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.

Motions in Amendment

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

moved:

Motion No. 318

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 318.

Motion No. 319

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 319.

Motion No. 320

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 320.

Motion No. 321

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 321.

Motion No. 322

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 322.

Motion No. 323

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 323.

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

moved:

Motion No. 324

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 324.

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

moved:

Motion No. 325

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 325.

Motion No. 326

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 326.

Motion No. 327

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 327.

Motion No. 328

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 328.

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

moved:

Motion No. 329

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 329.

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

moved:

Motion No. 330

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 330.

Motion No. 331

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 331.

Motion No. 332

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 332.

Motion No. 333

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 333.

Motion No. 334

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 334.

Motion No. 335

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 335.

Motion No. 336

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 336.

Motion No. 337

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 337.

Motion No. 338

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 338.

Motion No. 339

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 339.

Motion No. 340

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 340.

Motion No. 341

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 341.

Motion No. 342

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 342.

Motion No. 343

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 343.

Motion No. 344

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 344.

Motion No. 345

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 345.

Motion No. 346

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 346.

Motion No. 347

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 347.

Motion No. 348

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 348.

Motion No. 349

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 349.

Motion No. 350

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 350.

Motion No. 351

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 351.

Motion No. 352

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 352.

Motion No. 353

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 353.

Motion No. 354

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 354.

Motion No. 355

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 355.

Motion No. 356

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 356.

Motion No. 357

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 357.

Motion No. 358

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 358.

Motion No. 359

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 359.

Motion No. 360

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 360.

Motion No. 361

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 361.

Motion No. 362

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 362.

Motion No. 363

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 363.

Motion No. 364

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 364.

Motion No. 365

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 365.

Motion No. 366

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 366.

Motion No. 367

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 367.

Motion No. 368

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 368.

Motion No. 369

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 369.

Motion No. 370

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 370.

Motion No. 371

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 371.

Motion No. 372

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 372.

Motion No. 373

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 373.

Motion No. 374

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 374.

Motion No. 375

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 375.

Motion No. 376

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 376.

Motion No. 377

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 377.

Motion No. 378

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 378.

Motion No. 379

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 379.

Motion No. 380

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 380.

Motion No. 381

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 381.

Motion No. 382

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 382.

Motion No. 383

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 383.

Motion No. 384

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 384.

Motion No. 385

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 385.

Motion No. 386

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 386.

Motion No. 387

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 387.

Motion No. 388

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 388.

Motion No. 389

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 389.

Motion No. 390

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 390.

Motion No. 391

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 391.

Motion No. 392

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 392.

Motion No. 393

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 393.

Motion No. 394

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 394.

Motion No. 395

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 395.

Motion No. 396

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 396.

Motion No. 397

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 397.

Motion No. 398

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 398.

Motion No. 399

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 399.

Motion No. 400

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 400.

Motion No. 401

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 401.

Motion No. 402

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 402.

Motion No. 403

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 403.

Motion No. 404

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 404.

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

moved:

Motion No. 405

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 405.

Motion No. 406

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 406.

Motion No. 407

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 407.

Motion No. 408

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 408.

Motion No. 409

That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 409.

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

Mr. Speaker, again, congratulations on working through 409 amendments. You did a great job. I listened intently, and you did not miss one, and we do appreciate that.

It is drawing close to 10:30 in the evening, and I am honoured to stand in this place once again to speak to the budget implementation act, 2018. On April 4, I stood in the House to speak to the budget. During that time, I focused my remarks primarily on our competitiveness, or I should say our lack of competitiveness, and the troubling effect of budget 2018 on our competitiveness and business investment in this country.

We are struggling today, as we were then, to attract capital from abroad, with foreign direct investment plunging last year to the lowest level since 2010. As I pointed out in the House over a month ago, the province of Alberta has experienced the worst decline in business investment in the country, much because of the NDP government we have there, much because of the lower price of oil, and much because of the Liberal government here.

Energy investment is at its lowest level on record, below even the worst of the 2009 global recession, with a loss of $80 billion of investment and more than 110,000 jobs. Drilling rigs are leaving Canada, heading to the United States, where there is a more hospitable investment climate. There has been a significant decline in capital spending.

I stood in the House to debate the budget just one week after Kinder Morgan announced that it had suspended its work on the Trans Mountain expansion project and had given the Liberal government until May 31 to provide the necessary assurances that this project would go ahead. We know that the Liberals were funding protesters to protest against that pipeline straight from government programs here. That was the first time I had an opportunity to speak to this budget.

