canada child benefit by indexing it to annual increases in the cost of living as of 2018, which is two years earlier than planned. What does that mean in practical terms? For a single parent with two children and an income of $35,000, the enhanced Canada child benefit will contribute an additional $560 in the 2019-20 benefit year towards the cost of raising his or her children. That means more money for books, winter coats, and skating lessons. The added confidence that the Canada child benefit brings to families can have a positive impact on economic growth.

Our government has also enhanced the Canada pension plan in order to provide Canadians with financial security when they retire from their hard work life. Enhancing the Canada pension plan ensures that Canadians will have more money in retirement so they are less worried about saving and can focus more on enjoying the good times with their families.

Starting in 2019, we will be enhancing the working income tax benefit by an additional $500 million per year. This will put more money in the pockets of low-income workers, including families without children and the growing number of single Canadians. The enhancement will be in addition to the increase of about $250 million annually that will also come into effect in 2019 as part of the enhancement of the Canada pension plan.

These two actions alone will boost the total amount the government spends on the WITB by about 65% in 2019, increasing benefits to current recipients and expanding the number of Canadians receiving this essential support.

This extra money could pay the family grocery bill or buy warm winter clothes. The improved benefit will help low-income Canadians make ends meet.

The government is also showing that it is committed to helping small businesses invest, grow, and create jobs by lowering the small business tax rate to 10% effective January 1, 2018, and to 9% effective January 1, 2019. This will provide a small business with up to $7,500 per year in corporate tax savings to reinvest in and grow its business. These kinds of savings are crucial for businesses to grow and prosper.

Lastly, the government intends to make important changes to the tax system that will ensure Canada's low corporate tax rates serve to support businesses, not to provide unfair tax advantages to the wealthy and the richest Canadians.

The steps taken to date are having a real positive impact on our economy and for Canadians. Optimism is on the rise, and with good reason. Job creation is strong with over 450,000 new jobs created in the last two years. The unemployment rate is at its lowest level since 2008. Youth unemployment is at a historic low.

Canada has the fastest growing economy in the G7 by a wide margin, growing at an average rate of 3.7% over the last year, which is the fastest pace of growth since early 2006. Growth is forecast to be 3.1% in 2017, significantly above the expectation at the beginning of the year.

The fiscal outlook has improved by more than $6.5 billion annually on average from what was projected in budget 2017 last March.

The tax measures that we have taken for the benefit of families and children are having a real impact every day in my riding, Montarville. Approximately 97% of the people of Montarville clearly define themselves as being part of the middle class. These positive impacts are reported back to us regularly. They are felt in a very real and tangible way in peoples' wallets. This kind of investment is crucial, perhaps even a game-changer, in giving people assurances of a better life that is easier to manage because their budget is easier to manage.

For example, the city of Saint-Bruno, where I live, has been named the best place in Canada to raise children.

This kind of tax break is key to giving families the help they all need, just as families are having more and more children. A young family with three very young kids lives right across from me. That family is benefiting directly from this kind of help. This help is making a real, tangible, and practical difference at the end of every month.

Another measure I find quite interesting among the budget measures is the government's decision to legalize and regulate cannabis, as well as the economic spinoffs that can be generated by such a measure.

Our government plans to legalize and strictly regulate cannabis. This policy is necessary and desirable and has two objectives: to keep marijuana out of the hands of youth, and to deprive criminals of any profits from illegal cannabis sales.

In advance of the government's plan to legalize cannabis, budget 2017 allocated several million dollars to public education programming and surveillance activities. On that note, I would like to inform the House that during the consultations I participated in, and even had the chance to lead in Quebec, one important concern was raised with regard to training, information, and above all prevention. Now that the system is regulated, the government can use the sales tax revenues it generates to take concrete action in certain areas, including prevention programs.

Taxation is one of the key factors that will play a major role in ensuring the objectives of legalization are met. As the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have clearly stated, in order for legalization to be effective, taxes must be low from the beginning, and the federal, provincial, and territorial governments must continue to work together to guarantee a coordinated approach. Co-operation is critical, and the federal government wants to engage our provincial and territorial partners in order to develop a coordinated approach to cannabis taxation.

I would like to remind all members that taxation is not the main objective of legalization. On the contrary, this is an essential health issue, given that the status quo has failed so spectacularly. That being said, by taking responsibility and legalizing cannabis, we will generate indirect tax revenue that will benefit Canadian society as a whole.

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

Mr. Speaker, we hear the government talk about the child benefit. I want to know if the Liberals have addressed the results that we are finding in places like Fort McMurray, where many of the families have lost the child benefit because of increased incomes, but the high cost of living is not being taken into consideration. Also the fact that so many people are losing their jobs as well as their homes is not being taken into consideration.

What is the government doing to address those issues where families have a new situation and the government is not there for support at all?

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, simply put, we decided to change the former strategy where the child benefit was taxable to something that is not. Therefore, people who get the child benefit at the end of the month every month, net amount, pay their expenses with what they receive.

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

Mr. Speaker, in the election campaign, the Liberals made a promise that they were going to invest in language revitalization for indigenous peoples. We have been through two budgets, a budget implementation act here today, and again, there is nothing for indigenous language.

Right now we are in an emergency situation when it comes to languages. We lose more and more elders and the holders of that language. Cliff Atleo, who is one of our Nuu-chah-nulth elders at the council of the Ha'wiih, which is the hereditary chiefs of the Nuu-chah-nulth, says that their language is their identity. When they lose their language, they lose their identity.

If the member supports language revitalization and investments in the holders of the language, there are young people like Victoria Wells and Ivy Martin who want to carry on the legacy of their language and their culture, and holders of the language like Levi Martin, who want to share that knowledge, but we need assistance to help them carry on their culture and their traditions.

Will the government take urgent action on language revitalization as the NDP has repeatedly asked it to do?

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, initiatives for reconciliation with the indigenous peoples are at the heart of our commitment. I am a member of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security with opposition colleagues, and all the members are unanimous that the first nations need as much collaboration as necessary to improve their situation. When it comes to identity or security, no stone is being left unturned.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, increasing the Canada child benefit, for instance, for lots of low-income aboriginal people, indigenous people, and others in my riding is crucial. As the member said, it is not taxable. There are 5,840 children in Yukon who receive this, an average amount of $6,240. Will the increases we gave to low-income seniors, low-income students, and the working income tax benefit contribute to the economy? Obviously, all of these people are going to reinvest that money right away. They really need it.

I will clarify what two opposition members said on northern benefits. We have increased the northern benefit so that people living in the far regions of the north get an increase, which was delightful for the north. Over three years, we will put in $89.9 million for indigenous language and cultures, so we agree with the NDP on that.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to share something that happened to me one day when I was talking to my constituents. A woman came up to me in front of the grocery store and showed me what she bought. The total came up to about $5 or $6. She said that would probably be her food for the day, which was rather discouraging. She clearly did not have enough for three meals.

The government assistance being provided is probably not enough to make everyone rich, but it is meant to help meet basic needs. It is not enough money to invest. People need this bit of extra money on a daily basis.

This money is being invested in the public and in turn it will be reinvested in our market. It is reinvested in our grocery stores, our schools, our shops, and our services.

Our constituents confirm that this money is helpful. They are very clear, definitive, and consistent about it. They need this money and are very appreciative of this type of initiative.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have a chance today to discuss the latest iteration of the Liberals' budget implementation legislation, Bill C-63.

When the Liberals were running their election campaign back in 2015, they made a number of promises to Canadians. One of those promises was that they would incur a small deficit of less than $10 billion. During that same time, they also promised they would balance the budget by 2019. We now know that neither of these things are true, and that every time the Prime Minister gives with one hand, he takes more with the other.

As the Liberals like to make up words and change their meaning, I have made up a word for this action. It is “dispocketnesia”, which means using one hand to take from one pocket to the other and forgetting about it.

When the Minister of Finance tabled the government's fall economic statement just a couple of weeks ago, he confirmed the Liberals were borrowing $20 billion this year to pay for their out-of-control spending; that is $20 billion this year alone. That means the current deficit is more than double what the Liberals initially promised. This also means, as confirmed by the government, that the budget will never be balanced under the Prime Minister.

Of course, with reckless spending comes the need to increase taxes, which is in part what Bill C-63 would do. Since the Prime Minister is adding debt at twice the rate he promised and since his government projects that debt will grow every year into the future, someone needs to foot the bill. Unfortunately for my constituents and for all Canadians, it is the taxpayer who will bear the burden of the government's irresponsible spending.

I say all this because the Liberal track record of the broken promise after broken promise has fostered an environment of distrust and skepticism among the residents of my riding, and certainly across the country.

The Liberals constantly say that they are helping the middle class and those who wish to join it, yet over 80% of middle-class Canadians are now paying more taxes than they did before the Prime Minister took office. Bill C-63 would not help these people, but rather would push our country further and further into debt.

The 80% figure I just quoted does not even include a measure that will drastically affect my constituents in a multitude of ways. That measure is a carbon tax, or do the Liberals hope Canadians have forgotten about that, because that is 54 days away?

The good people in my riding just simply cannot afford another tax, certainly not one that will affect so many aspects of their lives. They will now need to pay more to heat their homes, to drive their cars, run their tractors and combines, get to work or see their doctor, and operate their businesses. What do these people get from their government in return?

I would like to say my riding is currently booming with government-funded infrastructure projects that it sorely needs, but that would be a lie. I would like to tell my constituents that in return for the increase in their household bills due to a carbon tax, they would have a government that cares about western Canada, but I definitely cannot say that under the Liberals.

I would very much like to tell the small business owners in my riding that the government will start making life easier for them by not changing the tax rules to the point they are unsure if their businesses will even be viable in the future. Alas, I cannot do any of these things. The government lacks the credibility, as shown by their dismal track record, and Canadians expect better.

