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

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

That is what I am saying. You went this far, so you might as well have a bigger bill. Then you could have protected workers' pensions against companies paying their shareholders and paying out their profits before they take care of what they owe their workers. You could have included the pay equity legislation that we have been waiting for, which would have a big impact on families, or you could have done something about the fact that only four out of 10 unemployed workers can actually access benefits from the EI program.

Why, when you have gone all this way to 556 pages, did you not do some of those things that actually would help working families and those who are trying to retire?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I am sure the hon. member was asking a question of the member for Richmond Hill rather than wanting an answer from me. I want to remind hon. members to ask the question through the Chair, not to the Chair.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as members know, our government has done a great job on the pension front. I do realize that this is a great step for us to be able to take in our next or future budgets. I thank the member. We will consider that in our future considerations.

[Bob Bratina, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for Richmond Hill on a very well-researched presentation, especially in dealing with some of the numbers involved in the benefits that are being received by his constituents.

I think many of us have crunched the numbers, and I know that in my own riding several million dollars of investment, even on a monthly basis, is occurring. I wonder if the member has made the same observation I have in Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, which is that the money almost immediately goes right back into the economy.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for highlighting the benefit that he is also receiving as a result of the CCB.

As I mentioned, close to 14,300 children in my riding are receiving the benefit. You are right that the benefit is going directly into buying what these children potentially might not have benefited from. It is going directly into the economy, whether through buying books or school supplies or through registration in after-school classes that could help them to continue their education.

I have made similar observations. I challenge all my colleagues to make sure that they extract that data on the number of families receiving the benefit, the number of children receiving the benefit, and the total amount that is going to the economy.

This has a day-to-day benefit. When it comes to our economy, it is making quarterly benefits. As we can see, it has generated over 600,000 full-time jobs.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Once again I want to remind hon. members to place their questions through the Chair and not directly to the other members.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by apologizing. I have been battling a bit of a chest cold that has gone into my head, so I have that frog voice and may have to take a couple of drinks of water. However, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the budget, and in particular to speak to it as seen through the eyes and the lens of the people of Barrie—Innisfil.

We just had a couple of weeks in which we were able to spend time in our ridings, and I certainly took advantage of that, meeting with a lot of individuals and groups and stakeholders, including high school students, and meeting with seniors in seniors' residences. In the course of those conversations, there were great questions that came up, but there were also significant concerns related to the direction our country is going, more so because of the experience we have had as Ontarians in seeing the decimating effects of debt and deficits and the impact they have had in reducing government services, whether in health care or in education. In fact, it is well known that if the provincial debt in Ontario was a department, it would actually be the third most expensive department, behind education and health care.

When we put it in that context and think of the devastating effect of debt and deficits, we are certainly heading down that path here federally with the Liberal government. Quite simply, we are heading there because the architects of the debt and deficit situation and of the failed green energy program in Ontario are the same people who are now in the shadows of the PMO, directing government policy, directing this Prime Minister with respect to some of those failed policies. Of course, we know who they are: Gerald Butts and his good friend Katie, who have come here to effectively do what they have done to Ontario. Quite frankly, they are doing a terrific job at it by comparison to Ontario.

I had an opportunity to visit a high school last week, and there were great questions. We talked a lot about foreign policy and about legislation, and these high school students were deeply informed. They are part of a global perspectives program. In fact, this week they are in Cuba, doing some work there to understand certain aspects of government literally around the world. That is where these students travel to.

One question in particular really struck me. It was near the end of the conversation. I had spent almost an hour and 20 minutes with these young students, and somebody said to me, “What do you think of the Prime Minister?”

Now, of course I would look at that as a loaded question, but I was more than honest with the student. I said, “You know, he is a nice guy. He really is. I believe that your Prime Minister is a nice guy, but I think he is a terrible prime minister.” I was quite frank with them. I said that because of the situation we are in fiscally and the path we are heading down fiscally, the debt and deficit situation.

We heard, of course, the promise of the last election. There were lots of promises in the last election. One of them was not to have any omnibus bills, and what are we facing here? An omnibus bill by the Liberal government.

As for the debt and deficit situation, the government talked about $6 billion in debt. We know that this year it is three times more. As I said earlier, the projected deficit is not expected to be balanced for at least another 30 years or so. Think of how that is going to impact those young people, and that is exactly what I said to them. I said that today's debt and deficits are tomorrow's taxes and reduced services, just as we have witnessed in Ontario over the course of the last 15 years. That is precisely what is happening here, and it is scary. It is scary not just for my four children but for every one of those high school kids, who will be expected to pay for this just like the younger generations are in Ontario. This spending and this debt and deficit situation is going to cripple these young people.

