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

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

moved 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-74 on behalf of the Government of Canada, as well as our government's planned investments to strengthen the middle class and maintain the strength and sustainable growth of the Canadian economy. Budget 2018, entitled “Equality + Growth: A Strong Middle Class”, represents the next stage in our plan to invest in people and the communities where they live in order to provide the best opportunities for success to the middle class and all Canadians.

The bill we are talking about today, budget implementation act, 2018, No. 1, is the next step in the plan that our government launched over two years ago. When we took office, we jumped into action by helping develop a confident middle class that stimulates economic growth and that is currently benefiting from more opportunities for success than ever. Giving Canadians the opportunity to reach their full potential is not only the right thing to do, but it is also the smart thing to do for our economy. The decision to invest in the middle class is the right decision. Targeted investments combined with the hard work of Canadians across the country have helped create good, well-paying jobs and will continue to strengthen the economy over the long term.

Canada’s economy is strong and growing, and the government's finances are continuously improving. Since 2016, Canada has been leading the G7 in economic growth. It has the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio of any G7 country, by far. The federal debt-to-GDP ratio has been firmly placed on a downward track, and based on our projections, the deficit-to-GDP ratio should also drop to 0.5% in 2022-23. Our government knows that its plan is working because Canadians are working. Over the past two years, the Canadian economy has grown and generated 600,000 new jobs, most of which are full time. Today, we have the lowest unemployment rate in nearly 40 years. These jobs have made it possible for Canadians to better meet their families' needs and better plan for their retirement.

However, we know that there is still work to be done. We must ensure that the economy reflects the diversity of our county, a country where all Canadians can contribute to and benefit from the nation's prosperity in a significant way. Bill C-74 contains worthwhile measures. I would like to take a few moments to present a few of them, since they are an important part of our government's plan to help the middle class and all those who are striving to reach their full potential. The government believes that Canada's biggest strength is our diversity. In order to succeed in a rapidly changing world, our economy must reflect our diversity and give every Canadian real and fair opportunities to succeed.

Regarding gender equality, we know that although Canadian women today are among the best educated in the world, they earn less than men, are less likely to participate in the labour market than men, and are more likely to work part time. We believe it is time for a change. Closing these gaps and giving women equal opportunities to succeed will encourage a more inclusive dialogue on the questions that will shape our future. We know that it will also improve the quality of life of our families and communities while stimulating the economy. Simply put, when women have the support and opportunities to fully contribute to Canada's economy, all Canadians do better.

For example, the Canada child benefit is an important government initiative aimed at making a positive change for the millions of Canadian families with children. Close to 3.3 million families with children are receiving more than $23 billion in annual Canada child benefit payments. A single mom of two children aged five and eight with a net income of $35,000 in 2016 will have received $11,125 in tax-free Canada child benefit payments in the 2017-2018 benefit year. Naturally, this $11,125 is absolutely tax free. That is $3,500 more than she would have received under the previous child benefit system.

Last year, single mothers earning less than $60,000 a year received $9,000 in benefit payments on average to help make things like healthy food and summer programs for their kids more affordable. Thanks to this increased support, the Canada child benefit is helping to lift hundreds of thousands of Canadian children out of poverty. Child poverty has been reduced by 40% compared with 2013.

By better supporting those families that need it most, including those led by single mothers, the Canada child benefit helps them give their children a good start in life by providing a safe place to live, music lessons, affordable sports camps, and all the day-to-day necessities to which every child has a right.

With Bill C-74, our government will enhance the Canada child benefit in order to ensure that the benefit is indexed to the cost of living effective July 2018, which is two years earlier than initially scheduled.

We realize that some people, especially indigenous people living in northern and remote communities, have often faced barriers when it comes to accessing essential government services and federal benefits such as the Canada child benefit. With Bill C-74, our government will take steps to ensure that anyone who is eligible for support receives it.

Through Bill C-74, the government proposes to expand outreach efforts to all indigenous communities on reserves and in northern and remote areas, and to conduct pilot outreach projects for urban indigenous communities so that indigenous peoples have better access to a full range of federal social benefits, including the Canada child benefit.

Now I would like to talk about the Canada worker's benefit. Canadians working hard to join the middle class deserve to have their hard work rewarded with greater opportunities for success. We know that these Canadians are working to build a better life for themselves and their families. Low-income Canadians are sometimes working two or three jobs so that they can give themselves and their children a better chance at success. That is why budget 2018 introduced the new Canada workers benefit, the CWB. Building on the former working income tax benefit, the CWB would put more money into the pockets of low-income workers. The CWB would encourage more people to join and remain in the workforce by letting them take home more money while they work.

Through Bill C-74, the government would increase the overall support provided by the CWB for the 2019 and subsequent taxation years. In particular, the government proposes to increase maximum benefits under the CWB by up to $170 in 2019, and increase the income level at which the benefit is entirely phased out. As a result, low-income workers earning $15,000 could receive up to almost $500 from the CWB in 2019 than they could receive this year under the current working income tax benefit. That is $500 to invest in the things that are important to them, and to make ends meet.

The government would also propose changes to improve access to the CWB to allow the Canada Revenue Agency to calculate the CWB for anyone who has not claimed it starting in 2019.

Due to these enhancements and intended actions to improve take-up in 2019, the government estimates that more than two million working Canadians would benefit, many of whom were not benefiting from the working income tax benefit. This would help lift approximately 70,000 Canadians out of poverty.

With regard to small businesses, the government is also committed to providing direct support to the small businesses that create the jobs that Canadians depend on. Small businesses are a critical part of our economy, and the government is taking action to help them grow, invest, and create good, well-paying jobs. To that end, Bill C-74, proposes to lower the small business tax rate to 10% from 10.5%, effective January 1, 2018, and to 9%, effective January 1, 2019. This means up to $7,500 in federal corporate tax savings per year to help entrepreneurs and innovators do what they do best: create jobs. Lowering small business taxes should encourage new capital investment in businesses. These investments, whether in better machinery, more efficient technology or new hires, make businesses more productive and competitive.

Bill C-74 also proposes measures to ensure that the tax system encourages corporate owners, including small business owners, to use low corporate tax rates to support their business and not for significant personal tax advantages. The first measure would reduce the ability to access the small business tax rate for small businesses with significant income from passive investments. For those earning less than $50,000 of passive investment income each year, there will be no change in the tax treatment. Also, the tax applicable to investment income remains unchanged. Refundable taxes and dividend tax rates would remain the same.

A second measure corrects a flaw that allows larger private corporations to gain an unintended tax advantage. The measure would better align the refund of taxes paid on passive income with the payment of dividends sourced from passive income. Together, these two changes would impact less than 3% of all private corporations and provide a simpler and more targeted approach. Ninety per cent of the tax impact would be borne by households in the top 1%.

We listened and the design of these proposals is based directly on the feedback that we received during the consultations on our tax proposals. Thanks to this input, we have put forward an approach that is simpler and better targeted than what was outlined last summer. At the same time, we are doing more to help typical small businesses grow by enabling them to retain more earnings for investment and job creation through a lower small business tax rate.

To help Canadians succeed today and in the economy of tomorrow, the government is making long-term investments to grow the economy in a way that ensures good jobs, healthy communities, and clean air and water. Canadians understand that pollution is not free nor should it be. That is why putting a price on carbon pollution is central to the government's plan to fight climate change and grow the economy.

In Canada and abroad, the impacts of climate change are evident, including coastal erosion, thawing, permafrost, and increases in heat waves, droughts, and flooding. Our shared quality of life and our present and future prosperity are deeply connected to the environment in which we live.

Today, through Bill C-74, the government is taking action in order to reduce emissions by introducing the greenhouse gas pollution pricing act. Pricing carbon pollution is the most effective way to reduce emissions. It creates incentives for businesses and households to innovate and pollute less.

I would like to underline that our approach to putting a price on carbon pollution has been collaborative from the beginning. As a first step, the government worked with most provinces and territories and indigenous partners to adopt the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change in December 2016. The framework includes a pan-Canadian approach to pricing carbon pollution, with the aim of having carbon pricing in place in all provinces and territories this year. The plan provides provinces and territories with the flexibility to choose between two systems: an explicit price-based system or a cap-and-trade system. Right now, a price on carbon pollution is in place in four provinces—Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, and Alberta—covering over 80% of the Canadian population. All other provinces have committed to adopting some form of carbon pollution pricing this year.

Four out of five Canadians live in jurisdictions that already have a price on carbon pollution, as I have mentioned, and right now those provinces are leading Canada in job creation. With that goal in mind, the government is moving ahead to ensure that a legal framework is in place for the proposed federal carbon pollution pricing system. In jurisdictions that fall short of the federal standard, the federal carbon pollution pricing system would apply on January 1, 2019, starting at a price of $20 per tonne of emissions. The direct revenue from the carbon charges on pollution under the federal system would go back to the province or territory of origin.

On an annual basis, the provincial and territorial systems in place would be assessed by the Government of Canada against the federal standard. By putting a price on carbon pollution, Canada is joining 67 other jurisdictions that have already taken this important step to curb greenhouse gas pollution. Together, those jurisdictions represent about half of the global economy and more than a quarter of global GHG emissions, according to the World Bank's November 2017 report, “State and Trends of Carbon Pricing 2017”.

Putting a price on carbon pollution would help put Canada on a course to meet our 2030 emissions target, in combination with other complementary clean growth measures under Canada's clean growth and climate action plan. It makes sense not only for our shared environment, but also to strengthen our growing economy.

This bill represents the next steps in the government's plan to put people first by giving them the help they need now, all while investing in the years and decades to come.

In order to remain competitive and successful in the global economy, every Canadian must have the opportunity to contribute to our prosperity and to benefit from it. As we continue to grow and strengthen the middle class, we are making significant progress in terms of equality of opportunity, to ensure that the next generation of Canadians can share in a prosperous middle class; a more innovative, creative, and competitive knowledge-based economy; and environmental protections.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I comment on my colleague's speech, I would like to draw attention to the fact that all of us in this House today are standing with the families of the Humboldt Broncos team, the unspeakable tragedy that occurred just days ago. We want them to know that our thoughts and prayers are with them. We are so grateful for the outpouring of support that has occurred.

In relation to the comments of my colleague, he failed to mention that the government is actually raising taxes on more than 90% of middle-class families. He also failed to mention that we are paying $26 billion in interest alone to carry the national debt, which will rise to $33 billion in just a few years. This year alone another $18 billion is being added to that national debt.

Could my colleague inform this House as to when the budget will be balanced? We were promised during the campaign that the budget would be balanced by 2019. Now we understand that it could be as late as 2045. I wonder if my colleague could enlighten this House as to when the budget will actually be balanced.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to echo my colleague's sentiments about the recent tragedy. My thoughts and prayers are with the victims and the community as a whole. I think all members of the House share these sentiments.

As for the member's question about taxation, it is important to bear in mind that one of the first things we did as a government was to lower taxes on the middle class, in the $45,000 to $80,000 bracket, while increasing taxes on the wealthiest 1%, in order to give the middle class more money to make investments and meet their many day-to-day obligations. Actually, if I am not mistaken, that was the first thing we did.

However, we did not stop there. We introduced the Canada child benefit, which is more progressive than the family benefits program introduced by the Conservatives. It is more generous to those who need it most, and it is tax free. It provides support directly to Canadian families who need it the most. The Canada child benefit allows nine out of 10 families to keep more money in their pockets, money that is tax free. As I was saying in my speech, this measure has lifted hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty. It has reduced child poverty in Canada by 40% relative to 2013 levels.

As far as the deficit is concerned, as I said very clearly, the ratio of our debt to the size of our economy is the best in the G7 and is trending downward, as is the ratio of our deficit to the size of our economy. These were precisely the results we were looking for when we decided to grow our economy by investing in the middle class and in infrastructure.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the budget implementation act seems to be very much in the realm of the Bay Street mentality with which the government approaches issues. It does not close any of the tax loopholes that are incredibly egregious, giving hundreds of millions of dollars to some of Canada's wealthiest citizens. It does not do anything to shut down the overseas tax havens. We have seen the government sign more and more of these tax treaties with these egregious overseas tax havens, letting tens of billions of dollars leave the country.

What the budget implementation act does is ask regular Canadians to wait. They are being asked to wait for pharmacare, until perhaps after the next election or perhaps another decade. Who knows? They are being asked to wait for pay equity, when Canadian women have already waited for decades and decades. For Canadians in my neck of the woods, in New Westminster—Burnaby, who have seen the acute housing and homelessness crisis we are facing, this budget implementation act and the budget basically say to wait as well.

My question is very simple. Since the government seems to be so incredibly generous with its Bay Street friends, why is it always asking Canadians to wait for the essential services they need and that they are asking for?

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as far as tax havens are concerned, it is important to mention that nearly $1 billion were invested in the Canada Revenue Agency over the past two years so the CRA could have investigators on the ground conducting audits and getting results for Canadians. That did not make it to the list of priorities for the Conservative government of Stephen Harper, who did not even talk about it, as the then-minister, Mr. Blackburn, told us just last summer.

We invested $1 billion to conduct the necessary investigations in order to bring to justice those who send their revenue to tax havens. That is what the Minister of National Revenue is working hard to do at the head of the CRA.

The member said our government waited, but we did not wait when it came to indexing the Canada child benefit to make sure it met the middle class's growing needs and continued to reduce inequality in this country. We did not wait when it came to increasing the Canada workers benefit, formerly the working income tax benefit, by almost 165%, a move that will lift tens of thousands of low-income Canadians out of poverty.

In my opinion, our government is progressive to the core and is working hard to help those who need it most.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, over this past weekend, I had a round table, an open discussion, about budget 2018 in the riding of Whitby. My hon. colleague had an opportunity to visit the riding a little while ago. In Durham region, of which Whitby is a part, over the last couple of years, we have seen unemployment decrease to the lowest it has been in 15 years. When I was knocking on doors, it was about 11% or 12%, and now it is down to 5.6%. Members in my riding are excited about that. They are excited about the fact that we have been reducing the small business tax rate, we have indexed the CCB, and we have introduced the Canada working income tax benefit.

One of the things that people were questioning and a bit concerned about is what we have done for seniors. I wonder if the hon. member could address some of the concerns that the residents of Whitby have had.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that I was in the member for Whitby's region. I was impressed by the dynamism of the local entrepreneurs and also the community members I met, who are very involved and shared their concerns with me. It is a region that is very dynamic. With regard to making sure that this growth is sustained, though it was not part of the member's question, I would like to highlight the investments in 2018 in science. They are historic and will make sure that we continue to innovate in this country and create well-paying jobs for Canadians as Canadian scientists are hard at work finding the bright ideas of the future.

In terms of seniors, it is important to remember that one of the things we have done as a government is to increase the guaranteed income supplement by 10%. That is helping close to a million seniors with a little less than $1,000 per year every year. That is something we should be proud of. That is on top of the national housing strategy we have put forward, which will help provide more housing for senior citizens across this country. These concerns have found an echo in the actions of this government, and I could go on for longer.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in regard to the national carbon tax and imposing one upon provinces that may not be in agreement with the government's aims, the courts previously found, in the Vander Zalm ruling regarding the HST, that a province not only needed to be consulted, but there needed to be agreement by the province in order for the feds to collect a tax that would normally be collected by the province. It was under the good governance clause that it was allowed.

Does the member or his government have an opinion from the Minister of Justice's officials that he can share outlining the constitutionality of a nationally imposed federal carbon tax? Our Constitution would allow an environmental program to be tabled by the Minister of Environment, but a tax by a federal minister of finance basically engaging in energy regulation, I believe is ultra vires and outside its constitutionality. Does the member have any evidence that he can table, or will his government be tabling such an opinion, so that members can know this has been thought through? He said in his speech “a legal framework” for the imposition of this national carbon tax? Is it legal?

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, obviously we would not introduce a bill if we did not believe it to be legal.

Here is where I disagree with my esteemed colleague: we see this as a price on carbon pollution. My colleague calls it a tax, but it is actually a price on carbon pollution. I think this shows how the Conservatives' vision contrasts with ours. Members on this side of the House believe it is important to grow our economy in a way that protects and preserves our environment. I would also like to remind him that this type of system is in place in four Canadian provinces so far, four provinces that account for 80% of the population.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are only two questions that Parliament must ask when presented with a budget: what does it cost us, and what do we get for it as Canadians?

Let us start with the cost of this budget. Costs are borne out through government in three ways: spending, debt, and taxes. Debt and taxes are the symptoms; spending is the cause. Whatever Parliament agrees to allow the government to spend, it must ultimately tax or borrow from the citizens and from bondholders.

The Liberal government loves to spend. The stats show that it has been increasing spending at an annual rate of roughly 6.5% to 7% per year, which is three times the combined rate of inflation and population growth. In other words, spending is growing three times as fast as the need. That spending, of course, requires a source. The government has been plundering taxpayers and borrowing to pay for that spending ever since it took office.

Let me talk briefly about the government's approach to spending. In an adjoining piece of legislation to this budget bill, the government will attempt to change the way in which Parliament approves the executive branch's expenditure of money. We, as Canadians, live in the British parliamentary system, which for roughly 800 years has meant that the power of the purse rests with the elected officials and that the crown cannot spend what Parliament does not approve. That principle originated in the fields of Great Britain at the time that King John signed the Magna Carta.

Typically governments have come forward before the House of Commons with detailed spending plans, item by item, agency by agency, department by department, and purpose by purpose, saying “Here is what we want to spend. Here is what it is for.” Then, Parliament has scrutinized that spending and passed it, and that government has been restricted by the specificity that it put in that legislation. In other words, it can only spend the money on the things it said it would, and only in the amounts that it said it would spend.

Instead, this year the government wants to do something that has only once been done in Canadian history, and then only during a crisis, and that is for Parliament to approve $7 billion of discretionary spending, which ministers on the government's Treasury Board can spend whatever they want on, as long as it stays under that $7-billion limit.

As I said, normally that $7 billion would be carefully earmarked in the main estimates that come before the House, and we as parliamentarians would approve or reject it. If it were approved, then the government would have to spend each dollar where it said it would. However, not this time.

The government has changed the system in a way that allows the government to have a big bundle of cash for a group of politicians sitting on the Treasury Board to allocate as they wish. As it stands, based on the system of financial reporting, the results of that spending will only come out in subsequent public accounts.

The public accounts for the fiscal year we have just entered will not come out until the fall of 2019. As members all know, we will be in an election at that time, and therefore those accounts cannot be tabled in the House until after the election. What the government is asking us to do is approve $7 billion of discretionary spending, and it will get back to us after the election on how it spent it.

One example of the attitude of the government to spending money was what the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance was saying. He was bragging that the government has spent an extra $1 billion on tax collectors. Normally, most governments blush when they talk about the resources they put into tax collecting departments. The Liberal government openly brags about it.

We all know that tax collection is necessary for any functional country. We also know that given their druthers, the Canadian people would like to see lower taxes and lower costs, and less money spent on bureaucrats hounding our small businesses and workers, as has become the customary practice of the government. We have seen tax collectors go after the tips of waitresses, shoe salesmen's discounts, and the disability tax credit for people suffering with diabetes.

However, the government brags openly about its expenditure on those same tax collectors, which is the Liberal approach to spending: Spend more. Spend now. Spend faster. What does that bring? It brings debt, which is the next pillar of the current Liberal government's plan. It is more debt.

The Liberals ran in the last election on a $10-billion deficit, which meant they would increase the national debt by a mere $10 billion a year. In the first two budgets, that deficit was twice what they promised. This time, it will be three times what they promised. Not only that, they promised that the deficit would be gone by 2019, which is next year. Now they say that will not happen for another quarter century. During that time, Canada's national government will add almost half a trillion dollars in additional debt. That assumes that the government introduces no additional spending in the upcoming pre-election budget next year—an unlikely story. It also assumes that direct program spending will only go up by about 1.5% over the next five years, when the government has been increasing that spending at a rate of about 5.5% since it took office. Therefore, we are expected to believe that the Prime Minister is a new man, that he has changed, and that he will not increase spending at 5.5% but only 1.5%. Who believes that the Prime Minister has even the intention of changing his ways, when his words have not suggested that he believes restraint is necessary?

Originally the government told us that its plan, its anchor, was that the deficit must never be more than $10 billion. Now the Liberals have shattered that promise. The Liberals said their anchor was that they would not add more than $25 billion total. Well, they have already done almost double that in new debt since taking office. They released that anchor as well.

However, the new anchor that the Liberals say will guide them in their spending is that the debt-to-GDP ratio will decline. That is, the debt will never be allowed to grow faster than the economy. Now, there are problems with using that measurement as an anchor, which I will list. One, the debt-to-GDP ratio of the Government of Canada is an incomplete measure of the country's ability to withstand indebtedness.

The Canadian government is supported by taxpayers. Those taxpayers have to support other levels of government which also have debt. Alberta is adding almost $10 billion to its debt this year, which means that one-fifth of every expenditure that the Government of Alberta makes is paid for by borrowing. Ontario has doubled its debt in the last 10 years alone, and it is the most indebted subnational government in North America. Atlantic provinces are similarly indebted. Their aging populations will retire in disproportionately large numbers, meaning fewer taxpayers and more people needing health care at a time when their provinces are already struggling with large debt interest payments to lenders. Therefore, the same taxpayers that the federal government are relying on to support the federal debt also have provincial debts that are growing exponentially. Finally, those taxpayers have personal debts, which happen to be among the largest in the OECD. Right now, the average Canadian household has $1.70 in personal debt for every dollar in disposable income.

If we take the personal debt, the corporate debt, and the government debt of the entire economy, it is three times the size of GDP, which is a larger ratio than Greece, Spain, or other basket cases on debt around the world. This is according to Gluskin Sheff, which is a major financial firm that performed that calculation just a month and a half ago. Therefore, if we take all the debt that the Canadian economy is supporting, we are in a worse financial position today than is Greece.

The government just assumes that all of its good luck will continue. Oil prices have doubled. The American economy is roaring. The world economy has picked up. Interest rates have been at historic lows. The real estate bubble in Toronto and Vancouver has created a short-term and unsustainable employment boom and revenue for the government it cannot count on. All of these events are temporary. They are out of the government's control, and they could be gone just as quickly as they appeared.

If we are running massive, promise-shattering deficits today, while lady luck is smiling, how will we pay the bills when she starts to frown? The government has not prepared for those eventualities. In fact, its arbitrary debt-to-GDP ratio anchor creates a whole series of perverse policy incentives.

The debt is the numerator in that measurement, and the GDP is the denominator. If we were hit with a financial crisis that caused the GDP to shrink, to reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio, as the government claims is its promise, it would actually have to cut spending dramatically in the middle of a recession, which is exactly the opposite of what it claims should be done during such economic times. It would have to cut spending to reduce the size of government faster than the economy overall was reducing in size, and it would have to do so in a way that would allow it to run budget surpluses in order to pay down the debt at a faster rate than the economy was shrinking.

Who in the House would really think it was responsible to prepare for a rainy day by suggesting that if a financial crisis were a problem and an external threat were to arise, the solution, according to the government's plan, would be to cut spending and dramatically reduce the government's ability to respond? That is effectively what the government's current anchor would require it to do to reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio in the event that a crisis came along and shrunk the GDP. Nevertheless, that is the anchor it chooses to rely upon as it goes forward.

That brings me to taxes, because, as we know, today's deficits are tomorrow's taxes. The government cannot ultimately spend any money that it does not tax, either by taking it out of the pockets of people today or by forcing them to pay interest on debt tomorrow. That interest, by the way, is going to rise by one-third over the next five years under the government's plan, from about $25 billion to $32 billion. That is an increase of $7 billion or $8 billion in the amount Canadian taxpayers will give wealthy bondholders. That is another wealth transfer, by the way, from the working class to the super-rich. That always happens through higher taxes.

What do we know about the government's record already on taxes? According to the Fraser Institute, which conducted an objective and scientific analysis of the taxes paid by middle-class Canadians, 80% are already paying higher taxes under this government, on average $800 more. With other projected tax increases, those the government has already legislated or committed to, it will be about 90% of Canadian taxpayers, and they will pay, on average, over $2,000 more in taxes once the government's full plan is implemented.

Taxpayers are already contributing more to feed the government's insatiable, uncontrollable spending. However, the government is just getting started. It has an additional carbon tax it wants everyone to pay. That tax is laid out in a 206-page section of the budget bill we are now debating. Let us step back a minute and ask ourselves what we were told about this carbon tax.

First, we were told that it would be revenue neutral, that the government would cut taxes as much as it raised them. While people might pay more for gas, groceries, electricity, and other basic essentials, they would get an income tax break or perhaps a consumption tax break. As a result, it would be a strictly neutral transaction shifting taxes from what we earn to what we burn. That was the promise. However, nowhere in these 206 pages of legislation on the federal carbon tax is there any mention of a tax reduction to offset the new burden to be paid by Canadian taxpayers for the carbon tax.

Second, we were told that the carbon tax would be simple. There would be a wholesale levy, and then the marketplace would do its work. The government would put a price on something we do not want, and people would therefore consume less of it, that being carbon-intensive goods, and the problem would solve itself. We would not need all this bureaucracy: regulators, administrators, rules, and accountants to administer the tax on the end of the small business or household. That would all be behind us.

We now have the legislation, and it is 206 pages long. There are permits. There are credits that could be traded between provinces, and there are different rates of taxation for different kinds of carbon products, all of which will have to be sorted out through endless paperwork by high-priced accountants and lawyers who will then administer this scheme.

This carbon tax, as established by this legislation, would benefit some. It would benefit those who are wealthy and well-connected and who have the ability to get their hands on the resulting revenue.

Ontario already has a carbon tax, and while it takes one-third more of the income of a low-income household than that of a rich household, it provides benefits to people who can afford to buy a $150,000 electric Tesla. If someone is a millionaire and can buy a Tesla, that person will get $15,000 as a bonus, but a low-income single mom trying to keep the lights on or pay for gas to get to work will pay more so that the rich guy can have his fancy electric car. It is another wealth transfer to the privileged elite using government as the delivery mechanism to move money from those who earned it to the privileged few who did not.

Herein lies the worst part of the carbon tax, and it is the cover-up, the carbon tax cover-up. For the last two years, I have asked the Liberal government what it would cost the average family to pay the $50-a-tonne carbon tax. The good news is that the government has that information. I know, because I submitted access to information requests for which it released the information. However, it released the information with some black ink over the numbers. We are not allowed to know the numbers. We know there is a cost, and we know that the government knows the cost, but it does not want us to know the cost.

This is the first time in my parliamentary career that a government has imposed a tax without telling people what it will cost them. The basic principle of parliamentary democracy is that the commoners must approve any tax the common people must pay, but we cannot approve what we do not know. If the government is so proud of its carbon tax, why does it not tell people what it will cost them?

Finally, the government will not tell us how much greenhouse gases will be reduced. We do not know the cost and we do not know the benefit, yet we are supposed to judge the cost-to-benefit analysis.

This budget costs too much and will achieve too little, so I am moving a motion to amend the budget bill. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: the House decline to give second reading to Bill C-74, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures, since the Bill: (a) fails to address the cost of the government's carbon tax to the average Canadian Family; (b) neglects to implement, or to even mention, the government's promise of a balanced budget; and (c) will continue on the path of adding debt at twice the rate foreshadowed by the Minister of Finance.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The motion seems to be in order.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Whitby.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member took me back to my fourth grade days when he mentioned that debt was the numerator and GDP was the denominator and that if, for example, we got into a fiscal crisis, we would need to cut services to maintain our debt-to-GDP ratio.

