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

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay, The Environment; the hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, International Trade.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague has a background in finance and investment banking, and in his speech he spoke about the importance of supporting the middle class. In particular, he mentioned the Canada child benefit, which has done so much to strengthen the Canadian economy and attack the problem of child poverty.

I wonder if he could compare the CCB with the previous government's approach to child benefits, which was not tax-free, whereas the CCB is. The CCB is also means-tested, unlike what existed under the previous government. I wonder if he could compare and contrast those two different approaches and what they mean for Canadians on a general level.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to work with my hon. colleague from London North Centre and be on the same side of the aisle with him.

The Canada child benefit has had a profound impact on families and our economy, to the point where it actually boosted GDP in a year. The approach we took was to send cheques to the families that need them the most. It is kind of an interesting approach, when one thinks about it. We thought we should the cheques not to millionaires, but to the families that need them the most.

Yes, it is means-tested. For those who make over $200,000, it will be diminished. For someone like myself and my family, we do not receive it any more, but we are fine. It is for Canadian families who are working hard to make combined family incomes of $70,000, $75,000, or $80,000, who have one, two, or three children at home. I have two daughters at home, and I know how much it costs. It will help families. It is going to be tax-free. At the end of the year, those with higher incomes will not get a bunch of tax back, because that does not make sense. That was bad policy under the prior government. We fixed it, and we are proud of that.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was awoken by this unbelievable analysis of how child benefits are delivered in Canada. I wonder why the member did not include in his characterization of the child benefit that the universal child care benefit went to everybody. For people with high incomes, it was neutralized by being taxed back.

He did not mention the arts credit that the Liberals removed. He did not mention the sports tax credit that the Liberals removed. He did not mention the transit tax credit that Liberals removed, which most families enjoyed. Amazingly, he did not mention income splitting for lower-income families, so that they could enjoy that as well.

All of this profoundly diminishes this current child benefit and puts families way behind where they were, including a family I know very well in Winnipeg, a stay-at-home mom with two kids. This family pays $1,500 more in tax because of this crazy policy.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe my hon. colleague is reading information from the Fraser Institute, so I will leave it at that and put that aside.

In terms of how tax credits work, some can be refundable, and some can be non-refundable. You need taxes owing or taxes payable. A lot of the tax credits that were introduced by the prior government were for families that would not benefit from them because they did not have taxes payable. It is unfortunate. The CCB goes to all families that need it, up to $200,000, and it is something we are proud of.

The member brought up income splitting. If we look at the evidence, that benefited more well-to-do families than anything else. It is something I have read about extensively and something I do not support as an economist. There are other policy measures that would have been much more effective, which could have been but were not adopted by the prior government. Conservatives were actually warned not to adopt income splitting by their prior finance minister, God rest his soul.

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

Mr. Speaker, I did not know my colleague from Vaughan—Woodbridge was an economist, so I will ask him a question. I am not an economist but I have two daughters and I am fully aware of the cost of prescription drugs. I am a Quebecker and I live in a society which made the effort of setting up a pharmacare program. Even then, it is complex. When someone has a pharmacare plan as part of employment benefits, they have to join it, but when you do not have such a plan, you are covered by the public system, and managing income tax becomes all the more complicated as you have to file two tax returns.

However, the logic behind it has often been explained and it is clearly beneficial for Canada to have a pharmacare program for all Canadians. Why not do it, then? What a disappointment to see nothing in the budget implementation bill when such a program was mentioned in the budget plan.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in the province of Ontario, and I have to give credit where credit is due to the Ontario government and the provincial Liberals, we have OHIP+. All children are covered up to the age of 25. It is universal. It was introduced last year. I am very proud to say that. It is going to be a legacy measure.

Federally, we have indicated that Dr. Eric Hoskins, a former Liberal cabinet minister from Ontario, is leading a task force on this. Frankly, 80% of Canadians are covered with some form of pharmacare coverage, but there is a gap.

We need to sit down with all the provinces to come up with a pan-Canadian solution. We are looking at taking measures to lower drug prices all around. We recognize that, and that has been ongoing. We need to sit down with all stakeholders to have a substantive, prudent, consultative process on how we can reach the point where no Canadian family is impacted by the cost of prescription drugs.

That is something we can all come to an agreement on in this House. There are different ways of getting there, but the ultimate goal is that no Canadian family should go to bed at night worrying about the cost of prescription drugs or how they will be covered.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my distinguished colleague's speech and comments earlier. He was talking about some of the measures the previous government had taken that would in fact benefit the wealthiest. One of these measures was doubling the TFSA limit.