I have heard that the average household in our country has about $47,000 in debt. When coupled with the federal debt and deficit situation, the provincial debt and deficit situation, and the requirement of municipalities to take from their taxpayers what they need in order to produce the goods and services they do for their communities, we cannot take it all from these people. How much is too much?

Just the other day, I met with the Canadian Police Association, and I asked, “Is a 53% marginal tax rate too much? Is 55%, 57%, 60% or 70% too much?” That is the path we are heading down.

What the government likes to do is take from producers and give it to the non-producers. That is precisely what is happening here with this program spending. That is why we are not seeing the deficit situation correct itself for almost a generation. This is the same generation the finance minister speaks to and says there will be a generation of job churn in our country. It does not provide much hope when the finance minister is talking in those terms.

The other interesting thing about the budget is what I call the Liberal election slush fund. The fact is that the Liberals are allocating $7 billion to the Treasury Board and this money can be dispensed in other departments as we head to an election, and the accountability of this will not even come until after the next election. What do we think the Liberal government is going to do with this money? There will be goodies floating around. We can bet that Gerald Butts is already figuring out where this money is going to go, just like what we are seeing in Ontario. If someone wants a free pony, Kathleen Wynne will give it to that person in this election. That is the way it works with these guys. They try to buy votes, so this $7-billion slush fund will be used exactly for that.

I will remind Canadians every chance I get that the Liberals came here and talked about transparency and accountability, saying that things would be better under this government. The fact is that they are far less transparent and far less accountable, and the $7-billion slush fund proves that.

The other issue in the budget is carbon taxes and the impact they are going to have on families. I have news for the members. We live in a barren, cold country that requires us to heat our homes and to drive to certain places. The Liberal government is going to penalize people for the necessities of life, adding 11¢ per litre as a result of a carbon tax, and $264 a month for each family to heat its home. Those numbers are real, and they are quantifiable. Blindly raising these types of taxes for people, the government will not even tell us what the impact of a carbon tax is going to be in terms of reducing emissions. It will not tell us what a $50 tax on carbon producers is going to mean in terms of reducing emissions. If it does not know the answer, how can Canadians have any confidence and give any support to the implementation of a carbon tax?

Lastly, the budget does not speak to the issue of competitiveness. We clearly see that the United States is going one way with taxes and regulations, and Canada is going another way. The Liberals talk about gender equality. This is a gender equality budget, they say. It is mentioned over 300 times in the budget. The reality is that they are truly heading toward gender equality. We have seen the flight of $84 billion of capital from our natural resource sector. Gender equality will happen when no one is working in this country. Then, clearly, everybody will be making nothing. That will be the Liberals' definition of gender equality with respect to what they are doing to our natural resource sector.

On the issue of pipelines, I have a news flash. The Liberals do not want pipelines in this country. They do not want Trans Mountain. They can stand and shout to the hilltops all they want, but the reality is that they do not want us to be a carbon-producing country. In spite of the assertions of the Prime Minister, we know the truth. Basically, what he said in Paris was that if he could turn the switch tomorrow, he would. More importantly, the evidence of that is clearly those who are working in the shadow of the PMO and Gerald Butts.

What he has said, and it is very clear and Canadians need to understand this, is that the government is not looking for alternative routes for pipelines or alternative pipelines. It is looking for an alternative economy. This budget will hurt our economy. The Liberals will hurt our economy. I am not going to support this for the people of Barrie—Innisfil.

[Karen Ludwig, Liberal, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, a couple of things in my colleague's speech stood out to me. I am sure my colleague and everyone in the House are proud Canadians. I am a proud Canadian. Our Prime Minister is everyone's Prime Minister.

For someone who goes into schools as often as I do and has held as many town halls as I have, 29 so far, I have heard from many people. When the previous government was in power, people told me they were concerned about the cuts to veterans offices and to science. I still hear those concerns, but now I am feeling optimism from our young people.

I do not believe the $47,000 in debt that my hon. colleague mentioned was accumulated in the last two and a half years. That was probably through a series of lifetime decisions made by a previous government.

My constituents have told me they feel more optimistic about evidence-based policies and about having the facts behind them.

On the new tax-free Canada child benefit, what is my colleague hearing from his constituents on the benefits of that and how they are using it?