Kinder Morgan's skepticism was based on the fact that Canada had approved the project in November 2016, following an expanded environmental review process that included additional consultations with indigenous communities, yet more than three months into 2018, there was no movement and much added red tape, frustrating Kinder Morgan and others that would invest here in this country. Kinder Morgan saw nothing in immediate sight that would give it any confidence that it could go ahead, so it put the ultimatum of May 31.

I lay the blame for that unfortunate thing with Trans Mountain development at the feet of the Prime Minister, and rightfully so. The Liberal Prime Minister failed to take any concrete steps to ensure that the project was completed. This failure added to the significant economic difficulties facing my province of Alberta and a number of my constituents, as this project is a pivotal part of both Alberta's and the country's economic future.

While yesterday's announcement regarding the purchase of Trans Mountain by the federal government may help get our oil finally, some day, to new markets, it came at an extremely high price. It is a price taxpayers should not have to pay. Given what the government has done, chasing $4.5 billion out of Canada to a Texas oil company so that it can invest in America and around the world, because it is very unlikely that it will come back here to invest soon, there is no guarantee that the government is going to ever be able to build that pipeline.

Canadian taxpayers are on the hook for $4.5 billion, and that shows the Prime Minister's failure. I have zero confidence that the government can see this pipeline through to completion. The private sector has more experience in building pipelines, more experience in building infrastructure, and more experience in building the infrastructure needed to move its product than any government ever has had.

Kinder Morgan never asked for a single dollar of taxpayer money. All the company wanted was certainty. Now, Kinder Morgan's assets have been sold. It is abandoning its expansion plans in Canada and taking its significant investment in this country elsewhere. It is doing so at a time when business investment in Canada has fallen by 5%, or $12.7 billion, since 2015. During that same period, business investment in the United States has grown by 9%. Foreign direct investment plummeted by 42% in 2016, and then a further 27% in 2017.

Why is business investment so weak? There are many different reasons. One reason is all of the added red tape, the red tape piled on top of red tape in environmental assessments and reassessments. It has weakened investment in Canada, because Canadian businesses understand that they are facing rising costs, such as increased CPP and EI premiums, personal income taxes for entrepreneurs of over 53%, and, again, new carbon taxes.

Budget 2018 did not reveal exactly how much the carbon tax will cost the average Canadian. We have tried day after day in the House to get the Minister of Finance to tell us what that carbon tax is going to cost Canadian families, but he will not tell us.

Although the budget did not reveal how much, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation predicts that the carbon tax will cost $2,500 per family at a time when taxpayers recognize they have less and less money in their pockets. Trevor Tombe of the University of Calgary estimates that it may cost $1,100 per family. The Parliamentary Budget Officer recently released a report that found that the carbon tax will take $10 billion out of the Canadian economy by 2022, while other estimates argue that the cost could be as much as $35 billion per year. None of these numbers can be verified because, unfortunately, the Liberal government continues to refuse to tell Canadians exactly how much that carbon tax will cost them, just like they refused to tell us the total cost of the nationalization of the Trans Mountain pipeline.

What is the final cost of that pipeline? Is it $4.5 billion for the assets of Trans Mountain today? What will those costs be by the time the pipeline is built, if it ever is built? We can ill afford the $4.5 billion price tag, let alone the billions of dollars in untold costs, especially given our massive debt.

I would add that the finance minister has finally started to pick up on the Conservatives' talking points, because that $12 million a day, or $42 million a week, is the differential in the price for oil that we do not receive because we are not getting our oil to the Asian markets. This money could build a school or a hospital a day or a week.

In their first three years in power, the Liberals will have added $60 billion to the national debt. Last year, Canada's net debt reached an all-time high of $670 billion, or $47,612 per Canadian family. The growing debt is a direct result of the Liberals' broken promises on their projected deficits. This fiscal year's deficit is $18 billion, which is triple of what was promised.

In comparison, in our 10 years in government, we paid down the national debt. We took surpluses and paid down just under $40 billion. However, during what was considered the worst recession since the Great Depression, we ran deficits. Although fundamentally opposed to debt and deficit spending, we realized, like every G7 country, that we needed to kick-start the economy. That was not enough for the Liberals or the NDP, but that is what we did. We invested in large infrastructure programs in Canada, the largest in Canadian history. With Canada's economic action plan, we got a significant return on this investment. We were the first G7 country to come out of the recession and back to growth.