We know that the original thinker who came up with the idea of a TFSA said at the time that this would put the state in a fiscal straitjacket. When the former finance minister, Joe Oliver, was asked what kind of situation it would put the state into, in terms of deprived revenues, he said that is a problem for Stephen Harper's granddaughter to solve.

We have taken a different approach and brought the limit back to what it formerly was. When they say they are working for working-class Canadians, I always smile and wonder who the working-class Canadians are that they have in mind, who have $11,000 at the end of the year to put in a TFSA account. Their constituents might be very different from mine.

I am just wondering if the member has any comments on the kinds of policies we saw from the previous government, as opposed to the ones we have adopted, where we try to give more to those who need it most instead of having an approach that is focused on the wealthiest.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, looking back at the 10 years when the Conservatives were in power and TFSAs were at $5,500, they allowed a lot of Canadians to save and to put away something for their retirement.

Retirement savings are important. However, the $11,000 limit was foolish, to be frank. I do not know many Canadians who could set aside $11,000 of after-tax income a year to be saved for their TFSA. We reversed it, and left it at $5,500. It will gradually increase as inflation increases.

We put in place a number of measures. If we wanted to look at the marginal propensity to consume or spend, it is where Canadians need it the most, and those who need it the most are benefiting. That is showing up in our 3% economic growth rate last year. It is showing up in the 2% above-trend growth rate this year, as commented by the Governor of the Bank of Canada.

It is something we are proud of, whether it is the Canada workers' benefit, the Canada child benefit, or how those programs have been designed. They have been designed to give to Canadians who need it the most.

If I could just add, we have done more than that when it comes to skills training. We also need to get Canadians trained for those jobs of the next century and the next decade, so we can ensure their success. That is something that is big. It was big in our fundamental research within the budget. It is big within our government. It has been in the last three budgets, including this one. Skills training and fundamental research are things we can be proud of. We know the world economy is changing very rapidly, and we need to make sure that all Canadians have the skill set to enable them to maximize opportunities for themselves and their families.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Before we resume debate, I would like to inform the hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable that he has about five and a half minutes left to go before private members' business. The member will certainly have time to wrap up his speech when the House next resumes debate on this motion.

The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will listen with rapt attention when private members' bills are introduced, as today's subject is truly worthwhile. This period will surely be of interest to a lot of people, as there are sometimes excellent proposals in these bills.

This is not the first time that I have had the opportunity to speak to Bill C-74. I have had the opportunity to do so on several occasions. As the member for Mégantic—L'Érable, I have spoken of the effects of the bill in my riding. As shadow minister for agriculture and agrifood, I have risen to say how few measures there were for agriculture and agrifood in the last budget.

When Bill C-74 was introduced, I did not expect the government to once again exercise its prerogative to prevent members from speaking, as they are entitled to do in the House, on the budget and its consequences in their ridings and their various portfolios.

I greatly enjoyed the speech by one of my colleagues today. Several times, he referred to the government’s adoption of a process for tracking mandate letters in order to deliver results to Canadians. In the way that the Liberals have of congratulating themselves for deciding whether they are keeping their promises, he said something that made quite the impression on me. Indeed, under the heading of a fair and open government, there is mention of ending “the improper use of omnibus bills and prorogation”. On that front, the Liberals gave themselves a mark of “completed - fully met”. Can we request a recount? Can we change the mark that the Liberals give themselves for the use of omnibus bills?

Bill C-74 is definitely in the line of an omnibus bill. That is why the government is again using a time allocation motion. They want to limit debate. When an omnibus bill is introduced that impacts so many areas, it is normal for members of all political stripes to have things to say and for them to want to use the time available to them. Unfortunately, the government is in panic mode as the session ends. We saw it last week: in three days, they used motions five times to silence members, to end debate or to say that only five hours remained to debate a certain bill. Since the start of the parliamentary session, the government has used that type of motion 38 times.

In this brief summary of very Liberal commitment, I am sure that they mentioned what the parliamentary secretary said in the last Parliament. I did not find the exact quote as there are so many promises that were not kept. The parliamentary secretary told anyone who would listen that these time allocation motions could not be used, that they were undemocratic and that the use of this type of motion was a lack of respect for Canadians.

Each time the Liberals propose a time allocation motion, I will read the words of my colleague across the way. I must say that I am not at a loss for things to say. Certainly, my colleague speaks a lot and leaves a record. When we leave records, they are quoted back to us in the House.