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, I have respect for my hon. colleague. We went to high school together. Three of us sitting in the House, including the Minister of Innovation and Science, all went to the same high school.

The child care benefit is one of those issues I do hear about, but I hear about it in the context of the amount of debt and deficit that each Canadian household faces. It is not just the accumulated amount, but the fact that we currently have the highest consumer debt nation in the G7. A Bloomberg report just over a year ago said that a strong majority of people were using the child tax benefit to deal with their debt situation.

I do not come from a generation, and I am sure the hon. member does not come from a generation, where we want to put ourselves in a position of ongoing, sustainable debt. We have to ensure that not only our consumers, our households are in a position to thrive and succeed, but governments need to set the example. When we talk about a generation of significant deficits and debt, we are not providing the example we need.

Furthermore, if there is a downturn in the economy, what room will the government have to manoeuvre which will not cause pain for the average Canadian family? That is a fair question.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to be a part of this debate today.

I want to ask my colleague a question about the Prime Minister's comments. The Prime Minister was to western Canada last week and he gave us a story about how committed he was to both the Alberta and Saskatchewan energy industries. Then of course the pipeline story broke and since then he has talked a lot but he has not done anything.

I was very concerned when I heard about his conversation in France. He goes to another country and he gives a completely different story than he has given in Canada. He tries to leave an impression in western Canada and then he goes to France, says that the he does not support the energy industry and he would like to shut it down as quickly as possible.

Could the member tell us what he thinks about a leader who says one thing to one group of people when he wants to get their support and says something completely else when he is on the international stage and thinks Canadians are not listening to him?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is symptomatic of a problem that the Prime Minister has with respect to saying one thing and doing another. We saw this during the election campaign when he talked about it being the last time an election would be held under first past the post. He backtracked on that. He has backtracked on multiples of other things.

On the issue of pipelines, and this is really concerning to me, is the fact that he stands in front of Canadians, goes to Fort McMurray, speaks to the Alberta oil sector, speaks to all Canadians about the fact that this pipeline will be built. Imagine the Premier of British Columbia, the Premier of Alberta, and the Prime Minister getting together. I do not have a lot of confidence that any one of them wants this pipeline to be built quite frankly.

Again, the Prime Minister, in all his bravado, stands and says one thing, but there is no chance the Prime Minister and the Liberal government want a pipeline built. The Liberals want it gone, because they think our natural resource sector, the people who depend on it and the people who are employed by it are dirty. That is the fact of this. The Liberals can stand all they want and say they want a pipeline built, but the reality and the truth is they do not.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to offer a few comments today on legislation that will implement many of the commitments made in budget 2018.

While there are many things I would love to touch on that have been canvassed during the course of this debate, I will restrict my comments to two key themes. The first is the measures that seek to ensure that all Canadians have a shot at success in Canada in the 21st century. The second is that budget 2018, in my mind, is a budget for Atlantic Canadians.

The first theme, if I can boil down the general thesis of this government to a single idea, is that we need to create a society and an economy that works for everyone. The opportunity to succeed or to experience happiness in Canada should not depend on whether someone's family comes from money, but should accrue to a person by virtue of being Canadian.

If I look at some of the first measures we adopted, there is a consistent theme that carries through to the legislation we are debating today. The very first measure we adopted as a government was to raise taxes on the wealthiest 1% of Canadians and cut taxes for the middle class. We followed up on that initiative by introducing the Canada child benefit, which puts more money in the pockets of nine out of 10 Canadian families, and we stopped sending child care cheques to millionaires. Incredibly, this program has cut childhood poverty for 300,000 children.

Anecdotally in my own experience, I have spoken to families that have told me this benefit has allowed them to enrol their children in swimming lessons. I had a single mother tell me that, for the first time, she was able to afford new clothes for her children on the first day of school because of the new income from the Canada child benefit.

We love to cash things in with respect to economic growth and in GDP development, which is very important, but we cannot forget there are very human experiences behind those numbers. Talking to the families in my riding and hearing them tell me that their kids are better off because of this policy, lets me know we are on the right track.

We built upon these investments by investing in a national housing strategy. I would like to thank the member for Spadina—Fort York for his work on this important file. We continue to invest in measures that will improve the lives of Canadian families.

When I look at the budget implementation act, I can point to measures like the Canada workers benefit. This benefit is more generous and replaces the very valuable working income tax benefit. It is kind of complicated to understand for a lot of people who do not dig into tax policy, so I hope my colleagues will allow me just a moment to explain in very basic terms what this does.

