Bill C-74 (Historical)

Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures

Part 1 implements certain income tax measures proposed or referenced in the February 27,2018 budget by
(a) ensuring appropriate tax treatment of amounts received under the Veterans Well-being Act;
(b) exempting from income amounts received under the Memorial Grant for First Responders;
(c) lowering the small business tax rate and making consequential adjustments to the dividend gross-up factor and dividend tax credit;
(d) reducing the business limit for the small business deduction based on passive income and restricting access to dividend refunds on the payment of eligible dividends;
(e) preventing the avoidance of tax through income sprinkling arrangements;
(f) removing the risk score requirement and increasing the level of income that can be deducted for Canadian armed forces personnel and police officers serving on designated international missions;
(g) introducing the Canada Workers Benefit;
(h) expanding the medical expense tax credit to recognize expenses incurred in respect of an animal specially trained to perform tasks for a patient with a severe mental impairment;
(i) indexing the Canada Child Benefit as of July 2018;
(j) extending, for one year, the mineral exploration tax credit for flow-through share investors;
(k) extending, by five years, the ability of a qualifying family member to be the plan holder of an individual’s Registered Disability Savings Plan;
(l) allowing transfers of property from charities to municipalities to be considered as qualifying expenditures for the purposes of reducing revocation tax;
(m) ensuring that appropriate taxpayers are eligible for the Canada Child Benefit and that information related to the Canada Child Benefit can be shared with provinces and territories for certain purposes; and
(n) extending, by five years, eligibility for Class 43.‍2.
Part 2 implements certain excise measures proposed in the February 27,2018 budget by
(a) advancing the existing inflationary adjustments for excise duty rates on tobacco products to occur on an annual basis rather than every five years; and
(b) increasing excise duty rates on tobacco products to account for inflation since the last inflationary adjustment in 2014 and by an additional $1 per carton of 200 cigarettes, along with corresponding increases to the excise duty rates on other tobacco products.
Part 3 implements a new federal excise duty framework for cannabis products proposed in the February 27,2018 budget by
(a) requiring that cannabis cultivators and manufacturers obtain a cannabis licence from the Canada Revenue Agency;
(b) requiring that all cannabis products that are removed from the premises of a cannabis licensee to be entered into the Canadian market for retail sale be affixed with an excise stamp;
(c) imposing excise duties on cannabis products to be paid by cannabis licensees;
(d) providing for administration and enforcement rules related to the excise duty framework;
(e) providing the Governor in Council with authority to provide for an additional excise duty in respect of provinces and territories that enter into a coordinated cannabis taxation agreement with Canada; and
(f) making related amendments to other legislative texts, including ensuring that any sales of cannabis products that would otherwise be considered as basic groceries are subject to the GST/HST in the same way as sales of other types of cannabis products.
Part 4 amends the Pension Act to authorize the Minister of Veterans Affairs to waive, in certain cases, the requirement for an application for an award under that Act.
It also amends the Veterans Well-being Act to, among other things,
(a) replace the earnings loss benefit, career impact allowance, supplementary retirement benefit and retirement income security benefit with the income replacement benefit;
(b) replace the disability award with pain and suffering compensation; and
(c) create additional pain and suffering compensation.
Finally, it makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Part 5 enacts the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act and makes the Fuel Charge Regulations.
Part 1 of that Act sets out the regime for a charge on fossil fuels. The fuel charge regime provides that a charge applies, at rates set out in Schedule 2 to that Act, to fuels that are produced, delivered or used in a listed province, brought into a listed province from another place in Canada, or imported into Canada at a location in a listed province. The fuel charge regime also provides relief from the fuel charge, through rebate and exemption certificate mechanisms, in certain circumstances. The fuel charge regime also sets out the registration requirements for persons that carry out certain activities relating to fuels subject to the charge. Part 1 of that Act also contains administrative provisions and enforcement provisions, including penalties, offences and collection provisions. Part 1 of that Act also sets out a mechanism for distributing revenues from the fuel charge. Part 1 of that Act also provides the Governor in Council with authority to make regulations for purposes of that Part, including the authority to determine which province, territory or area is a listed province for purpose of that Part.
Part 2 of that Act sets out the regime for pricing industrial greenhouse gas emissions. The industrial emissions pricing regime requires the registration of any facility that is located in a province or area that is set out in Part 2 of Schedule 1 to that Act and that either meets criteria specified by regulation or voluntarily joins the regime. The industrial emissions pricing regime requires compliance reporting with respect to any facility that is covered by the regime and the provision of compensation for any amount of a greenhouse gas that the facility emits above the applicable emissions limit during a compliance period. Part 2 of that Act also sets out an information gathering regime, administrative powers, duties and functions, enforcement tools, offences and related penalties, and a mechanism for distributing revenues from the industrial emissions pricing regime. Part 2 of that Act also provides the Governor in Council with the authority to make regulations for the purposes of that Part and the authority to make orders that amend Part 2 of Schedule 1 by adding, deleting or amending the name of a province or the description of an area.
Part 3 of that Act authorizes the Governor in Council to make regulations that provide for the application of provincial laws concerning greenhouse gas emissions to works, undertakings, lands and waters under federal jurisdiction.
Part 4 of that Act requires the Minister of the Environment to prepare an annual report on the administration of the Act and to cause it to be tabled in each House of Parliament.
Part 6 amends several Acts in order to implement various measures.
Division 1 of Part 6 amends the Financial Administration Act to establish the office of the Chief Information Officer of Canada and to provide that the President of the Treasury Board is responsible for the coordination of that Officer’s activities with those of the other deputy heads of the Treasury Board Secretariat. It also amends the Act to ensure Crown corporations with no borrowing authority are able to continue to enter into leases and to specify that leases are not considered to be transactions to borrow money for the purposes of Crown corporations’ statutory borrowing limits.
Division 2 of Part 6 amends the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act in order to modernize and enhance the Canadian deposit insurance framework to ensure it continues to meet its objectives, including financial stability.