I am wondering if my hon. colleague remembers the days before the last election, when that is exactly what his government did. It cut services and essential programs needed by Canadians to create a fictional surplus before the last election. During the election, his government then ran on an austerity budget at a time when the economy was stagnant, such that at this time, we would not see Canada as the fastest growing country in the G7, we would not see the job creation we have seen so far, and we would not see the economy booming as we do.

I am wondering if the hon. colleague can speak to that.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly can, as a matter of fact. She said we would not have seen Canada as the fastest job-creation jurisdiction in the G7 if Conservative policies were in place. Actually, that is exactly what we saw. When the great global recession struck here in Canada, we had the best job record anywhere in the G7. In fact, we were the last country to go into deficit and the last country to go into recession, and we were the first to come out of recession. That was the result of careful planning in the good times.

In the years leading up to that great global recession, which originated outside our borders, our previous finance minister, Jim Flaherty, paid off $40 billion in debt so that we had a cushion and could absorb those external shocks. We then quickly recovered and turned that short-term, externally caused deficit into a surplus so that when the next worldwide shock struck, the 70% drop in oil prices in late 2014, we were once again insulated against its effects, and we were able to move forward with a solid economic position. That is a good reminder that when times are good, we should squirrel away everything we can so that we are prepared for the bad times that may come ahead.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I like the hon. member, and he is certainly very articulate, but I really have to ask where he was over the past decade, particularly under the Harper government. We saw the worst deficits in our nation's history under the Conservatives, and we saw the highest family debt load in Canadian history. It has gotten worse under the Liberals.

He mentioned in his speech the question of transferring money to the privileged few. This was a practice started by the Harper government, and it has been amplified by the Liberals, particularly when we look at overseas tax havens. We lose anywhere from $10 billion to $40 billion each and every year. No one knows how much, because the Liberals, up until a few weeks ago, refused to give the figures to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, as the Conservatives did before them. We lose billions and billions of dollars a year that could go to job creation, building social programs, and providing the things Canadians really need. What we have seen is the Liberals continuing the practice of signing these tax treaties with notorious tax havens.

My question to the hon. member is very simple. Does he think it is bad, as I do, that the Liberals are continuing the practice of signing these agreements with overseas tax havens and allowing tens of billions of dollars to leave the country untaxed, when they could be serving to build job creation, build a better economy, and build programs for Canadians?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I like the member as well. He talks about the Liberal approach to tax fairness. In the last election, the Prime Minister said that he would go after wealthy tax cheats. It was not until after the election that we found out whom he meant. He meant pizza shop owners, farmers, and welders who own small businesses. He meant waitresses who might get a discount on a sandwich during their break at the restaurant. He meant diabetics, from whom his government attempted to take away the disability tax credit. Those were the wealthy tax cheats the Prime Minister had in mind.

That reminds us that whenever government gets big, costly, and expensive, it is always the working class that pays the bills. That is because capital and higher income people are more mobile. They have the ability to reap the benefits of big government without absorbing the cost. Of course, workers do not have the same ability. They cannot hire a fancy accountant or move their money offshore. They cannot get on a plane and just move somewhere else to work for another company around the world somewhere. As a result, when all the bills come due for big government programs, it is always working people who end up shouldering the burdens.

The solution to that is to contain government and allow people to keep more of what they earn to expand free enterprise, a system based on voluntary exchange, where one can get ahead only by offering something to someone else that is worth more to that person than it costs to pay for it. That system of voluntary exchange and free markets has lifted literally billions of people around the world out of poverty. It is the number one determinant of economic success, and it is the greatest invention for the creation of material prosperity and the defeat of poverty ever conceived by any human being.

I am sure the hon. member from the NDP would agree with that.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate this member's contribution to the debate today. Absolutely, government debt is at a high when we add in the provinces. However, we also add our demographics, and it becomes incumbent upon any responsible government to make sure it is not taking on more debt than it needs, particularly since there is no war, recession, or public safety concern.

Could the member extrapolate a little on the issue of carbon pricing or carbon taxes? When the carbon tax was brought in, the cement industry in my province of British Columbia was hit extremely hard. Since Washington state and Alberta did not have a carbon tax, and Washington state still does not have one, that industry has been hit particularly hard, and now taxpayers are permanently subsidizing millions of dollars every year, which was supposed to be temporary, just to keep the cement industry going.

I would appreciate if the member could extrapolate more on how carbon taxes actually end up pushing people's behaviour in odd ways.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member from British Columbia is a great champion for entrepreneurship. He understands that entrepreneurship is about allowing people to produce prosperity for themselves, their families, and their communities. That is one of the points of distinction between this side and that side. As he correctly points out, governments tax industries and people into submission. As Reagan put it, “If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”

We see it over and over again. Let us just consider the current example of the Trans Mountain pipeline. The government has wrapped the project in so much bureaucratic red tape that the proponent has suggested that the project may no longer be economically viable and they may cancel it altogether. Now the government is saying, “It is okay. We will just take taxpayers' money to prop up what we have been holding down.” One wonders why it did not just get out of the way in the first place and let this ecologically friendly, safe, and secure project go ahead without so much burden.

Again, the government imposes taxes, regulations, and other costs until businesses finally cannot operate. Then it says that it needs to spend more money to prop up all these failing businesses. We saw it impose massive new taxes on small businesses, or at least attempt to, in the fall, before we stopped it. Simultaneously, it is saying that we need billions of dollars of corporate welfare to save businesses from collapse. Why not just get out of the way in the first place, so that enterprise can rely on investment and sales to generate its revenues and pay its bills, rather than constantly forcing businesses to hire lobbyists, suck up to politicians, and turn to government?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will talk about the size and scope of Bill C-74. I would like to start with the size. I have been here for a few years, and a number of my colleagues have been as well, and we recall the worst years of the Harper government, when massive 300- and 400-page bricks would be dropped in the middle of the House of Commons.

Those omnibus bills, as part of the budget implementation act, were designed to hit sometimes a couple of dozen areas and various pieces of legislation. It was a deliberate tactic, which was anti-democratic and designed to hide from the Canadian public what was actually in the budget implementation act. Of course, we spoke very loudly about that, as did many Canadians, seeing it as a fundamentally anti-democratic approach to government, with 300 or 400 pages touching 24 or 25 different pieces of legislation. What it did was hide the intent of the budget in a very real way.

At that time, we were the official opposition, but the Liberals, as the third party, also rose in this House and repeatedly condemned the Harper government for putting in place anti-democratic omnibus legislation. My colleagues will recall Liberal members standing up and saying that having 300 or 400 pages of legislation that is dumped in one brick hitting 24 or 25 different pieces of legislation is fundamentally anti-democratic. It does not allow Canadians to know what is really in the budget implementation act, and it does not provide the kind of clarity and transparency that hopefully we would all seek to see in a budget implementation act, which is perhaps one of the most important pieces of legislation brought forward by Parliamentarians, who are elected by the people of this country to come together and discuss transparently and democratically the nation's business. This piece of legislation is one of the most important.

Thus, my colleagues can understand my complete dismay when the Liberals, just a couple of weeks ago, tabled their budget implementation act. We have had previous budget implementation acts of 300, 350, 400, and sometimes as many as 450 pages of legislation tackling 27, 28, even 29 different pieces of legislation.

The Liberals made commitments of sunny ways and a new approach to transparency. We all recall, back in 2015, the Prime Minister making those commitments, that the Liberals would take a completely different approach to governance, that they would have respect for democracy and bring in a different type of electoral process, putting away first past the post. The Liberals also said very clearly, many times, that they were going to do away with omnibus legislation.

However, what did the Liberals table? They tabled the largest omnibus bill in Canadian history, 556 pages, amending not just 28, 29, or 30 different acts, but 44 separate pieces of legislation. It is nearly 100 pages longer than any of the omnibus legislation we have seen in the past, which the Liberals used to criticize and attack. We are 100 pages beyond what the Conservatives used to do, 100 pages beyond the Harper record. We have the biggest, fattest, and least transparent budget implementation act in Canadian history.

There is no other way to put it. This is a profound betrayal of everything the Liberals said they stood for in 2015, every commitment they made to Canadians at that time, and every speech the Prime Minister and other Liberal MPs made in the House of Commons saying that they were going to do away with omnibus legislation. The size of this is beyond belief. We have never seen anything like it, 550 pages. It is beyond anything the Harper government imagined or was able to table. It is that much worse.

It will come as no surprise to you, Mr. Speaker, that in the coming days we will be endeavouring to put the case to you, because, as Speaker of the House of Commons, on behalf of all Canadians, you have the ability to divide or carve up this omnibus legislation and create stand-alone bills that can be voted on separately. That power, which has been given to you, Mr. Speaker, is sacrosanct and so important. When the government is refusing to heed Canadians' calls, when it is refusing to be transparent and democratic, then the Speaker of the House of Commons has the ability to intervene, and we will be asking and laying out the case in the coming days for you to do just that. It is fundamentally important.

That is the start of what is probably one of the most cynical budget implementation acts we have ever seen, cynical in its size and in its scope. Before I go into those details, let us talk about what the current situation is for the vast majority of Canadians, because this is very germane to the debate we are going to be having over the next few days. Far from having sunny days and sunny ways, as the Prime Minister likes to say, as he goes around the globe to various meetings, Canadians are actually struggling to make ends meet in a way that is perhaps unprecedented, beyond the depressions and recessions we have seen in the past. We now have a new reality that the government should have taken account of.

The new reality is that the average Canadian family now has, inflation-adjusted, the worst family debt load in any period in Canadian history. The average Canadian family is struggling under a worse debt load than it had under the Great Depression or under recessions. It is struggling under a massive debt load far beyond its annual earnings. That debt load is making it difficult for so many families in this country to make ends meet.

The average Canadian family is now surviving on temporary or part-time work. Despite the fact that the finance minister will stand in the House and say how things are rosy out there, the jobs that are being created tend to be temporary in nature. They do not allow for the family-sustaining type of employment that the NDP has always promoted and that we believe very strongly in achieving. However, that takes investments, forethought, and planning, which we do not see from the government.

When we look at the situation of the average Canadian family, as the price of housing goes up and rents go up, the homelessness and the housing prices are beyond belief. The debt load is considerable and growing. For most Canadians, temporary or part-time work, or cobbling together a series of part-time jobs, is the alternative they have economically.

That is the context of the budget, the context that the government should have paid close attention to. Instead, the Liberals tabled the largest and most fundamentally anti-democratic omnibus piece of legislation in Canadian history, 100 pages beyond anything Mr. Harper did, and they did so in such a timid way that even the scope of the budget itself has been eroded.

It is profoundly cynical as a budget implementation act because it goes far below where the budget was, which was already very timid, so we are looking at an extremely timid budget implementation act in terms of what it seeks to achieve. At the same time, it is fundamentally anti-democratic in the size of what has been dumped into this omnibus legislation.

What could have been in this budget implementation act and should have been in the budget? We talked about this a number of times. I spoke at a press conference with Jagmeet Singh, the national NDP leader, a very charismatic and energetic guy, and we gave some direction to the federal government as to what it should put in the budget. One of the most important items was tackling what is a profoundly unfair tax system. I also intervened in a letter to the finance minister with the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, who is an extremely effective member of Parliament, and we spoke about gender equality.

When we look at what is in the budget, we see absolutely nothing that touches on the issue of tax fairness. Tens of billions of dollars is going offshore that the government refuses to cap or take action on in any way. In fact, on the current government's watch, more of these very egregious tax treaties, which are basically no-tax treaties, are being signed with notorious tax havens like Antigua, Barbuda, Grenada, and the Cook Islands. The Conservatives signed them all the time. However, the Liberals are signing even more.

The Liberals did nothing to tackle the issue of the stock options loophole, which is a nefarious loophole that in the latest year we have figures for helped 75 wealthy corporate CEOs pocket $6 million each, for a grand total cost to Canadian taxpayers of half a billion dollars. That was $6 million each, on average, for 75 of Canada's wealthiest corporate CEOs who used the stock option loophole. Jagmeet Singh and I directed our comments to the finance minister and the Prime Minister stating that it needs to end. The Liberals could have chosen to end the stock option loophole and take action on the issue of tax havens. However, they did neither. They are allowing that privilege, the transfer of wealth that we are seeing, and a growing inequality in this country, such that now a third of the Canadian population has as much wealth as two Canadian billionaires, something that came out just a few months ago and continues to reverberate with regular Canadians because they see the inequality in the tax system. They see a tax system that is built to be profoundly unequal, and of course they are reacting, because the Liberals and the Prime Minister promised in the last campaign to take action against the proliferation of tax havens and the profoundly unfair tax system that makes sure that tradespeople, small business owners, nurses, or truck drivers pay their fair share of taxes, yet someone who is running one of Canada's biggest and most profitable corporations does not have to worry about that.

As members know, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives has now estimated the real marginal income tax rate for Canada's biggest corporations at less than 10%. It is at 9.8% on average. There are a lot of corporations that are not paying any tax at all. However, the average tax rate is now 9.8%, which is far lower than for regular individuals, who are working hard each and every day to put food on the table, seeing an erosion of their services, and participating in a tax system that is absolutely and profoundly unfair.

That is what could have been in this budget implementation act. However, there is no sign of that at all.

We would expect that there would be provisions from the budget in the budget implementation act. This is something I would like to tackle now.

When we talk about the scope of the budget implementation act, there are two things that come to mind immediately. The first is the issue of pharmacare. I have spoken in this House many times about constituents, as have my colleagues. All of us have raised specific cases as to why it is important to have pharmacare in this country. First off, as a country we pay too much, and many Canadians are left to choose between putting food on the table or paying for their medication. Jim, whom I have cited a number of times, is outside here, just off Wellington Street, and begs every day for the $580 he needs every month to pay for the medication that keeps him alive. Because there is no pharmacare, Jim and so many others like him are forced into that awful choice.

We, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, and every expert who has analyzed this issue have said that bringing in pharmacare makes sense from a whole range of perspectives. Overall, it actually saves money for Canadians. It allows us to bring down the costs of medications. It reduces costs for some small businesses that pay up to $6 billion a year for medical plans that allow their employees to have access to medications.

Therefore, for all of those reasons, it made sense to bring in pharmacare. We certainly heard in the weeks coming up to the budget a refrain that the Liberal government was going to bring in pharmacare, so we should watch out, because this budget was going to steal the NDP's thunder. We are happy to have our ideas stolen; we just do not like to have them gawking at our ideas, because gawking does not mean they are implementing them, which is what they should be doing. They should be implementing pharmacare right now. That is what they should be doing.

We saw in the budget that instead of doing anything practical to address the issue of pharmacare, the Liberals promised a study, and that was it. There was nothing more. As a result, the scope of the budget implementation act is a mighty failure when it comes to actually putting in place programs that matter.

We then come to the issue of gender parity. My colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith has been a very articulate spokesperson on this issue. We raised it with the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister prior to the budget. There were some words in the budget about moving forward on pay equity. We saw that. We read that. Yes, the government was going to implement pay equity, finally, after decades.

Then, as I madly perused the 556 pages of the most massive and most bloated omnibus legislation in Canadian history, I looked for something that indicated that the Liberals would implement pay equity, but there was nothing, not a word. The Liberals promised it in the budget, and they have already broken their promise with the budget implementation act a couple of weeks later. It is unbelievable. It was an issue that the Liberals admitted it was time to take action on. In the transfer from the budget to the budget implementation act, it is not as if they were trying to scale it down. At 556 pages, they were dumping everything they could into it, but they decided not to dump in pay equity, which was actually in the budget and could be in the budget implementation act as a respectful and democratic way of processing the commitment that was made in the budget, but there was absolutely nothing. It is another broken promise, another fail. It is appalling to me.

Therefore, looking at the scope of the budget implementation act, not only do we see all sorts of things thrown into the BIA that should not be there and that we will be requesting that you remove, Mr. Speaker, so that we can have the appropriate democratic process even though the government does not seem to want to respect that, but there are also things that should be there that are simply not. That is the real failure of this budget implementation act.

It is so cynical in its nature. Everything that the Liberals said they stood for in 2015 they no longer stand for. We all saw those promises about making Parliament work, making it more transparent and democratic. On every commitment that they made to the public in 2015, we are seeing exactly the opposite in the greatest, most bloated omnibus legislation in Canadian history, not tabled by the Harper Conservatives, as bad as they were, but tabled by this Prime Minister's Liberal government. What a failure for those Canadians who have been waiting for decades for pay equity. What a failure for those Canadians who have been waiting for decades for pharmacare so that they do not have to beg to raise enough money to pay for their medication or do not have to choose between paying the rent and paying for their medication. On behalf of all those Canadians across the country who were hoping to see a different approach from the current government, I can say we are all profoundly disappointed by this budget implementation act. As a result, we will be voting against Bill C-74.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to be fair, I know that when the Liberals ran, their platform was different from that of the opposition parties. It was different in that we committed to invest in Canadians. We made that commitment because we believed that this investment was important and worthwhile. We know what Canadians are about, and we know that this investment is going to pay off.

Those investments have paid off. In fact, over 600,000 jobs have been created since November 2015. Canada has the best balance sheet in the G7, with the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio. It is projected to soon be at the lowest point in almost 40 years.

We will index the CCB this July. That is what the budget implementation bill will do. We know that when the CCB was first introduced, nine out of 10 families benefited, raising over 300,000 children out of poverty. In the budget implementation bill, the Canada workers benefit is going to raise approximately 70,000 Canadians out of poverty. We have reduced small business tax. There are many things that our budget will do, because we want to invest in Canadians, we believe in Canadians, and we are very proud of the results.

I recognize that the opposition party took a different approach. However, in terms of the budget implementation bill, I would like to ask the hon. member about one thing in particular. I would like to hear his comments on the new gender results framework. How does the member feel about that framework? Does he believe that this is important for Canadians? Does the member see the merit in implementing it the budget implementation bill?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the answer is quite simple. It is the actions brought forward in the budget implementation bill that will actually make a difference for Canadian women. It is not there, nor are the commitments around pay equity that were made, and these were commitments made in the budget. We are not talking about a broken Liberal promise from five years ago, 10 years ago, or 15 years ago; we are talking about a few weeks ago.

A commitment was made in the budget, but it is not contained in the budget implementation bill. For all of the Canadian women who have been fighting for pay equity and for all of them who have said that they have waited long enough, both Liberal and Conservative governments have been responsible for that broken promise.

There would have been the light of hope, when the budget came out, that the budget implementation bill would contain those provisions, but it did not. There is not a word. It is a tragically broken promise.

What makes this such a cynical budget implementation bill is that a commitment made just a few weeks ago is already being broken by the Liberal government.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more with the member on his enumeration of the many failed and broken promises of the Liberal government in relation to its platform and all of its great plans. Suddenly, all of those promises are being broken.

My question relates particularly to the carbon tax. If I am not mistaken, my colleague and his party do support a carbon tax. We know that the government knows what the carbon tax will cost, but it has not been willing to divulge that information.

I wonder if my colleague and his party have done any substantive studies on what this carbon tax will actually cost the average Canadian family.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is the problem of transparency that we have seen with both the government of the member's prime minister, Mr. Harper, and the current government. There is a lack of transparency.

That is why the provisions that are contained within this budget implementation bill are so inappropriate. It should be a stand-alone bill. Perhaps the member will be raising this as well with the Speaker. I have certainly indicated that we will be raising the idea that it should be carved off for that exact reason, so that we can do the appropriate study and have the appropriate vote around that issue.

The environment is something that I feel profoundly strongly about. We have seen failure from the current government, as we saw failure from the previous government. I think younger Canadians certainly get it, because we are seeing more and more of them saying “A pox on both the old parties. They simply do not take into consideration the intense impacts of climate change.”

The fact is that climate change is costing our economy billions of dollars more every year. The federal government needs to make provisions. Our national government, working with the provinces, has to put measures into place. The current government has completely failed on that. In fact, it is actually going backwards, as the previous government did.

To have that debate, we need transparency. We need to hive off those provisions of the omnibus budget bill so that we can have that debate in Parliament.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was very surprised to see that this budget implementation bill amends the Parliament of Canada Act. That is one of the measures that I fought for, particularly at the Procedure and House Affairs Committee. These are recommendations that I made. They seek to recognize motherhood and new parenthood as valid reasons for members to be absent from the House without penalty. Unfortunately, the government included those recommendations in an omnibus budget bill, when they have nothing to do with the budget.

Past amendments to the Parliament of Canada Act were always made in an open and transparent manner. They were never made surreptitiously. Since members must abide by the measures set out in that act, they cannot be amended in secret. To amend the Parliament of Canada Act in a way that is not open and transparent would be an insult to Canadians' intelligence.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the transgression that the Liberal government dared to commit in the budget, namely planning to quietly amend the Parliament of Canada Act as part of an omnibus bill.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue for her intervention. I know her region well, and she is doing a great job of representing it. She is always tremendously passionate about representing her constituents effectively. The concerns she has raised in the House are issues that the people in her region care deeply about. I want to commend her for being such an excellent representative in the House.

My colleague asked a very good question: why did the Liberals cram so much into this monster bill, after criticizing the Harper Conservatives for doing the exact same thing?

What the Liberals are doing now is even worse. Certain measures that should have been included in this bill to implement the budget are missing, and several elements that are included should be removed. As my colleague suggested, this bill ought to be split up so that each element can be considered separately.

We will be back shortly to discuss the possibility of burying this monster bill and drafting fair, well-targeted legislation. That would make the House much more democratic.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about an economic vision for this nation, one concern for me is the Liberals' love of the mega cluster, the supercluster. If they put as much money as possible into two or three big giants, we will have a much broader economy. However, Canada is a very diverse region. Rural regions need specific economic development dollars, yet it has all been put on the desk of the Minister of Innovation. Particularly in my region of northern Ontario, we have the undermining of FedNor programs and the lack of understanding of how we build rural, blue collar, resource-based economies throughout rural parts of Canada.

What does my hon. colleague think of this Liberal vision where by picking a few winners that is going to create a more sustainable economy?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, very quickly, I would like to praise the member for Timmins—James Bay. He is an amazing and very articulate spokesperson for rural areas across the country and northern Ontario in particular. He speaks up effectively and is one of the leading parliamentarians in the House.

The member raises a very important question. Do we centralize all of our economic considerations around a few companies or do we look to broadening economic development right across the country?

I think members would agree that economic development needs to take place right across the country, not just in a few areas. We need a government with the leadership and the ability to understand all the regions of the country, which is not what we see from the government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with my hon. colleague from the riding of West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country.

It gives me great pleasure to speak to Bill C-74, the budget implementation act, 2018, No.1, which is intended to strengthen the middle class and make sure all Canadians have the skills and opportunities they need to succeed.

Budget 2018, appropriately entitled “Equality + Growth: A Strong Middle Class”, is a statement that continues to build upon the solid foundation laid out in our government's prior two budgets.

Our economy is strong and the future for our country and for all Canadians is bright. Our progress as a government over the last two and a half years is something of which we can all be proud.

Hard-working Canadians, including those in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge, are taking risks, investing in their communities and their businesses. Due to their efforts over 500,000 net new jobs have been created, an overwhelming majority of which are full time.

Our unemployment rate is below 6%, the lowest in 40 years, and thanks to the middle-class tax cut, nine million Canadians are paying less tax. Over a period of five years, that will add up to more than $20 billion in tax relief for Canadian families.

Our government has ambitiously completed historical and progressive trade deals, including CETA, which will create thousands of good middle-class jobs for Canadians, will strengthen economic relations, and will allow Canadian companies unlimited access to over 500 million consumers.

Putting the interests of the middle class at the centre of our trade discussions ensures that Canadian businesses and the Canadian economy will reap tangible benefits.

We have also put in place an infrastructure plan that invests billions in public transit so commuters in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge can get home sooner to their families. This we can see is real tangible progress for all Canadians.

Our vision strengthens Canada's social fabric and balances the desire for a strong economy, while introducing long-term measures for a healthy environment. This includes pan-Canadian pricing for carbon pollution, an important measure in Bill C-74. Each province will determine how to spend the money generated from carbon pricing. This is the right approach.

I do wish to stress that all the measures in Budget 2018 and laid out in Bill C-74, in my view, only further strengthen our fiscal position.

As an economist and someone with over two decades of experience in the private sector, I have seen and experienced the ups and downs of the global economy, including the 2008 global financial crisis and before that the technology bubble. I know how important it is to maintain a strong fiscal framework.

I am proud to say that our plan includes a gradual reduction in the federal debt-to-GDP ratio. According to the International Monetary Fund, Canada has the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in all G7 countries.

We have looked at Bill C-74 on a larger scale, so why not look at how the measures we have laid out in this bill would directly affect Canadians in their day-to-day life.

Let us examine the Canada child benefit.

In my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge, the CCB is assisting thousands of families. The numbers speak for themselves. In one year alone, CCB payments benefited 19,400 children in my wonderful riding, with approximately 10,400 payments and an average tax-free payment of $5,400. This is approximately $59 million that is delivered tax free to families in Vaughan—Woodbridge and to 337 other ridings in Canada. This is money which will assist families with paying for their kids' sports, clothes, or can help save for their children's future.

Bill C-74 indexes the Canada child benefit beginning in July 2018, that is, two years earlier than originally planned, to help families deal with the high cost of raising children.

It is estimated that this measure will provide an additional $2.1 billion to families in Ontario alone until 2022-23. That is the kind of leadership Canadians expect from our government.

At this time, the CCB is helping lift millions of families and hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty across the country.

These measures are not only putting more money in the pockets of numerous Canadians families, but they will also positively affect business owners across the country.

In my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge, the city of Vaughan is home to over 11,000 small and medium-size businesses, employing more than 208,000 people. I am proud to say the city of Vaughan is the largest employment area in the whole York Region.

My riding is home to many businesses, from the large, multinational companies like FedEx and Home Depot, to many family-run firms, including Vision Enterprises, Quality Cheese Inc., Decor-Rest Furniture Manufacturers, to family-run bakeries, which I frequent all too often. When I am home, my family and I enjoy visiting our favourites like Sweet Boutique, La Strada Bakery, and St. Phillips Bakery to just name a few.

With Bill C-74, we will strengthen our businesses by lowering the small business tax rate to 10% effective January 1, 2018, and to 9% effective January 1, 2019.

Once fully implemented, those hard-working small business owners will see a tax reduction of up to $7,500 annually. This measure is a cumulative tax reduction of nearly $3 billion over the next five years in the pockets of hard-working Canadians across the country.

Our government initiated extensive consultations to make sure that entrepreneurs can continue to invest in and grow their business, but also to ensure that all Canadians are paying their fair share of taxes and that the economy is working for everyone.

I know this is crucially important for the many successful private business owners in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge who are involved in various industries, from advanced manufacturing, high tech, construction, and the food and beverage sector. I have met with many of these hard-working large, medium, and small business owners, some employing 10 workers and others employing thousands. I am incredibly proud of their hard work and to be their voice in Ottawa.

Our government will ensure that business owners can continue to invest in their businesses and also increase flexibility for owners to build a cushion of savings for personal circumstances, such as maternity leave or retirement.

However, we will restrict tax deferments for passive investments in private corporations. Once a private corporation has amassed significant passive investments, it will no longer be subject to the small business tax rate. This measure will affect less than 3%, or about 50,000, of Canadian-controlled private corporations.

As I noted in my introduction, our government is committed to helping all Canadians succeed, and we are putting money in the pockets of those who need it most.

In budget 2018, our government makes a significant investment in boosting the earnings of low-income workers with a near $1 billion investment in the Canada workers benefit. The investment will lift 70,000 Canadians out of poverty and, as important, encourage more people to join the workforce.