I see that my time is up. I am thankful for the opportunity to speak on this budget implementation bill.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague's speech with great interest, but I did not hear him talk about the 600,000 jobs that have been created in Canada since 2015.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the direct measure offered to SMEs. Their tax rate has been reduced from 11% in 2015 to 9% in 2019.

What kind of impact will that tax cut have on the SMEs in his riding?

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

Madam Speaker, when the Conservatives proposed the tax cut for small and medium-sized businesses, the Liberals initially opposed it. In the last election, the NDP signed onto that small business tax cut. The Liberals finally said they would do that too. In the first budget, in their first year, they did not do it. They gave us no sign they were ever going to do that. As a result of strong opposition by both the Conservatives and the NDP, the Liberals did put it in the budget, and we are thankful for that.

When we steal from Peter to pay Paul, we never have a problem with Paul; it is always Peter. The Liberals are simply taking money from small business. They say they are going to cut the small business tax rate, but they are taking money away with the carbon tax. They are taking money away with the CPP premium increase. They are taking money away with an EI premium increase. The Liberals are simply taking money from one hand, putting it in their pocket, and claim to be giving back to small business. It is a shame.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his intervention and for his many amendments, but we have to wonder what the Conservative strategy is here this evening. They moved 409 amendments to delete every clause of the bill, and yet among the clauses they want to delete, one of them provides the tax cut for SMEs that my colleague just mentioned.

Why did my colleague propose an amendment deleting the clause that provides a tax cut for SMEs and then contradict himself just now by asking for that very same tax cut for SMEs?

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

Madam Speaker, if we had more time tonight we would come up with more amendments. This is a bad budget. This whole budget should be put back on the shelf and started over again.

While I want to look forward and what we would continue to do, every once in a while, one has to look in the rear view mirror. When we were in power we cut the corporate tax rate from 22% to 15%. We were not going to watch head offices heading to the United States, so we lowered the corporate tax rate. We made Canada a place where Canadians wanted to invest, where they wanted to create jobs, where they wanted to have businesses, and we are seeing just the opposite today.

Manufacturing jobs are leaving Ontario and going to the United States or Mexico, and it is because of bad government here in Ottawa and at Queen's Park in Toronto by the Liberals there. That is why Canadians, especially those who live in Ontario, are saying they need a new government. They need hope. Here in the province of Ontario we hope that change will come with the Progressive Conservative Party, real true hope with a true future.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, there is a different perspective on the Alberta.ca website, which states “Alberta's economic rebound surpassed expectations in 2017. The resurgence was broad-based, with nearly every sector of the economy expanding”.

It says that real gross domestic product, GDP, grew at an estimated 4.5%; exports increased by nearly 30%; housing starts grew by 20%; and retail trade expanded by 7.5%.

Does the hon. member realize that his province is doing fantastically well, thanks to the changes we made in this budget?

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

Madam Speaker, I want to make sure I get his riding and name clear, because his quote will be in my householder. Albertans know that it is anything but what he stated. The future of Alberta looks great only because of Jason Kenney coming on the horizon. The future looks great because we have someone down the road who understands the importance of a pipeline, creating jobs, and putting people back to work. That is why Albertans are confident.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise tonight to speak to Bill C-74 at report stage. We have proposed a number of amendments, perhaps a more reasonable number than our Conservative colleagues did. I will go over our amendments, which seek to delete clauses 69, 73, 95, 97, 310, 316, 317, 324, and 329.

I would like to start by briefly describing the committee study of Bill C-74. The committee was given very little time to study this bill. We had to debate a 550-page bill at top speed, so we were unable to go into the details as thoroughly as every committee would surely have liked. The Liberal majority on the Standing Committee on Finance imposed time constraints on us, the same way it limits the amount of time we get to debate bills in the House.

Even so, we were able to come up with quite a few amendments that we hoped would go some way to improving the Liberal government's bill, which was clearly too timid. We had a few small victories, I will admit, but I will come back to those later. To sum up, during this study, we heard some interesting debates and some harsh criticism about certain aspects of the bill.

Again, we experienced something that happens far too often in committee, especially on the Standing Committee on Finance, where we are often asked to start studying a bill before it has actually been passed in the House, or, in the case of Bill C-74, before the House has even voted on it at second reading. It is almost as if the outcome were known in advance.

Other than that I think that we did constructive work. That is our main job as a constructive, progressive opposition, contrary to the other opposition parties that see their role differently. We on this side are a very constructive opposition.