Division 3 of Part 6 amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to renew Fiscal Equalization Payments to the provinces and Territorial Formula Financing Payments to the territories for a five-year period beginning on April 1,2019 and ending on March 31,2024, and to authorize annual transition payments of $1,270,000 to Yukon and $1,744,000 to the Northwest Territories for that period. It also amends the Act to allow Canada Health Transfer deductions to be reimbursed when provinces and territories have taken the steps necessary to eliminate extra-billing and user fees in the delivery of public health care.
Division 4 of Part 6 amends the Bank of Canada Act to ensure that the Bank of Canada may continue to buy and sell securities issued or guaranteed by the government of the United Kingdom if that country ceases to be a member state of the European Union.
Division 5 of Part 6 amends the Currency Act to expand the objectives of the Exchange Fund Account to include providing a source of liquidity for the government of Canada. It also amends that Act to authorize the payment of funds from the Exchange Fund Account into the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
Division 6 of Part 6 amends the Bank of Canada Act to require the Bank of Canada to make adequate arrangements for the removal from circulation in Canada of its bank notes that are worn or mutilated or that are the subject of an order made under paragraph 9(1)‍(b) of the Currency Act. It also amends the Currency Act to provide, among other things, that
(a) bank notes are current if they are issued under the authority of the Bank of Canada Act;
(b) the Governor in Council may, by order, call in certain bank notes; and
(c) bank notes that are called in by order are not current.
Division 7 of Part 6 amends the Payment Clearing and Settlement Act in order to implement a framework for resolution of clearing and settlement systems and clearing houses, and to protect information related to oversight, by the Bank of Canada, of clearing and settlement systems.
Division 8 of Part 6 amends the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act to, among other things,
(a) create the position of Vice-chairperson of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal;
(b) provide that former permanent members of the Tribunal may be re-appointed to one further term as a permanent member; and
(c) clarify the rules concerning the interim replacement of the Chairperson of the Tribunal and provide for the interim replacement of the Vice-chairperson of the Tribunal.
Division 9 of Part 6 amends the Canadian High Arctic Research Station Act to, among other things, provide that the Canadian High Arctic Research Station is to be considered an agent corporation for the purpose of the transfer of the administration of federal real property and federal immovables under the Federal Real Property and Federal Immovables Act. It also provides that the Order entitled Game Declared in Danger of Becoming Extinct is deemed to have continued in force and to have continued to apply in Nunavut, as of April 1,2014.
Division 10 of Part 6 amends the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Act in order to separate the roles of President of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Chairperson of the Governing Council, to merge the responsibility to establish policies and to limit delegation of certain Governing Council powers, duties and functions to its members or committees or to the President.
Division 11 of Part 6 amends the Red Tape Reduction Act to permit an administrative burden imposed by regulations to be offset by the reduction of another administrative burden imposed by another jurisdiction if the reduction is the result of regulatory cooperation agreements.
Division 12 of Part 6 provides for the transfer of certain employees and disclosure of information to the Communications Security Establishment to improve cyber security.
Division 13 of Part 6 amends the Department of Employment and Social Development Act to provide the Minister of Employment and Social Development with legislative authority respecting service delivery to the public and to make related amendments to Parts 4 and 6 of that Act.
Division 14 of Part 6 amends the Employment Insurance Act to modify the treatment of earnings received by claimants while they are in receipt of benefits.
Division 15 of Part 6 amends the Judges Act to authorize the salaries for the following new judges, namely, six judges for the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, one judge for the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, 39 judges for the unified family courts (as of April 1,2019), one judge for the Federal Court and a new Associate Chief Justice for the Federal Court. This division also makes consequential amendments to the Federal Courts Act.
Division 16 of Part 6 amends certain Acts governing federal financial institutions and related Acts to, among other things,
(a) extend the scope of activities related to financial services in which federal financial institutions may engage, including activities related to financial technology, as well as modernize certain provisions applicable to information processing and information technology activities;
(b) permit life companies, fraternal benefit societies and insurance holding companies to make long-term investments in permitted infrastructure entities to obtain predictable returns under the Insurance Companies Act;
(c) provide prudentially regulated deposit-taking institutions, such as credit unions, with the ability to use generic bank terms under the Bank Act, subject to disclosure requirements, as well as provide the Superintendent of Financial Institutions with additional enforcement tools under the Bank Act and the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act, and clarify existing provisions of the Bank Act; and
(d) modify sunset provisions in certain Acts governing federal financial institutions to extend by five years, after the day on which this Act receives royal assent, the period during which those institutions may carry on business.
Division 17 of Part 6 amends the Western Economic Diversification Act to remove the requirement of the Governor in Council’s approval for the Minister of Western Economic Diversification to enter into an agreement with the government of a province, or with a provincial agency, respecting the exercise of the Minister’s powers and the carrying out of the Minister’s duties and functions.
Division 18 of Part 6 amends the Parliament of Canada Act to give each House of Parliament the power to make regulations related to maternity and parental arrangements for its own members.
Division 19 of Part 6 amends the Canada Pension Plan to, among other things,
(a) eliminate age-based restrictions on the survivor’s pension;
(b) fix the amount of the death benefit at $2,500;
(c) provide a benefit to disabled retirement pension beneficiaries under the age of 65;
(d) protect retirement and survivor’s pension amounts under the additional Canada Pension Plan for individuals who are disabled;
(e) protect benefit amounts under the additional Canada Pension Plan for parents with lower earnings during child-rearing years;
(f) maintain portability between the Canada Pension Plan and the Act respecting the Québec Pension Plan; and
(g) authorize the making of regulations to support the sustainability of the additional Canada Pension Plan.
Division 20 of Part 6 amends the Criminal Code to establish a remediation agreement regime. Under this regime, the prosecutor may negotiate a remediation agreement with an organization that is alleged to have committed an offence of an economic character referred to in the schedule to Part XXII.‍1 of that Act and the proceedings related to that offence are stayed if the organization complies with the terms of the agreement.

Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague. I am very pleased that he is shining a spotlight on the Liberal government's lack of transparency. Let us think back to the election platform. I am not the one who originally said that written words are more powerful than spoken words. It is in black and white that the Liberals said they wanted to do things differently and to be transparent. Being transparent when we want to do things differently means opening the books. They state clearly in their election platform. However, every time we receive a file, it is redacted. We cannot get the whole truth.

We learned today that the government redacted or kept secret correspondence concerning all the questions we asked about the Aga Khan's travel. More than 80% of the hundreds of pages of correspondence exchanged by representatives of the Aga Kahn during the three months preceding the meetings between the Prime Minister and the super-rich leader were redacted. That is the case for many files. We highlighted certain files.

They say they want to do things differently, but I would just like to point one thing out. I think they are obsessed with Mr. Harper, which is a compliment to him. Unlike them, however, Mr. Harper said what he was going to do and did what he said he would, even if people did not like it. The Liberals said they would do things differently, but they are actually doing things worse than us. That is a shame, because that is the line they fed people. They told people to vote for them, but now we know it was all a charade.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, during question period today, my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot asked a question about the spring gap. The story she told us was so sad. In the Maritimes, people are going to church to pray for a miracle because they have no more money to feed their families. There is nothing about employment insurance in this budget, nor is there anything about it in Bill C-74.

Does my colleague think that, instead of waiting and cutting taxes for the rich, the federal government should have done something about the employment insurance spring gap?

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. In the past we were accused of not working for workers. In my riding I recently held a town hall on the spring gap and employment insurance. Indeed, we have hit a wall. It is becoming increasingly urgent to tackle this wall. We have to reform the system or see the situation in a different way. It is not just in New Brunswick that people go through the spring gap or end up going to the churches. It is in small communities like mine that people survive on seasonal employment. We have to look at this closely and work together to find a tangible way to counter the effect of the spring gap. That is extremely important. In my riding alone, there is a suicide prevention centre. The centre is getting a growing number of calls from people who are financially strapped. The employment rate varies from region to region. In the Quebec City region, the unemployment rate is 5%, which is very low, but people there get only 14 weeks of employment insurance. The rest of the time they end up in the spring gap, and that is a problem for many people and families in my riding.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to speak today to Bill C-74. Once again, as with many speeches I have given in this place, I rise with a bit of a sense of irony.