One of the major measures contained in Bill C-63 that I would like to touch on is the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the effect this investment will have on Canadians. The Liberals are investing $500 million, half a billion dollars, to be a part of an investment bank in another country. We would think that an investment of that size would be overwhelmingly beneficial to the Canadian public, especially given the fact that the federal government is not exactly swimming in dollars at the moment.

Unfortunately, there will be very little direct benefit to Canadians as a result of this investment, and those who do benefit are the wealthy 1% who are the only ones who can afford to consider bidding on contracts through the infrastructure investment bank. We do not know how our investment will be used. We do not know what it will be used on or whether it will be to fund a pipeline. No, not a pipeline in Canada, despite the fact energy east was cancelled, but rather a pipeline in Asia. Instead of making it competitive for Canadian companies to see their oil, this makes it easier for foreign countries to compete against us.

How can the Liberals claim to be helping and representing the middle class when they are investing in measures such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank rather than using even a portion of that money to helping Canadians at home? The Liberals love to spend and we understand the need to create strong relationships and international partnerships through initiatives like investment banks, but it should not be at the cost of the Canadian taxpayer who will see no direct benefit. This is yet another reason why my constituents tell me they have completely lost faith in the government's ability to spend money responsibly.

It appears that the Liberals have a hard time understanding the needs of the middle-class Canadians for whom they say they are working. This is not surprising, given that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have never actually been middle class. The finance minister cemented this general lack of faith when it was recently discovered that he failed to disclose financial assets to the Ethics Commissioner. He should have done this as soon as he became a minister, and yet it was overlooked.

If average Canadians failed to disclose their assets to the appropriate government body, they would be punished accordingly, but when it is the Prime Minister's right-hand man, the problem seems to simply disappear. How are Canadians supposed to trust the finance minister with control of our country's finances when he cannot even properly take care of his own?

The finance minister also refuses to disclose whether he recused himself from important conversations surrounding legislation that would have an effect on his multi-million dollar company, Morneau Shepell . As far as we know, he took part in discussions surrounding Bill C-27. Was he involved in the talks on pensions for Bombardier and did he fail to recuse himself from discussions on the Bermuda tax treaty? Thankfully, he was unable to recuse himself when the Ethics Commissioner came calling. He paid the $200 dollar fine for his actions, but this leaves the question of just how open and honest our finance minister really is.

Canadians expect the Liberal government to do better and be better. We expect that cabinet ministers will uphold the rules to the letter of the law and will also do the right thing. The government has shown that the conduct of its cabinet ministers is not befitting the expectations of the people they represent. Not only are they unable to follow the rules themselves, but they expect the support of Canadians who are being punished for doing just that, as they stated in their messaging surrounding the tax changes to close perceived loopholes.

Those tax changes are going to hurt Canadians, especially in my riding where there is a plethora of small businesses, including farms. There are huge concerns over the cost to transfer a farm down from one generation to the next, something people in my constituency have been doing for over a century in some cases. The cost of doing business is going to go up for all business owners too, not just farmers.

Who is the cost not going to go up for? The Prime Minister and the finance minister, whose family fortunes are safely tucked away and will be unaffected by these tax changes. This just goes to show how out of touch the Liberals are when it comes to the needs of hard-working middle-class Canadians.

Bill C-63 contains many provisions given that it is an omnibus bill. Unfortunately I am failing to see how this “sunny ways” legislation will actually help the people in my riding. My hometown of Estevan is known as the “Sunshine Capital of Canada”. Even with that moniker, everyone knows the Liberals are not building green transit lines in rural Saskatchewan.

On this side of the House, we believe in responsible government spending, lower taxes, and making life more affordable for every Canadian. We have learned that we absolutely cannot trust the Prime Minister to give Canadians a tax break. In fact, the only thing we can trust is that he will continue to break his promises and put us further and further into debt, one tax increase at a time.

This is not what my constituents want. It is not what Canadians want. We will continue to fight the Prime Minister's continued tax hikes every step of the way.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to my colleague's speech. Since our government came into power, we have had extremely good growth. Canada has one of the fastest growing economies in the G7, and there is no denying that. I think my hon. colleague cannot deny that fact.

Budget 2017 will continue in the same way to help our economy grow further and continue to cut taxes for the middle class, small businesses, and help us move people into the middle class. I think my colleague across the way cannot deny that either.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have had a number of conversations with my hon. colleague over the last two years, which I appreciate. I have always found her very open in her conversation.

To answer her question, the Liberals cannot on the one hand take credit for the economy and jobs and on the other hand go after small businesses, farmers, and workers and tell them they are tax cheats. They cannot have it both ways. They either work one way or the other. If they are going to take credit for it, then they need to take credit for the fact that they are going to try to close all these loopholes they are accusing small businesses of having, and that is going to hurt my economy.

The economy in Estevan in my riding has lost many jobs because of the downturn in the oil industry, and it has not recovered. Those people are not back to work. They are still suffering. Back five years ago, my home town had a vacancy rate of 0.1%. Today it is 30%-plus. People are leaving rural Saskatchewan. The jobs in this infrastructure suggestion will not put any work into my riding.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, what is the member's plan to deal with the climate change crisis the world faces? I will give him a minute to think about it, because it may not be the number one priority for his party. I will make two comments while he is doing that.

First, it is fascinating how the Conservatives can make a loss out of a great win, and that is on the deficit. It has gone down from what was predicted because of the flourishing economy, and that is a great news story.

The other point is related to the fact that employment is at the highest in 10 years, as is growth, which was called “dismal”. Therefore, if the adjective for that is “dismal”, I wonder what the adjective for the Conservative record is.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I did have a quick chance to think about the member's question.

First, I am not in government. The member is in government.

Second, when we talk about what we can do, it gives me the opportunity to talk about what is happening in my riding. In my home town of Estevan, we have the only working carbon capture coal-fired power plant in the world. Basically, it is equivalent to taking over 2.5 million vehicles off the road by what it is doing. It is capturing 98% of the carbon through emissions. It is capturing 100% of the sulphur, which is being reused. It is taking those carbon emissions and pumping them down into the ground, which is also helping oil enhancement. It is making it easier for our oil industry to access the oil at a cheaper cost, which makes us more competitive.

Therefore, yes, we are stepping forward on the aspect of carbon capture, and we are very proud of that.

[Bob Bratina, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-63, a bill to implement certain provisions of the budget. I want to first say how proud I am to be a colleague of the finance minister and to sit in the government with him.

The finance minister has led what most people would understand as an exemplary personal life. He has used much of his fortune to assist people in various parts of the world. He has to suffer the innuendo that is being offered almost every day, that perhaps he joined public life in order to enrich himself. I do not think anyone would seriously believe that we would engage in the election campaign and be successful in public life in the hopes of leaving this place as much wealthier people than when we came. The other thing I want to say about the finance minister is that his area of expertise is critical to the future of so many Canadians, because we have an aging population, we have many issues with regard to pensions, and it should be seen by most Canadians as a benefit to have someone with the profound expertise in the world of pensions such as our minister has.

The biggest take-away from the finance minister and the government legislation that we have put forward is the economic success of the country. All the numbers show it, and we have heard about the job creation. In my own city of Hamilton, we have an unemployment rate of 4.2%, and for the seventh year in a row we have over $1 billion in new building construction.

I also want to point out the success we have had with the Canada child benefit. In my own riding in the month of July, which is the latest for which I have the final figures, 9,470 families received cheques that affected 16,560 children for a total of $5.8 million. In the entire city of Hamilton, all five ridings, 44,700 families were affected, 80,620 children received the benefits, and the total amount for one month in Hamilton was $27.4 million. This money not only goes directly to the families involved, but one would assume it would immediately be reinvested in the community, in the neighbourhood stores, and in the small businesses in the neighbourhood where purchases are made. Therefore, this investment in the Canada child benefit plan is paying dividends that are almost impossible to understand. It is worth saying that in my city there are 80,000 children who are benefiting from this policy that stems from our budget, which was created in part by the finance minister.

I also want to briefly touch on the notion that comes from across the way referring to the costs to be borne by future generations. As a former mayor, I can say that the cities of Canada are in a desperate situation with a huge municipal infrastructure deficit that they cannot solve through the local tax revenues that they generate. Therefore, what would it be like for our future generations if the roads and sewers were even further incapacitated in the years ahead? In our case, we have just made a significant investment in safe drinking water. These are problems that exist now, and fixing them will be to the benefit of those future generations, so I am proud of what we have been able to achieve.

I will leave it at that for now.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek will have five minutes remaining in his time for his comments on the motion when the House next resumes debate, and also of course five minutes for questions and comments.

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from November 7 consideration of the motion that Bill C-63, A second 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.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise in this House to speak to Bill C-63, the budget implementation bill, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget, that was tabled earlier this year, in March.

As always, my comments are made on behalf of the residents of Davenport, who I am blessed to serve and who always inspire me with their passion for life, their love for their families, their love of community, and their desire to do their part to make our community, our country, and our world a better place.

In talking about the budget implementation bill, I would like to focus on what our budget this year does for women, for seniors, and, if I have time, for workers.

On women, our budget this year produced the first-ever budget gender statement, an assessment of how gender was considered in budget 2017 measures. For me this is vital to do, because I believe it is important to be transparent on how budgetary measures and spending are impacting women. This budget gender statement will not be a panacea for gender equity, but it will help the Canadian government assess and target how we can best allocate our resources so that both our men and women are supported equally. It is a long time coming, as there are many other countries that have already done this, but I am so glad we are doing it now and that we have committed to doing this on an ongoing basis.