With the legislative changes that will automatically enrol Canadians, an estimated 300,000 additional low-income workers will receive the new CWB for the 2019 tax year. For example, an individual in my riding who is earning $20,000 annually, which is not a large sum for a lot of people, and some people make that stretch a long way, will receive an additional $500 from this measure, where previously no boost was received.

As the son of parents who immigrated to Canada with nothing but the desire to work and create a better future for their family, I know that the Canada workers benefit will improve the living conditions of thousands of Canadian workers.

I have touched merely upon a few things that Bill C-74 introduces. The indexation of the Canada child benefit, the Canada workers benefit, and support for small businesses are all measures that will benefit millions of Canadian workers and Canadian businesses from coast to coast to coast.

These measures will lift tens of thousands out of poverty, help families in raising their kids, encourage more folks to enter the labour force, and allow business owners to invest more money to grow their businesses. These are real, tangible, positive outcomes that will better the lives of Canadian families, business owners, and our economy. I am proud of budget 2018 and what is in Bill C-74.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals always committed to pushing back against omnibus legislation. The member will recall from previous Parliaments that the Conservatives introduced 300- or 400-page pieces of omnibus legislation. The Liberals always decried that, said it was inappropriate, that we should not have all of these measures dumped into one bill. Certainly during the election campaign in 2015, we all recall that the Prime Minister committing to showing more transparency in Parliament, avoiding the egregious type of omnibus legislation we had under the Conservatives. However, lo and behold, we now have the largest omnibus bill in Canadian history, with 556 pages amending more than 44 pieces of legislation. It is bigger, fatter, more bloated than any omnibus legislation we have had before.

How does the member feel about the betrayal of a solemn commitment made during the election campaign by the Prime Minister on behalf of all Liberal candidates, saying that the Liberals will not do this anti-democratic, non-transparent dumping of omnibus legislation, and then having the Liberals do the worst omnibus bill ever?

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

Mr. Speaker, the measures contained in Bill C-74 are real. They impact people in my community and communities across this country, whether it is the indexation of the CCB, implementing the Canada workers benefit, whether it is putting a price on carbon. I could go on and on. Whether it is encouraging women to enter the labour force in greater numbers, closing the wage gap, all of these measures, many of them contained in Bill C-74, are real measures which impact real people every day. They are working hard and trying to save for their families and their future. I am proud to be part of a government that has put forth these measures as making a real difference in people's lives, not some theoretical justification.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I asked a similar question of the parliamentary secretary a few minutes ago, but there were no answers forthcoming, so I want to see if my colleague could answer some concerns that have been raised.

First of all, my colleague failed to mention that 90% of middle-class families are paying more taxes now than they were two and a half years ago. He also failed to mention the increasing amount of interest we are paying on our national debt. It is $26 billion this year, and up to $33 billion by 2021. This is a huge cost in our national budget.

During the last election, the Liberal Party promised that by 2019, one year from now, we would be back to balanced budgets. All of the current estimates indicate that under the government's leadership, the earliest we will balance a budget is 2045. I wonder if my colleague could tell the House when the budget will be balanced.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are undertaking the necessary investments to grow our economy today and for tomorrow. We are undertaking the necessary investments to invest in families through the Canada child benefit and in businesses much like the five super clusters. One of the super clusters is located near my colleague's riding who is asking the question. Through their hard work and our assistance, Canadians know we have created over 500,000 jobs, with an unemployment rate at less than 6%. It is a 40-year record for participation rates, and a debt-to-GDP ratio which is declining and the lowest in the G7.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the last question, it is all about how we do the math. What the Conservatives are not doing is not considering that there is a child benefit that people are getting back. Members are not including that in their math. They are also not talking about the fact that we are lowering the corporate tax rate to 9%. Those are meaningful things that Canadians get to see.

The member talks about the workers benefit that the government is bringing in under this budget. I am curious if he can expand on why he sees that as being important to getting people to work, encouraging people to seek out opportunities so they can continue to strive for and achieve meaningful jobs.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is great to see my colleague and friend from Kingston and the Islands this morning and his passion. His comments are exactly correct. The CWB will encourage and pull more people into the labour force. We need people entering the labour force. We have a demographic binge where a lot of people are retiring, and we need people coming into the labour force. This will allow low-income workers to benefit and to work hard, as well as remove people from the welfare trap, as one may want to call it in economic terms. This is something that is very important for our government and is going to benefit Canadians for years to come.

[Pam Goldsmith-Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss Bill C-74 and the measures in budget 2018. This budget implementation act is the government's latest phase in growing and strengthening the middle class, promoting equality, and investing in the economy of the future. It is important to take a step back to see how Canadians have fared over these past couple of years. The government's plan to grow the middle class is working. Our plan is working because Canadians are working.

Over the last two years, hard-working Canadians have created nearly 600,000 new jobs, most of them full time. Unemployment rates are near the lowest levels that we have seen in over 40 years. Since 2016, Canada has led all other G7 countries in economic growth. As a result, we are able to continue to invest in the things that matter to Canadians while making steady improvements to the government's bottom line. Two weeks ago, the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities announced that the Government of British Columbia and the Government of Canada have come to an agreement on the investing in Canada infrastructure plan announced in budget 2016. Speaking as a representative from British Columbia, under the agreement, British Columbia will receive $4.1 billion from 2018 to 2028, making significant investments in our communities' public, recreational, green, and rural infrastructure. Let me also reassure my hon. colleagues that the government is being diligent in making sure that Canada remains the best place to invest, create jobs, and do business. Our future prosperity depends on making sure that every Canadian has an equal and fair chance at success.

For many Canadians, being a parent and raising a family is the most important part of their lives. Employment insurance maternity and parental benefits offer vital income support to parents during the critical period in early childhood when they need to take time off from work to care for their children. Through budget 2018, our government is proposing a new EI parental sharing benefit to support equality in the home and workplace, by providing up to eight additional weeks of benefits when both parents agree to share parental leave. This “use it or lose it“ incentive encourages a second parent in two-parent families to share the work of raising their children more equally. This new EI parental sharing benefit would allow greater flexibility for new mothers and fathers who want to return to work sooner if they so choose, knowing that their families have the support they need; supporting all two-parent families, including adoptive parents and same-sex couples; and allowing parents to share more family and home responsibilities, leading to fairer, less discriminatory hiring practices for women, because men and women have the option to stay at home with their children equally. We need to ensure that the benefits of a growing economy are felt by more and more people.

At this point, I would like to turn to our support for veterans. In my riding and across the country, we are grateful to the men and women who have served and are serving in uniform. It is our responsibility to ensure that they get the services and support they are owed. In West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, we have nine Legions, and nine remarkable ceremonies on Remembrance Day. These continue to grow in terms of attendance and reflect the deep regard of Canadians for veterans. We know it is our duty to uphold the men and women who serve our nation in uniform. We need to listen to and take action to support our veterans who have served with valour, dignity, and sacrifice. The Government of Canada is committed to supporting Canada's veterans and their families. We owe an enormous debt of gratitude to them, and I am pleased to offer comments outlining our commitment.

On December 20, 2017, the government unveiled its pension for life plan, a program designed to reduce the complexity of support programs available to veterans and their families. It proposes a broader range of benefits, including financial stability to Canada's veterans, with a particular focus on support for veterans with the most severe disabilities. Taking a closer look, the three new benefits that provide recognition, income support, and stability to Canada's veterans who experience a service-related injury or illness look like this. The pension for life plan would provide, under pain and suffering compensation, a monthly tax-free payment for life of up to $1,150 for ill and injured veterans. The plan also proposes, for additional pain and suffering compensation, a monthly tax-free payment for life of up to $1,500 for veterans whose injuries greatly impact their quality of life. The plan also proposes to provide an income replacement benefit, that is, monthly income replacement at 90% of a veteran's pre-release salary.

These new elements represent an additional investment of almost $3.6 billion to support Canada's veterans. These new services and benefits would impact lives significantly. Pension for life would mean that a 25-year-old retired corporal who is 100% disabled would receive more than $5,800 in monthly support. For a 50-year-old retired major who is 100% disabled, monthly support would be almost $9,000.

The bill before us includes amendments to the Pension Act and the Veterans Well-being Act to put measures of the pension for life plan into effect. It would also provide income replacement at 90% of pre-release salary for veterans who are facing barriers returning to work after military service.

The government recognizes that psychiatric service dogs play an important role in helping Canadians cope with conditions like post-traumatic stress disorder. Through this bill, the government proposes to expand the medical expense tax credit to recognize costs for these animals for 2018 and future tax years. This measure would directly benefit veterans and others in the disability community who rely on psychiatric service dogs. This measure also complements the work of organizations that support them, such as the Royal Canadian Legion, and Paws Fur Thought, which provide service dogs to veterans and first responders with invisible disabilities.

In conclusion, to face the challenges of today and tomorrow, we will need the hard work, health, and creativity of all Canadians, including our veterans and seniors. One of the ways to help make that happen is by strengthening the programs that make the biggest difference in people's lives and by making those benefits easier to get.

Since 2016, the government has put in place substantial improvements to the benefits and services available for veterans. For example, the government has raised financial supports for veterans and caregivers, introduced new education and training benefits, and expanded a range of services available to the families of medically released veterans. When combined with existing services and benefits to help veterans in a wide range of areas, including education, employment, caregiver support, and physical and mental health, the Government of Canada's investments since 2016 add up to nearly $10 billion. These investments are the right thing to do to honour our nation's veterans, seniors, and all Canadians.

For that reason, I urge my colleagues to support the budget implementation act.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

We have time for one question before we go to statements by members.

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the government has failed in the budget and the budget implementation act to take action against tax havens. We are talking about $10 billion to $30 billion a year that goes offshore and basically allows Canada's wealthiest citizens and biggest corporations to get off tax free, yet the government does not seem willing to take any action at all on that. It actually restricted the Parliamentary Budget Officer from getting the information that office needs to tell us about the massive tax gap. As a result, Canadians are asked to wait for things like pharmacare and pay equity.

Why is the government's priorities always with Bay Street rather than main street?

[Pam Goldsmith-Jones, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, we have all sat here day in, day out, and listened to the leadership of the minister talking about the proactive stance that our government is taking with regard to tax havens and the success she has already met with. Furthermore, going a little broader, it is important to recognize that Canada is the first country in the world to support an ombudsperson to ensure accountability for responsible enterprise when Canadian companies are doing business abroad.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. parliamentary secretary will have three minutes and 50 seconds coming to her when we resume after question period.

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 second time and referred to a committee.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement, government orders will be extended by 28 minutes.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business and Tourism.

[Alaina Lockhart, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by offering condolences to Humboldt, to the team, the families, the billets, and the entire community from the people of Fundy Royal. Our hearts are with them.

I rise today to speak to Bill C-74, the first budget implementation act. This budget builds on the investments made in our previous budgets and really takes it to the next level to ensure that all Canadians have an opportunity to benefit from the growth that we see in the economy. Today I would like to focus on a few of the items that are having, and will have, a profound impact in my riding of Fundy Royal.

The riding of Fundy Royal is predominantly rural, nestled between three southern cities in New Brunswick, and bordered on the north by the beautiful Bay of Fundy. Although the area is peppered by communities that are unique in their own way, there is a common thread that runs through them—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I would ask the hon. parliamentary secretary to hold that thought temporarily. There is one item in the previous debate, just before statements by members, that we had three and a half minutes remaining for the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade.

Our speaking order is being formalized as we speak. We will wrap up questions and comments of the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade and then we will go to the member for Calgary Rocky Ridge for his intervention, after which we will carry on with the rest of the order. We will get back to the hon. Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business and Tourism in due course.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Kitchener—Conestoga.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a large portion of the budget bill, over 200 pages, is devoted to the carbon tax. Could my colleague indicate what the cost per family will be? Apparently the Liberal government understands what it is and knows what it is, but is unwilling to share that information.

There have been estimates that the carbon tax will cost about $1,100 per family. That is the lowest estimate. The highest estimate puts it somewhere around $2,500 per family, which is a huge cost to the average family, especially to the middle-class families that the government purports to want to support.

Could my colleague come clean with the House of Commons and with all Canadians and indicate what the actual cost of the carbon tax per family will be?

[Pam Goldsmith-Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today, wearing this jersey from the 2010 Vancouver Winter and Paralympic Games out of deep respect for the families of Humboldt.

With regard to the question, I am very pleased to respond to the attention being paid with regard to putting a price on carbon pollution. It is an extremely important signal and something our government is deeply committed to in order to begin the transition to a low carbon economy. It is an integral aspect of the approval of the Kinder Morgan pipeline, together with the extensive consultation that has gone on with the 43 first nations in British Columbia which will be part of a brighter economic and cleaner environmental future.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the consultation that has taken place, the hon. member respects and values consultation. I would like her to share with the House the consultation she engaged in with respect to the pre-budget and the implementation of previous budgets, as well as this BIA, and the response she has received from her constituents with respect to what our government has delivered.

[Pam Goldsmith-Jones, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to particularly comment on the six budget meetings I held last week in the riding. Each was sold out and ranged from our trade agenda, because there is a lot of support for our progressive trade agenda and particularly full benefits of CETA and the TPP. We held a wonderful Squamish round table for the things our budget would do for women in entrepreneurship, women in technology, and women in trade. We held another public meeting in West Vancouver with the chamber of commerce, which very much focused on the tax reforms proposed by the Minister of Finance. They were very appreciative of the ability of our government to listen to the concerns expressed last summer and to realize the real movement in this budget, because of listening to people. Generally speaking, people are very happy.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this place, even during difficult times such as today when it is with somewhat of a heavy heart one rises after the tributes we heard on the terrible tragedy in Saskatchewan.

It is also sometimes difficult to rise in trying times such as these when so much is at stake for the future of our country, even as we grapple with the ongoing crisis over the Trans Mountain expansion and the implications that a failure of that project would have for all future projects in Canada.

This budget implementation act necessarily brings us back to the budget that it implements. The bottom line of any budget, and really the first thing that anyone wants to know about a budget, is whether it is going to be a surplus budget or a deficit budget. Any analysis, criticism, or commentary has to take place in the context of the size and scope of any surplus or deficit. All the choices of inclusion or omission from a budget have to be viewed through that lens.

In the case of a deficit, it is customary to address the question of when the budget will return to surplus. I say this is customary because indeed it is. In fact, all 13 provincial and territorial governments either have a balanced budget or have a specific timeline or projection for when their budget will be balanced, and it is contained in their budget.

The finance minister is currently running a significant deficit, and neither the budget nor this implementation act make any mention of the means or timing of a return to balance. I raised this with the minister when he appeared before the finance committee last month. I asked him why he is the only finance minister in Canada who has no plan for a balanced budget, and why he did not even address the issue in a 400-page budget document. He said, “No matter how many times the Conservative members ask us to follow the playbook of the previous Conservative government, we won't do it.” I may disagree with the minister on the point of whether or not he should follow the Conservative playbook, but at this point I think most Canadians would settle for this government merely following its own playbook.

On page 12 of the 2015 Liberal platform, its playbook, it reads:

We will run modest short-term deficits of less than $10 billion in each of the next two fiscal years to fund historic investments in infrastructure....

After the next two fiscal years, the deficit will decline and our investment plan will return Canada to a balanced budget in 2019.

On page 72 under the fiscal plan and costing chapter it reiterates, “We will run modest deficits for three years so that we can invest in growth for the middle class and credibly offer a plan to balance the budget in 2019.” Later on in the same chapter it says, “After the next two fiscal years, the deficit will decline and our investment plan will return Canada to a balanced budget....” The Liberal playbook refers to balanced budgets, and in fact, the Liberals promised balanced budgets. They promised small deficits and a return to a balanced budget.

Given that the Liberals promised a balanced budget by 2019 in the 2015 election, given that they promised only short-term deficits of less than $10 billion, and given that they promised these short-term deficits only to fund historic investments in infrastructure, the question is why they are now implementing a structural deficit in a budget with over a $20-billion deficit. Why does the finance minister repeatedly refuse to give any timeline for a balanced budget at all? Why does he bizarrely criticize the Conservatives for even asking about a balanced budget when he ran on an election platform that contained that very promise?

In fact, the finance minister got lucky this past year. The Canadian economy benefited from a whole host of factors, for none of which the finance minister can take any credit. Commodity prices were better than forecast. The world economy has had perhaps its best year since the great recession. The American economy was positively booming with a record-setting stock market run. Real estate price inflation has continued in Canada. Interest rates have remained low. Even with all of these factors in his favour, the finance minister still ran a promise-breaking deficit in this budget following what will surely be one of the strongest economic years in this Parliament.

If the minister promised to return to balanced budgets, he has completely failed to deliver, and it is more than reasonable for opposition members to ask if not now, then when. Given that a return to balance was a huge part of the Liberals' election promise, we would not be doing our jobs as an opposition holding the government to account without asking that question and no answer has been given so far. Still, there really is nothing in the bill to address that question either.

There is, however, in the original budget a troubling item contained on page 290, and that is a recognition of the fact that Canadian oil sells at a significant discount to world prices due to a lack of pipeline capacity in general and the routing of existing pipeline capacity mostly to the oversupplied Cushing, Oklahoma hub rather than to tidewater or to other refinery areas with spare capacity. This discount from world prices, which the government commented on in the budget itself, has grown significantly worse in the past few months.

This difference between the price that our producers get and world prices has a significant impact on business profits and jobs in the industry. The discount has an enormous impact on tax revenues to both the oil-producing provinces and to the federal government itself and it dictates the viability or non-viability of future projects. Simply put, this discount means that we are actually exporting tax revenue and public services to the United States.

Using round numbers, Canadian exports are about three million barrels a day. If Canadian producers take a $20 discount, that means the industry loses $60 million a day, or roughly $22 billion per year. A significant portion of that $22 billion will be taxable income at both the federal and provincial levels. The federal government loses billions in tax revenue because of this price differential, so it cannot be ignored as a factor in the budget.

What is truly alarming today, given the debacle over the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain expansion, is that the finance minister, in his budget, assumes that both Trans Mountain and Keystone XL will be built at a reduced price discount. We obviously know that these assumptions are being challenged right now. Both projects at best will delay projected revenue from profitable oil production, but in typical fashion, the finance minister has just assumed that the pipelines will be built even though a host of opponents are doing everything they can, including breaking the law, to prevent these pipelines from getting built.

The finance minister surely knows that he has cabinet colleagues who oppose the energy industry, that he has caucus colleagues who campaigned in the last election against the Trans Mountain expansion, and that the most senior unelected adviser to the Prime Minister is notoriously anti-pipeline. Therefore, it was a fairly bold assertion for him to simply assume the Trans Mountain and Keystone XL pipelines would be built. Both projects are behind schedule. Both continue to be opposed by extremists committed to everything from vexatious litigation to violent clashes with police while defying court orders, trespassing, and destroying private property.

Given the government's track record, what credibility does it really think it deserves on pipelines? The finance minister's budget assumes the pipelines are going to be built, and yet one of the first things the government did after it was elected was to kill the northern gateway project, which was a pipeline to tidewater approved previously. The proponent was working through the conditions and the concerns that had been raised about the project when the Liberal government used an arbitrary tanker ban to ensure that it could never be built.

Then the Prime Minister completely failed to get Barack Obama to approve Keystone XL, which added another couple of years to the delay of that project. The finance minister is counting on this project to reduce the differential that has to be taken into account in his tax revenue projections.

We know energy east was killed by the government's decision to move the goalposts on its proponent by absurdly deciding to make both upstream and downstream emissions part of the criteria. I say absurd because the emissions from fossil fuels moved through a pipe are mostly determined by the type of vehicle the fossil fuel is put into by the end consumer.

Now the government is even pushing through Bill C-69. At the environment committee, the president of the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association said, “It is hard to imagine that any pipeline project proponent would be prepared to test this new process or have a reasonable expectation of a positive outcome at the end of it.” He went on to say, “If the goal is to curtail oil and gas production and to have no more pipelines built, this legislation may have hit the mark.”

What is the finance minister going to do if the capital flight that has been under way for months cannot be reversed? What is he going to do if nobody will invest and create jobs in the resource sector? What is he going to do if interest rates exceed his expectations? What is he going to do if there is a real estate price correction? What is he going to do if the NAFTA renegotiations end in trade restrictions that damage Canadian access to the American market? Even with everything going his way he cannot balance the budget. Was he going to do it if any of these eventualities happen or any of the hundred other unforeseen events should happen? Now is the time to establish a fiscal cushion to prepare for the inevitability of difficult times ahead.

The budget is not balanced. There is no plan to balance it. There is no date for the budget to be balanced. There is no plan that will get pipelines built, which has a significant impact on the finance minister's ability to balance future budgets. There is no apology by the Liberals to Canadian voters for breaking their promise on the deficit in the first place. There is nothing in the budget implementation act to address any of these issues.

What does this bill do? It makes certain changes to the Income Tax Act to implement changes announced by the Minister of Finance last summer on the taxation of Canadian-controlled private corporations, and other tax changes that we are now getting to the point where the CRA has to actually implement them.

We know that on July 17, the Minister of Finance dropped his bombshell announcing that too many wealthy Canadians were using complex corporate structures to avoid taxes. He went on to announce, following a brief summertime sham consultation, that the Liberals would ram through private corporate tax changes to severely restrict dividend payments between related shareholders, the so-called sprinkling, eliminate the dividend tax credit, which would create the double taxation of passive income with rates at about 73%, and make it virtually impossible to sell a business to a relative, among other things.

I am sure that every member of this House heard from small business owners who do not have a pension, do not have a minimum wage, do not have the protections of employment law, and cannot collect employment insurance. They have to be 100% liable for the conduct of their own employees, who they also cannot sue for gross negligence. What all of these people, these hard-working business owners, heard in the summer was the wealthy finance minister called them tax cheaters.

What happened after that announcement was remarkable. Business owners and tax experts all across Canada spontaneously rose up and with diverse voices unanimously spoke in opposition to every aspect of the minister's proposals. This grassroots opposition did cause the government to partially backpedal on some of its plans contained in this bill. The part of last summer's announcement that many found the most egregious was the double taxation of passive income. Therefore, in December, the finance minister backpedalled and said there would be a limit under which the double tax would not apply. What he did instead in the budget, was he said there would now be a tie-in between passive income and access to the small business rate, which will now be reduced or eliminated for small business owners who have passive incomes of greater than $50,000.

My suggestion to addressing the problem that he created back in the summer was simply a complete retraction of what the Liberals had announced then, and an apology to all of the hard-working small business owners across Canada who were deeply wounded by the bold assertions the finance minister made. Let us face it. The reason the finance minister and the Prime Minister believe that small businesses are really just tax dodges for the wealthy is that they themselves use private corporations to dodge taxes. All the while he was pointing his finger at shopkeepers, farmers, plumbers, realtors, accountants, doctors, lawyers, engineers, taxi drivers, and restaurant owners, the finance minister, that wealthy-born one percenter, was found to have failed to disclose the private corporation he used for tax planning purposes to shelter income and future gains on his French villa. Contrary to his past statements and all expectations of a minister of the crown, much less a finance minister, the finance minister still owned millions of dollars of Morneau Shepell shares.

How was that fact concealed from the public for almost two years? The shares were held in a private numbered company the finance minister registered in Alberta, presumably for tax-planning purposes. It was owned by him, his wife, and another Ontario numbered company. For the first time in the span of a few months, the finance minister was found not only to be personally using complex corporate structures to avoid paying tax but was using them to avoid requirements of the Conflict of Interest Act.

It is high time for this finance minister to end his war on small-business owners and to apologize for his own hypocrisy instead of proceeding with changes to the Income Tax Act contained in this bill.

If passed, this bill would also hand over to the CRA responsibility for dealing with the changes to the tax on split income and the reduction of the limit on the small-business tax rate for small businesses with over $50,000 in passive income.

As shadow minister for national revenue, I could not help but notice that 2017 was a particularly tough year for the Minister of National Revenue and her agency. Every time we turned around, it seemed the agency had a half-baked plan to raise additional tax revenue at the expense of some vulnerable group or another, such as when the minister spent the entire months of October and November insisting that the CRA had done nothing to deny the disability tax credit to type 1 diabetics, despite the fact that it was obvious to everyone except her, and perhaps her parliamentary secretary, that of course the CRA had changed its forms in May 2017 to make it harder to qualify.

The agency also changed its folio to state that after 2017, it would tax employee discounts and meals, but the minister again seemed to be the last person at the agency to be aware that this was being done, before she ordered a reversal. The agency also appeared to be targeting single parents, restaurant-server tips, and disabled Canadians, who suddenly had problems qualifying for the disability tax credit.

On top of that, tax preparers complained about an ever-increasing backlog of corrections and appeals caused by sloppy or incompetent assessments, and a scathing Auditor General's report confirmed that the agency's call centre hangs up on people 64% of the time and gives incorrect information to 30% of the rest who get through.

To an agency already struggling, and a minister who is clearly not in control of her department, this bill would now add a complex reasonableness test for dividends paid to related shareholders of private corporations. Let us think about that. An agency that hangs up on people and is wrong almost a third of the time when it speaks to taxpayers would now have to answer questions about things like the reasonableness of the payment of dividends, questions about share classes, questions about labour contributions, questions about property contributions, questions about the financial risks assumed, and a great catch-all, questions about such other factors as may be relevant.

How on earth can Canadians expect that they will get reliable answers to these questions, given the track record of both the current government and the CRA's call centre? These questions have been asked here in this House and at committee meetings and even at public meetings attended by the minister, and nobody from the government has been able to give anything but the most vague and hypothetical answers to these questions. Canadians might be forgiven if they are a bit worried that nobody knows the answers to these questions and that the legality of thousands of Canadians' tax planning is going to be at the mercy of future court decisions.

It would be very easy to go on for a lot longer about different aspects of this act, such as the implementation of the higher taxes on beer, wine, and spirits and the escalator clause; and certainly about the carbon tax, which is also part of the government's horrific mismanagement of its natural resources policy and an outrageously regressive tax on the poorest and most vulnerable members of society. However, time marches on, so I will wrap up.

I would like to conclude by urging members to vote against this bill, given that it would increase taxes; would fail to even address the very concept of a balanced budget; would do absolutely nothing to get pipelines built, the very same pipelines the budget needs for its own tax revenue; would help facilitate this minister's war on small business through the changes to the taxation of private corporations, and of course, would enable the job-destroying, poverty-inducing carbon tax. Therefore, I will be voting against this act, and I urge all other members to do so as well.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his speech. I have a great deal of respect for him. However, I have a difference of opinion with respect to the response of business and small business to the budget. I consulted with business owners and small business owners, and they were very pleased that we were actually reducing the taxes to be paid. We reduced the taxes in 2015 from 11%, ultimately to bring them down to 9% in 2019. The other thing they were pleased with was the amount of consultation we had with them to get this right so it would help them.

I am curious about the view the member has stated, because my experience has been the opposite. In fact, I sent out a householder, and I had a number of small businesses that commended and thanked our government for the changes we would be making.

In the budget we did something that I think is very important, which is set a guide for a new gender results framework. I would like to know whether the hon. member supports that.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there was a whole lot in that question. I will start with the last point and state that in my riding, what men and women want most is economic security through a job. They feel that their livelihoods are threatened by the government's agenda, in particular in the resource sector. Having the word “gender” hundreds of times in a budget does not give women, men, or anybody else a job or the economic security they are looking for through employment.

I respect the hon. member. As she mentioned, in this House there are differences of opinion. We are here today to exchange some of these differences.