Budget implementation bills are often complex because they implement the budget and execute measures in a number of areas of law and regulatory action, so they tend to number in the hundreds of pages. My friends in the Liberal Party used to decry the use of omnibus legislation, but here we are with Bill C-74, once again an omnibus bill subject to time allocation. These are “assaults on democracy” in the words of my Liberal friends when they were in opposition, and now they are statecraft for getting things done in the chamber. They are becoming very adept at it, setting records in the use of time allocation per day.

Nonetheless, at this report stage debate I am going to reiterate some of the concerns I have with the budget. They are fundamental economic concerns that all Canadians should share.

I am going to highlight one quote from the Minister of Finance, taken from near the end of his budget speech, which we all listened to here. In many ways it typifies the problems with the Liberal Party and its approach to governing and its reckless abuse of the public purse. Near the end of his speech the finance minister said, “With this budget, we are doubling down on our plan to invest in the middle class and in people working hard to join it.”

Most Canadians, even those who do not follow politics that much, have heard that trope many times, that platitude that “we're here for the middle class and those working hard to join it”. Today in debate the Minister of Environment almost accidentally kept spouting that phrase. It is something rote in their learning.

The Fraser Institute has confirmed that most Canadians have seen less under the Liberal government. They have seen tax increases despite some of the changes made to the child care benefit. If we look at the total tax burden on Canadians, the elimination of tax credits for young people in sports and music, the elimination of the transit tax credit, higher income taxes, changes to the tax treatment of dividends, the carbon tax, EI and payroll taxes, we see that the Liberals have raised taxes dozens of times indirectly or directly. We even joke that they tax our Saturday night, because there is now an automatic tax on wine, spirits, and beer, and they are taxing Uber rides home. The Liberals are running out of things to tax. That is why most Canadians are actually not better off under the Liberals. They are far worse off.

What is troubling about the minister's quote is his use of the word “invest”. That is his euphemism for spending. The word “invest” appeared 456 times in the minister's budget speech and document. Why should that concern Canadians? It should because it means there are 456 areas within the scope of government where the Liberals are increasing spending.

The rate of increased government spending is absolutely reckless, a 20% increase in spending in just over two years, accounting for $58 billion in new money. As the Auditor General has shown through his reports and from reports by Finance Canada, very little of that actually went to infrastructure. Are Canadians 20% better off?

When the government is running huge deficits in the midst of a recession, do we see logic to any of this increased spending? That number does not even reflect this week. This week we bought a pipeline. That is another $4.5 billion.

We are approaching a level where the Liberal government, which is just past half of its mandate, has put a more than 20% increase in spending by the public purse.

In my last speech I turned around the minister's phrase, “We're going to double down on investing.” Double down on spending is what he was saying. I joked about the Liberal double-double. Most Canadians love their double-double, cream and sugar, but the Liberal double-double is doubling the tax burden and doubling deficits.

We remember the Prime Minister assuring Canadians that he was going to run a deficit as prime minister, but never more than $10 billion. It was a Liberal double-double: two years of $20-billion deficits while raising taxes. Therefore, Liberals are bringing in more revenue by taking more from Canadians, small businesses, entrepreneurs, households, and seniors, and yet they are even outstripping what they are bringing in. It is truly astounding.

Now we can factor in their decisions with respect to the resource economy and being forced to buy an asset because they cannot find private sector buyers. Confidence in the Canadian economy and the ability to get projects done here is shrinking, so the government now feels that it should replace the private sector. That has put another $4.5-billion burden on taxpayers.

What was not in the budget, despite all the purported investments—remember I said that he used the term “invest” more than 400 times—was investment, or spending, or provision made for NAFTA or U.S. trade changes. There was zero money allocated for that. Most Canadians, when they look at budgets, forecasting, or spending, have a rainy-day fund in case something goes bad or there is an unexpected problem. The government knew there were risks related to NAFTA, it knew there were risks related to steel and aluminum tariffs, and yet it allocated zero for that risk.

We have already seen the impact of the Prime Minister's inability to get a deal on softwood and the tariffs applied there now. Tonight, in a few hours, we are going to see tariffs applied on steel and aluminum. It does not have to be that way. NAFTA and provision for the NAFTA negotiations were mentioned on a couple of pages in the budget document, but there is no actual plan for a contingency. For a government that spends the money of Canadians so cavalierly, to have allocated zero to risks associated with trade is troubling. We are seeing that play out today.

