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

[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.