One of the biggest stresses for Davenport parents continues to be the high cost of day care. Therefore, I was pleased to see that over $7 billion over a 10-year period was committed in budget 2017 to support and create more high-quality, affordable child care spaces across Canada. I know that our Minister of Families, Children and Social Development has worked hard with all the provinces to create a framework to foster fully inclusive early education and child care services across the country while respecting the needs and circumstances of each jurisdiction. Under the agreement, the federal government will send billions of dollars to the provinces and territories to focus on creating new child care spaces for families. Our plan is anticipated to create up to 40,000 new, affordable, accessible spaces across Canada over the next few years.

This is a good beginning. Indeed, this is a great beginning, and I think we need to go further and do more. Until we close the gap in women's participation in the workforce, until we ensure that every single family in Canada has access to affordable child care in this country, we have not finished our job.

There is currently a 10 percentage point gap between the labour force participation rates of men and women in Canada. According to the International Monetary Fund and a large body of research from a number of places around the world, the more women who enter the workforce, the more productive its economy will be. The best way to boost women's participation rates is to ensure not only affordable day care but also maximum flexibility for women in the workforce.

At this point, too many families in my riding still have to make a choice between either having one spouse at home to take care of the kids or having both parents work to earn enough to cover the high cost of day care in downtown Toronto, where the monthly costs are around $1,200 per month. Therefore, while we have made enormous, laudable progress, our work is not yet done.

One of the key areas I am very proud of that does support families and is helping with some of the costs of day care is our Canada child benefit. This is a huge benefit for working middle-class families in Davenport. I asked for the numbers to date with respect to the amount of money going to Davenport families, and what I received was this: from July 2016 to June 2017, there were a total of 9,210 payments, with an average payment of $5,880 for the year. The total amount that went to Davenport families over that one-year period was $54,164,000. That is an enormous amount. I know that Davenport families are very happy to have received this. I know that it goes a long way to support them, to support their lives, and to support their families.

I also should note that in the recent fall economic statement, which was released on October 24, the government announced that it would strengthen the Canada child benefit by indexing it to an annual increase in the cost of living, effective July 2018, which is two years earlier than planned. This will put more money in the pockets of Canadians immediately to help with the ever-increasing cost of living.

There is great progress and support for both women and families in our budget this year.

Now I want to move on to seniors. In the cold air of November that is a harbinger of the winter to come, the past summer now seems so long ago, but I did a lot of canvassing during the summer, and I had an interaction with a Davenport senior that is seared in my mind. The woman saw me canvassing, and she came up to me to tell me to make sure to tell the Prime Minister not to forget seniors. I relayed to her all the things we had done to support seniors. I told her we were going to continue to work hard to make sure that seniors continue to feel supported.

According to Statistics Canada, Canada's elderly poverty rate has fallen by a remarkable 25%, from 37% in 1976 to 12% in 2010. However, since the mid- to late 1990s, poverty rates have actually been growing among seniors, and 60% of low-income seniors are women. Therefore, I was very proud that as of July 2016, our government increased the guaranteed income supplement to $947 a month for the most vulnerable single seniors. We also restored the age of eligibility for OAS and GIS to 65 from 67. That will also go a long way to support our seniors, sooner rather than later, and make sure that they do not fall anywhere near the poverty level. I am pleased to say that this year's budget would take even more steps to support our seniors.

We have invested $6 billion over 10 years for home care. That will go a long way for those who want to be taken care of at home and not in hospitals. We have committed $2.3 billion over two years to expand affordable housing, which is expected to improve the housing conditions for all seniors, especially senior women. We provided an additional $4 million over two years to the enabling accessibility fund to improve the accessibility of public spaces. I know that is something that was very important for my mum, so I am glad that is something we have introduced right across the country. I am very proud of our Minister of Finance, who reached a historic agreement to enhance the Canada pension plan to ensure that there will be more money for Canadians when they retire.

A lot of work has been done to support our seniors. I want to give a shout-out to a couple of my colleagues who are doing such a tremendous job in terms of trying to make sure we create a national seniors strategy. They are my colleague from King—Vaughan and my colleague from Nickel Belt.

Finally are workers. The world of work is rapidly changing. What I hear are a lot of concerns about more contract work. We hear that there is more precarious work. There is more artificial intelligence and a continued loss of manufacturing jobs. In general, with the advances in communications technology, there is an anticipated way of working in the future that is causing quite a bit of consternation among many Davenport residents and among Canadians in general. Therefore, I am proud that our government has taken action to support workers who are looking to train in different jobs. There is also support for workers who are trying to improve or upgrade their skills, and there is more support in general for workers in an ever-changing workforce. Some of those changes include $2.7 billion over six years to boost skills training and employment supports for unemployed and underemployed Canadians. Under the labour market transfer agreements, we have put in $132 million over four years to expand flexibility within the employment insurance program to enable more unemployed workers to pursue self-funded training while remaining eligible for EI benefits.

I do not have time to go through the rest of the amazing things we are doing to support workers. There is more that needs to be done. One of the key areas I am hoping our government will start looking at is a basic income as a way to support workers in the future.

I will end on a wonderful note. Our economy is doing well. Over the last two years, we have created over 450,000 new full-time jobs. We have a historic low unemployment rate of 6.2%, the lowest since 2008. We have a youth unemployment rate at a historic low of 10.3%. Canada is the fastest growing economy in the G7, with an average rate of 3.7% over the last year. I know that more good news is to come.

I appreciate the wonderful opportunity to present on behalf of the residents of Davenport today, and I urge all my colleagues to support Bill C-63.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the residents of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, my constituents, are very concerned that the recent economic update from the finance minister suggested that over the next six years, we are going to add $100 billion to Canada's national debt.

According to the finance minister's figures in that document, the interest paid per year will rise from $24 billion per year to $32 billion per year in 2022. The constituents of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry ask how we can possibly afford that increase in interest each and every year. When they think about it, that is $3 billion a month, and that is if the interest rate stays the same.

I wonder what the constituents of Davenport think of increasing the interest on Canada's national debt by $3 billion per month.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, I did a lot of canvassing over the summer. I did reach some doors where I had similar questions.

What I was said to them was the following. Canada has one of the best balance sheets in the world. We have probably the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the world. We have a lot to be proud of. We have an economy that is growing faster than all other economies at the moment. We are spending responsibly. That was validated by the IMF when Christine Lagarde came here just over a year ago.

We are spending responsibly, we are investing in infrastructure, we are investing in our future, and we are doing everything we can to keep our debt at a manageable level.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, there are many things we can agree on. I am going to bring to my colleague's attention, as I have to her colleagues, the Labour Code changes.

One of the areas I am concerned about is the unpaid leave for domestic violence. I am hoping the government will be open to listening to experts, both legal experts and people who work in the area of domestic violence. The challenge for many in those circumstances, who are often mostly women, is that their ability to take an unpaid leave to deal with creating a safe plan, hiring a lawyer, and perhaps finding a new place to live will not happen right away. It will happen over months or a year. However, when they come home to their abusive partners with a paycheque that is less, because they have taken unpaid leave, that might be a serious safety issue for that family and that partner.

I am encouraging the government to look at that again and to make those paid days for domestic leave.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of areas we need to continue to look at to better support our workers across this country. I appreciate the member putting a wonderful idea on the table.

I will say that I am very proud of what we have done so far in terms of supporting workers. I asked the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour a question in the House today about an announcement made this week about measures we are taking to protect workers from harassment and sexual violence in the workplace.

I know we will take more steps to support our workers in the days and years to come.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, during the election, we campaigned that an economy that works for the middle class is an economy that works for everyone.

The member has done a lot of work with immigrants in her community. Could the member comment on how these changes we are putting forward will help immigrants in her community?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in Davenport we are very blessed to have 52% of the people in my riding born in other countries. They are very happy with the changes introduced in the budget not only this year but last year. Mainly it is because we actually spent quite a bit of time and money and resources making our system more efficient. For example, to process spouses went from 26 months to 12 months. That is just one of the many great changes new Canadians are seeing in our system that will very much benefit not only our immigrants but our economy, both today and tomorrow.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to join this debate on the budget implementation bill. I have seen many of these go through and I can say that I am really pleased with what I have seen in it. It is going to make a significant difference in the lives of all Canadians. As always, it is an honour to rise in the House today to speak about the budget implement act, Bill C-63.

Our government is making intelligent investments that will have a direct impact on job creation and strengthening our economy while at the same time creating opportunities for success for all Canadians.

Our government is taking the right steps to give all Canadians, including the middle class especially, a brighter future. Allow me to take this opportunity to tell everyone about some of these investments and what I consider to be the right steps.

For example, the richest 1% of Canadians will be asked to pay a little more tax than others so that we will be better able to provide the middle class with some tax breaks they very much need. This tax cut has directly benefited nine million Canadians and is something that we Canadians will be proud of.

Second, let me talk about the Canada child benefit. The Canada child benefit has lifted hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty. I know this for a fact because many of these children are in my riding of Humber River—Black Creek, and I will mention some of their stories.

Two weeks ago, I had the pleasure of hosting the hon. Minister of Families, Children and Social Development in my riding of Humber River—Black Creek, and as we walked through Yorkgate Mall, we encountered a constituent who was expecting her first child. The hon. minister and I took this opportunity to explain the financial opportunities this new mother stood to gain from our government's new Canada child benefit. This constituent, about to be a new mother for the first time, was overjoyed with a sense of relief to know that there would be financial help from the government and she thanked us for making a difference in her life and the life of her baby.

It would be a good idea to dig even deeper into the numbers on how the Canada child benefit is helping ridings like mine and many others throughout Canada. As of July 2017, there were a total of 12,250 payments provided in the riding of Humber River—Black Creek, which directly impact more than 20,000 children, who are so much better off as a result of the Canada child benefit. Their moms have extra money to be able to invest in everything from winter clothes to assisting with dancing or piano lessons, things they certainly could not do before. With some families, that money is putting more food on the table.