The first amendment that we tried to make to the bill had to do with tax changes. We all heard about the Minister of Finance's reform. Well, the bottom line ended up in the minister's reform bill. We tried to make reasonable amendments to the implementation of the changes for the 2019 tax year, since the bill proposes tax measures will apply retroactively effective January 1, 2018. The NDP reasonably pointed out that it was not reasonable public policy to adopt retroactive tax measures. If the bill gets royal assent in June or July, it will have come into effect six months before it was passed. That is unacceptable. We tried to rectify the situation, but much to our party's chagrin, the Liberals opposed our efforts.

Medical cannabis is another important element of Bill C-74; it would establish an excise tax on cannabis products. Many witnesses that spoke to this issue were furious with the Liberal government, which has clearly indicated in this bill that it wants to tax medical cannabis. It did not even try to hide the fact that this flaw in the bill means that cannabis will be more expensive for patients with a prescription when the bill comes into force.

The government refused to change the bill and to listen to reason. It is adamant that medical cannabis will be taxed. It could have chosen to create two separate regimes: one for recreational cannabis, which could be included in the same tax or excise regime for spirits, alcohol, and tobacco; and another for medical cannabis. Sadly, it refused.

The Liberals should have created a distinction for medical cannabis used by private users. Unfortunately, they refused to do so.

More than 10,000 Canadians wrote to the Standing Committee on Finance to criticize the Liberal government's approach. The bill only provides for exemption from excise duties and GST/HST if the cannabis has a drug identification number. This is not currently a reality, because it costs millions of dollars to get a medical drug approved in Canada. It is extremely long, tedious, and costly. Obviously that is a long way off.

We asked a number of questions and proposed amendments regarding all the changes to veterans' pensions. We are not completely convinced that the new veterans' pension plan proposed in Bill C-74 will be better than the current one. We asked the government to prove that these changes would truly benefit the majority of veterans, through an independent review conducted over the next few years. The government rejected this amendment.

We also proposed amendments on the whole issue of the carbon tax. Almost half of the bill has to do with this tax. We asked for more transparency in how the regime is enforced and about ensuring that industries pay for their pollution. We also asked for limits on the exemptions available to certain industries.

We did achieve one small victory that I want to mention. Under the bill, farmers would not have to pay the tax on fuel for farm machinery. In committee, we and some of the witnesses argued that fishers should also be eligible for an exemption for fuel used by their fishing boats. The Liberals rejected our amendment, then proposed a nearly identical one to do pretty much the same thing but with a few extra details. Maybe we can count that as a small victory.

We also sounded a very loud alarm about financial technology. That is why, at report stage today, we moved motions to delete clauses 310, 316, 317, 324, and 329 to get rid of all clauses related to financial technology.

The bill would enable banks to share and sell personal information about consumers, about their clients, to financial technology companies, such as those that sell insurance. We know that is happening more and more in the market. If this bill passes, banks will be able to buy what are known as financial technology companies, which sell insurance.

One of the most vocal opponents was the Canadian Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, which wanted to speak to this topic but was flatly denied that opportunity by the Minister of Finance. The association pointed out that this would jeopardize the long-standing separation between banks and insurance in Canada. We are worried that this could be the thin edge of the wedge. The committee did not have enough time to make sure these provisions are enough to protect the separation between banks and insurance companies.

We also asked a number of questions about enhancing the Canada pension plan, which we think could really use it, considering the whole issue of attribution of earnings. I may come back to that during questions and comments.

We also strongly denounced the government's lack of rigour in passing the last part of the bill, which we finally studied at 9:45 p.m. We had only 15 minutes left to complete the study and we were examining major changes to the Criminal Code at the Standing Committee on Finance. In 15 minutes, and with just one witness, we had to decide whether the changes were appropriate or not. Asking the Standing Committee on Finance to approve such important changes to the Criminal Code is proof of the government's complete lack of rigour. Many people were critical of that.

I am pleased to have had the opportunity to tell the members of the House what happened at committee. We remain strongly opposed to most of the clauses in Bill C-74.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listed to my hon. colleague carefully but I did not hear him talk about the Canada child benefit. I would like to hear his thoughts on the very positive effects of this measure, which was introduced in 2016 and will be enhanced. It is lifting children out of poverty and helping nine out of 10 Canadian families, for example by enabling them to enrol their kids in music lessons or sports programs.

What impact has this measure had in my colleague's riding since it was introduced in 2016 and as it continues to improve?