With respect to consultation and the impact on small business people, I find it strange that the Liberals want extraordinary credit for going back and reversing a decision to break a campaign promise on the small business tax rate. It was a promise to merely do what the previous government had already promised to do in its final budget. I do not think there should be too much credit given to the government for that.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I met with a number of small businesses in my riding during the furor, I guess would be the best way to describe it, on the original Liberal government proposals. Absolutely we need to do better for small businesses. For example, I would like to see a limit to the credit card charges our businesses pay.

I am going to read the title of the budget to make sure I get it right. The Liberals claim that it is a gender and growth budget. I want to be a little more specific than my colleague across the floor. Would the Conservatives agree that we need pay equity now?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I did not get a chance in the limited time we had earlier to answer some of the previous questions. The question about pay equity or the issue of gender equality in the workplace and in pay is surely going to be best addressed through a strong economy. The way this budget simply repeats phrases and adds the word “gender” on every page is going to do nothing to actually make any change that will be meaningful in any way to women in the workplace or achieve anything that will bring economic security to women or men.

The member mentioned credit card rates. It reminded me of a meeting I had with some small business owners recently in Prince Edward Island. They were restaurateurs. They talked about the impact it has on their businesses. They pointed out that in a typical transaction, the government and the credit card company are paid the most, because restaurant margins are less than what either of those two bodies make in a transaction.

I want to go back to the earlier comments about consultation and what small business owners had to say. In my riding, it was universal. I had very large round table meetings both in my riding and in other parts of the country, and I had a very different experience than the member for Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas. The finance minister's changes were universally panned. People recognized in them the attack they are on their livelihoods.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague would comment on some of the comments Liberals have made about the economy in Canada. Former ambassador Frank McKenna, who was also the premier of New Brunswick, talking about the cancelled energy east pipeline, said, “We're buying 700,000 barrels a day for eastern refiners from other places in the world at world prices. There's no other country in the world that would do anything as dumb as this.” McKenna also said that we have given up our leverage in NAFTA talks.

Former finance minister Manley has said that there is nothing to address competitiveness in this budget.

I stand here in an Oshawa Generals jersey today, because in Oshawa, we have to trade. We are a city that builds cars. The competitiveness issue is really starting to hit us.

How much time does Canada have if the Liberal government does not wake up and smell the roses on the importance of these issues the Liberals brought up?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Oshawa makes some excellent points. Importing 700,000 barrels a day at world prices while we are sending oil into the United States at $20 a barrel less than the same oil they are then transferring north is crazy.

I hope it might be helpful to some of the members on the other side to hear some of the luminaries from their past, who are Liberals, tell them that they are wrong on energy issues. They are wrong everywhere they go on pipelines. Only the Liberal Party could have contradictory messages on pipelines, with candidates in one part of the country being pro-pipeline and candidates in other parts of the country being anti-pipeline, and manage to alienate both sides of the pipeline issue over energy east and Keystone. None of this is going to make--

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, although the debate this afternoon is taking us a little far afield from the budget, I want to pick up on the point the member for Calgary Rocky Ridge made. I could not agree more with former premier Frank McKenna that it does not make sense to be importing crude at high-value prices and exporting low-value bitumen, which always gets a low price, because it is solid, unlike the crude that comes into eastern Canada. Would he agree that it would be a good plan to stop importing foreign oil to eastern Canada and to process bitumen within Alberta and use it in the domestic market in Canada?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is an argument usually used by opponents of the industry who say that they are not really totally opposed to the whole industry and shutting it down, but could we not defy the market and build infrastructure to process our product rather than export it raw? If we upgraded bitumen in Alberta, would the member propose the most aggressive expansion of the oil and gas industry in Alberta and the most aggressive possible expansion of the distribution of these fuels? I think likely not, but who knows?

[Alaina Lockhart, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I wish to inform the House that I will be splitting my time today with the member for Gatineau. I would also like to extend condolences to Humboldt, to the team, the families, the billets, and to the entire community, on behalf of the people of Fundy Royal. Our hearts are with them.

Today I rise to speak on Bill C-74, the budget implementation act. This is a budget that builds on the investments made by the previous budgets. It takes it to the next level to ensure that all Canadians have an opportunity to benefit from the growth we are seeing in the economy.

Today I would like to focus on a few items that are having, and will have, a profound impact in my riding of Fundy Royal. The riding of Fundy Royal is predominantly rural, nestled between three southern cities in New Brunswick, and bordered to the north by the beautiful Bay of Fundy. Although the area is peppered with communities that are unique, each in their own way, there is a common thread that runs through them: a tenacity to grow, prosper, and to build a better life for our next generation.

I came to Ottawa with a mission to address the concerns of my constituents, concerns I hear daily, about the sustainability and growth of our communities and the local economy. This became a bigger challenge shortly after I was elected when the Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan announced it was indefinitely suspending operations at the Picadilly mine. I am proud of how local leaders responded, how we quickly found a path forward, and how the federal government was there as a partner. At that time, our government did not waver in its commitment to Fundy Royal, and this budget is a continuation of the commitment to everyday Canadians who are facing challenges and are committed to progress.

I have always subscribed to the theory that a high tide raises all boats. Many of the commitments in budget 2018 will make sure that the most vulnerable in our communities are provided with the resources they require to find stability in their lives and participate more fully in society. These are measures that build on our monumental investments in the Canada child benefit, which supports over 16,000 children each month in Fundy Royal; skills training investments; flexibility in El, which allows Canadians to return to school to upgrade their education; and a new national housing strategy, which will provide updated and additional rental units in our communities.

We are also building on investments for seniors, who are an important part of our families and communities. In addition to the special provisions for seniors in the housing strategy and the increase to the guaranteed income supplement for single seniors introduced previously, budget 2018 goes further for seniors in New Brunswick. A commitment to a healthy seniors pilot project will see $75 million to combat challenges produced by an aging demographic and determine best practices to keep seniors healthy and in their homes.

Budget 2018 also recognizes the struggles of those who are working hard to join the middle class. The Canada workers benefit was introduced to encourage more people to join the workforce. This will offer real help to over two million Canadians while raising 70,000 out of poverty.

Budget 2018 also recognizes the reality of seasonal work and the integral part it plays in rural economies like Fundy Royal. To support seasonal workers who have exhausted their El benefits, my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst announced an agreement with the Province of New Brunswick just last week. This will provide the province with $2.5 million immediately to directly help workers who have been impacted. The seasonal worker program offers income support as well as training and work experience for seasonal workers in the Restigouche-Albert region of New Brunswick, for those in the fisheries, agriculture, forestry, and tourism industries.

Our government continues to focus on growth in Atlantic Canada, and investing in the great people, communities, and ideas in the Atlantic region. That is what this budget does. It empowers women, parents, employees, small businesses, industry, and our regional economies.

For instance, spruce budworm is a native insect that periodically kills large numbers of balsam fir and spruce trees across eastern Canada. We saw this happen about 30 years ago. We know it is cyclical, and the threat is present again today. The economic impact of these disturbances has the potential to wipe out up to three million hectares of crown land in New Brunswick alone, and negatively impact up to 1,900 jobs every year if left unchecked.

I would like to thank my colleague from South Shore—St. Margarets for reflecting on this already during the debate on budgetary policy. I can very well attest to the threat that the outbreak poses in Fundy Royal. Forestry workers in Fundy Royal have a sense of relief knowing that our government is committing nearly $75 million over five years to combatting spruce budworm. This will support the work of the healthy forests network to continue with its early intervention strategy, which has been showing very promising results over the past several years.

We have thriving fisheries in Fundy Royal, and the continued growth of these fisheries requires ongoing investments in small craft harbours. This budget commits $250 million on a cash basis over two years, starting in 2018-19, for projects like extending the breakwater in Alma.

Fundy Royal is one of the most beautiful places in Canada. Not only is it home to the Fundy Biosphere, but also to the Hammond River, the Kennebecasis Valley, and the Fundy Trail. I am proud of the work that our local environmental organizations are doing, and I am glad that this budget will provide the resources needed to preserve and safeguard our environment. This budget makes one of the largest investments in nature conservation in Canadian history, $1.3 billion, to protect more land, waters, species at risk, and preserve biodiversity. It is up to all of us to protect the environment so that future generations of Canadians can continue to hike the Fundy Footpath, mountain bike on the bluff, or kayak in St. Martins.

The Conservation Council of New Brunswick says that this groundbreaking investment by our government shows it is listening and acting to an unprecedented degree on Canadians' deep connection to nature and our desire to see the forests, parks, lands, and waters we love, and the wildlife that calls these places home, protected. Lois Corbett, the executive director of the council, said “This is a huge breakthrough and a day to celebrate for New Brunswickers and folks clear across the country who love nature, wildlife, and the outdoors."

Canada's new tourism vision places high importance on our rich natural surroundings, especially Parks Canada sites. More than 22 million people each year visit the national parks, historic sites, and marine conservation areas administered by Parks Canada. I am delighted to note that admission to Parks Canada sites, including Fundy National Park, will now be permanently free for those aged 17 and under.

One of the most exciting parts of my job as the member of Parliament for Fundy Royal is talking to future generations of political leaders. In December, I received a letter from a student at Three Oaks Senior High School in Summerside, P.E.I., in the riding of my friend, the member for Egmont. Kate was asked to write a member of Parliament about an issue of concern to her. She spoke about mental health with conviction, saying there are growing number of cases of anxiety, depression, and even suicide, and that it is becoming normal in our daily lives which should not be occurring in our society. She said that we need to stop the issue before it becomes worse. We agree with Kate. In our efforts to support veterans, we have further extended support by ensuring that the medical expense tax credit will now recognize the costs of psychiatric service dogs, provide assistance to the amazing organizations that support veterans, and invest in research for first responders who suffer from these invisible disabilities.

Our government is also supporting research for autism, as well as diseases such as Alzheimer's and dementia.

This budget is revolutionary, in that it focuses on Canada's future. It puts people first, and focuses on what matters most to the people of Fundy Royal. It invests in the protection of our environment, and promotes equality and prosperity for those from Hillsborough to Nauwigewauk and around the world. I am proud to stand and speak to this budget, one that recognizes the potential growth of our country and focuses on equality.

As part of this year's budget, the finance minister announced our government's women entrepreneurship strategy that will help women grow their businesses by accessing financing, talent, networks, and expertise. The women entrepreneurship strategy is part of a broader effort to address gender-related barriers that have impaired the progress of women in business. As a former small business owner, this is near and dear to my heart. I know the potential is there if we provide a path forward for more women to succeed and grow as entrepreneurs.

Like many others in Fundy Royal and in the House, I am driven when I think about our youth and the future they should have in Canada. It is why I became involved in politics, to ensure I am part of a movement to make sure they will have a prosperous future in our home province of New Brunswick. By becoming the first woman elected in Fundy Royal, I, like all of the men elected before me, am confident that I can make a difference, not only in the lives of these youth, but also in the lives of all Canadians.

Each progressive budget that has been presented by our government is a step in the right direction, and this budget is no different. I am confident that it will provide lasting challenges for generations to come.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the member to comment on a couple of things that she left out about the budget. In Canada now, we are basically seeing business investment at about 11% of GDP, which is 16th out of 17 OECD countries. Business investment in Canada, per worker, is 40% to 50% less than in the high-productivity countries like the United States and Switzerland, especially the United States, with our competing against them. Taxes in the United States are going down. We are basically at 19% now, from 34.6%. At the same time, her government is increasing taxes that were 17.5% in 2012. Now they are 21%, also with increases in CPP, EI, carbon taxes, and high electrical costs. Even the former Liberal finance minister, John Manley, who is the president and CEO of the Business Council of Canada has said, “Budget 2018 overlooks Canada's competitiveness challenges.”

I come from a community in Oshawa. We depend on being competitive, and the government and its provincial partners are making us less competitive. Could the member please tell us what in the budget, if anything, is going to help address the competitiveness issue that Mr. Manley and many businesses in my community are worried about?

[Alaina Lockhart, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, part of our path forward as a country and for our economy is to make sure we have an innovative economy that includes all people in Canada. That is what the budget focuses on, ensuring that Canadians have an opportunity to participate in the economy, making sure they have the skills training they require, and making sure women are in a position where they can overcome the barriers that have been there for them, not only in small business but also in trade and other areas.

It is important that we invest in Canadians at this time, and it is our Canadian people who will drive this economy forward in the future.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

I could focus my question on the fact that tax loopholes still exist for corporate CEOs or on the Liberal government's inaction on combatting tax havens, which is costing us billions of dollars. However, since the hon. member talked about the Maritimes, I would like to focus my question on the reality of seasonal work in a number of industrial sectors in her region. I think it is a shame that the Liberal government still fails to understand this issue and is failing to take action and use the employment insurance program to help seasonal workers, who, far too often, are left in the lurch because the program is not adapted to their reality.

I would like my colleague to explain why there is no pilot project and why her government has not addressed the five-week spring gap problem.

[Alaina Lockhart, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for allowing me to elaborate. As I mentioned in my speech, there is in fact a pilot project that was announced for the area of Restigouche–Albert, for New Brunswick, that specifically looks at seasonal workers.

We are looking at not only giving them aid in the immediate term, but also looking at the long term, at encouraging them to return for training, to look at other areas they could improve, and strengthening our workforce.

Seasonal work is a reality in Atlantic Canada. We need to make sure that our EI system supports not only the workers, but also the employers, who are focused on maintaining that workforce and ensuring it is there for them season after season. We have put forward a plan that not only addresses the needs of the workers but also the employers.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for the speech, and also for including women in that. She mentioned the women's entrepreneurship strategy. We know that budget 2018 is guided by a gender results framework. I wonder if she could comment on the importance of ensuring that framework includes the results of engaging and empowering women.

[Alaina Lockhart, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things we are focused on right now in New Brunswick is how to strengthen our workforce. I mentioned the measures we are taking to strengthen the workforce with the EI system, but there are also measures in the budget that look at strengthening the workforce by making sure women are in a position to benefit from the growing economy that we are seeing in Canada.

The women's entrepreneurship strategy is one excellent example. It is $1.6 billion over the next several years, which will focus on breaking down the barriers to accessing capital, to networks, and to attaining the expertise needed. Women have wonderful ideas and have participated in our economy, but there is potential for so much more. The budget focuses on making sure they become a vital part of our economy.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise once again on behalf of the people of Gatineau. They did me the supreme honour of electing me to represent them in this House, and I am grateful to them every day for this honour and the weighty responsibility that comes with it. I am proud to rise today to support this bill and our government's budget plan in general.

Today is our first day back in the House since tragedy struck the community of Humboldt, Saskatchewan. Like Humboldt, Gatineau is a hockey town, a town where parents work hard every day to help their kids take part in organized sports like hockey, a town where parents put their kids on buses and send them off on long overnight trips to all kinds of destinations in the United States, Ontario, the Maritimes, and other parts of Quebec. On behalf of the people of Gatineau, I want to express our deepest condolences and dismay at what has happened. Our thoughts are with the parents and communities affected by this horrific tragedy.

In Gatineau, we introduced a plan based on our national election promises that focuses on the middle class and investing in our communities. That includes public transit, so this year I was very pleased to participate in announcing the Rapibus extension as well as other major construction projects in Gatineau, such as the Parks Canada artifact storage facility, the Library and Archives Canada Gatineau 2 document preservation facility, and the revitalization of Terrasses de la Chaudière. We are investing heavily in federal public assets in Gatineau.

I can assure my constituents that I will continue to fight for more investment in public transit. One of the files I am working on is a sixth interprovincial link between Quebec and Ontario, which people have been debating for the past 100 years. I made it my mission to champion that link, and I will continue to advocate and fight for it until the day the announcement is made.

More generally speaking, our budget plan is working. It is working for parents and for our most vulnerable seniors, whose guaranteed income supplement has gone up by 10%. It is working for infrastructure in Gatineau and across the country. It is working for our small businesses.

I have been very pleased to meet business people in my riding on several occasions. They are very satisfied and very happy that we have delivered on our commitment and are lowering the small business tax rate to 9% beginning next year. Our plan is also working when it comes to unemployment, which is under 6% at just 5.9%. That is the lowest unemployment rate ever seen for as long as Canada has been recording these statistics. Since the second quarter of 2016, GDP growth has been 3.7%, the best rate of any major industrialized country. Wage growth in Canada is tracking at approximately 3%. Once again, that rate is higher than anywhere else in the world. Year after year, the projected debt-to-GDP ratio is going down. Our plan is clearly working. It is improving Canadians' quality of life and prosperity and helping us keep our campaign commitments and the solemn promise we made to hard-working Canadians.

I want to highlight two initiatives in this budget. People sometimes become cynical at election time. People make choices based on personalities and specific commitments, but also based on philosophies. Here are two initiatives that Canadians would never have seen under a Conservative government, because these are not the kinds of things the Conservatives would ever choose. These two initiatives will benefit those who need it the most in our society, specifically people working hard to join the middle class. They are people working hard to become more prosperous and to be more productive citizens for themselves, for their children, and for future generations. Of course I am talking about the Canada workers benefit and the Canada child benefit.

What is the Canada workers benefit? We know that there are people who are receiving social assistance or other benefits. Perhaps they have a family member who is ill. Perhaps they work part time. Perhaps they are caring for their children. Regardless of their circumstances, they find it difficult to make the decision to get off social assistance and enter the labour market with confidence because they may be penalized by doing so. They might not earn enough to justify getting off welfare or other social programs. Obviously, with such a low unemployment rate, everyone benefits when the number of people in the labour force increases. We also want these people to have the dignity that comes with productive work and personal growth. We want them to feel as though they are contributing to the economy and becoming productive citizens.

The Canada workers benefit was created specifically to help those people and provide them with direct assistance. This year, eligible workers will automatically receive the benefit after filing their tax return, without submitting an application. They will be entitled to an increased Canada workers benefit. Our initiative will affect two million Canadians and lift 70,000 people out of poverty. They will be eligible for up to $1,300 in benefits tax free.

There is also the Canada child benefit, which will be indexed this year for the first time. In my riding of Gatineau alone, 11,260 payments were made in January 2018 for 19,860 children. An average payment of $540 a month represents a total of $6.1 million in the pockets of Gatineau parents. I am proud of this, because this money is going directly to those who need it most. These people must make choices for their children. They need to spend money to enrol their children in sports or piano lessons, or to invest in a registered education savings plan. We committed to make these choices, and these are choices that a Conservative government would never have made or maintained, because it wants to eliminate the deficit at any cost. One has to wonder what a Conservative government would cut. This is also a tax-free benefit that is automatically reinvested in our economy and in local businesses.

I am proud of these two measures. Unfortunately, I do not have enough time to talk about the other wonderful initiatives in this year's budget.

I am particularly proud of the fact that we are keeping our word and fulfilling our commitments to the people who need it most. They can access these resources and become good, highly productive citizens who can keep contributing to the Canadian economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that my glass was full with water every time the hon. member blamed the previous Conservative government for the past.

I want to talk specifically about deficits. On this side of the House, we have asked about that on numerous occasions and the finance committee has asked on numerous occasions. The member will recall that the promise in the last election by the Prime Minister was to have minor deficits and to balance the budget by 2019. We now know that the budget will not be balanced until far off. The finance minister is not even admitting when the budget will be balanced.

My question to the hon. member is this: When will the budget be balanced?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, lessons on deficit and debt from the Conservative Party are lessons that we do not normally take. The last balanced budget presented in this House was, of course, presented by a Liberal government. It was absolutely a pride to create a fiscal situation that benefited the previous government when it was first elected. However, the Conservatives automatically, immediately, and systematically, in a structured way, took us back into deficit, and then for 10 years there were deficits as far as the eye could see.

We will take no lessons from the other side of the House with respect to deficits. Those people borrowed and begged every year they were in office, and now they get up and decry it. They should be ashamed of themselves.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, people come to my office every week because they are unable to access the benefits to which they are entitled. These people are often poor and unable to get the Canada Revenue Agency to process their files. It is maddening to see the number of documents they are asked to produce, for example, to prove that their children really do live with them. I really do not know where they would be if not with their parents. In every case, these people are poor and could have used that money.

Some people have not received any benefits since 2009, and the government has never helped them get that money. These people come to my office and I help them as best I can to figure out their file with the Canada Revenue Agency. In some cases, they have missed out on $20,000 in benefits.

The member believes that the Canada child benefit lifts all children out of poverty. However, the reality is that many parents never access these benefits and the government is not doing anything to help them. They do not even have access to in-person services and are forced to fight for these benefits. We try to help them as best we can but, sadly, some cases are overlooked because the Canada Revenue Agency does not send me a list of those who might need help.

What are my colleague's thoughts on that?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we made a commitment in the last election, one that we are working hard to fulfill. That commitment was for automatic enrolment of the people my colleague was talking about. There are indeed people who do not file tax returns. However, we encourage everyone to file a tax return so that we can determine whether they are eligible for benefits. I am especially proud of the fact that, starting this year, eligible workers will automatically receive the Canada workers benefit, without needing to apply.

I just listed a few statistics about my riding, and we can get the figures for my colleague's riding or other ridings. These are, of course, benefits that automatically go into Canadians' bank accounts, under the Canada child benefit, and they are tax free. Yes, we are working very hard.

The member mentioned the people she meets in her riding. I too am meeting people, and we handle their files with care. There are some exceptions, but I am certain that with a little bit of work, we will be able to make sure that Canadians automatically receive the benefits they are entitled to.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak after my colleague from the Outaouais region, the hon. member for Gatineau, for whom I have a great deal of respect and esteem, despite his oversights, to put it politely.

Before getting down to the nitty-gritty of this budget, let us establish the facts. What was the state of Canada's economy when the Liberal government was elected nearly two and a half years ago? There is no denying that the Liberals are an extraordinarily lucky bunch. When they came to power, the house was in order. Canada had a budgetary surplus, not a $2.9-billion deficit. We like to compare ourselves to the best. Let us compare ourselves to the G7. Canada had the best debt-to-GDP ratio of all G7 countries. Let us not forget that, when we came to power, we had just come through the worst economic crisis on the planet since the Great Depression of the 1930s. In the most challenging economic times, our government was able to keep Canada afloat, allowing it to emerge from the crisis with one of the strongest economies possible.

Then, unfortunately the Liberals came to power. That is the problem. Let us not forget that they were elected on a promise to run small deficits for three years and to return to a balanced budget in 2019. That was the Liberal Party's solemn promise. That promise then vanished into this air as small deficits grew into deficits three times larger than planned and, worse yet, as achieving zero deficit by 2019 went from hypothetical to unrealistic. These people have absolutely no idea when they will return to a balanced budget. We will be in deficit for the foreseeable future.

The finance department says that, if nothing changes, Canada could, technically, in theory, return to a balanced budget in 2045. Our economy would certainly struggle in the meantime. The Liberals were elected on promises that they have now broken. They promised a small deficit, but ran up a big one. They promised a zero deficit and a balanced budget. They said the deficits would support an infrastructure program to stimulate the economy, but that is not what they delivered. They promised hundreds of billions in infrastructure spending, but the finance department's reports show that very little of the infrastructure funding has actually been handed out. The government is using these chronic deficits for routine spending, not investment.

This is economics 101. It makes perfect sense for the head of a household to borrow money to buy a home and then pay that money back, but anyone borrowing money from the bank to buy groceries has a problem. That is not an appropriate way to manage money. Anyone who tries to do what the Liberal government is doing is headed for a brick wall.

My Liberal colleague from Gatineau talked about how amazing the Canada child benefit is, about how the government is lifting people out of poverty and giving them all kinds of money. They have no trouble handing out money that is not theirs, money they are borrowing from our children. A deficit is just deferred taxation, and that is one thing this government is very good at. It is constantly maxing out its credit card.

That is why we completely disagree with the government's policy. The minister, the member, and our Liberal colleagues seem to have forgotten that in their first iteration of the Canada child benefit, which was to be absolutely extraordinary, they forgot a small detail: they forgot to take inflation into consideration. Any accountant at any firm who forgot to factor in inflation would be dismissed with a swift kick in the backside. The government, however, still crows over its lofty principles, claiming to be doing the right thing and giving more money to children. I can see why this is the party for families, the party for children. By working for children, the government is making them foot the bill down the line.

The government boasts about its lofty principles, but reality is catching up to it. For example, the Liberals are always repeating how they are going after the so-called 1%, the richest Canadians. The top 1% of Canadians with the highest salaries are going to pay. The Liberals forgot to mention that these people already pay 70% of the taxes in Canada. They said that these people would definitely pay more taxes. Is that right? Not exactly. In a report released last fall by the Department of Finance, and not by the Conservative Party, we learned that not only do the so-called 1%, the wealthiest Canadians, not pay more taxes, they pay less. The wealthy paid $1.2 billion less under the current Liberal government even though the Liberals kept repeating that they would make the rich pay more in order to give to the poor. Not only are the rich paying less taxes, but the poor were given money we do not have because the Liberals are running up a deficit. They went into deficit financing.

Clearly, this government says one thing and does the opposite. It was elected on promises it cannot keep. Faced with their greatest economic challenge yet, the Liberals are doing nothing.

Now I want to raise the question of competitiveness with the United States of America, our great ally and partner but also our greatest competitor.

We all recognize that the president is not exactly the same kind of man that we had when we were in office. We can like him or we can dislike him, but we have to deal with him. That is the reality of politics. What we see now in the new administration, the Trump administration, is someone very aggressive, someone very productive, and someone who is first and foremost helping small business in America, and big business too. He is helping the business community of America.

What we see in the government is everything but that. Worse than that, it has no plan. The Liberal government has no plan to address the serious issue raised by the new administration in America. There is nothing in the government's budget to help our small business community to face and address the issue of the new competitiveness of America. There is nothing to address the fact that maybe NAFTA will collapse. That would not be good, so we have to be ready for that.

We do not want it to collapse. We were the party that created NAFTA, the first free trade agreement, in 1988, thanks to the Right Honourable Brian Mulroney. We can be proud of this heritage. We also recognize that the other governments pushed that forward, even if at that time they said they were not going to be part of that deal. That was good. Now we have to address the new reality that maybe NAFTA will not be run again.

What can we do? What will the government do? There is nothing in the budget. What is the government doing to help our businesses address the issue of the new help being given by the American administration to their business community? It is doing nothing.

That is also worrisome. The budget needs to address today's realities. However, today's global economic reality is not about the collapse of oil prices as it was in the past. On the contrary, oil prices have risen. It is not about dealing with the worst economic crisis. It is exactly the opposite. We are experiencing an economic boom.

It is not about the collapse of the American economy, like it was in 2008-09. On the contrary, the American economy is booming. However, we are dealing with an aggressive protectionist American President. That is his right. We respect his choice and he makes his own decisions of course. We are dealing with a very aggressive protectionist American President and the government is doing absolutely nothing. The American President strongly supports the private sector and helps entrepreneurs a great deal, unlike Canada, whose government led an unspeakable attack against our entrepreneurs last summer with the reprehensible plan it tabled on July 11, in the middle of the summer, if memory serves. Fortunately, thanks to the extraordinary work of the member for Carleton, Canadian business people across the country united and put a stop to the Liberal government's plan, which sought to punish them for creating jobs and wealth. It is a good thing that we were there.