The average payment to a family is $770, and families in my riding have already received a total of almost $10 million dollars. That is $10 million dollars more that has gone into the riding of Humber River—Black Creek to help the single moms, the families, the children to have a better quality of life. That is all part of the budget implementation act. It is making a difference in their lives in that one riding. Repeat that throughout our country and think how much better off so many families and children are. These numbers cannot be ignored and do make a significant difference.

It is stories like these that allow me to rise today and speak confidently that the bill would help make a positive difference for Canadian families. The investments our government has made in people, in our communities, and in our economy are working. Canada has the fastest growing economy in the G7 and we are reinvesting the benefits of that growth back to the people who contribute most to that success.

Because of Canada's strong economic growth, our government's bottom line is better and we can, as a result, do even more to help the middle class and those working hard to join it. With lower taxes on small business, more support through the Canada child benefit, and an enhanced working income tax benefit, it will be an enormous help.

One of the things I have often heard from some of the parents or families who come into my office is that if they go to work, they will be worse off because everything they make will get clawed back. The working income tax benefit will help those families so they can go out and get a second job and not be penalized for it.

When the Canada child benefit was first introduced in July 2016, the extra money in parents' pockets had an immediate effect on consumer confidence and economic growth. Canada, as I said, has the fastest growing economy in the G7, giving our government the flexibility to reinvest a lot of these benefits.

With the increased cost of living increases to the CCB starting in July 2018, two years ahead of schedule, for a single parent with two children making $35,000—and I have a lot of them in my riding of Humber River—Black Creek—the strengthened CCB will mean $560 more next year, tax free, for books, skating lessons, or warm clothes for winter. The added confidence these increases bring to families is proven to have an immediate impact on economic growth.

Because the economy is growing so well, we are allowing low-income workers, including families without children and a growing number of single Canadians, to keep more hard-earned money from every paycheque by further enhancing the working income tax benefit by an additional $500 million per year, starting in 2019. This enhancement is in addition to the $250-million annual increase that will come into effect as part of an enhancement to another program the Liberals are strengthening, the Canada pension plan, to help people have a more secure retirement. That is very much top of mind for a lot of people given what has happened recently with Sears. We saw what happened with Nortel previously. These events really shake the foundations of many people. Taken together, the two enhancements that we have made will boost the total amount our government spends on WITB by about 65% in 2019, increasing benefits and expanding the number of Canadians who qualify.

Let us talk a little more about cutting taxes on small businesses. Our government committed to reducing the small business tax rate to 9% from 11%, effective January 2019. That represents a considerable amount for many small businesses. We want them to flourish and grow, while ensuring that Canadian-controlled private corporation status is not used to reduce the personal income tax obligations of high-income earners rather than supporting small businesses. This is about reinvesting money back into businesses so they will grow, can hire additional people, and certainly do much better. This means up to $7,500 in federal corporate tax savings per year to help entrepreneurs and innovators do what they do best. Small businesses are a key driver of our economy and a cornerstone of communities across the country. As our plan works to grow the economy, small businesses see the benefits of that growth with lower taxes.

As we continue to move forward, we want to ensure that the average Canadian has a good quality of life and can take the opportunities the government is trying to provide them by tax advantages that only the richest individuals, using high-priced accountants, were able to take advantage of in the past. Instead, the government has listened to small business owners, professionals, farmers, and fishers and will move forward in a way that protects all of them, innovators and entrepreneurs as well. As we lower taxes on small business, we are committed to ensuring that they support business growth and investment and not give personal tax advantages to the wealthy over the middle class.

We are doing very well. As I said earlier, we are the fastest growing economy in the G7; we have the lowest debt to GDP ratio and have created over 500,000 more jobs, many of them full-time, good jobs, in the last two years; the economy is great, and our country is doing very well. I am very happy to support Bill C-63 and hope that everyone in the House realizes the benefits to all Canadians of supporting it.

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

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate my colleague for receiving the Maclean's Parliamentarian of the Year award for being a mentor. It is certainly well deserved.

However, on this particular issue, I am not sure I want her to be mentoring anyone. There were a number of things she totally ignored in her comments. She ignored the fact that this budget will increase our debt. In fact, the interest costs alone will rise by $9 billion per year to $33 billion a year by 2021. She talked about not having personal tax advantages for the rich. I am wondering if she was including the finance minister and Prime Minister in that. It does not seem like it from some of the questions that have come up. She talked about the small business tax cut. My colleague and all of her colleagues know that there is no way that would have happened were it not for the immense pressure put on them by the opposition and hundreds of thousands of Canadians who protested the proposed tax changes that were going after so-called tax cheats. Because of the pressure by the opposition and Canadians who were going to be negatively impacted, the government capitulated and reduced the small business tax credit, which is a good thing. However, to imply that the government members it out of the goodness of their hearts is a little rich.

Finally, my question relates to infrastructure. She commented about the infrastructure they are investing in, but the problem they are not talking about is where they are investing in infrastructure, namely Asia. There is nearly $500 million, almost half a billion dollars, being invested in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, which Canada will have about a 1% say after investing that money. We know that the infrastructure investments that bank will be making will benefit Canadians, but will cost Canadians all kinds of money. How can she really honestly support that kind of spending?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, investing in infrastructure is a fabulous way of creating jobs and wealth and helping to grow the economy. Over $36 billion in projects have already been announced and are under way through our infrastructure plan. By investing in both the Asian infrastructure bank and our own infrastructure bank, it will provide lots of opportunity to invest in bridges and sewers. So many things throughout our country that have been neglected for many years by many governments will now receive infrastructure investments that will help keep our cities strong. Cities have clearly not had the money to do that, which has led to many bridge and road collapses. This money will begin to ensure that we are building a strong Canada that will stay attractive to many other people to live and invest in.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, on this side, we certainly welcome some of the changes proposed to the Canada Labour Code that would prohibit unpaid internships unless they are educational, and provide flexibility within the workplace for people to take important leaves.

I want to draw to her attention one of the leaves I find problematic, and that is unpaid leaves for victims of domestic violence. I want to point out to her the issues that may be a barrier to victims accessing that leave. Because it is unpaid, it will put victims in a vulnerable state within domestic relationships where one partner is controlling the other economically. If that individual is coming home with a paycheque that is less than what it should be, it could actually put the family and the individual in harm's way. I encourage her to support looking at this particular part and being open to amendments at committee.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the best parts of this budget implementation act is this whole issue of flexible work arrangements. We just have to recognize that we are in the 21st century. Many women are working, many families experience pain and difficulty together and need to find ways for their employers to give them the help they need. Certainly, my colleague raises a very good point, but as with everything, we have to start to introduce change. As we go forward at committee, I am sure there will be a variety of amendments that will be costed out. The flexible work arrangements are something moving us in a much more positive way throughout Canada.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with regard the budget implementation act, I would like to talk about the climate around investment these days.

It is important to understand that while the government can create jobs, programs, and a number of different things, it is ultimately entrepreneurs who create the work, the employment, and the wealth in our country. I say that because one of the things the government fails to understand, or one of the challenges it has had over the last little while, is the uncertainty that small businesses face.

There is a number of issues and a number of things the Liberals are trying to do in stimulating the country, such as universal child benefit and other that obviously will make families better off. We do not have a problem with that. The challenge we have is the instability of what entrepreneurs face. Let me give an example.

While we were in government, we did a number of things to try to encourage entrepreneurs to start businesses. I used the acronym called “TIRE” because it was a multi-pronged approach. We lowered corporate taxes to one of the lowest in the G7, down to 25%. We can say okay, it was great that we lowered corporate taxes, but what did that do? That was just one thing in a number of things we did, but it was important to create certainty for entrepreneurs to flourish.

Let me talk about the acronym of TIRE and what it stands for. The “T” stands for taxes and trade. One of the things we did was lowered taxes for corporations because we wanted to increase investment in Canada and we wanted to create a favourable environment to encourage other crown corporations and individuals to invest here.

The second thing we did was trade. We worked on the CETA deal, which we pretty much got to the finish line. It was nice to see the Liberals complete it. However, we were there. We negotiated it over the four years we were in government.

The second one was TPP, another agreement we worked on and had actually signed it but were waiting for ratification on it. This is important because Canada has about 35 million people and they cannot possibly sell all their goods to each other. We are definitely a trading nation. These are important things. We count very heavily on the U.S. That number used to be 85% to 90%. I realize now it is down to 75%. However, we need to create other opportunities. This was one of the reasons why we worked on trade along with taxes.

The “I” in TIRE, is infrastructure, investments, and immigration reform. We worked on these things. We spent major amounts of money in infrastructure across the country, and we got it out in record time. The Liberal government has also promised infrastructure money, but we have not seen a whole lot in the first two years. There is always some concern with a half billion dollars going to the Asia Infrastructure Bank, but the budget officer has said that almost $2 billion have been unspent at this point in time.

The “R” stands for research and development, and red tape reduction. If we look at the R and D, the government continues to spend money on it and continues to commit money to it. These are good things, but sometimes it misses the mark. We have talked about superclusters being important. My challenge is that as a small business person, it is very hard to access those things. Most businesses in the country are small businesses. While there is probably nothing wrong with the concept of superclusters, the challenge is that money needs to go to entrepreneurs and small businesses.

Entrepreneurs tell us all the time that it is always difficult to raise capital. If we look at some of these things, this always seems to be the number one issue. When we look at places like San Francisco, silicon valley, Boston, Israel, and a number of other places around the world, there is great entrepreneurship. A lot of times Canadian companies have to go south of the border to raise money for second rounds, third rounds, VC rounds, and those kinds of things. These are some of the things with which we are challenged. When we look at R and D, absolutely important is the number of programs. The government has programs such as SR&ED a few others that are effective and helpful.