As the parliamentary secretary said at the time, it is not about how you go about it, especially when you promise to no longer do it. That is the difference. We understand that governments must sometimes use these motions to move debate along. However, the Liberals committed to not use this type of method to restrict democracy in the House.

Unfortunately, at their current pace, believe it or not, they will greatly exceed the record of the former Conservative government. They are panicking and they think that they will not have time to pass the limited legislative agenda that they have already tabled.

After consideration of private members’ bills, it will be my pleasure to come back to speak about Bill C-74 and all that it does not contain.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable will have 14 and a half minutes to wrap up his comments on the motion when the House resumes debate on the bill.

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed 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 third time and passed, and of the amendment.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to resume debate on Bill C-74.

In the first part of my speech, I presented some interesting arguments to show how the government had no qualms about using time allocation motions last week to prevent members on this side of the House from debating the budget bill longer. However, it is a most important bill for all our constituents.

The mandate letters of the various ministers were made public, and now there is a document entitled, “Mandate Letter Tracker: Delivering results for Canadians”, which is a government report card. With regard to the government's promise to balance the budget in 2019-20, the anticipated result was to balance the budget over the long term and continue to reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio. The government says that results are “underway--with challenges” and it gives itself a good mark, even though the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the Department of Finance are saying that, the way things are going, the government will not balance the budget until 2045. It is absolutely unbelievable. I hope that someone will change that report card to read, “underway with no hope of success” or even “in jeopardy” if we are talking about the current government's economy. I think that “in jeopardy” would be the most appropriate term, not with regard to the Liberals' promise but with regard to the way they are managing our country and government.

They made another big promise. I remember being very impressed, because it was the first Speech from the Throne I had ever attended as a new MP. We filed into the Senate to hear the Governor General deliver the throne speech. One sentence from that speech stayed with me, “...that 2015 will be the last federal election conducted under the first-past-the-post voting system.” I remember quite well that this was going to be the last election to use that voting method.

This bill is so long and covers so many different subjects that we already did not have enough time to talk about them all. The government decided to include so many things in its budget that, unfortunately, many of us will not have the chance to share our constituents' points of view. However, that is typical of what we have been seeing from this government since it took office in 2015. It makes a lot of promises, but it hardly ever keeps any of them. Case in point, they should not be resorting to omnibus bills that include everything but the kitchen sink. That was one of the promises the Liberals made. Unfortunately, since 2015, the Liberals have imposed 38 time allocation motions to silence opposition members, but it is not just opposition members they are silencing.

The important thing to understand is that cutting off the opposition MPs does not mean the government MPs get more speaking time on these bills. The Liberals outnumber us, so when they pass such a motion, they are depriving more Canadians of their right to have their representative speak in the House. This is completely consistent with the way the government has been running this country since taking office in 2015.

There are many other promises that the government has not kept, such as the promise to post modest deficits. The Liberals practically got elected on that promise. They promised to kick-start the economy by posting very modest deficits, not for very long, just a year or two. They promised to reduce the deficits after that and to balance the budget in 2019-20. These are not my words, they are the government's own words.

What happened next? The Liberals realized that reforming the system would lose them votes. Some Canadians would not vote for them. The reform they had in mind would not have benefited them, so they scrapped the idea.

That's another promise they waved away as though it were something off-putting. The worst part is that they made a committee do a lot of work on it. They made a lot of people work on it. They even set up a website to find out what Canadians were thinking. All of that money was spent for nothing. Once they settled into the government benches, the Liberals' plan for change vanished. They were well aware that the changes Canadians wanted would not work in their favour.

We can forget about greater transparency, as well. In a few minutes, I will talk about the secret they are keeping about the carbon tax and what it will really cost every Canadian family and every Canadian farm. They do not want Canadians to know.

How much will the carbon tax cost Canadian farms? We have asked that question in the House more times than I can count, but we never get an answer. We know the numbers exist. We saw a very nice document that explains how the carbon tax will affect average families. Unfortunately, those are the only legible words in the report. The rest was all redacted and hidden. They are keeping that secret. It seems the promise of greater transparency has gone out the window.

The Liberals also promised not to resort to muzzling the opposition. I am going to skip over that, since I talked about it earlier. I think it is pretty clear.