The Conservatives have tried to work very closely with the government on NAFTA. In 10 months or so, I have asked maybe six or seven questions on the most fundamental economic agreement for Canada. In fact, I have praised the minister, particularly his efforts in January with respect to auto parts, but the Team Canada approach means that the Liberals have to listen to the team that actually negotiated the NAFTA trade agreement and was able to secure deals that respected supply managed farms and small businesses that kept us competitive. The very team that wants to help is being ignored, particularly when it comes to linking trade and security, which both Democrats and Republicans want to do. In this budget, there is zero provided for a response to the tariffs that will be setting in on our steel and aluminum industries. It was terrible that the Prime Minister went to these communities and insinuated that he had dealt with it. He went on a victory tour, and here we are with no deal.

I also raise the fact that Liberals are rushing through this budget implementation bill when the very things they are doing in it are not complete yet. Of course, the bill is full of tax increases, and one of the special ones the Prime Minister is looking at is in part 3 of this bill, the excise tax provisions for cannabis. That really seems to be the only legislative agenda the Liberals want to keep on track: the legalization of marijuana. In this bill, they are already planning the excise tax regime. The only problem is that marijuana is not yet legal. In fact, the Senate has been proposing changes with respect to home-grown cannabis. In this omnibus bill that the Liberals are rushing through with time allocation, there are provisions on other related legislation that has not even passed yet.

Why the rush, particularly when the Senate is dealing with it and we have heard concerns from chiefs of police and pediatricians with the Canadian Medical Association? With the current government, it is a matter of damn the torpedoes: use time allocation and omnibus bills to get it done. The key thing is that when they say they are going to invest, Canadians had better get a hold of their wallets.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Madam Speaker, the member talked about the spending issue. I recall back in 2008 when spending by the federal government at the time was rising at an exponential rate. Conservatives will use the excuse that they were spending because the recession was settling in, but the spending took place before signs of the recession started settling in.

The member talked about the $4.5 billion for the Trans Mountain pipeline as a government investment in people. A few decades ago, the Government of Canada decided to invest to save the Hibernia project off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador. It turns out that it saved the whole project, which has returned dividends since then, as it is now turning a healthy profit. That was done by a Conservative government. I wonder if he thinks that was a bad investment.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, my friend is one of my favourite Newfoundland and Labrador MPs. He speaks up for the things he believes in, and I respect that.

He seems to suggest that the recession was a big surprise in 2008-09 as there was a global banking failure and the entire global community was working on a response. The key distinction is when a deficit was run in the midst of the biggest global meltdown since the 1930s, Prime Minister Harper had a plan to get out of deficit. The current Prime Minister is running a deficit that is double what he promised Canadians. Now his own department has said that it will not be balanced by 2019; it will be more like 2030. Therefore, there is no plan.

The difference between the $4.5 billion spent this week to buy a 60-year-old pipeline is that the Prime Minister created this issue. I think my friend from Newfoundland will appreciate this joke when I use it. The Prime Minister killed northern gateway arbitrarily, passed laws that killed energy east, and Trans Mountain is on the brink. The Prime Minister is a serial pipeline killer, and someone needs to stop him.

The difference with Hibernia is that there was not a private sector player at the time when there was distress to a large investment that would help a region. They are very different circumstances. The Prime Minister is now spending our money to get out of a problem he created.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened closely to the member's speech, in particular, the portions on trade. Given the realities of today and where we find ourselves, I am wondering why more provisions were not in place in the budget to assure that Canada would be in a strong position. Given the tariffs we were facing, and now the new auto tariffs that are coming forward at us, and certainly the lack of a softwood lumber agreement, there are a lot of Liberal failures on the trade file.

Today I hope the Conservatives and my colleague will agree with the NDP that we need this permanent exemption. It is critical to this sector to ensure its viability, and also the protection of jobs in our country.

I am wondering if he could speak a little further to the reflection that there were no plans B, C, D, E or F, which is quite necessary, given our current relationship with the U.S., and that is not reflected because there is absolutely no money in the budget to ensure those industries are protected.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the intervention from the NDP's trade critic. I have enjoyed appearing on the odd panel with her over time as we both try and speak on the issue. She knows that both parties have tried to work as team Canada, where the time permits and where we can. It is troubling. She is right. There was no plan B contained in the budget. For a budget that mentions investing and spending 456 times, there was zero allocated for risks associated to steel, aluminum, or NAFTA in general. That was not a prudent plan when we knew there were risks associated with large swaths of the economy.