There is nothing in this budget to help business owners or meet their needs. The government is going on a spending spree, as we have mentioned, and is creating deficits. We are talking about a 20% increase in spending. Twenty percent in three years is a lot. It represents $60 billion. A 2% or 3% increase would be in keeping with inflation. A little is okay, but in this case, we are talking about hyper-inflation, not inflation. A normal increase would have been 6% in three years. However, this government has increased spending by 20% in three years. Such is the hallmark of the Liberal government. We think this is very bad. The spending was supposedly for investments in infrastructure, but there have not been any infrastructure investments. The government is investing just 0.1% of our GDP on creating wealth and jobs in our country. This is not what the government promised during the election campaign. It promised to run small deficits. This is no surprise, given that the Prime Minister may not have studied at the great schools of economics. This is no guarantee, but three years ago, the Prime Minister introduced an unprecedented economic policy, or economic philosophy. I remind members that when the hon. Joe Oliver tabled the final budget of the previous government, the leader of the Liberal Party said that the budget would balance itself.

I was in university when I was young. I studied a lot, and I have never seen the fiscal or economic theory elsewhere, other than from the present Prime Minister, that a budget balances by itself. If there is someone else who has some information about that, I will welcome it. I really want to understand how someone can seriously speak such stupidity, but that is the signature of the present Prime Minister.

The Liberals have attacked businesses in several ways, by raising their taxes and reducing the government assistance they might be eligible for. The best way to help our businesses is to tax them less. However, in the past three years, the government has done something entirely different. First, it imposed a carbon tax, which will come into force across Canada in a few short months. Next, it reduced all the tax credits we had introduced for research, recruitment, and business development. The tax credits we brought in have been abolished by this government. That is the kind of thing that makes businesses owners lose confidence. This is troubling. All the economic indicators of business confidence are negative. Private investment in Canada is down 5% since 2015. Compared with the United States, it is not just a drop of 5%, it is actually another 5% to 9% on top of that. That is a difference of 14%. Canadian business owners feel uncomfortable and are investing less, while American business owners are investing three times more, relatively speaking. That is not a good thing.

Foreign investment in Canada has fallen by 42% over the past year. This means that less wealth is being created, since nothing is better for a nation's economy than foreign investment. It is a real source of wealth creation. When entrepreneurs create jobs and wealth, it is basically because their products are sold abroad, whether in Europe, Asia, or the United States. This is about the Canadian dollars, yen, euros, or even pounds that might be invested in our economy. That is the real source of wealth creation. That is why we are very worried about the fact that foreign investment has fallen by 42%.

As a final point, I want to talk about the debt. I have a bit of an obsession with the debt, because those folks over there were elected on a promise that they would run up small deficits and balance the books again by 2019, but they are not keeping their promises. On top of that, the debt generated by deficits is money that we cannot spend for our children. Quite the opposite, it is our children who will be forced to pay because of today's mismanagement. This government will go down in history for bringing Canada's national debt to $1 trillion. This is not “billions of bilious blue blistering barnacles” for those familiar with Tintin, but rather $1 trillion. This has “Liberal government” written all over it.

All these bad signs have shaken people's trust in their political leaders. A party can be elected on a certain campaign platform and then change direction based on external factors; however, in this case, there are no external factors. It is nothing but bad faith that has led the Liberal government to run up such huge deficits, rather than the small deficits promised and the balanced budget promised by 2019. Instead, it has absolutely no idea when we will return to a balanced budget. This government has just catapulted Canada towards the sad reality of a trillion-dollar debt. That is right, I said $1 trillion.

For all these reasons, we will vote against this budget. We feel it is an irresponsible, wrong-headed budget that will force our children to pay the price. It does nothing to help our economy and our entrepreneurs prepare for the new reality of a powerful neighbour that is both our number-one partner and our number-one competitor, the United States of America.

We hope this government will get public finances under control and take the bull by the horns so that one day, maybe a year and a half from now, we will be fortunate enough to have a realistic and responsible government led by the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle.

[David Lametti, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed my hon. colleague's speech even though I subscribe to neither his opinion nor even remotely his economic theory.

In the budget, we allocated almost $100 million to Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions to support economic development in Quebec. My colleague's party opposed that investment during the sitting that lasted all night. I would like to know if my colleague agrees with his colleague from Beauce.

Is he against Canada's regional economic development agencies, including the one for Quebec?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is so easy to spend money you do not have and to send the bill to our grandchildren. My colleague can go ahead and bring up the $330 billion in this budget, but the reality is that we are living beyond our means.

The member talked about regional economic development. For the first time, a single person, the member for Mississauga—Malton, is responsible for this file. I have great respect for him, and no offence to the charming hon. member, but when the time comes to work on regional economic development, he will naturally think about his region. What a surprise. I see him shaking his head.

Need I remind my colleague that Bombardier publicly asked for a contribution for the C Series, which is assembled in Mirabel, and that the government loaned Bombardier twice as much money for the Global 7000 than for the C Series, even though the company had not asked for money for the Global 7000? Why? Because the Global 7000 is assembled in Mississauga. Shocking.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, which was just as inspired and dynamic as usual. I will give him a chance to catch his breath, but I want to continue talking on regional development with him.

I want to talk about regional development in a corner of Quebec that is quite a bit closer to his riding than mine, but that concerns us all. I want to talk about the Davie shipyard, which has already had to lay off more than 800 workers over the past few months because it did not get the Liberal government contract to carry on its operations, when we know that the Canadian Coast Guard and the Royal Canadian Navy have needs to be filled.

When he was in the region, the Prime Minister promised icebreakers. However, it is already mid-April, spring is around the corner, and no contract has been signed.

I would like my colleague to say a few words about the consequences to the economic development of the Quebec City region when good jobs disappear because of the Liberals.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will talk about two things. First, with tongue in cheek, I might say that the Liberal icebreaker policy is to wait until there is no more ice, then there will be nothing to break. That is a stupid joke, but that is okay. I wanted to make it. Now, let us get down to business.

I am from Quebec City. I am 53 and I was a journalist for 20 years. I have heard a lot about the Davie shipyard in my time and, unfortunately, it has not always been good things. However, one of the Davie shipyard's great successes was the Asterix supply ship. Our government signed the letter of agreement so that the Davie shipyard could design and build a supply ship for the navy. It was to be built from an old ship at the Davie shipyard.

These people finished building the supply ship on time and on budget. It was a great success. They are now ready to build the second supply ship, the Obelix. The table has been set, but unfortunately the government is refusing to move forward. What is worse, the Prime Minister went to Quebec City in January. He turned on the charm for the people at the Davie shipyard—and interestingly, this time he wore his suit instead of dressing up like a dock worker—but nothing came of it. There was a lot of talk but no action.

We are holding the line. The government must give the Davie shipyard the contract for the Obelix, not as an act of charity or because the workers are nice people, but because the Davie shipyard deserves it, because those workers built the Asterix on time and on budget. They are prepared to build the Obelix. That would be good for all of Canada.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want the member to drill just a bit deeper on infrastructure. During an election campaign and then in budget after budget the government promised the infrastructure. Where is the infrastructure? The infrastructure will ensure we have more Chinese billionaires in the belt and road initiative, but where is the infrastructure for Canada?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is not as expected.

The Liberals were elected saying that they would invest a lot of money. That was why they asked Canadians for a small deficit. The government does not invest in infrastructure. It invests in deficits to give money to people, but the children will have to pay for the money we do not have right now.

When we were in office, the Conservatives had a realistic plan for infrastructure, $85 billion under the Hon. Denis Lebel, who was a member in the House for more than 10 years. We are very proud of what he did. We had a realistic plan, with a budget and a zero deficit. It was not a huge plan for absolutely nothing with a huge deficit that our children would have to pay.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the focus for the government was clear from the very beginning. The commitment in our platform was clear, that we were going to invest in Canadians because we believed in Canadians. Those investments have been working.

For example, there has been the creation of over 600,000 jobs since November 2015. Some of those jobs are being carried out as a result of our infrastructure investments. There have been 300,000 young people who have been lifted out of poverty with our Canada child benefit, which we know today has been indexed, and 70,000 workers will be lifted out of poverty with our Canada workers benefit.

Would the member agree that investing in the middle class is a good thing and that the numbers we are seeing and producing because of our investments are in the interest of Canadians?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for her French. A few weeks ago, she spoke a few sentences in French, and I welcome each and every member to speak the other official language.

When I talk about the other official language, I am not saying that French is the second official language. French and English are at the same level of official languages.

In response to the member's comments, I would first like to point out that, under our leadership, Canada outperformed every other G7 country, creating nearly 200,000 jobs per year despite the economic crisis. I also want to make it clear that the reason the Canadian economy is doing so well today is that the price of oil is three times higher now than it was when we had to deal with the worst global economic crisis since the Great Depression. In addition, our top trading partner and customer, the United States, is experiencing an economic boom that is creating opportunities for our businesses to sell more. That is a huge boost for the economy.

What the government can control is the budget, but its spending is out of control. Yes, the government is giving money to families. I know this because they have been saying so forever. The problem is that it is not the government's money. The government is running deficits. Sure, we all want to help kids, but the government is helping them so much that those kids are going to have to pay the price later on.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech. He gave a great example of how sometimes the head of the household has to decide whether to borrow money for a mortgage, or a car, or the kids' education. However, I ask him to look at who is running the country, a trust fund baby who has never even thought about a mortgage or a loan for a car. What is that? He is putting money aside for the education of his kids. This is something that is not done. When we look at the finance minister, it is pretty much the same thing.

The member talked about the importance of balancing the budget. If we have people running the country who have never had to balance a budget themselves, does he think they will ever balance the budget?

I am sure the Prime Minister was given this little plastic card called a “credit card”. If he puts it into a machine and punches in four numbers, money just keeps coming out. I think he thinks Canadian taxpayers are the same as that credit card.

Does the member think the budget will ever be balanced under the finance minister and the Prime Minister?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as a family, we have to balance our budget. Yes, we have to borrow money to buy a car or a house. That is normal, because we need that. We cannot wait to have a half a million dollars in the bank so we can pay cash for our house and car. However, we do not borrow money to pay for lunch or dinner, but that is exactly what the government is doing right now.

The government gives money to people that we do not have, and this is the worst way to administer. We send the bill to those we are supposed to help, which is not the way to balance the budget correctly. When we have a leader who says that the budget will balance itself, well, we have that kind of stupid action.

[David Lametti, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise in the House this evening to talk about the budget.

First of all, on behalf of the people of LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, as well as all Canadians, I would like to extend my condolences to all those affected by the tragic event that has befallen Humboldt, Saskatchewan. This was an absolute tragedy. We offer our prayers, condolences, and thoughts to all those it has affected. We hope that, through this tragedy, we will forge stronger ties across the nation.

It goes without saying that my constituents in LaSalle—Émard—Verdun will benefit from many elements of this budget. Some of my colleagues have already discussed these measures, such as housing, the child benefit, and benefits for workers seeking retraining. I would like to talk about one element of the budget that I personally think is very important for Canada's future. I am often asked why I went into politics. I used to be a university professor. I was full professor in a fantastic faculty with an exceptional teaching staff and amazing students, whom I must admit I miss very much. It was a good gig. Why change careers to go into politics?

The answer often turns, at least in terms of part of the answer, on funding for fundamental research in this country. As a university professor over the 10 years under the previous Harper government, I saw the literal destruction of research funding in Canada. There were cuts to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, cuts to NSERC, cuts to CIHR. Colleagues and students across Canada whose funding was compromised by these very radical cuts in our education system struggled. Colleagues struggled, but worse was that students struggled. Graduate students struggled.

My funding for graduate work for my doctorate was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council in a period when funding was more generous. How many people were unable to have that education that I was fortunate enough to get through SSHRC funding during the period of the Conservative government? How many are out there that we just do not know about, because they did not get the funding? How many good research projects that would have funded graduate and post-graduate students did not get funded in Canada because of the Harper cuts? How many good, innovative, brilliant students and academics went to other countries and never came back because of the budget cuts to basic research funding under the Harper government?

What is worse is the number of academics, intellectuals, and experts in various domains who left simply because they were sick and tired of hearing academics being run down by Stephen Harper and the people around him. That is why I jumped into politics. I gave up a good gig because I thought that everybody had a responsibility to make sure that we could do everything in our power to make sure that we could change that government, and we succeeded.

Before I go on, I just want to inform the House that I will be splitting my time with the member for St. John's East.

The election day came in 2015. Immediately, in budget 2015, we stopped the gap in terms of the deficit in basic fundamental research funding in Canada.

David Naylor and his colleagues were tasked with reviewing the state of basic research in Canada. In budget 2017, we invested a great deal of money in that part of the puzzle, specifically in innovation and skills. Budget 2017 really was about innovation and skills. Still, basic research in this country needed additional support.

We waited for the Naylor report, and once we received it, we appointed a new chief science advisor. This measure was very well received by the scientific community. Then we began rebuilding. In budget 2017, we invested a lot of money in superclusters and in strategic funds for innovation. We made an important announcement today at Bell Helicopter, north of Montreal. That is another very innovative company in this country. We also invested to help young people learn how to code with the CanCode initiative. However, we waited until budget 2018 to create and build a future together through basic research with a $3-billion investment over five years in Canada's research organizations.

That is $1.7 billion over five years to support the next generation of researchers in Canada. This is curiosity-based research. It is research that is driven by the intellectual curiosities of basic research. It is absolutely critical that in addition to any innovation spending and any spending on skills training that we do, we also buttress curiosity-driven research.

In Canada right now, in Montreal, Toronto, and Edmonton, we are going through a boom in the artificial intelligence economy. That is wonderful, and our government is investing in that, as are provincial governments across Canada, as are private sector partners as well. Why are we at that state? It is because 20 years ago, when Yoshua Bengio, Geoffrey Hinton, and Richard Sutton were doing machine learning and other bits of artificial intelligence and were not necessarily getting any traction in other parts of the world, they were being funded in Canada by NSERC. They managed to convince, in very rigorous competitions for funding, enough of their colleagues that their research should be funded, and it was. Having seen the other side, I can say that these academic funding competitions are tough, very rigorous, and held to the highest standard, with experts from Canada and around the world participating as a matter of academic duty. Now, 20 years later, we are beginning to see the economic fruits of that research. Sometimes it will work and sometimes it will not. However, the point is that we need to be funding basic research in a big way, and $1.7 billion over five years to the three major agencies is absolutely critical.

In addition to funding basic research, we also need to fund infrastructure for research. Hence, the Canadian Foundation for Innovation, the CFI, is receiving $1.3 billion over five years for labs, equipment, and infrastructure...I have that number wrong. It was $1.3 billion in total, of which $763 million will go to the CFI. That is critically important, because it wanted and needed a stable budget. It often does the structural work that makes the curiosity-based research possible.

To conclude, when I look at this budget, I see the fulfillment of one of the major reasons that I went into politics. It was absolutely critical to help restabilize the research picture in Canada to make Canada a destination for research. I would like to think we have succeeded.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member is a learned colleague. He mentioned how he received a government grant to pay for his education. My educational experience was a bit different and was probably more similar to the experience of most Canadians: I went to work on the line at GM. I had a part-time job and I put myself through school. He has his perspective and I have mine.

The member really did not talk about business and how this budget pretty much ignores small business. I guess he believes in the Liberal policy for small business, that being to start with a large business like Kinder Morgan, regulate and tax it to death, and when there is a problem, put money into it to subsidize it, and then after that business fails, there is a business plan for small business. A big business is made into a small business.

I would like the member to comment on whether there is anything in the budget that would help streamline regulation or lower business taxes or anything that says the government will balance the budget in any time certain in the next few years. Is there anything about increasing Canada's competitiveness overall? We are losing out to our biggest competitors, such as the United States, and we are losing out around the world. Even former Liberal John Manley, who was the finance minister, recognizes that.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am rather amused by the tone of my colleague's question. My parents came to this country with no formal education, and the one thing that they wanted their children to get was a formal education. Yes, I went to a number of very good universities on scholarships, and they were earned by merit. I earned the Social Science and Humanities Research Council money through a competitive process. I earned that money. I also worked on construction sites in the summer and worked my way through college.

The member seems to insinuate things quite often but his insinuation that everyone else had a silver spoon except him is completely off base. I stand by my education. I stand by the work I put into getting that education. I stand by the work I did to get funding for that education through competitive processes.

What we are trying to do in this budget is to give those same opportunities to Canadians who come from a socio-economic background similar to mine.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-74 contains 556 pages and would amend 44 acts.

I looked at some of the things that would be impacted by this legislation, such as carbon pricing. Climate change is probably one of the most important environmental issues of our time. It is top of mind for people in my riding of Kootenay—Columbia.

Pensions are important. I held a telephone town hall and almost 4,000 people stayed on the line to talk about pensions. Veterans are another important issue to Canadians. Cannabis is a hot issue in my riding. Part of my riding traditionally gets a fair bit of its economy from cannabis; these are outdoor growers. The Canada Infrastructure Bank would privatize our infrastructure projects. Mineral exploration and mining are very important in my riding.

When I look at this list, I see that every one of the items on this list deserves individual debate and discussion. I am wondering if the member would agree that these items should be split out and debated separately because of their importance, not only to my constituents of Kootenay—Columbia but to all Canadians.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member asked a legitimate question. These are all important issues, and the budget is important.

I do not know that my answer will satisfy the member. These other issues are included because they have a financial aspect to them and it is important to include them in the budget. That is a matter on which we may very well reasonably disagree, but that certainly would be the answer to that concern on his part.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand today on behalf of the people of St. John's East in support of budget 2018. Budget 2018 proposes real and tangible benefits for my riding of St. John's East and reflects many issues raised by my constituents in the consultations I have had with them over the past year.

In my short remarks, I will focus on three aspects of the budget: specific supports to St. John's East and Newfoundland and Labrador; economic growth that benefits all Canadians; and support for the opportunities in trade, pharmacare, and innovation that will grow the future Canadian economy.

Budget 2018 proposes many important investments for Newfoundland and Labrador, including $250 million to renew the network of small craft harbours and work with municipalities where investments and divestitures can enhance local communities and support a safe and prosperous fishery. I visited eight small craft harbours in and around my riding over the break weeks, and it was lovely to see what great work the small craft harbours do and what the priorities for improving the safety and the industriousness of those harbours would be.

There will be $80 million in 2018-19 and $150 million in 2019-20 to the provinces for training and support for seasonal workers who have exhausted their EI benefits. The new Canada workers benefit is expected to provide almost $40 million to support 5,000 additional low-income workers in my province. There is $48 million in new funding for ACOA, of which $8 million is dedicated to women entrepreneurs. In 2018-19 alone, Newfoundland and Labrador will receive $750 million through the Canada health transfer and the Canada social transfer.

There is also enhanced support for research and researchers, including those at Memorial University in my riding of St. John's East, by investing nearly $4 billion across the country to help researchers solve the problems of today and create the innovations of tomorrow.

The benefits of budget 2018 are not only for St. John's East, obviously. They are intended to be enjoyed by the entire country. It is clear that the fastest and best way to grow our economy is by identifying and correcting systemic biases holding good people back. Budget 2018 identifies and addresses unfairness against women and indigenous people. Levelling the playing field for those groups will drive economic growth.

Women in Canada are among the world's most educated, and it is time we acknowledged that by ensuring greater participation of women in the workforce. It is not only the right thing to do, but the smart thing to do for our economy. That is why this budget puts gender at the heart of its decisions. Advancing women's equality in Canada will drive economic growth, while boosting the income of Canadian families. More women in leadership positions will not just grow the economy, create jobs, and strengthen communities; it will also lead to innovation and changes in the workplace that will benefit everyone.

In this budget, the government is providing leadership to address the gender wage gap. Through the increased transparency required by pay equity legislation, we will see how our government is meeting its commitment that women working in federally regulated sectors receive equal pay for equal work. We will also seek to introduce GBA+ legislation to make gender budgeting a permanent aspect of the federal budget-making process going forward.

The push for a level playing field does not end with gender equality. We will also be working to create a fair playing field for Canada's indigenous people by forging a new relationship based on trust, respect, and a true spirit of reconciliation.

Through budget 2018, the government is working to help close the gap between the living conditions of indigenous people and those of non-indigenous people, facilitate self-determination, and advance the recognition of rights. We will do this by, first, building on significant investments of $11.8 billion in the past two budgets, and second, by investing in priority areas identified by first nations, Inuit, and Métis nation partners in the spirit of reconciliation.

We are committed to ending long-term drinking water advisories on public water systems on reserve by March 2021 and will make greater investments through budget 2018 to ensure that this happens more quickly. Nearly one in five indigenous people live in housing that is in need of major repairs, and others live in housing that is overcrowded. We are working to ensure that they get the support they need to enjoy safe, adequate, and affordable housing, something the majority of non-indigenous people take for granted. These investments will ensure that indigenous people can benefit from similar conditions for growth as their non-indigenous counterparts.

By addressing existing inequalities, we can grow the economy and create a better country for all Canadians.

Canada's future is bright. We have a lot to be optimistic about. Future opportunities in trade, pharmacare, and innovation will make it even brighter. This government knows that Canada's economic success also depends on strong trade relationships in an increasingly globalized world. Canada is a trading nation, and if done properly, trade can be a positive force for change. That is why this budget funds Global Affairs Canada with up to $75 million over five years to establish a stronger presence for Canadian diplomatic and trade support in China and Asia. This includes bolstering the number of Canadian diplomats and trade commissioners on the ground in China, as well as new initiatives to promote Canada's trade with China and other Asian markets.

We are continuing to work with the United States and Mexico to modernize the North American Free Trade Agreement. We know that this agreement has been beneficial to the lives of workers and families in all three partner countries. Under NAFTA, North America has become the biggest, most comprehensive trading bloc in the world, comprising a quarter of the world's GDP, even though we represent only 7% of the world's population. That is why we are working hard to renegotiate an updated and improved North American Free Trade Agreement that would benefit all three countries and foster greater opportunity for the middle class.

Trade maintains the high standard of living enjoyed by many people in St. John's East. They are proud of Canada's improved global brand as a reliable partner in fair, progressive, environmentally conscious, and gender-balanced trade. Our country is one of innovators. Curiosity, courage, creativity, and a collaborative spirit are what leads to the kind of innovations and technologies that improve our daily lives and drive our economy and our country forward.

Science and technology, along with stronger international trade, are rapidly changing the way Canadians live and work, bringing new challenges and more opportunities. Nowhere is that more evident than at Memorial University, the university of Newfoundland and Labrador, where our Genesis Centre is fostering numerous young, smart, and innovative companies that are doing great things in oceans tech and health care in the digital economy, providing opportunities in clean energy and home improvement. Innovation is an integral part of Newfoundland and Labrador's growth.

On February 15, 2018, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development announced groundbreaking funding for Canada's five superclusters. I am proud and happy to say that this includes an ocean supercluster, which is based in Atlantic Canada and will use innovation to improve competitiveness in industries that we know very well in St. John's East: fisheries, oil and gas, clean energy, and oceans tech. The OECD predicts that the ocean economy will double by 2030, and St. John's is poised to enjoy that growth, partially due to budget 2018.

Many of my constituents in St. John's East are calling for a national approach to ensure that no Canadian needs to choose between food or heat and the medicine he or she needs. That is why I am excited about the creation of a new advisory council on the implementation of national pharmacare that was announced as part of this budget. The council will begin a national dialogue that would include working closely with experts from all relevant fields, as well as with national, provincial, territorial, and indigenous leaders. The council will report to the Minister of Health and the Minister of Finance, and will conduct an economic and social assessment of domestic and international models. As we move forward with some version of national support for access to pharmaceuticals, I think everyone would agree that this will improve the lives of the majority of Canadians.

Our government is investing in new generations of Canadian research and researchers by proposing $1.2 billion over five years to the granting councils for fundamental research to provide increased support and training opportunities for researchers, students, and high-quality personnel.

There are so many great components to this budget. Once again, I am proud to say that I stand on behalf of my fellow citizens of St. John's East in support of this budget. If I were to highlight one thing, it would be the small craft harbours in my riding. For centuries, they were the lifeblood of the community. When Newfoundland joined Confederation, they became federal assets, and they provide one of the main connections that ordinary citizens have to their federal government. In places like Pouch Cove, Bauline, and Portugal Cove-St. Philip's, we really get an opportunity to see how the Government of Canada can make positive change in the lives of people. Those small craft harbours have been neglected, and by having this additional funding in place we will be able to make them safer and more economically useful for the fishers who create their livelihood and the livelihood of their communities out of those ports.

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 second time and referred to a committee.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague said that there were many more great things in the budget that he would like to enumerate. I am sure he would have liked to enumerate the fact that taxes for the middle class have gone up by 90%. He would have liked to say that there are new taxes on small businesses and employees, and that we are borrowing another $18 billion to facilitate the budget. That is on top of all the other deficits this budget has incurred, not to mention the carbon tax, which estimates say will cost a family of four between $1,100 and $2,500 per year. All of these costs are going to make it that much more difficult. The debt alone is going to cost $26 billion just in interest this year. That is not paying down any of the debt. It will be $33 billion by 2021.

Does the member actually believe that these are helpful expenditures, when they are simply going to be pushed forward and will need to be paid for by our children and grandchildren?

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member touched on a lot of different aspects, but I will focus on the one related to deficit spending. I agree with what the Minister of Finance has said. The appropriate metric for measuring Canada's progress on reducing debt is the debt-to-GDP ratio. We see that it is going down now. It has gone down each year under our government's tenure, and it will continue to do so.

When we focus merely on deficit without looking at the overall growth of the economy, we are seeing the trees and failing to see the forest. We need to see the overall economic growth that Canada has enjoyed over the first two years of the government's mandate, which has greatly surpassed expectations and provided for additional economic growth that renders the deficit spending less than the overall growth of the economy, so that we see an overall reduction. Therefore, Canada's fiscal position is stronger under our government. Even though there are modest deficits being run, they are less than the overall growth of the economy. This is more than the previous government can say, because it grew the debt-to-GDP ratio over its tenure, and we have reduced it.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was very pleased that both my hon. colleague and the speaker before him mentioned the commitment to research and the $1.7 billion over five years being invested in research. In my riding, I have three post-secondary institutions, and I cannot tell you how thrilled they are with the commitment of the government to research. In fact, the president of one of the post-secondary institutions has stated that this has breathed a whole new life into the institution.

I would like to ask the hon. member about the importance of this investment in research and how not only researchers but all Canadians would benefit from this very important investment.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, St. John's East is the home of Memorial University, the university of Newfoundland and Labrador. There are over 18,000 full-time students at the institution. There is an engineering faculty, a business faculty, and social sciences. There is a new science building, to which our federal government has contributed $100 million in infrastructure funding. There is a world-class medical school. Within each of these departments and programs, there are researchers who are solving today's problems. However, they often cannot do that without the support of additional faculty, without research staff, and without Ph.D. students who are working on those problems with them. In order to build those labs, build that base of knowledge, and have that work done, they need additional funding and support.

The granting councils have been underfunded for a long time. The recent report that led to our increase in research funding called specifically for a massive injection of federal government dollars into primary research so that these problems can be solved. Ultimately, and we see it within the incubators at our national universities, companies develop out of this primary research, and those companies go on to sell products not only in Canada but in global markets. The people who work in those companies have high-quality, interesting jobs that keep them in their local communities and at the universities, and drive the cycle of growth that we need in the 21st century.

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

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to have the opportunity today to discuss the budget. First, I would like to talk about some things having to do with gender equality.

The budget bemoans the unequal sharing of caregiver responsibilities. Page 45 of the budget notes that 92% of EI parental leave is paid to women, while 8% is paid to men. The gap between 92% and 8% is very large, but there is nothing to indicate that it is the result of sexism or lack of autonomy. Most women claiming EI parental leave benefits are relatively young, between 25 and 34 years old. These women grew up in a relatively different world from that in which many members of the House grew up, especially in terms of equal opportunities for women. About 34% of these young women have a university degree, compared to 26% of men the same age. The young women most likely to have children today have a huge educational advantage over men.