This policy was designed to help people who were working hard in our communities but could not seem to get ahead. Now we talk a lot, admittedly, about the middle class and those working hard to join it. This policy is designed specifically for those working hard to join it. People who are earning $15,000 a year and are working hard will see a benefit of about $2,300 through this new policy, which accrues to them automatically. That is $500 more than they earn today, and $500 for a person earning $15,000 a year makes a significant difference in the quality of that person's life.

If I look at other measures, like indexing the Canada child benefit, I know we are doing the right thing. If we have measures that are designed to help with the cost of living, those measures need to continue to increase as the cost of living increases. The value of benefit today needs to adjust as the cost of living goes up. It is one thing if that single mom is able to afford a new outfit for her kids on the first day of school this year. However, I want to ensure this program stays intact so that family can continue to afford those basics in life, which so many of us take for granted, 10 or 20 years from now and that her grandchildren can enjoy those kinds of benefits in perpetuity.

I will change gears a bit and talk about some of the measures I saw in budget 2018 that are designed for Atlantic Canada. This is an issue that is very near and dear to my heart. One of the reasons I got involved in politics was the fact that so many people from my region had a hard time staying in Atlantic Canada, despite the fact they want nothing more than to do that.

I was a young person who gained an education. After eight years in university, I realized I had to pay down some pretty serious student loans and quickly found myself moving west to Calgary to find work. I was able to move back home. I looked at what my family was doing and I saw that a great number of my family members had to move to find work. I have five sisters, two who moved to Ontario for work when I was thinking about running for office. I had to move to Calgary to find a job. I had two sisters, with two university degrees, who became teachers. One moved out of the province and another had her husband flying in and out of the Middle East to work in the energy sector. My youngest sister finished her education and moved to Halifax from our rural community so she could find work.

My family is not unique. My family and my community could be replaced with any other family or community in Atlantic Canada and the same story would be true. We need to do more to ensure there are opportunities for families and people to stay in their communities if that is what they want to do.

When I look at some of the measures we have adopted, we have an economic growth strategy designed specifically for Atlantic Canada. This strategy has seen a new immigration pilot introduced for our region to ensure our communities, which are getting older, have an influx of people to fill our labour market needs, and also build stronger, more vibrant communities.

I see measures to increase innovation in Atlantic Canada, like the ocean supercluster, which will help us tap into the strategic resource, the Atlantic Ocean.

I see opportunities from the infrastructure spending we have seen. My riding alone has seen projects like the Trades and Innovation Centre at the Nova Scotia Community College Pictou campus. It put about 120 people to work for a while, but it also leaves the community with a strategic asset that will educate our skilled workers for generations.

I have seen investments at St. Francis Xavier University in the new institute of government and the Centre for Innovation in Health.

I see our municipalities being able to afford water and wastewater treatment facilities. I see our small craft harbours being built, which creates jobs in the short term but provides economic security for our rural communities by providing our fishermen with a safe place to fish going forward for years.

It is important to me that we are making these kinds of investments. However, when I look at budget 2018, I see this trend is continuing. This is not some flippant theme we had in the first few years of our government. This is a long-term commitment. We have seen, after a significant advocacy from my Atlantic caucus colleagues, $250 million put into small craft harbours to ensure these wharves continue to be repaired and our harbour infrastructure continues to support our fishing communities.

We see measures like the investment to protect against the threat posed by the spruce budworm, which was seriously threatening the forestry sector in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. We have seen our forests decimated in different parts of the country and in our region at different times in our history. However, to know we are putting $75 million to protect these strategic resources, our forests, to help people work in our natural resources sector is incredibly important to me.

In addition, our regional development agency, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, has seen an increased investment to the tune of $48 million in budget 2018. This will help ensure our communities can tap into economic development opportunities when they present themselves. This is very serious. In Atlantic Canada, we depend on this agency to help build more vibrant communities and to support businesses scale up and hire more people.

As long as I hold this position, I will not give up on supporting those who need our help to ensure that whether people come from money or come from nothing, the Government of Canada will be behind them. I will continue to be an advocate for the economy in Atlantic Canada so our families can succeed and call Atlantic Canada home for generations into the future.

The House resumed from April 18 consideration of the motion that Bill C-74, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

When the House last took up debate on the motion before the House, the hon. member for Central Nova was just about to begin the five-minute period for questions and comments. We will begin with that now.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question for the member for Central Nova. When will the budget be balanced?