As the member will know, the other parties have been trying to also supplement the government's efforts. In February, I was with the member for Prince Albert down in Washington talking about trade, security, and North American defence. All of these things are linked in the United States. Therefore, I hope we can use this setback today as a time to really leverage the strength of the team, leverage the ability to talk about that security partnership with people who have been a part of it, and to talk about the NAFTA trade agreement with the party that created it.

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to stand in the House today and debate Bill C-74, the budget implementation act. We see yet again that the government really cannot help itself.

I am concerned, like many other Canadians, about the direction the government is taking our country. Another year goes by of mismanagement of taxpayer money. The Liberals' fiscal policy is complete disregard for the businesses and hard-working families across the country. This budget represents big government and little incentive for businessmen and women to set up a shop or continue operating in Canada. I cannot believe how the Liberals expect our economy to grow when they are creating less competition and scaring businesses out of our country.

I would like to focus on a few key points.

The first is that the economy is slowing down. This is a result of the cost of doing business in the country continuing to rise. There is no plan for Canada to become competitive again. Never has the government spent so much and achieved so little.

Second, the government does not, by any stretch of the imagination, have a revenue problem; it has a a spending problem. The Liberals just cannot seem to put the taxpayer credit card away, and it is getting out of control.

Third, there is no focus on the debt. The government continues to run a massive deficit and we are stuck in the same cycle of growing debt and deficit. Canadians know this is irresponsible.

The government is failing Canadians. Let us look at the facts.

Canada started the new fiscal year on April 1 with a trillion dollars of market debt. This is the total debt upon which the Government of Canada pays interest. The net debt is $669 billion. This debt continues to grow by the hour, leaving future generations to foot the bill. Canada is hurting right now. Each Canadian's share in the national debt is over $17,000 and growing by the minute. This is not sustainable. We need to get Canada back on track. The Liberals have broken their deficit promise. The Prime Minister now claims the debt will keep growing but more slowly than the economy. The Prime Minister says the debt-to-GDP ratio will fall, but the record shows otherwise. In his first three years in power, the Prime Minister will add $60 billion to the national debt.

We cannot believe the government. To meet its new fiscal promise, the 2018 budget claimed that direct program spending would only grow by 1.6% per year for the next five years, when the record so far has been showing 5.6% per year, which is three times higher than the Prime Minister now promises. It seems like every week the Liberals have new spending ideas. I cannot stress this enough. This cycle is not sustainable.

On top of that, the government's current fiscal promise requires that there be no additional spending in next year's pre-election budget. However, dollar signs are already dancing in the Liberals' heads. They have set up a panel to design a new national pharmacare program, which the PBO costed out at $19 billion per year, enough to double the deficit.

The same taxpayers, who will pay these costs on their regular taxes, have their own bills to pay, their own financial needs and stresses. In 2017, Canadian households had a record $1.74 of debt for every dollar of disposable income.

As interest rates rise over the next three years, debt payments will consume a larger share of household income. This will be a higher rate than at any time in the last three decades, costing a family with a net income $100,000 about $2,000 more than they were paying last year.

The PBO report on the subject last year said, “we are projecting that the household sector will become increasingly vulnerable to negative shocks.” The government is deepening the problem. As households are shocked with higher interest on their credits cards and mortgages, their taxes will need to rise to pay a one-third or $8 billion increase in federal government debt interest. Canadians need a government that can provide them with tax cuts, not hikes, that feed their out-of-control spending.

Canadians know how to spend their own hard-earned money better than the Liberal government does. Last year, Canada's net debt reached an all-time high of $670 billion or $47,612 per Canadian family. Where will the Liberals draw the line?

We have seen increases in taxes on businesses, the ending of income sprinkling, the ending of incoming splitting, and young professionals leaving our country to operate their businesses anywhere else but in Canada. The natural resources industry is facing major regulations and discouragement. Businesses are really feeling the pinch, and that is just the tip of the iceberg.

The higher taxes that hit the middle class since the Liberals came to power affect 81% of middle-income Canadians. The average income tax increase for middle-income families is $840 since the liberal government came into power.

We have seen higher Canada pension plan premiums, up to $2,200 per household, as well as a national carbon price, up to $2,500 per household. The Liberal government cancelled the family tax cut, up to $2,000 per household. On top of that, it cancelled the arts and fitness tax credit, up to $225 per child. It also cancelled the education and textbook tax credit, which was up to $560 per student. It has also created higher employment insurance premiums, up to $85 per worker.

According to the Statistics Canada, the government's spending has been increasing at an annual rate of about 6.5% to 7% per year. This is three times the combined rate of inflation and population growth. This has to stop. The Canadian government is supported by taxpayers. The Liberals need to respect the taxpayers and think about putting the credit card away.