However, they are also much more likely to take parental leave. Why is that? Maybe it is because they want to. Maybe it is a personal choice, and that is all there is to it. Maybe in the privacy of the discussions that take place between couples, women are statistically more likely to express a preference for spending more time with an infant child. Some ideologues might see this as a problem resulting from patriarchal social programming, but I would argue that as long as women are freely making this choice, there is no problem. I would note as well that parental leave is for those caring for newborns. It may be that the division of caregiving responsibilities is somewhat different for older children. Perhaps women are more likely to take on caregiving responsibilities for infants because some women choose to breastfeed.

In practical terms, if a mother wants to breastfeed her child, we can hardly expect her not to take parental leave. I am sure that the government and private-sector employers can do more to make it easier for women who must breastfeed their children at work. This will not change the fact that is is still not feasible for the non-breastfeeding parent to care for the child and to bring the child to the breastfeeding mother's workplace every time the child is hungry. Most families face these types of practical considerations and must take them into account when they are allocating childcare responsibilities.

In an attempt to increase the GDP, the government has presented a budget that restricts women's latitude by reserving part of the parental leave for each of the parents. It creates a restrictive system instead of a system in which parents have the choice to share parental leave as they see fit. Our approach is to give people more freedoms, not less, because we believe that the quest for equality is about promoting well-being, autonomy, and equality itself. It is not about promoting an ideology or increasing the GDP.

The leader of our party introduced a private member's bill to eliminate taxes on the EI benefits paid during parental leave, regardless of who is taking the leave, when it is taken, or for what reason.

I have made these points before, and I think they are particularly important. When I have spoken about the problems with the government's proposed change to the way that parental leave works, I have had a lot of positive feedback from young parents, young women in particular.

However, one young woman said that this was clearly a budget designed for women, written by men. In other words, it speaks about gender equality, but it does so in a way that is out of touch with the practical realities that young families experience. It introduces changes to the way parental leave works that limits the flexibility that families have. By spending money and introducing what it calls a “use it or lose it” approach to parental leave, it says it has to be divided up in a particular way if they are going to get all of it, as at least some of it has to be allocated to each person.

Of course, this does not work for single parents, families where, for various reasons, one person may be unable to take the leave as it presently exists. Members of Parliament cannot do that. We just had our third child, and it had to be my wife who took all of the parental leave because of the nature of the position I am in. With the nature of her work, she was able to do that. The inflexibility of the system that the government is proposing is out of step with what many people are looking for.

Now, why did this person I spoke to say that this is a budget designed for women but written by men? Part is of is that what many young parents are looking for, in particular when it comes to parental leave and the way they approach work in general, is a greater degree of flexibility. They are not looking for the government to dictate and limit their choices to a greater degree. They are looking for greater flexibility. Many young women want to be able to work and earn income, and they also want to have a greater degree of flexibility from the stereotypical traditional job, where they have to get up early and commute, not working from home.

Many people I spoke to are looking for an ability to have earned income, but to do so in a way that is more flexible. I think that is true for all parents. It is something that we as policy-makers could do a better job of recognizing and responding to, trying to find policy changes that enhance flexibility rather than inflexibility.

I was thinking about this, and we need to get beyond this sort of old paradigm about the way that parents choose to divide up their relationship between working outside the home or being with their children. This was an old paradigm, and parents were stuck. They were either a stay-at-home parent and did not earn income, or they were a parent working outside the home, having to be away. They did not have any flexibility.

That old paradigm, because of changes in society, but also because of changes in technology, is very much breaking down. More and more people are able to work from home, and it is much easier to do so. It is practical and realistic for someone to be at home with their family during the day and yet have their own home-based business, or to perhaps have that flexibility to be at an external workplace some of the time and work from home at other times.

This is what more and more people are doing, and it responds to the desire that people have for that flexibility, to be able to be both at home and earning income at the same time.

To some extent, this was my reality before getting elected. I was the vice-president of an opinion research company that was based in a different city. We did not have a local office. I appreciated the opportunity to be able to be at home, and to be working from home. We had hired child care at our house but, at the same time, I was present. If there was a situation where I was needed, then I could be involved in some way. It was only my older daughter at the time, and since then our family has grown.

The reality for more and more parents is that they are looking for flexibility, and wanting more parental leave is an expression of that flexibility. I would argue that rather than worrying about this pursuit of greater flexibility by parents, we should recognize and celebrate it as a choice that people are making. We should also recognize that despite the old model under which a person had to choose between either being at home or working outside of the home, the opportunity to more easily work from home provides parents with more choices. It provides more people with the ability to work, if they wish to, while also being present at home if they wish to be.

Policy-makers, through budgets, should look for ways of supporting people who want to have that greater degree of flexibility. One of these ways might be to make it easier to earn income while on parental leave. Rather than limiting flexibility in the way that the government proposes to, what about making it easier for someone to access parental leave while still taking some files home? I have talked to women in my riding, for example, who felt it was very important to take parental leave, but who also said it would have been easier if they could have taken some files home from work in the context of that leave. They were not able to do that because of the way the leave was structured; there was a very aggressive clawback for any earnings they made. That would be one thing we could do if we were thinking in the direction of improving flexibility instead of increasing inflexibility.

Another way would be to simplify the working from home tax benefit. Right now, the tax deductions associated with using one's home as a workplace are very complicated. We could develop a simplified formula to make that easier, so that the people who are considering working from home could quickly make that calculation and realize they would derive a benefit from it.

In general, I think the right approach is to listen to what families are telling us, and listen to what the reality is for many young parents. They want to be able to continue to work, have flexibility, and share responsibilities, but not be constrained in how they do it. That involves a very different approach from what the government is doing.

Why is the government proceeding in the way it is? It seems less to me about equality and more about GDP. It talks about getting more people into the workforce and that this will increase GDP. What we should be doing is increasing empowerment, giving more flexibility and choice to people. However, rather than using the “use it or lose it” approach of the government, if we gave more flexibility to the people, I think we would see an increase in GDP as well. I do not think that is what we should be aiming at, but that is a desirable ancillary benefit.

Having discussed these particular issues around gender equality in the budget, I want to speak more broadly about the problems we see in this budget. Again, let us be clear. The government promised that it would run three deficits of less than $10 billion, and that in the final year it would balance the budget. What do we have? We have no plan to balance the budget ever. Its balanced budget will be later than flights out of Toronto were this weekend. There is no plan for this to happen at any point in the future. The government thinks that is okay, because it says it is investing. A plan to spend money, which is what this is, should be a plan, in that it should have a clear-sighted set of constraints and timelines. Every single province in this country either has a balanced budget or a date by which they plan to get to a balanced budget. We might be skeptical in some of those cases about whether they will realize it, but every province either has a balanced budget or a timeline in terms of when they are going to get there. This is apparently the only finance minister in the country who does not think he needs to have that timeline, or at least he is not able to present it.

We need to have a balanced budget, and we need to have the associated stability to encourage investment over the long term. When individuals see rising taxes and an inability to balance the budget, it has a negative effect on investment, and we have seen the impacts of that.

What also has a negative impact on investment is when the government seems to no longer understand the importance of nation-building infrastructure. A central part of how this country became what it is was because of the vision of Sir John A. Macdonald, our first prime minister, our first Conservative prime minister, who realized we needed to have the national infrastructure associated with the railway for security and economic reasons so that essentially Canadians could access each other, protect each other, and do business with each other.

Pipelines, what we have been talking about so much today and in recent days, are the nation-building infrastructure of the 21st century. They are what allow us to prosper together. On this side of the House, we embrace the idea of pipelines as vital nation-building infrastructure that allow the whole country to prosper together. We have members from all across this country who understand this and are proud supporters of our position on it.

What has the approach been of the government? It directly killed the northern gateway pipeline, a pipeline that had already been approved by the previous Conservative government. It indirectly has been killing other pipelines. It killed the energy east pipeline by piling on conditions. Now the Trans Mountain pipeline is at risk through the Liberals' neglect and lack of action. What the government has now said is that it is considering nationalizing it.

It has become clear that the government has no interest in actually building pipelines. When it sends a signal that the only way it can build a pipeline is by nationalizing it, that is not exactly a positive signal to send in terms of investment. How about the government focus on enforcing the law, on having a plan to making those investments secure. How about the Liberals take a consistent position where they actually support the nation-building infrastructure we need in terms of energy east and the northern gateway pipeline.

I was recently in New Brunswick. At least one member of the government was annoyed and complained to the newspaper that I was in New Brunswick talking to his constituents. I will not apologize because I think it is part of my job to hear what constituents in Liberal ridings are saying, especially when what they are saying is not reflected by their MPs. I was in New Brunswick, and there is a great deal of demand on the east coast and across this country for the energy east pipeline for the kind of benefits that come with nation-building infrastructure.

I said that the government is not making much progress in building pipelines. I should make one exception to that, of course. It put hundreds of millions of dollars into the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, which is a Chinese-controlled development bank that is building a pipeline in Azerbaijan. Canadians are investing in an infrastructure bank that is building infrastructure in Asia, that is building a pipeline in Azerbaijan.

I do not think that is what people thought Liberal MPs from Alberta meant when they said that they would support pipelines. When members, like the member for Edmonton Centre, said that they would support pipelines, I think people in Edmonton Centre thought that meant here in Canada, not in Azerbaijan. Instead of getting infrastructure built here in Canada, instead of getting pipelines built here in Canada, in its desperate bid to curry favour with all kinds of unsavoury regimes, including in this case the PRC regime, the government is spending money to get Canada into this infrastructure bank to build infrastructure such as pipelines in Asia, infrastructure that it is not building here in Canada.

This is an important issue. This is a lot of money we are spending overseas. What is the government's rationale for joining the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank? It says it is because Canadian companies can then get opportunities associated with these infrastructure projects. Well, I say that Canadian companies can get those opportunities here in Canada. I will also say that I was in the headquarters of the Asian infrastructure bank in Beijing, and it told us that it already has open staffing and open procurement policies, which means Canadian businesses can already bid on those same opportunities regardless of whether Canada gives hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to those programs.

This is a misguided budget. It does not help Canadians. It invests in totally the wrong areas. That is why I am proud to oppose it.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Madam Speaker, I must say that I am very impressed with the hon. member's French, and I am going to try to get to the level that he is able to speak it. I know it is something that he has really committed a lot of time to, and I think it is very important and I commend him for that.

With respect to today's topic, the Liberal government was very clear in our platform that we were going to invest in Canadians. It was a different approach than that of the opposition members, but we were very clear that was the approach we were going to take. The reason we did that is we believed it was the best investment we could make. We believe in Canadians and knew they were good investments to invest in Canadians. The result was 600,000 jobs created since 2015, over 300,000 children raised out of poverty with the Canada child benefit, which will be indexed with this BIA. Over 70,000 workers approximately will be raised out of poverty with the Canada workers benefit. We have the best balance sheet in the G7, with the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio.

Does the member not believe in making these investments in Canadians and the middle class or does he deny the results?

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

Madam Speaker, sometimes in political debate we get caught up in the jargon and use phrases that have been focus grouped in detail but are not at all clear as to what they actually mean.

The member spoke about investing in Canadians. A suggestion for investing in Canadians is to cut their taxes. That would be an investment in Canadians that I think a lot of people are looking for. We see all kinds of ways in which the government is increasing taxes on Canadians so that it can fund a narrower group of people. For example, the government is spending $1 billion on superclusters. It is giving money to big corporations, when what we have seen is that the most effective way to grow the economy is not by giving subsidies to superclusters and picking winners and losers in the economy, but by giving Canadians back more of their own money so that they can then invest and spend on things that are important to them.

With respect to what the member was talking about in terms of results, I will say that the status of the economy is always affected by a wide variety of different factors. I know, for example, that the members opposite wanted to entirely blame the Conservative government when there was a global financial recession. However, we are seeing worrying indicators in terms of business investments that are a direct result of the policies of the current government that will have a negative impact over time, and I think many analysts know that.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am going to resist the temptation to pick up on the pipeline debate and will go to the bulk of the presentation by the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, which I thought was a really interesting discussion around child care in a budget that is supposed to be about gender. I think we really do need to look at what kind of child care arrangements the Government of Canada can help facilitate, recognizing, as he said, that one size does not fit all. I was disappointed that in a budget that was about gender there were not the funds that we need to create the opportunity, for those families that want it, to have high-quality early childhood education enriched child care.

To push the point a little further, I wonder what he thinks of the Green Party's policy, which is to promote opportunities for workplace child care, with tax benefits to employers where the situation is appropriate, such as not in a high-risk environment. A lot of workplaces can provide workplace child care so that the mom or the dad has the advantage of much more time in close proximity to his or her children when at work.

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

Madam Speaker, I will also resist the temptation to comment on pipelines. I am sure my friend and I will have plenty of opportunity to discuss them in the future.

In terms of child care and looking at what options the government can facilitate, I think that parents are the best child care decision-makers. I think there are a lot of different types of child care arrangements that can work. The member spoke about one that I think is reflective of the kind of flexibility people are looking for.

For some people, their ideal would be to work from home, over the Internet or phone, while having their children there. For some people, the ability to bring their children with them to work is important. It may be more realistic in the context of the kind of work they do. I see a cultural shift happening where it is more and more acceptable to bring one's children to things, even things that in the past people may have raised their eyebrows and wonder why a child was there. From time to time, I will bring my children to meetings that I have. When we have round tables in my office, from time to time, we try to set it up so that there are toys and parents can bring their kids to play while the parents are participating in political discussions. I think those kinds of things are important.

From a government perspective, in terms of the spending power of the government, let us not decide where the ball is going. I do not think we should be picking winners and losers in terms of the economy. I also do not think we should be picking winners and losers in terms of the kind of child care arrangement. We should be looking for a way to support families in the context of the flexibility that they expect. The way we initially proposed to do that was by providing direct support to families, but there may be other ways, such as tax credits around initiatives that are undertaken by employers. Again, seeking the greatest possible flexibility in the context of how we do that is the way we should go.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, whom I recently had the chance to get to know better during an international trip we took together.

I know that politically we are not necessarily on the same page. To me, for example, socialism is not a bad word. It is something we can consider in the fight to achieve a balanced budget and increase the government's tax revenues.

I would like to know whether he believes that the Liberals broke their promise by not closing the tax loopholes that allow the CEOs of the largest companies, who earn millions of dollars annually, to not pay their fair share of taxes, when workers and the middle class do not have access to these measures and options. The Liberals promised to close the loopholes, but that did not happen in the last budget. I would like my colleague's comments on this.

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

Madam Speaker, I certainly enjoyed getting to know the member, the NDP House leader, and others better on our recent trip. I could go further into that, but as we established, what happens in Ramallah stays in Ramallah.

Do I agree that the Liberals have broken their promises? Absolutely they have and in so many different areas. While we have a philosophical disagreement on many points with the NDP, I think we can agree on this point. We have a government that thinks it can take more and more from Canadians in taxes and that somehow that will benefit Canadians, and that by giving money to well-connected insiders and to those connected with superclusters, somehow that is going to benefit those who need it the most.

I think it was our finance critic, the member for Carleton, who said it best in that the Liberals have a theory of trickle-down government, that if the government has it, somehow it is going to benefit the majority of Canadians. Our belief is that investing in Canadians actually involves letting them keep more of their money in the first place. That is what we think a budget should do, and we are disappointed that it does not do that.

Yes, absolutely across the board, especially when it comes to the Liberals' commitment with regard to running a balanced budget by year four, the government is far out of step with many of the things it promised.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have a short question. My daughter is turning one on Saturday. I was wondering, if the Liberals are allowed to continue down the same path, will there be balanced budgets and pay equity by the time my daughter turns 18?

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

Madam Speaker, my hope is that we will have a Conservative government after 2019, which will balance the budget in due course. However, if, against the odds, we are stuck with Liberal governments for longer than that, I think we will have to wait for our grandchildren at least before we have a balanced budget.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member of Parliament for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook.

I appreciate the opportunity to discuss Bill C-74 and the measures of budget 2018.

With the budget and with this budget implementation act, we are taking the next steps in the government's plan to grow and strengthen the middle class by promoting equality, investing in the economy, and the future.

Before I speak about the contents of the bill, I would like to walk hon. members through some important numbers that show our plan to grow the middle class is working. My riding of Surrey Centre has one of the youngest populations. It is a middle-class riding and it is an emerging centre of innovation. The proof is in the numbers.

Over the last two years, hard-working Canadians have created nearly 600,000 new jobs, most of them full-time. Unemployment rates are near the lowest levels we have ever seen in over 40 years. I am proud to say that since 2016, Canada has led all the G7 countries in economic growth. Our plan is working because Canadians are working. As a result, we are able to continue to invest in the things that matter to Canadians, while making steady improvements to the government's bottom line.

Let me also reassure hon. members that the government is being diligent in ensuring Canada remains the best place to invest, create jobs, and do business. We know that Canada's future success rests on ensuring every Canadian has the opportunity to work and to earn a good living from that work.

Building on these goals, I would like to spend the rest of my time on what steps the government is taking to promote our shared values, bolster services to Canadians, and strengthen their protection at home, abroad, and online.

Canadians know that it is an interconnected world. New technologies offer great benefits to Canadian families and tremendous opportunities to businesses, small and large.

It is no exaggeration to say that the digital age has revolutionized how Canadians live and work, as well as how our institutions function. Digital technologies have changed the way we work, how we shop, how we access services, including government and financial services. These changes have brought with them vast benefits and challenges. They include efforts to preserve cybersecurity and protect the privacy of Canadians. Unfortunately, cyber-attacks are becoming more pervasive, increasingly sophisticated, and even more effective. Successful cyber-attacks have the potential to expose the private information of Canadians, cost Canadian businesses millions of dollars, and potentially put Canada's critical infrastructure networks at risk.

With this budget and the budget implementation act, the government is implementing a plan for security and prosperity in the digital age to protect Canadians against cyber-attacks. This includes significant investments to fund a new national cybersecurity strategy. The strategy focuses on three principal goals: to ensure secure and resilient Canadian systems; to build an innovative and adaptive cyber-ecosystem, and to support effective leadership and collaboration between different levels of Canadian government, and partners around the world.

Canada's plan for security in the digital age starts with a strong federal cyber governance system to protect Canadians and their sensitive personal information. To that end, budget 2018 commits over $155 million over five years, and $44.5 million per year ongoing to the Communications Security Establishment to create a new Canadian centre for cybersecurity.

By consolidating operational cyber expertise from across the federal government under one roof, the new Canadian centre for cybersecurity will establish a single, unified Government of Canada source of unique expert advice, guidance, services, and support on cybersecurity operational matters. This will result in faster, better coordinated, and more coherent government responses to cyber-threats. The new centre will provide Canadians and Canadian businesses with a clear and trusted place to turn to for cybersecurity advice, to advance partnerships, and dialogue with other jurisdictions, the business community, academia, and international partners.

Given the importance of protecting Canadians from growing cyber-threats, I strongly encourage all members of the House to support consolidating various government cybersecurity functions into the new centre.

Budget 2018 will also help bolster Canada's ability to fight cybercrime by providing $116 million over five years and $23.2 million per year ongoing to the RCMP to support the creation of a national cybercrime coordination unit.

The national cybercrime coordination unit will create a coordination hub for cybercrime investigations in Canada and will work with international partners on cybercrime. The unit will also establish a national public reporting mechanism for Canadians and Canadian businesses to report cybercrime incidents to law enforcement.

Taken together, these investments will allow Canadians to continue to benefit from digital connections in a way that protects them, their personal information, and our infrastructure from cybercrime.

Let me very quickly tell the House about the new national cybersecurity strategy.

The new strategy will ensure secure and resilient Canadian cyber systems to improve the government's ability to investigate cybercrime, develop threat assessments, keep critical infrastructure safe, and work in collaboration with the financial and energy sectors on bolstering their cybersecurity.

Second, by investing in an innovative and adaptive cyber-ecosystem the government will support integrated cyber-learning placements for students and help businesses improve their cybersecurity posture through the creation of a voluntary cyber certification program.

Finally, by strengthening leadership, governance, and collaboration, the government will be taking the lead, both at home and abroad, to advance cybersecurity in Canada by working closely with provincial, territorial, private sector, and trusted international partners.

For Canadians, the national cybersecurity strategy will provide Canadians with a clear and trusted federal source for cybersecurity information, practical tips to apply to everyday online activities, and heightened awareness of malicious cyber-activity.

For Canadian businesses, the strategy will increase cybersecurity guidance for small and medium-sized enterprises and provide them with the tools and resources they need to improve cyber resilience.

In a digital and globally connected world, I can reassure hon. members that the government is taking action to promote our shared values, bolster services to Canadians, and strengthen their protection, at home, abroad, and online, including establishing this country's first comprehensive cybersecurity plan.

A strong, safe, and secure Canada means our institutions are working effectively with the resources they need. Budget 2018 commits to a number of measures that will bolster the efficiency of Canada's safety and security institutions, without compromising our shared values as an open, inclusive, and welcoming society.

Whether through the guarantee of a fair and equitable justice system or the knowledge that their private information is secure, Canadians deserve to feel safe and protected in a rapidly changing world.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I have been hearing new buzzwords today from the government, everything about research and innovation. I am not hearing anything anymore with respect to infrastructure funding, the terminology that was big and bold in the Liberals platform on how the Liberals would bring our economy back to where they thought it should be all at the cost of just small deficits. Obviously things have not worked out well there.

Would the member like to explain why things are not working well for the Liberals with respect to their infrastructure plans and why they had to remove $2 billion of funding that Canadians were expecting to help grow the economy directly in Canada with infrastructure spending.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased that I was asked that question. Over 4,000 infrastructure projects have been approved. In my own riding, I am pleased to say that $2.2 billion have been approved for a new light rail system in Surrey Centre, which will go to Surrey Newton and connect Fleetwood—Port Kells as well. I am proud to say that the Broadway corridor will also be getting its SkyTrain line. British Columbia is extremely excited at the new infrastructure projects.

With respect to waste water, the Lions Gate waste water treatment plant has already received $750 million, is being built, and is going to make it one of the most eco-friendly waste water plants. It was much needed and the previous government ignored it for many years. Now we will have safe water going to our oceans and our waterways.

When it comes to British Columbia, we are extremely happy.

My riding also received over $950 million in the last budget for our public transportation system, including new buses, new SkyTrain stations being renovated, new escalators being put in, and pre-work being done on the LRT line.

I cannot thank the finance minister enough for his budget and for what it has done. The citizens of my riding and all ridings around my neighbourhood are pleased with the infrastructure announcements.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. Unfortunately, I think he is seeing the Liberal government's performance through rose-coloured glasses.

For example, there is a housing crisis in Quebec and Canada. Housing is expensive. With great fanfare, the Liberals announced major investments in social infrastructure, including affordable social housing. In the last budget, they announced $11 billion for affordable social housing, a not inconsiderable sum. This seems like good news. However, on closer inspection, it turns out that only $10 million of the new funding will be spent this year. That is less than 0.001% of the amount they announced. The investments they announced will not happen until after the 2019 election or even after the 2023 election.

Does my colleague think it is a good idea to announce spending that will not happen for two more election cycles, when he does not even know if he will still be in the House by then?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have met municipal members, mayors and councillors, from all across British Columbia, some during their lobbying week out here. They could not have been happier. They were ecstatic with the news of the new national housing strategy and the money being given to them.

I met with those who provide child care and food for the homeless. They were ecstatic. In my riding, 160 new units will be built for those who are now on the streets. They will be in beds, in homes, in those safe facilities by the end of June. There will be 250 new beds in our riding, which is a collaboration between the federal funding and B.C. housing. These are just in Surrey Centre. I could go on and on.

People need to know that when we have infrastructure announcements, there is a process, just like with everything else. Plans have to be made and permits issued. Those are not in the hands of the federal government necessarily. They involve the municipalities, the provincial governments, environmental engineers, and consultants who have to do their due diligence and their work before shovels hit the ground.

Perhaps my colleague might want to look into that, to see why some of those projects may be taking more time. The agencies on the ground that help with those who need housing the most, the most vulnerable, are very happy with this budget.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to speak to budget 2018. This is a very important budget that continues the work we began so long ago.

I will be focusing, first of all, on my region of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, a community I describe as a half-circle around the cities of Halifax and Dartmouth. We have some urban but also rural communities. It is a growing community. As well, we have the highest number of seniors. Those are big issues. We need to continue to grow the economy, create jobs, and make sure we support our seniors.

Today I will focus mostly on veterans, women, youth, and indigenous people. Before I do so, I want to share with the House the important work our government has done thus far for the economy. When I look at the unemployment rate of 5.7%, the lowest in the last 40 years, something great is happening on the ground. I am sure that all members in this House can confirm that jobs are being created in their communities, which is important.

I also want to talk about the Canada child benefit. All members in this House have many families in their ridings that are receiving extra money, about $3,000 more than the previous government was offering. This is tax-free money. As an example, in my riding of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, $5.6 million is being given monthly to support families with young kids. Think about that. In my riding alone, it is $5.6 million monthly. That is $60 million a year, and everyone sitting in this House today is receiving similar amounts of money. That is essential, and that is an investment in our young people and families.

I should add that we have created over 600,000 new jobs, most of which are permanent jobs.

This budget also has an additional investment in our health care system. In Nova Scotia, health care is very important to us. We need to continue supporting our communities, making sure that we have enough doctors and the supports required. We are seeing investments in mental health, a new sum invested in the last health accord, which is crucial. We are making sure that the investment will support individuals and families with mental health challenges.

I spoke earlier about keeping seniors at home. There is an investment there. In this budget we are also seeing $20 million over the next five years invested in autism and another $20 million for dementia support and research. As we know, that is a big issue in Canada, more so in Atlantic Canada, as we have the highest number of seniors in the country. Those are big investments, because those are big issues that need to be supported by government, and that is where we are investing major amounts of money.

Now I would like to talk about veterans. We have invested about $10 billion over the last two and a half years to support veterans. This is an extremely important investment. We need to make sure that we support those who have supported our country, as well as their families. These are men and women who have been out there risking their lives every day. We are investing $3.6 billion in the pension for life. That is a large amount of money. I held many town halls across my riding last year, and the pension for life was a major item these individuals wanted and needed. The lump sum may work for some but does not work for most.

We were able to add an option. They have an option that, by default, is a pension, but they also have the option to get a lump sum.

How much support is there? An individual determined to be 100% disabled can receive up to $1,150 a month. If the individual's injury happened in Afghanistan, for example, and the person is 25 years old, with a life expectancy of about 82 for a man and 84 for a women, we would multiply that by 57 years. That alone would give about $700,000 or $800,000. However, someone severely injured may also have an opportunity to receive another $1,500 a month, in addition to the $1,150, which brings it to $3,150 a month, which would bring it to about $38,000 or $40,000 a year. Again, if we use the same formula, that would be about $1.75 million from ages 25 to 82. There is a third criterion, which is a 90% pre-release salary that could also be included. That investment in our veterans is extremely important as a disability pension.

That is not to say what we are already done. In April, we increased the $310,000 lump sum to $360,000, which is a $50,000 addition, depending on the percentage of the disability.

While I was making my tour, some asked what would happen if they took the lump sum. Could they still access the pension? This is something remarkable our government has done. The answer is yes. We break down the sum they have already received, and if they received a little extra, that sum is deducted. Some individuals could receive, depending again on the percentage of injuries, another $800 a month. There would be a deduction of $200 to $300 a month to catch up the amounts that were overpaid. This has been built to support all veterans who have experienced some disability in the workforce.