I sat on the red tape reduction committee. We travelled the country, and red tape was another thing that frustrated entrepreneurs to no end. We have to find ways to continue. One of the things we implemented was the one for one rule. When a new regulation was introduced, we would reduce a regulation.

One of the challenges is this. The federal government regulates a number of areas. However, then there are provincial and municipal jurisdictions and each of these add a layer and make it difficult for entrepreneurs to get started.

The last thing, the “E” in TIRE, is entrepreneurship and the economy. One of the things I always tell people when I talk to them about business is that there is a whole suite of things that we need to do in order to encourage entrepreneurship in this country. Right now, there are obviously a number of incubators and accelerators. Members are obviously familiar with Communitech in Waterloo, which does an amazing job. There are a number of other incubators and accelerators across this country. I always wonder if it would not make sense, as we move forward, to encourage colleges and universities to look at making that part of their mandate. I realize that is not always possible, but I think if we are going to teach entrepreneurship, if we are going to talk to people about starting businesses, then we also have to give them a place to actually help hone their craft.

Some of the things that are helpful for incubators are, obviously, that there is access to capital and money, that there are mentors, and that there is an environment where there is a chance to work and feed off what is going on with other individuals. As I visited a number of incubators in Silicon Valley, one of the things that was amazing was this whole issue of like-mindedness. People could come together, share their ideas, have access to capital, and all those other things.

However, one of the things we struggle with in this country is that we do not have a culture of entrepreneurship. I talk to students taking business programs all the time and ask them what they think they are going to do. They tell me that once they get their MBA, they want to work for a big company. Now, there is nothing wrong with working for a big company, but one of the challenges we have in this country is that we do not have enough people willing to start businesses and be entrepreneurial.

As I look at these things that we worked on as a government, I use TIRE, where the “T” is for taxes and trade; the “I” is for infrastructure, investments, and immigration reform, which is trying to help businesses bring in the people they need; the “R” is for R and D, and red tape reduction; and, of course, the “E” is for entrepreneurship and economy.

One of the things that has been a challenge with the latest implementation, or the thought process of taxes and taxation, has been the uncertainty for small businesses. I have literally had all kinds of phone calls coming into my office. People were saying that they were not happy and were not sure what they were going to do.

I co-hosted a round table here on Parliament Hill as the co-chair of the entrepreneur caucus with my colleagues. We had the CFIB and a number of individuals. We had a high-net-worth accountant, who represents a lot of money. He said that since this has happened, over $1 billion has gone south of the border. Now, we are never going to see a press release sent out on who was going to invest in Canada but will not now. Money is fluid, and it can move in different directions. Quite frankly, when there is uncertainty, it makes it a challenge.

I also want to talk about the unintended consequences of some of the proposed tax changes. Remember, in previous years, it took the Carter commission four years to look at tax changes and another six years to implement them, which is over a decade. However, this was done in less than 75 days in the middle of the summer.

Doctors are a segment of people who were singled out as not paying their fair share of taxes. I have an individual in my office who lives in my riding but has a practice in Welland. She is a dermatologist, and her husband is an orthopaedic surgeon. She feels totally vilified with what is going on here. She and her husband have over $400,000 in debt, with another $100,000 for her to set up her practice in Welland. She said that if things do not change that, in two years when her lease runs out, she will be moving south of the border. I am not saying that every doctor is leaving, but there are certainly individuals out there who do not feel like the hard work and time they put in is going to be rewarded.

As I look at some of the budget implementation act, I see large deficits, which are for a time when the economy is not doing that well. Right now, the economy has been doing relatively well. What happens if we continue to spend all of this money that is for a rainy day? Our growth is better than average, and maybe better than expected, but I believe that on the horizon we will see less than 2% growth, or 1% and change, over the next couple of years.

If we stack up some of things that are going on here, such as the uncertainty with the tax proposals, the fact remains that it is still hard for entrepreneurs to access money. When we look at taxing passive income, it makes it very discouraging for people trying to grow the economy, create jobs, and, quite frankly, trying to help Canada grow as a nation.

I would encourage my friends on the other side of the House to reconsider what they are looking at, where they are going with these tax changes, and the deficit, because there will be lasting and long-term results.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member across the way for his intervention today, and for giving us the letters T-I-R-E to consider and to remember the points he has given. It always helps when in a presentation to have something to refer to.

My question is whether the TIRE was flat or not, and whether maybe we did not get economic growth with $150 billion in increased debt in the country. Our strategy of investing in the middle class seems to be getting the growth that the previous government did not get by giving tax breaks to the wealthy.

Could the member comment on the different strategies that are being used by the member's party and our party?

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the members that the TIREs were full, we were running on all four TIREs, and everything was working well.

We can look at what happened with the great economic downturn in 2008. It was Canada that actually did better than any country in the G7. It was Canada that led the way in growth. While other countries had this huge fall, we continued to maintain.

We spent money. It was the opposition that said we needed to spend more. We spent what we felt was important at the time to get the economy back on track. I will just say that we want to be careful looking at this quarter. Things are well, but I believe there are huge troubles on the horizon. We have mortgage rates that are going to change in January. They are going to raise the benchmark by over 2% to qualify for first-time homebuyers or for homebuyers in general. That will mean that less than 75% of what homebuyers qualify for in 2017 is not going to be there.

There is a whole bunch of these small cuts that are happening. I would encourage the members to be cautious, because as we move forward into 2018 and 2019, I really believe there are storm clouds on the horizon.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my Conservative colleague for his speech in the House on the budget implementation bill.

He talked a lot about business owners. Whenever I meet with small business owners back home, they often tell me about unfair credit card fees. Some businesses are paying extraordinary sums to credit card companies. Some small businesses are paying more than $200,000 per year.

I would like to know whether this is also an issue for small and medium-sized business owners in my colleague's riding.

Do they talk a lot about how the government has not done a thing to better regulate credit card fees?

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that I pay attention to on a regular basis are the surveys that come out from CFIB.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business, which has members all across this country, has a great pulse on what is going on in the world of small and medium-sized businesses. One of the things that continues to come up is credit card fees for CFIB.

What I would say to the member is that this is an issue that continues to come up, time and time again, as an issue of concern. It is one of the things that we looked at when we were in government, and one of the things that I believe needs still more work.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia, Indigenous Affairs; the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, National Defence; and the hon. member for Langley—Aldergrove, Taxation.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for this debate in the House tonight, for the government bringing forward budget 2017, and now for Bill C-63. The government's actions are in line with and directly support the four initiatives of the Guelph and Wellington poverty elimination task force, by looking at the four areas of income inequality, affordable housing, food insecurity, and health inequities.

There is an old African proverb that states, “If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go with others.” This government knows that working together with others, and other orders of government, is crucial. In fact, the whole-of-government approach is the way forward.

On the first point of income inequality, the goal of the Guelph and Wellington poverty elimination task force is that all members of the community have the income, resources, and opportunities to fully participate in the community. Of people living in poverty, 70% are currently working. According to Statistics Canada, Canada has one of the highest proportions of low-paid workers among similarly industrialized countries.

The government believes that the working income tax benefit can do much more to improve the financial security of low-income working Canadians. To this end, in the 2017 fall economic statement, the government is announcing its intention to further enhance the working income tax benefit by $500 million a year, starting in 2019. The maximum Canada pension plan retirement benefits for workers will also be increasing over time by 50%. The government has increased the guaranteed income supplement payments to seniors by up to $947 a year, which is going to help 900,000 low-income seniors, 70% of whom are women.

The Canada child benefit has helped to stimulate the economy. Our economy is growing at 3.7%, leading the G7, and we have created more than 500,000 jobs since it was introduced. There are 12,000 families or 24,000 kids in my riding who receive a total of $8 million per month tax-free. This is an enormous boost to the Guelph economy. The budget implementation act will now index these funds two years ahead of schedule due to the strong growth we have in our economy.

Economic opportunity is the best way to address income inequality. This legislation will take the next steps for our innovation and skills plan, an agenda that focuses on people and addresses the changing nature of the economy to ensure that it works for all Canadians. Bill C-63 will enact several key parts of our plan, including $600 million in new financing for clean technology firms, and $400 million to put in place the venture capital catalyst initiative.

The second point that the poverty elimination task force is looking at is affordable housing, with the goal that everyone in Guelph and Wellington can find and maintain an appropriate, safe, and affordable place to call home. The government will invest more than $11.2 billion over 11 years through the national housing strategy to provide low-income Canadians with improved access to adequate and affordable housing. This is the most significant investment in housing that has ever been made in the history of Canada.

Through the rental construction financing initiative, the government will also offer more than $2.5 billion over the next four years in low-cost loans to support the construction of new rental housing to help increase the supply of rental housing. Budget 2017 also proposes a total investment of $2.1 billion over the next 11 years to expand and extend funding for the homelessness partnering strategy beyond 2018-19. Our national housing strategy will be announced over the next few weeks. We will be meeting with members of the Guelph and Wellington poverty elimination task force to discuss implications for Guelph and how we can work together.

The third point is food insecurity. Everyone has to have access to affordable and healthy food in a dignified manner. We have a shared objective federally. In fact, the agriculture committee that I sit on has repeatedly heard from witnesses on the food policy, addressing the nutritional food that Canada needs to focus on, and working with partners like food banks to reduce food waste and to improve food distribution within our communities.

The Canada child benefit has been mentioned a lot today. It has helped lift 300,000 children out of poverty. Thanks to this benefit, by the end of this year, it is estimated that child poverty will be reduced by 40% from where it was in 2013.