The long and the short of the issue is simple. The government has failed on the economy and the massive debt with nothing to show for it. We continue to see plummeting investment, with businesses and jobs leaving Canada. There is a continuation of higher taxes and rising cost of living for Canadian middle class. Canadians are uncertain about what these changes mean for them. Businesses are struggling to compete. The United States wants to take our jobs and the Prime Minister is allowing it.

The government needs to get its spending under control and do what is right for the taxpayers who foot the bill.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to bring up an issue, although the member did not bring up in his speech, that I think is of concern to a lot of us in the House, and that is the lack of any investment to protect good media jobs and local news in our communities. I represent five small municipalities that all have small papers. They work very hard to keep those papers going.

We are seeing a crisis in the media sector across the country where jobs are being threatened. However, there really does not seem to be any relief on the horizon from the Liberal government. That is certainly reflected in the budget bill. There is absolutely nothing in it to represent the imminent danger these workers are facing across our country.

Jerry Dias, the national president of Unifor, said “I’m disappointed that this budget provides no aid for local news, which is in imminent danger.” He also said, “Canadian newsrooms have shrunk by at least 30% in the last four years, with more newspaper closures and journalist layoffs expected to come, so solutions are needed now.”

I wonder if the member agrees with me that local media is critical for all our constituents, certainly for the communities we represent, and that there should be a reflection of that in the budget.

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is just the beginning of the job-cutting situation. The government just keeps spending.

Government spending is out of control. Taxes are going higher. Middle-class families are hurting. On top of that, what is going on south of the country, with 25% tax on steel and 10% tax on other products, is going to affect them even more.

We have been talking, back and forth, about the government needing to do something. The last six months or a year, we knew where it was going with NAFTA. The government showed no interest in it. In the last budget, there was nothing to protect jobs, and there was nothing for tax relief for middle-class families.

I absolutely agree with the hon. member that the government shows no incentive to work on this issue.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the work he does in his riding and here in this place. We certainly appreciate his very significant contribution as a member of Parliament.

I want to ask for his perspective on this whole issue of the government buying out pipelines. We have seen the failure of pipeline projects under the current government. There were a number of projects pursued and proposed by the private sector. First, we had the failure of the northern gateway project, which was the intention of the government. It is legislating to prevent that pipeline from going forward in the future, unless someone repeals that legislation, which of course we will do. Then it piled on all sorts of additional conditions to prevent energy east from going forward. Now it is using taxpayers' money to buy another pipeline.

Does the member think there is any logic or consistency to, on the one hand, trying to kill pipelines and, on the other hand, trying to exclude the private sector while effectively putting taxpayers on the hook for something the private sector, under any other conditions, would have been prepared to invest in?

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Madam Speaker, absolutely, energy east and northern gateway were the two pipelines that were killed by the Prime Minister.

We did not have to put any money toward the Kinder Morgan pipeline. The government effort was spent to negotiate for a 65-year-old pipeline, and we will need to put another $10 billion or $11 billion or $15 billion on top of that. Will we get a return on this pipeline? Absolutely not. This is simply an abuse of taxpayers' money.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-74, the budget implementation bill. It is a hulking 556-page piece of legislation that promises nothing at all to Canadians except higher taxes and lower economic opportunities for hard-working Canadians across this great country.

There are many significant flaws in this bill, which are far from the sunny ways promised to Canadians during the last election, in 2015. From a carbon tax to great debt and broken promises, this bill inflicts severe costs upon Canadians without giving them anywhere near the equivalent benefits in return. Day in and day out, Canadians work hard for the money they earn, and they expect the government to support them, rather than work against them, when they pay for things like groceries, electricity, and even heating for their homes.

The Liberals are planning to implement a carbon tax, which will raise the cost of all these essential amenities and, in doing so, make life more expensive and thus more unaffordable for Canadians across the country. Rather than supporting the middle class, as they claim, the Liberals are putting the government before people.

How much more will Canadian families pay in taxes each year as a result of this carbon tax? Like all Canadians, we would like to know, but the government does not want to share what the cost is, because it wants to hide it from Canadians. It is hiding this information, and it is demonstrating that it does not trust Canadians to have a say in what they do with their own money. This is simply not fair to Canadian taxpayers.

The Liberals have shown, through their broken promises and complete lack of interest in reducing the federal deficit, that they never cared much about the taxpayer anyway. While Canadians expect members of Parliament to debate bills on their behalf, members are negatively impacted in their ability to do so when the Liberals simply cover up critical information that is relevant in our conversation here tonight.