They promised they would not negotiate away one litre of milk, one egg, or one chicken to the Americans. They promised to protect supply management in all negotiations. What happened? Unfortunately, the Prime Minister does not pay attention to what is said here. He is not interested in what is said here. He is not interested in what the Minister of Finance thinks. He is not interested in what the Minister of International Development and La Francophonie told us here today. When the Prime Minister is speaking to Americans rather than Canadians, he tells the truth, he says what he really thinks. What he said is that he is willing to be more flexible in terms of allowing Americans access to the Canadian dairy market. That is the reality.

On this side of the House, we continue to insist that we need to maintain and protect supply management. Yes, the Liberals are protecting the current system, but there will be nothing left to protect once they are through with it. How much will they trade away to the Americans? Will it be 2%, 4%, or 10%, to save face for the Prime Minister, because he could not reach a deal on NAFTA with them? That is the real question.

We know that this government has a spending problem. When something is not working, it tends to take taxpayers' money to try to fix its own mistakes. We saw this with Kinder Morgan. The government is spending $4.5 billion. It could have done something 18 months ago, when the pipeline was approved, but it did nothing. It could have done something 11 months ago, when the B.C. government clearly expressed its opposition to the pipeline, but it did nothing.

Suddenly he wakes up, realizes there is a problem and that the project will not move forward, and he wonders what to do next.

Instead of taking action, the Liberals decided to pick taxpayers' pockets. It is money that we do not have because the money does not exist. We are already in debt and running a deficit. We are sending this money to the U.S. to let this company build pipelines that will compete with the future pipeline owned by all Canadians, here in Canada. Furthermore, we are buying an aging 60-year-old pipeline. There is no talk of expansion yet, even though the bill that was approved was for the expansion of Kinder Morgan. The $4.5 billion will not expand anything, it will only buy old tubes. In order for this to function, we are going to have to invest another $7 billion, according to the company's estimates.

Thanks to my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent, we learned today that the book value of this 60-year-old pipeline is not $4.5 billion but $2.5 billion. That is the company's evaluation. However, the government decided to pay $4.5 billion. This is completely consistent with the government's way of thinking: it spends without counting taxpayers' money and says that it is all right to spend more because it already has a deficit. That is not right. It will make all the difference to the services that our children will be able to access in 10, 20, or 30 years. They will not be able to access services because all we will have are deficits and debts to pay. That is how this government operates.

The Liberals can oppose the excellent bill introduced by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, which would give more money to young families. They can oppose it and say that they are doing this and that for our young people, and that it is a very targeted tax credit.

Of course, the Liberals cannot support the opposition on a good bill like that. However, they can fork out $4.5 billion for a pipeline that already exists. That does not even include the expansion. The budget was a reflection of this government's management style.

I am the agriculture and agrifood shadow minister, so I would be remiss if I did not take a little time to talk about what budget 2018 has in terms of agriculture. Nothing. There is absolutely nothing in budget 2018 in terms of agriculture. This clearly shows that agriculture is not a priority for the Liberal government.

I figured that I had surely missed something in a budget with so many pages. I rose and asked the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food about what agricultural measures were in budget 2018. The minister rose and started talking about measures adopted in budget 2017, saying that budget 2018 was a good budget for farmers. This shows that the Liberals are completely disconnected from the reality facing farmers.

There are a few local issues we would have liked to see addressed in Bill C-74. In Thetford Mines, for example, we have the Fonds Christian Paradis, which seeks to diversify our regional economy.

The government decided to ban the use of asbestos in Canada. However, there is still a pile of mine tailings in Thetford Mines. The city is surrounded by it. Asbestos is prohibited, but the mine tailings are left there as though nothing happened.

Millions of dollars are available to clean up mining land in uninhabited areas, but when it comes to cleaning up mining land in urban areas where people live, there is nothing. The government needs to assume responsibility for these decisions and make sure that when it decides to shut down an industry that it helps the town return to normal and repair years of mining development. Many governments benefited greatly over all those years from the royalties from asbestos mining.

I wanted to talk about broadband Internet. Despite the programs in place, we still have a lot of problems in our regions. I would have liked a firm decision stating that the Internet is an essential service in every region of Canada. We cannot get far without the Internet these days. Imagine someone who is thinking about buying a house in Piopolis or in Woburn. He is so pleased to have found his dream home. He grabs his cellphone to talk to his wife, to tell her to come see it, but there is no cell signal. The house will stay where it is and he will not buy it.

In closing, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Provencher:

That the amendment be amended by adding the following: “and that the Committee report back to the House no later than June 15, 2018.”

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The motion is in order.