In this budget there is a $42-million investment for maintenance and repairs in cemeteries and graves, as we have over 45,000 grave sites to improve over time. This will be a way of reaching out very quickly on that.

I want to touch on a couple of investments, such as the new women entrepreneurs strategy, which is a $1.6-billion investment over the next three years to support entrepreneurs in growing their businesses. We also have put in $150 million over five years that is tailored to more regional challenges. We have received a lot of support from women's associations for that.

We have continued the summer jobs for youth amount we put in place two years ago, and we also invested $448 million in an enhanced youth employment strategy to give young people opportunities and internships in various areas so they can have experience and build on it as they enter the workforce.

Finally, there is a major investment in indigenous areas for children and families. We invested billions of dollars in health care and millions on a clean water strategy.

I have focused on just a few key areas. There are many other areas I could have shared with the House, but I am thankful for this opportunity.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I appreciated listening to the member across the way talk about veterans and this new pension the Liberals have put forward that is supposedly so good for our veterans. However, the example the member gave and the one in the budget document refer to maximums that would be available based on injuries. The example in the budget book talks about an individual who serves a full 25 years before stepping on a land mine or being involved in an IED incident and ending up 100% disabled. From what I understand of our veterans and those who have served in the infantry, that is a pretty unrealistic situation for the majority of those who end up that severely injured.

I wonder if the member could give me an idea of how many of our severely injured veterans actually serve a full 25 years before finding themselves in that kind of predicament and being able to receive that level of funding.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Madam Speaker, again, it varies. The example I gave is of someone who is injured at 25 in Afghanistan. We look at the formulas. For someone who has been in the military for 25 years, the formula can work differently. There are a lot of supports there. We could apply the third category, which is 90% of the pre-release salary, which would be very strong support. We could also apply the other categories. It all depends on the level of disability. That is the real question. There is this support system and the pension for life. Again, the option is still available. There are lots of opportunities tailored to the needs of individuals.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague listed many of the items on which his government has spent money, and he is proud of the millions and billions of dollars in spending, but he did not mention the incredible debt the Liberals are amassing. Currently we are paying $26 billion of interest per year on this debt, and it will be $33 billion a couple of years from now, in 2021. That works out to over $3,000 per year per family of four. We add to that the carbon tax, which could add an estimated $1,100 to $2,500 per year per family of four.

How can my colleague stand here and champion the fact that this is good for the middle class, when in fact, his children and grandchildren and my children and grandchildren are going to be forced to pay this debt on the credit card these guys are building up?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Madam Speaker, my first reaction would be to ask what the Conservative Party would be willing to cut. What cuts would the Conservatives have made in the last two years to try to balance the budget, and create a major recession, if not allow this country to go into a depression, which would be much more challenging? The old saying is that it takes money to make money. That is what investment is. Our government is investing in our country. Our government is investing in all kinds of national programs that will not only benefit Canadians today but in 10 years, 20 years, and 30 years. The Canada pension plan is one. There is the Canada child benefit. The national housing strategy is another important one. There is a seniors' housing strategy. We are talking about a pharmacare strategy. I could go on and on. That is what a vision for this great country is about.

The House resumed from April 16 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.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a huge honour to rise today to speak to the budget implementation act and certainly to represent the NDP as the critic for veterans affairs and for small business and tourism.

I will talk about the economic vision presented by this budget and how it would do nothing to address the huge gap between Canada's wealthiest and the rest of Canadians, specifically the people back home in my riding on Vancouver Island.

In terms of lifting up the middle class and those working to join the middle class, something the Liberal government talks about all the time, the budget implementation bill offers no real plan to reduce inequality or to build an economy that would benefit all Canadians. This bill would create an uneven playing field, where only the few at the top could benefit at the expense of everyone else.

The people in my riding are not able to recover from the boom-and-bust economy of the past, because the federal government prefers to take money when times are good and ignores needs when times are tough. To know what the Liberals got wrong and are ignoring in this bill, we can look at the facts.

Today two Canadian billionaire businessmen own as much wealth as 11 million Canadians altogether. More than four million Canadians are living with food insecurity, including 1.15 million children. That is unacceptable.

A June 2017 report by the Parliamentary Budget Officer showed that for every $100 of available income, Canadians have $171 in household debt.

In Port Alberni, where I live, more than one-third of children live in poverty. Parksville-Qualicum has the highest median age of all ridings across Canada, and I often hear from seniors who forego buying medicine because they need to pay rent or buy food.

On the west coast, we need to protect our water from plastic, garbage, and marine debris, something that is not even included in the oceans protection plan. It is not mentioned once.

Everywhere in my riding small business owners are being inundated by red tape, soaring merchant fees, and the new confusing tax measures implemented on income sprinkling.

This budget implementation bill contains zero measures to truly address tax evasion. The Liberal government is not taking any action to eliminate the tax loopholes associated with stock options for wealthy CEOs. They cost taxpayers a billion dollars a year, and 92% of the benefit goes to the 1%. That is not helping the middle class. In terms of tax havens, the Conference Board of Canada has said that they are costing taxpayers up to $47 billion.

This bill is 556 pages long and amends 44 pieces of legislation, even though the Liberals promised to abolish the use of undemocratic omnibus bills. This is unacceptable.

We want to present solutions to the government. We have been presenting speakers on many solutions.

Mr. Speaker, I am splitting my time with my great colleague from Trois-Rivières, our transport critic. He is also going to present some great ideas and concerns about this budget.

I am going to speak as the critic for small business. One thing we are grateful for is that the government finally reduced the small business tax from 11% to 9%, something the late Jack Layton put forward and that New Democrats have been fighting for. Unfortunately, the Liberals only did this when they were in quicksand when they failed to roll out their small business tax proposals last summer and tried to do it in a very short period of time.

We have been raising concerns about merchant fees. I am going to quote this Globe and Mail article, from March 24, 2017, which states:

Worldwide, the EU, Australia, Switzerland and Israel, among others, have all moved to cap interchange rates. In Canada, the average interchange rate is currently 1.5 per cent, with some card fees running as high as 2.25 per cent. By contrast, in the U.K., the interchange rate is capped at 0.3 per cent, in France at 0.28 per cent, and in Australia at 0.5 per cent. So Canadian merchants pay five times what merchants pay in Europe and three times what merchants pay in Australia, for exactly the same services.

This affects businesses in Courtenay, Cumberland, Parksville, Qualicum, Tofino, and right across this country. This is unacceptable. In fact, it costs Canadian consumers over $5 billion, and merchants as well. We know that Visa and Mastercard, which together account for 92% of the credit card market, have a monopoly in this sector.

There was a bill, Bill C-236, an act to amend the Payment Card Networks Act, put forward by my colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles in the fall of 2016. It has been moved 19 times. We have a lot of questions. Who is the government protecting? We know who it is protecting: its friends on Bay Street. Otherwise, it would have brought that bill for debate here to the floor of the House of Commons, where it belongs. It would have done the right thing and represented the people it promised it was going to represent. In fact, the member had support from the Quebec Convenience Stores Association and the Retail Council of Canada. They are waiting. It has been almost two years of waiting for the debate to even begin. Why is the finance minister not bringing forward a proposal to support people in small business?

That is just one of the things we would like to see happen. We would like to see the government come forward with another proposal. My colleague brought forward a bill to make sure that business people are not charged more money when they sell their business to one of their family members. We need to make it easier for intergenerational transfers of businesses, not harder. Right now, those who sell their business to someone at arm's length pay a greater capital gain. That is not acceptable. We are standing up for people in small business because we understand how important small businesses are in building our economy. They are the job creators in our communities.

As the critic for veterans affairs, I would like to turn my attention to our veterans. Our veterans, as well as their dependants and survivors, should be treated with dignity, respect, and fairness. That is all we ask, and we think it makes sense. The uniqueness of their profession, the obligations, sacrifices, demands, and experiences of such a profession also impact their family members. It affects all of them. Any decision regarding the care, treatment, re-establishment in civil life, or benefits of the person to be provided should be made in a timely manner. We are not seeing that. It is unacceptable. We see long wait times. Currently, the government has a huge transition gap. Last fall, we heard there were 29,000 veterans disability benefit applications waiting in the queue, and approximately 9,000 applications were well beyond the service standard.

The government has now committed $42.8 million over two years to address the backlog in processing the increased number of claims, but it has not told us what it would cost to get it to zero. It has to get to zero. That is what veterans deserve. We have a lot of questions.

It is our understanding that the department asked for double that amount. That did not happen. The government made a promise in its last budget that it would make sure there were case workers at a ratio of 25:1. It was not mentioned this year, so maybe that platform has been abandoned. On the education benefit, the government promised $80 million. When we look at the budget, now it is $133.9 million over six years. That is $22 million. How did the Liberals come up with a plan that now they are going to follow through with 27.5% of the promise they made to veterans? That is totally unacceptable.

On the pension for life, clearly the Liberals are not delivering on their promise. When two veterans fought in the same war, how can one get less than the other? That is totally unacceptable, and Canadians do not accept it.

In my riding, we put forward great proposals, and they have not been supported by the government. One example is a deep sea port in Port Alberni, where BC Ferries wants to do shipbuilding and infrastructure upgrades, but we have not seen the investment in the port. This could be a great opportunity for a place that has the highest unemployment rate in southwestern British Columbia.

The opportunities are endless, and the government is failing to deliver. There are 1.2 million Canadians living with disabilities, and the government has not enacted a plan to get those people back to work with a return to work strategy that could be brought forward. When it comes to veterans, 30% of case workers in the United States are former veterans. Right now, we are not even close. We do not even have a target and we do not have a plan to get them in place.

In terms of the economy where I live in coastal B.C., ocean protection is of utmost priority, not just for a clean working environment, which we rely on, but also for our salmon. The government promised coastal restoration funds, $75 million over five years, but when we talk to the groups that are protecting our salmon, investing in salmon protection and enhancement and restoration, they are not getting the money. In fact, our hatcheries have not seen an increase in 28 years.

I could bring forward many concerns and proposals, things that are missing in this budget, but I will wait for the questions. I will try to share them through the questions. I will also continue to bring forward our concerns and solutions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we have been a government that has provided many solutions. By working with Canadians, we have seen tangible results.

The member talked about the importance of small businesses, something which our current Minister of Small Business and Tourism, the Prime Minister, and the caucus as a whole have recognized. When we gave the tax break to Canada's middle class, it literally put hundreds of millions of dollars back into the pockets of Canadians. Those Canadians then had an increase in disposable income. That means there are more people eating out, more home renovations being done, more opportunities that lead to businesses being able to expand. Then we look at the current budget, where we have a decrease in the small business tax. Again, this is supporting small businesses. That has been a general theme since day one of this government, recognizing that by doing that, we are supporting Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it.

Would my colleague not agree that we need to continue to work with Canadians and businesses as a whole in order to move the economy forward?

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is really bold of the government members to think they are champions for small business, when the rhetoric from the Prime Minister before the small business tax cut was to call them tax cheats. In fact, the government has invested $1 billion in so-called chasing tax evaders, but the government is really focused on small business people. That is what we are hearing right across the board.

When it comes to small business people, the Minister of Small Business and Tourism said at the Standing Committee on International Trade that the tax break was a great sound bite but it did not make sense.

The only reason the Liberals honoured the commitment was they were in quicksand for their terrible rollout of a small business tax proposal without consulting Canadians and doing it over the summer months.

New Democrats understand that putting money in the hands of small business people builds communities and invests in communities. The multiplier effect makes sense. That is why I am also bringing forward the concerns around merchant fees. It is about putting money in the pockets of small business people, not those on Bay Street, not like the Liberals have been doing. Clearly, the Liberals' priority is Bay Street, protecting CEO stock option loopholes, and tax evaders. It is not small business, unless it is convenient for them.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my friend from Courtenay—Alberni on his great speech. We are both Vancouver Islanders. I really appreciate the passion he brings to this place on behalf of his constituents in the beautiful riding he represents.

I was really interested in the part of his speech that dealt with credit card merchant fees, because it appears to me that this is a solution to a long-standing problem for small business that would cost nothing to the government. Visa and MasterCard make huge profits. We can look at the margins that small businesses operate under, at how close they are cutting it to breaking even.

From my colleague's experience of owning a small business, from being on a local chamber of commerce, can he expand a bit on how a rate decrease would actually benefit small businesses in their ability to reinvest in their operations and maybe even hire new employees or give their employees pay raises?

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right that every dollar counts for small business people. In fact, a study just came out which said that 50% of Canadians are within $200 a month of not paying their bills. It clearly shows that people are struggling. In fact, many Canadians are having to go out and start small businesses because we have lost good, middle-class jobs from the consecutive failed policies of Conservative and Liberal governments.

I think it is just about fairness, too. It is not just about putting money in their pockets. In Australia and Europe how is it that governments have capped merchant fees in some cases at five times lower than what Canada is doing? We know why. It is because the government is protecting its friends on Bay Street and in the big banks.

Small business people need to know they are a priority. Every dollar counts. The member is absolutely right. Small business people are the job creators. They are the ones who hire people. That money would go a long way. As a former small business person, former executive director of a very successful chamber of commerce, I know all too well that this is very important. Every dollar counts when running a business. Fairness is very important, and small business people have not been treated fairly in this country.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am thrilled to have a chance to speak.

First of all, I want to thank my colleague from Courtenay—Alberni for splitting his time to give me the opportunity to speak to this important bill.

With so little time to speak, it is a bit hard for me to cover both the form and the substance of this bill. I am going to focus on the substance, but first I will take a minute at least to talk about the form. This bill continues the unbroken tradition, maintained by successive Conservative and Liberal governments, of saying one thing and doing another. The Liberals pledged to ban omnibus bills, yet that is exactly what we have before us today. This bill is 566 pages long and amends or repeals 44 acts. Worse still, the task of studying this massive document in its entirety will be assigned to a single committee, whose members will not only need to have all of the necessary skills, but will need to have them within a specified period. That will make it hard for the committee to hear from experts in finance, environment, and all other sectors affected by the bill. It seems to me that it would be easy to cover more ground and get more done if the work of studying this bill were split up, as it should be. Now I will stop talking about the form of the bill, because the substance is far more important.

Since I only have about nine minutes to do this analysis, I chose to look at things from the point of view of an ordinary Canadian, of a person from my riding who is looking at and analyzing the proposed budget. I would like to draw a quick parallel with tax time, which we are all experiencing right now. We have likely all had the experience of filling out our tax return and noticing that we are getting a tax refund, that we have overpaid, and that the federal or provincial government has to pay us back. Every time this happens, we cannot help but smile, even though there is really no reason to.

This tax refund is our own money, money we overpaid, that is coming back to us. However, since we did not expect it, it makes us happy. When people from my riding look at and analyze the proposed budget, they do pretty much the same thing. They search through the budget looking for the benefits they will derive from their investment in the government. What does this budget do for me? How will the taxes that I paid the Government of Quebec or the Government of Canada come back to me in the form of services or improvements to my quality of life?

The Liberals are constantly repeating that Canada's economy is doing well. I am not objecting to that. However, every time I meet with my constituents, they tell me that it is odd for the government to say that the economy is doing better than ever because they are not seeing any difference in their personal finances and are still having trouble making ends meet.

The following analysis is based upon the fact that this budget ignores the concerns of the people of Trois-Rivières. I want to talk about pyrrhotite victims. The Liberal government boasts that it is paying $30 million, or $10 million a year over three years, to help pyrrhotite victims. Ten million dollars a year would help lift about ten families out of poverty, but there are hundreds of them. Furthermore, these are the ones who are eligible for compensation, in accordance with the 0.23% baseline established in the first ruling. A large number of building owners in Trois-Rivières and Mauricie are struggling because pyrrhotite the level in the concrete is less than 0.23%. These buildings are in the grey zone, between the 0.23% baseline and the 0% federal standard. As the Canada Building Code standards are being revised this year, there is no money in this budget set aside for a scientific study on quality standards for concrete aggregates. That is completely absurd.

What about the Lake Saint-Pierre victims in Yamachiche, which is not far from where I live? Waves over 10 metres high did some major damage there, destroying the exteriors of people's primary and secondary residences. Those victims have been waiting a whole year for the Minister of Transport to send some kind of signal about possible compensation for the damage, but there is nothing about that in the budget, nothing at all.

What about the high-frequency train? To be polite, I will call it consensus, but I suspect there is actually unanimity. People have been waiting years for a high-frequency Quebec City-Windsor train that goes through Trois-Rivières, Montreal, Ottawa, and Toronto. The people of Trois-Rivières have been waiting 25 years for the train to come back. All the stars are aligned except for one, and I am not talking about some easily dealt with bit player. I am talking about the Liberal government, which has not seen fit to come up with the cash that would make this project a reality despite the fact that all the stakeholders agree on where it should go, what technology should be used, and how important it is. I have a feeling the government is putting the long-awaited announcement off for a year so it can get more mileage out of it during an election year.

With the current upturn in the economy, the gap between the wealthy, the richest of our society, and the poor is growing rather than shrinking. While this is happening, we are still debating the relevance of having a $15-an-hour minimum wage. Can I just say that $15 an hour is not exactly rolling in it? People who earn $15 an hour can barely keep their heads above water. Why, then, in a budget that is supposed to give clear direction and share the wealth that we have managed to collectively create in this country, why is it impossible to adequately support people who are struggling the most? We were not even talking about $15 an hour in one fell swoop. We were talking about eventually reaching $15 an hour over the course of a mandate, but no, the government refused. That is unacceptable.

We could also talk about employment insurance. The Liberal government did make some changes to employment insurance to make itself look good. There are actually some initiatives that are promising. The waiting period is being decreased by one week. No one will oppose that. Whether it is for sickness benefits or compassionate care benefits, no one will oppose it. The big problem is that, at this time, the Liberal government has not budged one iota on measures to make employment insurance accessible. Thus, all the fine measures proposed by the government cannot be accessed if a worker does not qualify for employment insurance when needed. Currently, less than four workers in 10 who have paid into the plan qualify for EI when they need it.

We could also talk about pensions. When we talk about pensions for our seniors, especially in Trois-Rivières, we know that once again we are not talking about the wealthiest people in society. What enhancements has the government made? Not many. What has been done to protect the Canada pension plan? It takes an NDP member to get things done. Thank goodness, we are here.

We could talk about pay equity. The women in our ridings, like almost all of my colleagues in the House, welcomed gender parity in cabinet when the member for Papineau was elected Prime Minister, but workers want parity too. When will they have equal pay? It seems they may be waiting a long time. There are so many more examples.

The Liberal budget mainly seeks to fulfill the aspirations and desires of party friends and the biggest financial players, and it overlooks the middle class. The Liberals never forget to talk about the middle class in their speeches, but they are not walking the talk in their budget.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked a lot about income equality. We would have to go back many years to find a government that has been more progressive in dealing with this issue.

I talked about the tax break for Canada's middle class in a previous question. This tax break would put hundreds of millions of dollars in the pockets of Canadians. At the same time, we also increased taxes on Canada's 1%.

We also brought in a budget that saw literally millions of dollars put into the Canada child benefit program and the guaranteed income supplement, lifting tens of thousands of children and seniors out of poverty. We have seen strong social policy, such as our housing strategy, and billions of dollars put into infrastructure.

One would think that with progressive budgets like this the NDP would support them. Why does the NDP continue to vote against these types of initiatives to ensure there will be less income inequality?

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comment. Once again, we can recognize the Liberal strategy of starting off with a subject, in this case equity, and then going off on a major tangent to boast about the virtues of the Liberal government before trying to come up with a question.

I would like to come back to the crux of the matter: tax fairness. The parliamentary secretary talked about tax fairness at the beginning of his remarks and about going back many years, so he probably knows that Quebec resolved the issue of tax fairness and pay equity many years ago.

Why then does the government not learn from Quebec's success and introduce practical measures in the budget to implement pay equity within a certain time frame rather than just talking about it?

[Luc Thériault, Québec debout, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Trois-Rivières raised the issue of tax fairness and rightly so.

When my colleague from Joliette arrived here the first thing he did was raise the issue of tax unfairness as it relates to tax havens. Everyone is familiar with the idiom, the elephant in the room. I wonder how my colleague from Trois-Rivières would describe the fact that none of the needs that he listed are reflected in the budget at all.

There are people, companies, and corporations that are not paying their fair share of taxes. They are benefiting from the government's largesse since the Minister of Finance is encouraging tax havens. I would like my colleague's take on this bias and the ease with which the Minister of Finance promotes tax avoidance.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. I will not describe the budget because there are no words for it.

The Liberals lack imagination when it comes to combatting tax evasion and tax havens, but without digging too deep into their budget we might have expected them to keep their promise to close the tax loophole on CEO stock options. The public purse loses $800 million a year because of this measure that the Liberals promised to get rid of during the campaign.

We are not asking the Liberals to agree to an opposition proposal, no matter how sensible it might be. We are simply asking them to keep their own promises. It is 2018 and we have yet to hear a peep about this.

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 second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hard-working MP for Ottawa West—Nepean.

I am pleased to rise today to talk about Bill C-74, the budget implementation act. This budget is focused on one principle, and that is to make sure everyone has a fair chance to succeed and realize his or her dreams. The government's focus has been to bring down barriers that are holding our economy back and to make sure our economy grows in a way that makes middle-class families stronger.

I am proud to share the news of that success with the House today. The numbers are clear. Our economy is growing and families are getting stronger.

Over the last two years, our economy has started to grow faster than the entire G7. More than 600,000 jobs have been created, and the unemployment rate is down to a nearly 40-year low. Middle-class Canadians are feeling better about their future, whether they want to pay down debt, save for their first home, or go back to school to train for a new job. We are proud to support them by making smart investments in the things that are important.

We raised taxes for the top 1% so that we could lower them for middle-class families.

Through the Canada child benefit, we also increased support for nine out of 10 families, putting more money, tax-free, in the pockets of parents for them to spend on things that they need.

There is still a lot more to do to make sure that the benefits of a growing economy are felt by more and more people, and that is why we are taking action through budget 2018 to do that.

We are creating opportunities where every Canadian has a real and fair chance to work and to succeed, and that includes Canada's hard-working women. By reducing the gender wage gap and increasing the participation of women in the labour force, we are growing the economy in a way that helps all Canadians. A recent Royal Bank study estimates that if women participated in our workforce at the rate men do today, we would boost the size of Canada's economy by 4%, which is equivalent to $85 billion.

We also need to make sure that those currently working are supported and able to keep more of their hard-earned money in their pockets. That is why budget 2018 introduces the Canada workers benefit, a new tax benefit that would put more money in the pockets of low-income workers. That is real help to more than two million Canadians who are working hard to join the middle class. Low-income workers earning $15,000 could receive almost $500 more from the Canada workers benefit in 2019 than they would have received in 2018. Altogether, these actions mean almost $1 billion of new support for low-income workers under the Canada workers benefit.

Like the Canada workers benefit, the Canada child benefit is a key part of our plan to strengthen the middle class and help the people who are working hard to join it.

During the first benefit year, over three million families received more than $23 billion in Canada child benefit payments. Nine out of 10 families are receiving on average almost $2,300 more in benefits, tax free.

In my riding of Surrey—Newton, every month more than $8 million dollars are delivered to families that need it the most. This money helps pay for day care, food, and so many other supplies that are critical to healthy and happy families.

Budget 2018 also reflects the priorities of Surrey—Newton by making investments in building more affordable housing, tackling the issue of guns and gangs, building more transit, and cutting small business taxes.

To make our streets safer, we are investing over $300 million over the next five years and $100 million a year after that to bring together all levels of government to increase intelligence of illegal trafficking, border security, and support for police.

However, we also need to support those needing treatment. That is why we are investing over $230 million over the next five years to work with provinces to expand programs that provide treatment and support to those with addictions.

We are also making historic investments to build rapid transit across Canada. For British Columbia, we have committed $4.1 billion that will bring more buses and build rapid transit in Surrey.

We are also cutting taxes for small businesses from 11% to 9%. This will save small businesses money and keep Canada competitive.

Surrey attracts thousands of young families and new Canadians every year. They bring with them their hard work, willpower, and innovative ideas and start-up businesses to help achieve their dreams. We want to support them. I started my small business in Surrey because I knew how great a place it was. I am very proud and delighted to raise my family and run my business in Surrey—Newton.

These are some of the smart investments that are going to make a real difference to all Canadians by giving them the tools, support, and opportunities to reach their full potential and realize their dreams. Budgets are about choices. Do we invest in our future or make cuts? How do we support the middle class? How do we work to make Canada a prosperous and strong nation where every Canadian can fulfill their dreams?

I proud we made the choices that invest in making families stronger, furthering equality, and building infrastructure that support Canadians and future generations. If people work hard, they deserve a fair chance to succeed. It is our job here to eliminate the barriers that stand in the way of that. I am proud that budget 2018 makes that progress.

The equality, freedom and justice of our country is what the world looks to. We need to keep on ensuring we do everything we can to maintain that level so we remain a model and true leader in the world for equality.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I noticed that the member completely avoided talking about the fiscal situation that Canada will be facing with the sky-high deficits and this incredible new debt that we are taking on, so I do not really have a question for the member.

I want to quote directly from the budget. We are looking at an $18.1-billion deficit, which is three times larger than what was promised two and a half years ago during the election. If the 2008 recession repeated itself, we would be looking at a $42.7-billion deficit. That's because the government has basically frittered away all of the controls on spending in order to meet the goals it has in mind, but none of those goals are about restructuring and ensuring the stability of Canada's finances for the future.

It is always nice to talk about how much money the Liberals are supposedly shovelling out the door to Canadians. What they are not saying is that they are borrowing that money. All of those young Canadians who are getting the child benefit today are going to be asked to pay it all back, plus interest, in the future. Page 359 of the budget also shows that if we add up all federal government debt, plus crown corporation debt where a lot of this debt is now hidden, they have over a trillion dollars in borrowing in 2019. That is debt that our kids and their kids and their kids will have to pay in the future.

As much as the member may believe this is good for the people of his riding, the people in British Columbia, let me give a quick example in relation to deficits: they will need two and a half Trans Mountain pipelines just to balance the budget, and right now they do not even have one.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Calgary Shepard for raising this issue. I want to tell the hon. member and Canadians that we are growing the economy in a way that benefits the middle class, and that plan is working. Since November 2015, the economy has created nearly 600,000 new jobs, and the unemployment rate is the lowest in 40 years. With our plan, the debt-to-GDP ratio is being lowered and will fall to 28%, the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio among G7 countries.

This means our debt is affordable and our deficit will be reduced in a way that is a responsible part of our economy and ensures that we make smart investments in people and in businesses that are going to make a difference in the coming years.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I noticed my colleague mentioned, quite a few times, people working hard to join the middle class. I just want to remind the member that the government said it would move forward with pay equity legislation because women in Canada make less than men in Canada, and it will not matter how hard women work if they are being discriminated against.

Why is there no money in this budget to implement pay equity legislation? The government has said it is a feminist government. We have been waiting. We have been told it is time to act. We would like to see some action. I would like an answer from my hon. colleague as to when we are going to see that action.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this Prime Minister and this government understand well that gender equity is not only the right thing to do for Canadians but also a smart thing to do. That is why we want to make sure that Canadian women get what they deserve, and they deserve more. In today's age we can see that Canadian women are among the world's most educated women. The hon. member for Saskatoon West brought up a very genuine concern about the legislation. I can assure her that this legislation will be brought forward this year, and I am certain that when it comes forward, the hon. member will be able to support it and we will be able to pass that legislation.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a tremendous pleasure to rise today to speak to the budget implementation act, the first step in implementing budget 2018, a truly progressive, activist budget that will create even more opportunities for Canadians.