There is no question that the carbon tax would hit Canadians hard. The Parliamentary Budget Officer reports that the carbon tax would cause $10 billion to vanish from the Canadian economy by 2022. That means fewer jobs and fewer economic opportunities for people here at home. We are already seeing that. Unfortunately, we do not know how much this carbon tax will cost everyday Canadian families. The Liberals have this information, but they have decided that they know best and will not release it.

These actions severely harm the quality of debate in this chamber on behalf of all Canadians, and therefore one of the key mechanisms by which the government is held to account. These actions do nothing to improve transparency, which, by the way, is what the Liberals ran on during the election cycle in 2015.

The Liberal government has repeatedly demonstrated that when it comes to strategies to combat climate change, the only plan it will accept is a carbon tax. It is a narrow view. No alternatives exist, other than those that punish taxpayers and raise costs for people across this fine country.

Of course, the government cannot even tell us what benefits this carbon tax will bring Canadians. The Ecofiscal Commission estimates that carbon taxes will need to be as high as $200 a tonne or more in order to reach the Liberal government's goal of reducing carbon emissions to 30% of 2005 levels by 2030. As the policy currently stands, the carbon tax will not come anywhere close to reaching that goal. What the carbon tax will do, though, is increase the financial burden on Canadian families from coast to coast. They will have to bear the brunt of this tax through high consumer costs; reduced competitiveness, which we saw today in the aluminum and steel industry; and falling foreign direct investment in Canada's economy. We do not have to talk about that, when the government just recently bought an existing pipeline for $4.5 billion.

These are families whom the Liberal government promised the world to. These are the same families who were told by the Liberal government that their taxes would be lower and that the federal deficit would be erased by 2019. That is only next year. Instead of receiving the results they were promised, these families got something else. They got large government deficits, in fact vague government deficits. We do not even know when the budget will ever be balanced again. They got extra federal debt, a Liberal government with no plans to balance the books at any time in the foreseeable future, and now a carbon tax that would raise their daily living costs and do little to reduce carbon emissions.

Let us look at my province, Saskatchewan. The provincial environment minister estimates that the implementation of the Liberal carbon tax would cost the Saskatchewan economy $4 billion over just five years. No wonder the Government of Saskatchewan is determined to challenge this carbon tax all the way to the Supreme Court. I am proud to stand here and represent the people of Saskatchewan, and in particular Saskatoon—Grasswood, because right now we are the only jurisdiction, provincial or territorial, that has not signed on to this massive Liberal carbon tax.

Communities in Saskatchewan recognize that the carbon tax is nothing but high costs for little or no benefit. There is no Houdini in the province of Saskatchewan. We know the Liberal government is up to no good. It just cannot fool prairie people, and tonight I am proud to say that Saskatchewan is the only jurisdiction in this country that has not signed and will not sign on to the Liberal carbon tax. It is a debt now. We have talked about this debt being passed on to future generations of Canadians, who have no say whatsoever but nonetheless will be born into a situation where they inherit the costs incurred by the Liberals.

During the election of 2015, I was fortunate that my daughter gave birth to my first granddaughter. I was very happy. However, today, when I look at the debt of the current government, which has no plans at all of balancing the budget, I really feel for Avery Thornhill, my two-and-a-half-year-old granddaughter. She will be paying for this for the rest of her life. She is only two and a half years old, and we hope that she lives many years, into her eighties or nineties.

Liberals have reckless spending, and they continue to have reckless spending with the carbon tax. Avery Thornhill will never get a chance to have the budget everyone wants, which is an equal budget. Assuming that no external events occur, such as another recession, Canadians will be living with federal deficits at least until 2051. Is that fair to all our grandchildren, when we tell them in 2018 that we have no hope at all of balancing the budget? Maybe it will be balanced by 2051, but as the current government continues to spend recklessly, it could be 2060 or 2070. What a burden we are putting, not only on our own children but on our grandchildren. We are very disappointed.

Canadians deserve many things from the Liberal government. They deserve respect, transparency, fairness, and prosperity, which we all know we have not seen and will not see in the future from the Liberal government.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member on his first grandchild. My daughter is expecting a child in two months, which will be the first grandchild on my side.

I am so proud and happy about the Canada that my granddaughter or grandson is going to inherit. They will inherit a Canada that is competitive. Why is it competitive? It is because we are finally making sure that the environment and the economy go hand in hand, and are finally going to put a price on pollution, to make sure that there can be a greener Canada, a better Canada. We also know that we are making Canada a more innovative place, because of the policies of the government.

I am so delighted that the next generations of Canadians will come into a more competitive, greener, more secure, more prosperous, and inclusive Canada. It is going to be great news for all grandchildren and future generations of this country.