For a single parent with two children and $35,000 of income, the acceleration of the Canada child benefit will contribute $560 toward the increasing cost of feeding children. This increase means more nutritious food for lower-income children and families, allowing for a more engaged and active student population in our schools.

To address food insecurity within indigenous communities, they need employment opportunities. Budget 2017 invests $50 million in the aboriginal skills and employment training strategy, providing the knowledge indigenous peoples need to sustain themselves and build their communities.

Finally, on health inequities, everyone in Guelph and Wellington has to have access to affordable health services. Drug prices in Canada are among the highest in the world. Patented drug prices in Canada are 17% to 37% higher than those in France, Italy, the U.K., Australia, Spain, the Netherlands, and New Zealand. Canada's generic drug prices are also comparatively high.

We have heard from Canadians about the need for improved access to prescription medications and lower drug prices. Through budget 2017, we are investing over $140 million over five years to help improve access to pharmaceuticals and support innovations within the health care system, but we know there is a lot more to do.

People may be wondering how these two policies, federal and municipal, are so well aligned and how this can happen. In truth, if a government believes in the whole-of-government approach and serving its people, there can be no other way. Our government understands the needs of our communities, both large and small, from coast to coast to coast, and is prepared to offer communities what they need to realize their goals.

The results of the past two years justify the trust Canadians placed in this government in the 2015 election. We promised we would work together, and we are. I am confident that the measures in budget 2017 and the budget implementation act will continue this positive trend, build our communities, help the most vulnerable, and have a successful economy together.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, something I have heard is quite concerning. Some telephone calls have come into my office. As members know, I am focused on the Indigenous and Northern Affairs file. The calls are from people who are expressing significant concern. They are asking how the government can spend half a billion dollars on infrastructure in Asia, through the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, when we have so many desperate needs at home. They ask why the government is putting heated trailers at the border for people when people in the north are freezing.

When the member says that the government is taking care of vulnerable people, I would like him to provide an answer on how spending half a billion dollars to provide infrastructure in Asia or backstopping investors in Asia is helping people in the north, as its communications adviser suggested.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when we participate in international activities, such as the infrastructure bank, and we are setting up an infrastructure bank within Canada to also attract international investment, it makes us participate in the investment of world development, both in Canada and abroad. We will be looking at significant investments in infrastructure that Canadians will not be paying for by themselves. They will pay for it in partnership with other countries, similar to what we will do in China.

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

Mr. Speaker, recently in my riding, I had the wonderful opportunity to meet with several doctors. As the representative of North Island—Powell River, a huge challenge for us is attracting health care professionals to the region. The doctors talked about their concerns on the impacts of the small business tax to these types of communities. One thing that is really important for the House and the Prime Minister to hear is how hurt these doctors were by the comments the Prime Minister made about rich doctors and how much of a ramification that had on their offices. People have gone into their offices to chastise them for this.

What I notice is missing from the bill has nothing to do with tax fairness across the board. I see a focus on small business and not at the significant tax loopholes that the very wealthy use every day to not pay their fair share. What are the member's thoughts on this specific issue and how those impacts are meaningful in communities like I represent?

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member's question looks at how we work as a country together. Because physicians serve our communities in so many ways and they give so much to our communities, how do we ensure our communities are there for them when they need them as well?

When we look at tax fairness and tax inequities in our system, we will be helping their patients, developing communities, increasing the economy, and helping them to continue to contribute to Canada, which they do in such a great way.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the people in Guelph know how diligently my colleague works on the innovation file. I have had the pleasure of working with him on a number of initiatives. As the chair of a subcommittee on innovation through our Atlantic growth strategy, I have discovered a lot of opportunities available to Atlantic Canadians. Could my hon. colleague talk about how our focus on innovation is helping companies, entrepreneurs, and people in his community thrive in this growing economy?

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I almost never have a conversation without innovation coming up in some way, so I appreciate the member coming at this from this angle. Innovation in Guelph and innovation elsewhere includes social innovation. Through the investments our government is making, we see a social innovation that is contributing to our economy, to our environment, and developing social benefits for all Canadians. I thank the hon. member for his focus on innovation. Social innovation is a very important part of our strategy going forward.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-63, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measures, which I will strongly oppose.

I would like to talk about Sunday's municipal elections in Quebec. There are 37 municipalities in the riding I represent, and it spans 3,200 kilometres. I would like to congratulate all of the candidates who ran in the municipal elections and all those who won. I care about having a good working relationship with other representatives. I look forward to working with the newly elected officials. I would also like to celebrate the fact that more women were elected mayor. I am very proud to say that we now have more women mayors back home. This is good news.

In my speech today, I want to talk about the issues that are not part of the Liberal government's bill. For example, the government is not doing anything about credit card fees, and more recently, it refused to work with us, the provinces, and other stakeholders to create a universal pharmacare program. I also want to talk about how the government is refusing to remedy tax unfairness by facilitating the intergenerational transfer of family farms. The last issue I will touch on is employment insurance.

I will start with credit card fees, which cost Canadian merchants tens of thousands of dollars. It is their second-largest expense after salaries. Small retailers make up more than 50% of the Canadian economy. For example, a Saint-Boniface service station called Alimentation Lemoyne & Auger in my riding pays $30,000 per year in credit card transaction fees. That is a lot of money. Canadian small businesses pay the highest credit card transaction fees in the world. The Liberal government should do like other countries, such as Australia and EU countries, which have capped fees at 0.5% or less.

This is a measure that the Liberal government should have introduced for small business owners. We really would have liked to see some progress. We would have liked for the government to stand up for small business owners in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada. There is supermarket owner in Laval who spends nearly $200,000 on credit card fees. The government needs to act now to better regulate those fees.

Last month, the NDP used an opposition day to raise a debate in the House of Commons on the need to adopt a universal pharmacare program. In the riding that I represent, the population is aging, so I care about health-related issues. We had a debate in the House of Commons, but unfortunately, the Liberal government decided to vote against our motion.

That day, representatives of the Centre Avec des Elles in Saint-Gabriel-de-Brandon and the Centre des femmes l'Héritage in Louiseville came to attend question period. They also got to meet several MPs. These people from my riding, who came to the House the day that we moved an opposition motion on the need for a universal pharmacare program, could not believe that the government was going to vote against such a measure, when, unfortunately, the cost of prescription drugs is rising every year.

The people I represent did not think it was the right approach to lowering the cost of drugs. They were really frustrated to see the Liberal government's inaction and unwillingness to act. We would have really liked to see something in the budget for this. However, there is nothing yet again. There is no action on the part of the Liberal government.

I had have the honour of being the agriculture and agrifood critic since 2015 after being the deputy critic from 2012 to 2015. I have been a member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food since 2012. I am the longest serving member of the committee. Anything that has to do with the transfer of farms and fishing businesses is really important. We know that Canada's population is aging and that succession and planning is not going well.

My colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques introduced a bill to address a fiscal injustice in the transfer of farms. Unfortunately, that bill was defeated in the House of Commons before it could be referred to a committee. We think it is disgraceful that the government is doing nothing to help the next generation of farmers in Canada.

I would also like to raise the matter of employment insurance. I represent a rural riding where many people work in seasonal industries. These people depend on EI, but they do not always have access to it, sadly. The budget contained no changes or assistance to give workers access to employment insurance. Currently, 15,000 Canadians are having to contend with the spring gap. This needs to be discussed, because during the campaign, the Liberal Party said it would fix the problem by improving the system and making it so that these people have access to EI.

There have been some minor changes, but the Liberal government has not carried out a comprehensive reform to improve access to employment insurance for workers in the agriculture, fisheries, forestry, and tourism sectors. These sectors are incredibly important to the economy, and we need to make sure we support the people working in them.

The unemployed workers' movement in Quebec claims that the Liberal government has not reformed the employment insurance system. Forty-four percent of Canadians will not be eligible for employment insurance. That is a lot of people, a lot of Canadians and Quebeckers who need reform and change so they can access EI when they need it. This is really important to them.

We really hoped to see some progress on reducing inequality. We know that a special committee was formed to examine pay equity. A report entitled “It's Time to Act” was even published. The government committed to taking action, but not today, tomorrow, or even in a year. It is going to introduce a bill on pay equity to ensure that women and men earn equal pay for work of equal value. It is going to take until the end of 2018. I am trying to understand why the government is dragging its feet on introducing a bill that would truly further equality.

I think everyone agrees that there is still work to be done. It is 2017. The government claims to be feminist, but it needs to walk the talk. This bill needs to pass quickly. We are deeply disappointed to see so many things missing from this budget, especially since the government is always saying that it can do better.

The government should have done better with this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I salute my colleague, the member for Berthier—Maskinongé. She also sits on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. I want to thank her for her hard work.

Let us look at our budget since we have been in power. There are still many things we would like to do, this I know. There is obviously still much to be done.

We increased the Canada child benefit, which was great. We increased the old age security pension, which was also great. Then, we lowered the retirement age from 67 to 65. On the agriculture front, we allocated $250 million to producers and $100 million to processors.

These are some of the positive things we have done in the past two years. There is much to do, of course, but will my colleague at least acknowledge that our government has been very busy? We still have a lot left to do. Does she have anything to say about that?

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

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

This Liberal majority government is halfway through its mandate. Indeed, it has taken some positive steps, and we must recognize that the government has taken action and implemented measures. We agree, and congratulate and thank them for some things. However, they made a lot of promises. It has been two years, and Canadians expected more.

The government really needs to reduce tax inequities. A bill has been introduced to do so. My colleague and I both sit on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food. Everyone who appears before the committee talks about the importance of fixing the unfair tax measures affecting the transfer of family farms. This is one thing the Liberal government could have done. It should have done it. This measure could have been included in the budget. We would have liked to have seen the bill at least make it to committee.

There are a number of measures that we like, but the government must do better. Canadians expect more.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her very thorough listing of measures for which ordinary families are waiting.

It appears the government feels it has a lot of money to spend. It is going to send hundreds of millions of dollars over to China to develop infrastructure around the world, and yet, it cannot seem to find the time, the money, or the heart, to provide pharmacare.

The Liberals say we are all in this together, and yet, they vote against every single private member's bill and motion we table. That includes calls for the right to affordable housing, and the right to affordable medicines, so people do not have to decide whether they are going to pay their rent or buy their medicine.

Could the member speak to the fact there are many working families, and many people trying to get into the middle class who are not benefiting yet from the government?

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians had a lot of high hopes in 2015. They put their trust and confidence in a Liberal government. The Liberals did a great campaign. However, Canadians are starting to realize they are not getting what they thought they would out of the government.

Before being elected, I worked at quite a few jobs to make ends meet. Many constituents in my riding work really hard, and they still do not make ends meet. In Quebec, we have a great system where we have affordable child care. It was a promise this government made, to develop affordable child care. We are not there yet. The Liberals have created no new child care spaces.

On pay equity, they realize they have to act, but they keep pushing it back. Why do women have to wait for pay equity? It does not make sense. The government says it is feminist, but it does not show us. Where is the bill? Why do women have to wait?

Canadians are disappointed and frustrated, and that is why we are voting against Bill C-63.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to speak, on behalf of the people of Fredericton, the riding I have the pleasure to represent, to Bill C-63, the budget implementation act No. 2, which will help us conclude our budgetary measures for 2017.

This bill contains some of the important measures from our government's second budget. These measures are in line with our plan to continue to create jobs, stimulate the economy, and offer Canadians more opportunities to succeed.

In just two short years our government has accomplished a great deal. I hear from people in Fredericton, Oromocto, Maryland, and the Grand Lake region that they like what we are doing. They like the tax cut for the middle class. They like that we have enhanced the Canada child benefit, lowered the eligibility age for the old age pension to 65 from 67, and expanded old age security for low income seniors.

As a result of this government's efforts to ease the burden on our middle class, nine million Canadians are now paying less tax. This tax cut provides about $3.4 billion in annual tax relief to the middle class. Single individuals, who benefit, will see an average tax reduction of $330 every year. Couples, who benefit, will see an average tax reduction of $540. To help pay for this middle-class tax cut, we raised taxes on the wealthiest 1% of Canadians.

We also decreased small business taxes from 11% to 10.5%, and it will drop even further, down to 10% on January 1, and then down again to 9% by 2019.

In the fall economic update, the government announced another enhancement to the Canada child benefit. As a result of this change, an average Canadian family with two children will see about $200 more in the Canada child benefit payments next year and about $500 more in 2019. In New Brunswick, this amounts to 71,000 recipients, with a total investment of $499 million.

The Canada-New Brunswick early learning and child care agreement signed in August will see the federal government invest close to $30 million in improving early learning and child care for pre-school-aged children. By the end of the three year agreement this funding will build a high quality early learning and child care system that New Brunswick families can rely on.

While I am on the subject of supporting families, let me remind the House that Fredericton welcomed more than 500 Syrian refugees, more per capita than any city in Canada.

With an aging population, one-third of which is expected to be over the age of 65 by the 2030s, support for New Brunswick seniors is essential.

During our first year in government, we restored the eligibility age for old age security and the guaranteed income supplement back to 65. We increased the GIS top-up benefit for single seniors by up to $947 per year. We enhanced the Canada pension plan as well.

Budget 2017 further ensures that seniors continue to receive the support they deserve by committing $125.1 million to improve home care for seniors in New Brunswick.

Over the next 11 years, we will invest $3.2 billion to support affordable housing priorities, including initiatives to support safe and independent living for seniors.

Over these 11 years, we will invest an additional $5 billion to establish a national housing fund to help seniors and the most vulnerable.

New Brunswick is the ideal place to rollout bold and transformative approaches that will enable healthy aging. The federal government's $16.6 million investment in the University of New Brunswick's Centre for Healthy Living is an excellent example.

AGE-WELL, Canada's technology and aging network, recently partnered with the New Brunswick Health Research Foundation and Fredericton's York Care Centre to open a new national innovation hub in Fredericton.

AGE-WELL is a network of federally funded centres of excellence that advance innovation in the field of technology and aging in the interest of all Canadians.

The federal government's first health care deal will enable seniors to live longer, healthier lives in their own homes, and reduce financial and administrative burdens on our already over-stretched health care system

As chair of the Atlantic growth strategy subcommittee on innovation, I can assure the House that the federal government is committed to empowering Atlantic Canadian entrepreneurs through innovation. Under the Atlantic growth strategy, the government is taking bold action to create more middle-class jobs, strengthen local communities, and grow the economy. The AGS will enhance and enrich Atlantic Canada's innovation ecosystem.

Recently designated community of the year for startups in Canada, Fredericton has built a well-earned reputation as an entrepreneurial hub and a centre of innovation.

Thanks in part to the University of New Brunswick's essential role, the innovation ecosystem of this city is attracting a larger number of creative entrepreneurs.

In our 150th year of Confederation, as we prepare to once again take on a more active and dynamic role in the world, we are committed to the vision of Canada's new defence policy. To meet this commitment, the federal government is investing in an agile, multi-purpose, combat ready military, operated by highly trained and well-equipped women and men.

Over the next 10 years, defence spending will increase by more than 70%, which means that 5th Canadian Division Support Base Gagetown, Canada's second-largest military base and home of Canada's army, will take on an even bigger role as an economic generator in our local economy.

Earlier this year, I took part in a ribbon cutting ceremony for a new tactical armed patrol vehicle facility, a $26 million investment by this federal government. When we add this $26 million investment to the $38 million investment in critical infrastructure upgrades at Base Gagetown last year, we get a clear picture of just how big an economic generator Base Gagetown is to the Fredericton region and to all of New Brunswick.

This investment in infrastructure is certainly important, but the federal government's investment in the Canadian Armed Forces is even more important.

For example, since January 1, all troops deployed on international operations have been exempt from federal income tax on their CAF salary up to a pay level of lieutenant colonel. This is in addition to existing allowances that compensate for hardship and risk. Other investments include $198.2 million over the next 10 years to implement a new total health and wellness strategy, providing a greater range of health and wellness services and programs.

There is also an increase of $6 million per year to modernize family support programs, such as military family resource centres, and a new 1,200-person Canadian Armed Forces transition group that would help CAF members and their families transition back into CAF following illness or injury, or into civilian life at the conclusion of their military service.

Budget 2017 would continue to improve the lives of veterans by focusing on three important themes: ensuring the financial security for ill and injured veterans, investing in education and career development to help veterans transition into post-military life, and supporting families.

In the 150th anniversary of Canada's Confederation and with Remembrance Day just a few days away, I want to underscore the sacrifices that our women and men in uniform have made in service to our country. We are here because of them, and we will remember them.

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

Mr. Speaker, certainly, on this side, we all agree that we could do no greater activity this coming weekend than to take the time at many different events in our ridings to pay tribute to the men and women in uniform who have fought and died for the very values that we hold dear, so I thank my hon. colleague for that.

In his speech, the member talked about entrepreneurship, innovation, and innovation hubs, which we certainly applaud on this side. I am blessed to have in my riding Communitech, which is an incubator that is going worldwide. I certainly applaud the work the people there do. However, it is not good enough to encourage innovation in these incubators, get people excited about projects they have developed for use by Canadians, and then to have repressive policies placed on them that actually make it hard, or almost impossible for them to actually start the business in which they have invested so much energy.

Recently this summer, on July 18, we had this proposal to change the tax system for small and medium-sized enterprises, and to go after the so-called tax cheats. I have spoken to people in my riding who currently have small businesses, and have created their own enterprises. Even though they are already created, they are actually thinking of moving them south of the border, because of the repressive tax scheme we have here.

If a company that is already here in Canada finds it impossible to continue to operate under this scheme, how in the world would it be possible for a fledgling start-up company, that has not even gotten its own business started yet, to put roots in the ground and establish that business and create jobs here in Canada?

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to being at the cenotaph in downtown Fredericton on Saturday. My thoughts will be with the people in Oromocto at their ceremony, in New Maryland, at Barkers Point, and in the Grand Lake region. My thoughts will also be with those who are holding Remembrance Day ceremonies while I am here in Ottawa this week.

I mentioned that Fredericton was recently named Canada's entrepreneurship start-up capital. We are home to UNB, Canada's most entrepreneurial university, with incubators such as Planet Hatch and Energia, which the government supported in its launch. We have focus clusters on cybersecurity, on green energy, and on smart grid growth.

The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, through the Atlantic growth strategy, is focused on supporting the start-up and life-cycle of entrepreneurs in our community, through supporting them in innovative new processes.

In addition, as I said in my speech, we are lowering the small business tax burden from 11% to 9%. The government will always be there for small businesses right across the country. Finally, after 10 years, small businesses in Atlantic Canada can also count on the government's support.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to share with the member how much I appreciate his city. On 9-11, I was stranded in Fredericton when the towers came down. Fredericton was very kind to all of us who were in an international meeting.

I would like to ask the hon. member a question about global co-operation, work of the federal government on climate change and clean energy. What is troubling to me is there are several things missing from the budget. One is a tiny inkling of a measure to begin bringing down the $5 billion to $6 billion perverse subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, which Canada has committed to bringing down expeditiously.

Second, regrettably, there is nothing in this budget, which is one of the big topics happening at COP22, which is happening as we speak, and that is a just transition while providing capacity building. When Canada signed on to the Paris agreement, it committed to contributing toward capacity building.

Could the member speak to why he thinks the government has not stepped forward to support the provinces in building capacity for those workers who would like to get into the renewable energy sector?

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comments about the generosity of people in Fredericton. It has certainly been my experience over the course of my life.

I have had the pleasure of travelling abroad and witnessing first-hand the impact our contributions have made to the global climate fund through other infrastructure development banks and in places like the South Pacific that are losing coastline.

Canada is a leading contributor in helping with coastal degradation and renewal projects. We are a leading contributor through those multilateral funds. We also have local initiative funds that are putting people on the ground in these developing countries to work to help tackle climate change matters.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the House today about the Liberal government's economic update.

Halfway through their term in office, the Liberals seem to be celebrating, but we think their economic update is cause for concern. What worries us the most is that this Liberal government seems to be hurting the very people it says it wants to help. Are the measures it announced mere smokescreens? That is a perfectly legitimate question and one we should be asking. That is what scandals like the paradise papers seem to suggest.

The government is making the middle class, job creators, farmers, and even our most vulnerable citizens, such as diabetics, pay for the deficit. Meanwhile, it is turning a blind eye to Liberal friends who avoid paying taxes in Canada.

Before telling everyone else how to do things, maybe the Liberal government should get its own house in order. A Fraser Institute report showed that 81% of middle-class families have been paying more tax during the Liberals' two years in office than they were paying under the former Conservative government at the end of its term in office. On average, each family is paying $840 more per year.

The Liberals answer by telling us not to worry, because the economy is growing. We know that the economy is growing right now despite the Liberals, not because of them. The measures being taken by the Liberal government now will not really have an effect until a few years from now, and the positive growth we are seeing is a direct result of our Conservative measures taken by the previous Canadian government.

The Minister of Finance also confirmed that the Liberals will borrow $20 billion this year to pay for their spending spree. This is on top of the $25 billion they borrowed in the first year of this government's mandate. They answer by telling us again not to worry and that the budget will magically balance itself, but no one knows when. The truth is that by announcing a $20 billion deficit again this year, the Liberals are breaking another election promise they had made, which was to not exceed a $10 billion deficit in the first two years, and that is already a huge amount, all things considered. Now it is going to be double that for each year.

That is not all. The government broke a second promise because the Prime Minister promised to balance the budget by 2019. Now, we have learned that he has no plan to ever balance the budget. If I understand the Liberals' message correctly, that means that the Minister of Finance is racking up debt twice as quickly as planned and that the deficit will continue to steadily grow for several more years. There is no escaping it. Someone will have to pay the bill at one point or another. That someone will be our children and grandchildren and all middle-class Canadians.

By way of evidence, first, the Liberals eliminated the universal child care benefit. Then, they did away with the children's fitness tax credit and the children's arts tax credit. They also eliminated the post-secondary education and textbook tax credit, not to mention the fact that they did away with income splitting as soon as they took office. That is not all. Next, they cancelled plans to reduce the small business tax rate and employment insurance contributions, while increasing payroll taxes and creating a new carbon tax.

That is still not all. We must not forget that the Liberals eliminated income splitting; halved the TFSA contribution limit; scrapped the public transit tax credit, even though they claim to be a green government; introduced an Uber tax; and raised taxes on beer, wine, and spirits. Finally they tried to impose a tax on health and dental benefits and even on employee discounts for retail and restaurant workers, who need a bite to eat and are trying to save a few dollars on each meal at the end of their shift. Now that is really meanspirited.

The Liberal government's strategy involves trying to smother the flames of its out-of-control spending by asking the middle class to come to the rescue.

The problem with this Liberal government is that it seems to be completely out of touch with Canadians. It seems to belong to a different class, the small percentage of wealthy people. This leads it to make decisions that make no sense to most Canadians who are living from paycheque to paycheque. When these Canadians found out that the Prime Minister and his family spent their vacation on a private island at the enormous cost of $215,000 and that taxpayers would have to foot the bill, no one could understand it. How can the Prime Minister believe that he acted responsibly? How could he have made that decision without seeing that it was problematic, contradictory, and hypocritical? How can he be concerned about the growing tax burden on Canadian families when the measures that have been put in place do not affect his family fortune?

Maybe the Liberal government needs to be reminded that the interest on the debt exceeds $15 billion per year. I am not talking about the deficit; I am talking about the interest on the debt. Those billions are gone and will never be invested. Increasing the deficit by $50 billion will not help us deal with the debt, which has grown that much in just two years. The $15 billion annual interest on the debt could pay for three tunnels between Quebec City and Lévis, three Champlain bridges, or 187,500 kilometres of repaired roads, which is the equivalent of 12 trips across Canada and back from coast to coast. It could pay for 40 huge multi-purpose arenas, four major hydroelectric dams, 500,000 daycare spaces, 11,500 affordable housing units, 2,500 MRI machines in hospitals, 75 F-18 fighter jets, 1,625 water treatment plants on reserves, or 300 rail bypasses for places like Lac-Mégantic. As an aside, we are still waiting for the results of that study.

The Liberals will reply that they created the Canada child benefit, but that benefit, which gives families a maximum of $560, is a smoke screen. Indeed, for every $560 a family receives, it will have to write off its share of the deficit. It will simply be added back into the line of credit. This year alone, after each family receives its Canada child benefit, it will still have to pay another $3,547.90 sooner or later to cover the cost of the deficit. What the Liberal government gives with one hand, it takes back with the other. All they are doing is leaving this debt to future generations.

These reminders and new perspectives might give the Liberals some idea of the repercussions of their out-of-control spending on Canadians. What we need, and what the Conservative government would deliver, is sound management of public finances, lower taxes, greater justice for victims, and a more affordable lifestyle for all Canadians. This must begin with a crackdown on tax avoidance and tax evasion, which does not appear to be one of this Liberal government's priorities, as we learned this week, based on how it is protecting the Liberal Party bagman. This close friend of the Prime Minister is suspected of hiding money in tax havens, as shown by investigations by several internationally recognized media venues.

Unfortunately, we are now dangerously on the wrong track with this other update and this other budget tabled in 2017.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are many parts of the member's speech that I take some exception to. I sat in opposition and saw a Harper government do absolutely nothing to deal with issues such as tax avoidance, or anything of that nature. I sat in opposition when the Harper government allowed the debt to grow to $160 billion. We have seen so much progress within two years of this administration, far more than we saw in 10 years of the Harper government.

The member talks about tax fairness. What did the Conservative members opposite do when it came to increasing the taxes of Canada's wealthiest? They voted against it. What did they do when it came to the tax break for Canada's middle class? They voted against it. What did they do on the Canada child benefit enhancement? They voted against it. What did they do on the guaranteed income supplement? They voted against it.

Why is their voting record so bad when it comes to representing real Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, it really seems as though the hon. member on the other side of the House missed the point of my speech. I wonder if he even bothered to listen to what I said.

He is going after the former government, but his government is the one that is hypocritical with respect to our current fiscal situation. This government has a minister who was found guilty of a conflict of interest by the Ethics Commissioner. This government's Prime Minister went to a private island to spend taxpayer money. This government cancelled income splitting for families, which allowed them to save on taxes. This government is irresponsibly putting our families, children, and grandchildren in debt, without any plan to return to a balanced budget.

The government's budget is, quite simply, mind-boggling. The people watching right now know better. They understand what is going on. We cannot wait to change sides in the House.

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

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

I would like to ask him specifically about the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. In this budget implementation act, the government is taking a half a billion dollars and giving it to wealthy bankers to build infrastructure in Asia, not in Canada. We have heard examples of the government taking away money from diabetics. We have heard of it taking away money from people with autism. It has taken money away from people suffering from mental health conditions, and it is giving money away to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.

I want to talk about priorities and get the member to talk about the priorities of his constituents. When he was campaigning, did anyone say, “Please give away a half a billion dollars to an infrastructure bank in Asia instead of taking care of Canadians' interests first”?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to my colleague for his highly relevant question. I would have liked to talk about the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the Canada infrastructure bank, which the government is in the process of setting up, but I had only 10 minutes to speak.

It makes absolutely no sense that this government is taking money from Canadians and investing it in an Asian Infrastructure Bank that will develop infrastructure located not in Canada, but on the other side of the ocean. This infrastructure is not even in our own country.

Since the members on the other side of the aisle dispute our extremely severe, yet legitimate, criticism of their budget, I must also talk about the credits and money this government is taking away from our most vulnerable citizens, like diabetics. This government is clawing back money that these people are entitled to, money that helps them provide for their needs, and using it to fund its own reckless, out-of-control spending.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Pursuant to Standing Order 69.1, the first question is on clause 48 in relation to agricultural and fisheries co-operatives.

As this is the first time the Chair will put the question on groups of clauses separately, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 69.1, I would like to explain that given the absence of any detailed instructions in the Standing Orders, I intend to follow a procedure similar to that outlined in Standing Order 76.1(8) for the putting of the question on amendments at report stage, that is, the calling in of members and the taking of any recorded division requested in relation to any group of clauses being deferred until all of the questions have been put.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this clause?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of this clause will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on this clause stands deferred.

The next question is on clauses 139 and 163 in relation to the GST/HST rebate applications by public service bodies.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt these clauses?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the clauses will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion, the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on these clauses stands deferred.

The next question is on clauses 165 to 168 in relation to beer made from concentrate.

Is the pleasure of the House to adopt these clauses?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of these clauses will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The recorded division on these clauses stands deferred.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The next question is on clause 261 in relation to discharge of debt.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this clause?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of this clause will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion, the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on this clause stands deferred.

The next question is on the remaining elements of the bill.

Is the pleasure of the House to adopt all the remaining elements of the bill?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of all the remaining elements of the bill will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The recorded division on all the remaining elements of the bill stands deferred.