This budget is the first to integrate a full gender-based-plus analysis to make sure that women in Canada are included in every aspect of the budget. It is significant to me that the budget does not look at women only as beneficiaries of government policy but as full contributors to our national economy, because we know that we see better outcomes when women and diverse groups of Canadians are included.

Budget 2018 is about growth, increasing the GDP, and ensuring that everyone can contribute to their fullest potential.

Canada is a country built on hard work, and we solve problems by working tirelessly and helping each other. The budget also invests in people. Over the past two years, our economy has been growing and strengthening. Our investments are working.

Our plan to invest in Canadians is working. Our current GDP growth is the highest in the G7, at 3.2%. For comparison, the second-highest are Germany and the U.S., at only 2.4%. We have a low and declining debt-to-GDP ratio. The proportion of our debt compared to our income is going to be the lowest that we have seen in 40 years.

The International Monetary Fund says Canada's net debt-to-GDP ratio is the lowest in the G7, and in fact it is less than half the G7 average. The IMF says that Canada's economic policies should go viral. What this means for Canadians is over 600,000 new jobs. The unemployment rate has dropped from 7.1% to 5.7% since we took office. That is the lowest unemployment rate in the last 46 years, in my lifetime.

Why are we seeing this growth? It is because we are investing in the future. We are making smart investments in infrastructure and innovation, and we are seeing the impact of these investments in my riding of Ottawa West—Nepean. There is $5 million for Nelson House women's shelter. LRT phase 2 will bring light rail to Algonquin College and all the way to Moodie Drive. We are investing in 42 new affordable housing units for seniors linked to the Carlington Community Health Centre, and there is $22 million to Algonquin College for a new centre for innovation and entrepreneurship, including indigenous entrepreneurship.

Our Canada child benefit has raised 300,000 children out of poverty in our country. In Ottawa West—Nepean, over 16,000 children benefit. On average, each family is getting about $640 a month tax free.

Our new Canada workers benefit will lift 70,000 low-income Canadian workers out of poverty. In fact, a worker earning $15,000 a year will receive $500 more and be able to take home more of his or her paycheque.

We have invested $5 billion in mental health and $6 billion in home care, on top of a $1.4-billion increase in the Canada health transfer, and this budget adds $20 million for autism.

We are supporting seniors with the increase to the GIS of $967 a year for the poorest seniors and a new $20-million fund for dementia caregivers, and we are enhancing the Canada pension plan so that in the future the maximum benefit is going to increase from $13,600 a year to $21,000 a year.

We have kept our promise on a pension for life for veterans. In fact, a 50-year-old fully disabled veteran will now be receiving $9,000 a month tax free for the rest of his or her life.

We have introduced a national housing strategy that commits $40 billion to cut homelessness in half in our country. There will be 100,000 new units, including new family housing units on Michèle Drive in Ottawa West—Nepean, and 300,000 units are going to be repaired or upgraded.

Here in the national capital region, I am very pleased to note there is $55 million to the NCC for critical infrastructure and $73 million toward a new national library combined with the Ottawa Public Library.

Our growth is taking place because we are working to ensure that we are not leaving out half of the population when it comes to our economic prosperity. I am talking about women.

Budget 2018 is significant in addressing the gender wage gap and enhancing women's workforce participation, which is not only the right thing to do but is good for the economy. We are doing this in a number of ways, including through proactive pay equity legislation based on the report of the special committee, which I was very proud to have chaired. I commend the work of the committee members from all parties.

There are five weeks of additional “use it or lose it” parental leave for the second parent, usually the father, which will rebalance the burden of caregiving in our country. There was $7.5 billion in previous budgets for child care, which is creating over 40,000 affordable child care spaces. There are changes to EI that allow more flexibility for parents and caregivers. We are supporting women in high-income jobs, such as in STEM. There is $1.4 billion in financing for women entrepreneurs, because we know that only 16% of businesses in Canada are owned by women, and we want that number to increase. There is also almost $20 million in apprenticeship grants for women in the trades.

We are making Status of Women Canada its own department. We are allocating $100 million to front-line organizations that support survivors of gender-based violence. We are extending the unified family court pilot project, to make it easier for people who are going through a separation or divorce, by allowing them to deal with a single legal system. We are providing legal assistance for victims of workplace sexual harassment.

I am also very proud that budget 2018 would increase our international assistance envelope by $2 billion to make our feminist international development policy a reality. We know that we see more progress toward the sustainable development goals and longer lasting peace agreements and better outcomes when women are included in the design and implementation of development projects.

Our economic growth is also a result of a successful policy of progressive international trade. Between CETA and the CPTPP, our preferential market access for Canadian goods and services has increased from 31% to 63% of the global market.

Diversity is Canada's strength and is at the very heart of our identity. This is why our government committed to investing $23 million in multiculturalism programs to find new ways to combat discrimination, with a focus on racism and discrimination against indigenous peoples.

Our most important relationship is with indigenous people. Over the past three budgets we have committed over $13 billion for indigenous peoples, more than double what was in the Kelowna accord.

We are fully implementing human rights tribunal orders regarding services to indigenous children. Almost 20,000 children are currently receiving care as a result.

Boil water advisories have been lifted in 52 communities, with 81 to go, and all of those will be done by 2021.

We are investing in housing, schools, recreational infrastructure, and mental health supports.

We are doing all of this while ensuring fairness in taxation. Canadians in the middle-income bracket are now paying 7% less in income tax, and those in the top 1% are paying more.

With respect to small businesses, 97% will see a decrease in their taxes.

We are going after overseas tax avoidance through 1,000 offshore audits, 40 criminal investigations, and $44 million in penalties to third-party advisers.

We are investing in Canadians. Austerity was tried by the previous government and did not work for Canadians. We are growing income, and making benefits more inclusive. We are ensuring that women and other equity-seeking groups can be full and equal participants in our economy. We are already seeing the results, with the lowest unemployment rate and the strongest economy in the G7.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague and I have a question for her regarding the funding of and focus on seniors.

She highlighted that the government, in the 2016 budget, provided increased funding for the guaranteed income supplement, the GIS, and the OAS. In fact, there was support from all parties for that. However, that was two budgets ago. Last year the government did nothing other than to reannounce the 2016 GIS and OAS. In this year, the second year, there is no new announcements for seniors. It has reannounced and reannounced.

Seniors see that the government is ignoring them. Senior stakeholders across Canada are saying that seniors are being ignored because there is no minister for seniors. I believe the member cares about seniors. Does she think it is fair that seniors are being ignored again? She has made statements that were made two years ago. There is nothing new in the budget for seniors.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is one of the most important questions for my constituency, because it has a higher proportion of seniors on average than almost anywhere in the country. Therefore, I thank the member for bringing that up.

In fact, there is new money for seniors. Not only are we putting $20 million into a dementia strategy, we are also looking at a very successful pilot project that happened in Atlantic Canada, and we are going to be expanding that.

The money that was mentioned in previous budgets is now starting to flow.

In this budget, we have also added caregiver benefits for those people who need to stay at home and need some flexibility to look after their aging parents. We have put more into home care, health care, and things that matter to seniors, including housing.

I am very proud the member has given me the opportunity to talk about the Carlington Community Health Centre in my riding. It has all of the health services and other social services that seniors need. We are building 42 new affordable seniors units for 80 seniors. They can go down the elevator and they have the health clinic and all the other services there. I hope that model will be an innovative approach which will be spread across the country.

We are for our seniors in my riding of Ottawa West—Nepean and across the country.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I had the honour to serve on the special committee for pay equity with my hon. colleague in 2016, which seems like a while ago now.

There was some disappointment that we did not have a unanimous report. None of the witnesses who came forward at that committee felt that it would take the government 18 months to implement pay equity legislation, so I was concerned. It is now well past 18 months. We are still looking for that implementation of pay equity legislation.

I wonder if the member can give us any idea of when we will actually see pay equity implemented for women working in the federal sector.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her hard work on the pay equity committee. I would note that the only criticism that was made of that report was that it was not going fast enough. There is a pretty good consensus across parties on the need for pay equity.

To answer the member's question in short, it will be this year. The budget actually includes proactive pay equity legislation, where pay equity will become a human right.

In fact, I was particularly pleased, because the budget goes even beyond the 2004 Bilson report and accepts the recommendations of our special committee on pay equity that pay equity apply not only to the federal public service and to the federally regulated sector, but also to all federal contractors. This is about the broadest definition that we can have of pay equity and pay transparency.

I am extremely pleased that we will be bringing in pay equity legislation that, once enacted, is going to cover 80% of Canadians.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, 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 Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, Employment Insurance; the hon. member for Trois-Rivières, Housing; and the hon. member for Calgary Rocky Ridge, Taxation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hard-working member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

The leader of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition said it best when he said that never before in Canadian history had a a government spent so much to achieve so little.

As a member of Parliament, it is my honour and privilege to serve the people of Perth—Wellington and to represent their views in this place. When I rise in the chamber to speak, I like to do so with them in mind.

I think of the seniors in my riding who have worked hard all their lives and are now approaching their golden years, looking forward to their retirement. They have concerns because the government has left them without a minister responsible for seniors. They are concerned because the cost of living is going up and is sure to go up even higher with a carbon tax on everything.

I think of families, moms and dads in my riding who work hard, who put in extra hours so they can keep gas in the car, so they can pay their montage or their rent, so maybe they can put their kids into a sporting activity or sign them up for piano lessons or art classes, or maybe take a day off and go on a short family vacation with their kids. I think of those families that are working hard every day, but are not being listened to by the Liberal government.

I think of young people, people of my generation and younger, who are graduating from university, who are starting their first real job, who are trying to pay off their student loans and may put a few dollars away for that down payment to buy that first home. However, new rules and regulations are constantly coming out from the Liberal government that make it harder for those young people to get into that first home.

Especially in Perth—Wellington, where agriculture is the biggest driver of our local economy, I think of farmers, farm families that quite literally feed the world and yet we see nothing from the Liberal government.

It is even worse than that. We see a government that has over the past number of months, especially last summer with its proposed changes to corporate taxation measures, labelled farmers and farm families as tax cheats. I think of those people.

I think of seniors, of families, of young people, of farmers and farm families. This budget fails them.

In the short time I have on offer today, I would like to touch on four key points: the debt and the deficit; infrastructure; issues related to agriculture; and of course taxation.

For the third consecutive budget, the Liberal finance minister has blown past the the Liberals' $10 billion deficit projection promised in the election campaign. They promised three years of teeny tiny deficits and then a return to balance by 2019. This year we see an $18.1 billion deficit and next year it will be $17.5 billion. The government's own finance department projects that the government will not return to balanced budgets until 2045. What is worse is that there is not even a plan to return to balanced budgets.

When the government is asked in this place and in committee as to when it will return to balanced budgets, there is no answer. There is not even an acknowledgement of the question. This leads to two logical conclusions. Either the Liberals simply do not know, which is entirely possible with the Liberal government, or they do know and they are keeping it from Canadians. Canadians deserve to know, because this affects their lives. This affects how they raise their families, how they invest in their businesses, and how they expand the economy.

The Conservatives do not just believe in balanced budgets because we like the concept of them. We understand that if we do not take care of our own fiscal house, we cannot invest in the priorities of Canadians.

In the next number of years, the financing of the national debt will increase by $8.7 billion. By 2022-23, that is $8.7 billion more that will not go to help families. It will not go to help infrastructure investments in our rural and small-town communities. It is not going to be in health care transfers. It will not go into public safety measures. Rather, that is $8.7 billion that will go to international financiers rather than being invested in the Canadian economy and in Canadians.

That leads me to the next point I would like to highlight, and that is the importance of infrastructure investment. I just mentioned the $30 billion over three years, $10 billion per year, that the Liberals promised their deficits would be. In exchange for these small deficits, they would increase infrastructure funding. However, here we see the government delaying its infrastructure funds to future years and yet we are still seeing massive overrun deficits. In fact, the budget forecasts that $2.2 billion in infrastructure funding will be pushed back past 2019 and an additional $2.4 billion will be pushed back past 2023.

It is not just the Conservatives who are raising the alarm on this, it is the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the same position the Liberals used to highlight when they were in opposition. In his most recent report, the PBO said, “Budget 2018 provides an incomplete account of the changes to the Government's $186.7 billion infrastructure spending plan.” The PBO requested the new plan, but it does not exist. He went on to say, “Roughly one-quarter of the funding allocated for infrastructure for 2016-17 to 2018-19 will lapse. Both legacy and new infrastructure programs are prone to large lapses.” How can they spend $180 billion on infrastructure without a plan? When it comes to the Liberals, they might try, but Canadians know better.

When I look at my rural communities, at the towns, small towns, and cities in Perth—Wellington, I see infrastructure projects that would have a meaningful impact on the local economy being looked over. I see important projects like roads and bridges, water and waste water. I have communities that have development freezes on because they do not have the wastewater capacities to expand, and yet we see delay after delay from the Liberals when it comes to infrastructure funding. This type of delay is unacceptable, but it is because the Liberals do not have a plan. When they have no plan, they will fail and that is exactly what we are seeing with the Liberals.

I want to touch on agriculture. Agriculture is the economic driver of our communities, yet in this budget, it warranted barely even a mention. On our rural communities, there was barely a mention. On our farm families, there was barely a mention. The farmers and the farm families I talked to have concerns. They have concerns about the future of NAFTA, yet there is no plan from the Liberals. They are concerned about the added regulatory burden, and yet more and more regulation is being layered on them by the Liberals. People are worried about the impact of carbon taxes, and yet the Liberals are going full speed ahead. People are worried about things like the Canada food guide changes that could diminish dairy and red meat as part of the food guide, and they are worried about the negative impact front-of-package labelling could have on healthy food choices, like yogourt for example. These are the concerns I am hearing from the people of my riding.

This of course brings us to taxes. We have tax after tax from the Liberals. We have the carbon tax, which in effect will amount to a tax on everything. Anything that is transported by road will have a tax on it. Anything from food to goods and services will be taxed by the Liberals. In last year's budget, we saw the excise tax on alcohol with a permanent escalator tax, meaning that in perpetuity, taxes will be raised on these products year after year automatically without the approval of Parliament. This is simply wrong.

This budget fails. It fails Canadians. It fails to restrain deficits. It fails to invest in rural infrastructure. It fails in its lack of transparency. This budget is not good for Canadians. It will hurt Canadians. People in our rural communities, like those in Perth—Wellington, will be hurt the hardest.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague suggested this budget would hurt the most vulnerable Canadians. I would note that over the last two years, the Library of Parliament estimates we have lifted 700,000 people out of poverty, which perhaps corrects the record when my colleague suggests our spending has done so very little.

When we talk about the most vulnerable Canadians, we talk about what was the working income tax benefit and is now the Canada workers benefit, and we see a $500-million increase, including making it automatic, which is another $200-million increase per year for the people who need help the most. Surely that is helping the most vulnerable Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague brought up the concept of the WITB, the working income tax benefit, which of course was introduced by our former Conservative government and our former minister of finance, the Hon. Jim Flaherty. It gives me a great opportunity to talk about the record of Jim Flaherty, a man who, during the early years when we were in a strong economic position, paid off $40 billion of the national debt. He did that so that when we entered the global economic recession of 2008-09 we had the fiscal capacity, the financial room, to invest in key infrastructure projects that benefited the Canadian economy. It is because of the leadership of people like Jim Flaherty that we were able to come out of that recession stronger.

Now, in a time when the economy is growing, we have deficits. We have large deficits, meaning that if we were to enter another economic recession, we would not have the fiscal space or capacity to respond as we did in 2008-09 because of the strong leadership of Jim Flaherty.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I very much enjoyed the part of my colleague's speech about agriculture because I have the honour of serving as our party's agriculture critic. I very much agree with him that our farmers do such incredible work in this country and really are the lifeblood of so many rural communities, including mine on Vancouver Island.

When Canadians are trying to get service from the CRA these days, first of all, many are not able to get through. Those who get through are getting wrong information. The government likes to pay lip service to all these measures and say it is cracking down on tax evasion, but most of the difficulties seem to be landing on small business owners and small farmers. We are hearing about how the government is tackling tax evasion, but in reality it is only paying lip service.

Meanwhile, we get two classes of people in this country: those who play by the rules, and those who have a different set of rules that allow them to take advantage of these sweetheart deals.

We also have the Canada Infrastructure Bank, which is going to privatize our infrastructure, and where private investors are going to demand a rate of return that is ultimately going to cost the taxpayer more.

I would like to hear my hon. colleague's comments on these measures and how they really affect and trickle all the costs down to the members of society who need the help the most, while an upper tier gets all the benefits. I just do not see any action from this Liberal government to fundamentally tackle these problems in our society.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague hit on two key points: one, the challenges with the CRA, and two, the challenge of the infrastructure bank. I would even expand the infrastructure bank to include the Asian infrastructure bank, for which the government is sending half a billion dollars overseas to invest in infrastructure there. These programs are not benefiting the rural communities the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford and I have in our constituencies. They are not providing the farmers and the farm families with the infrastructure needed to get their products and goods to market.

On the subject of the CRA, like many members on all sides of the House, I am often involved with casework with my constituents, helping them out when they face challenges with CRA. In the past couple of years I have been in office, I am finding that issues caused through challenges with the CRA have been steadily increasing.

I find this really problematic, because a lot of times those who are being faced with these challenges are those who are least able to deal with them. They are working part-time, working night shifts, or picking up extra hours to try to raise their families. Often, single parents are being faced with these measures from the CRA, and they are unable to deal with it. Dealing with these challenges is something we face in our office, because of the challenges the CRA is presenting them with.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is with overwhelming confidence, which was given to me during my recent renomination by the people of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, that I participate in today's debate regarding the deteriorating state of finances in this country.

The 2018 deficit budget gets low marks for fiscal credibility. Deficit budget 2018 is a greed budget, much like deficit budget 2017. Nowhere is there any sign of evidence-based decision-making being used in the deficit budget. There is too much unaccounted-for new spending. Spending on government waste is growing too fast, and there is no real commitment to deficit elimination or the environment.

The budget has no fiscal credibility. The fiscal credibility of a budget can be judged against four basic principles. Fiscal policy must be realistic, responsible, prudent, and transparent.

First, fiscal policy must be realistic. Fiscal policy should be based on sound analysis and a careful, balanced view of economic and fiscal prospects, challenges, and risks.

The sound fiscal policy that was practised by the Conservative government has been replaced with subsidized environmentalism. Subsidized environmentalism in Canada is when one group of taxpayers is forced to pay carbon taxes to clean up actions and pollution by others.

An Ottawa Valley example of this is the creation of an Ottawa River watershed council bureaucracy. Technocrats then look for new ways to tax and regulate private property, while ignoring the fact that every year Ottawa—Gatineau dumps billions of litres of raw sewage into the Ottawa River.

Ontario taxpayers subsidize polluters in wealthy California, thanks to the signature Liberal policy of carbon taxes and the Toronto Liberal carbon credit swap auction. Forget the myth of so-called green jobs. The only green jobs are temporary and have come at a huge taxpayers' expense. Special tax benefits, including the federal government's accelerated capital cost allowance and the Canadian renewable and conservation expenses allowance, prop up the myth of green jobs.

Other subsidies, including the federal government's ecoENERGY for renewable power program, $1.4 billion over five years in deficit budget 2017, and continuing large research and development assistance for industrial wind turbines, explain why the finance minister refuses to provide a realistic date to Canadians when the deficit budget will be balanced.

Take away the taxpayer handouts, and those temporary jobs quickly flee to the next foolish politician willing to pay “greenmail” with other people's money. Environmentalist David Suzuki has stated that only by reducing the standard of living of Canadians will Canada meet the reduction of emissions in the Paris accord. I congratulate someone for actually stating what that international agreement is really all about.

What does reducing economic growth mean? It is the year-to-year decrease in production, distribution, and consumption as expressed by gross domestic product, GDP. In the short term, borrowed money, the huge deficits buried in this deficit budget, hides the impending collapse of the Canadian economy. We can just think of Greece or Cyprus. Without economic growth, there will be no money to pay for the debt that is piling up on the backs of our children and their children. There will be no money to pay for health care, pensions, affordable housing, or cleaning up the environment.

The deficit budget is resulting in Conservatives attracting a new generation of Canadians, who are upset with the bad spending and big deficit budgets of the Liberal Party. I am now seeing more and more individuals who are cluing in to the radical, left-wing agenda of the Liberal Party, a party they might even have supported with a selfie, but not anymore. There is no doubt in the minds of these individuals that the radical, left-wing policies that have turned Ontario into a have-not province are being shoved down the throats of all Canadians by the puppet master, Gerald Butts. The Doctor Evil of Ontario politics, Gerald Butts was behind the Liberal “greed energy act”, which lined the pockets of Liberal Party insiders with their industrial “Wynne” turbines. That is “wind” spelled W-y-n-n-e.

The resulting skyrocketing electricity prices led to seniors and others in Ontario on fixed incomes to suffer from energy poverty.

The carbon tax that Wynne put on electricity has now been carried forward by Butts to Ottawa. The Liberal Party has ordered all the provinces to charge carbon taxes. Thankfully, more and more Canadians have come to the conclusion that carbon taxes are nothing more than a green hustle. Carbon taxes are just that: taxes.

Adopting carbon taxes in Canada raises global carbon emissions by offshoring economic activity from relatively environmentally friendly places, like Canada, to places with lax environmental laws, like China. Data from the World Bank reveals that China, and other developing countries, produce far more carbon per dollar of economic output, at purchasing power parity, than do western nations. China shows no signs of decreasing its emissions any time soon. China is currently building hundreds of new coal-fired power plants, which will ensure its CO₂ emissions continue to rise for decades to come.

Taken together, these facts mean that every factory pushed out of Canada due to carbon taxes actually increases global emissions dramatically, and this will continue to be the case for decades to come.

Mismanagement of the Canadian economy has resulted in the largest flight of capital since records started being collected. Domestic capital is being replaced by foreign capital. The problem the finance minister has created with his excessive borrowing is relying too much on foreign money to finance the deficit.

It is no secret that Gerald Butts, from his position in the Prime Minister's Office, has been working behind the scenes to shut down Canada's pipelines. His scheming is starting to fall apart with pipeline company Kinder Morgan calling out the federal government for its behind the scenes manipulations.

What the Liberal Party did not count on is one of Kinder Morgan's largest institutional investors, BlackRock, moving to protect the over 114 million shares it has at stake.

BlackRock is the largest institutional investor in the world, controlling trillions of dollars. BlackRock has been given preferential access to the federal infrastructure bank. A BlackRock executive sits on the finance minister's secretive advisory council on the economy.

BlackRock has basically told the federal government, “If you want us to put our private equity into your infrastructure bank, we expect lots of money. Protect our shares in Kinder Morgan.” BlackRock is also saying that if the government plans to use the infrastructure bank to bail out the pipeline and it is using BlackRock's equity in its bank to do it, either the government guarantees BlackRock's investment or it walks.

How much is this going to cost Canadian taxpayers? Who will be on the hook to pay the interest charges? How much will it cost the municipalities to fight for the scarce dollars to borrow at high interest rates for roads and sewers from the federal infrastructure bank?

Is not the real reason the federal government is even being forced to act is to bail out Kinder Morgan's shareholders and institutional investors like BlackRock? Institutional investors hold over 63% of Kinder Morgan's stock. Keeping foreign institutional investors like BlackRock and Vanguard Group happy will cost Canadians dearly.

Canadians were made very aware through an unfortunate exchange the Minister of Environment had with Evan Solomon that she is not capable of defending her radical views without insulting Canadians. The dismissive attitude of the Prime Minister and his minister to independent viewpoints is encouraging more and more Canadians to see through the hidden agenda of radical environmentalism, carbon taxes, and pipeline regulations that are killing Canadian jobs. There are real environmental problems that are not getting attention because of carbon taxes.

Deficit budget 2018 fails to mention any of these current challenges. It makes no mention of defence. The defence department's deputy chief financial officer told parliamentarians when she appeared before committee that there is no list of projects that are being funded. It is all smoke and mirrors.

No one believes anything the finance minister is saying. Taxes are always just taxes, dollars taken away from people by government.

I conclude my participation in this debate to share the concern about the deteriorating state of the finances of the Canadian government, and what that means to average middle-class Canadian families who bear the brunt of bad spending. Everybody knows that today's budget deficits are tomorrow's tax increases. An election cannot come soon enough for the overburdened taxpayers of our country.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the member across the way that it is not all that bad. If she would stop reading the Conservative spin notes, she would find that there are a lot of wonderful things actually happening here in Canada.

The member said that the economy is in ruins, or she tried to suggest that, but we have over 600,000 new jobs. She must have been reflecting on the Harper years. In so many ways, her comments are just wrong. I cannot help but think if she is reading anything other than Conservative spin.

Does the member not recognize there are a lot of wonderful things happening in Canada today, especially if she compares us to any of the other G7 countries?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the truth of the matter is that we have seen this whole scenario already in Ontario. I know the member is from another province, but we have seen hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs in Ontario sent outside the country because of high carbon taxes. The taxes built into the electricity charges are called “a global adjustment”, which is where they are hidden, just like the Liberals are trying to hide the carbon taxes on gas bills, and so on and so forth.

We have seen this happen in Ontario and now it is being replicated at the federal level. Just like Ontario which is pretty well bankrupt, so will be the country if the Liberal Party continues to rule after another election.

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

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke's remarks, even though there are not a lot of times we agree, I particularly enjoyed her description of the infrastructure bank, which is something we will share an opinion on with the Liberals giving preferential access to insiders.

I wonder if the member is bemused by the Liberals adopting her old government's strategy of omnibus bills. In particular, I noticed her remarks on the carbon tax. She certainly demonstrates that she is an independent thinker, and our views are obviously wildly different on this topic, but would she not agree that the bill ought to be separated so that we can have a clear debate and vote on things like the carbon tax?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is actually no point in separating out the carbon tax from the rest of the budget. It is all bad. It can just stay as all one piece and be voted as one.

As for the infrastructure bank, this is a situation where in my riding, for example, from Greater Madawaska to McNab-Braeside to Horton, Renfrew, Admaston/Bromley, Laurentian Valley, Laurentian Hills, Bonnechere Valley, and so on and so forth, all the way through to Head, Clara and Maria, these small, little municipalities, for the very necessary roads and bridges they need to fix, are going to be up against the international community with the infrastructure bank. This is not very fair, and it was the tax dollars from their constituents that are funding this whole thing.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Winnipeg North who just asked a question should know exactly what the member was talking about when talked about the Wynne government in Ontario leaving a huge debt. His government is doing the same thing at the national level. If we look at just the one year that my colleague from Ontario was talking about earlier, about an $8-billion addition to this year's debt, the federal government is going to add $100 billion to the debt in Canada, if the Liberals are allowed to run out the five years that are in the present budget today. The member should know about that, because he comes from Manitoba where the NDP ran up huge deficits in those days. Now the Liberal government is trying to copy that at the national level.

I wonder if my colleague could continue to comment in regard to some of the further analysis that she knows of, because she is a member living in Ontario. It is a sad situation there. The Liberal provincial government of the day is running in an election that is only a few short months away and has indicated that the only way out of more debt is to add more debt.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the more problematic aspects of this whole greed job was the fact that these contracts were given to Ontario Liberal Party insiders.

What we saw is that the millions of dollars would go to these companies, some of which were foreign, and then the premier would have these pay-to-play parties where those who came would pay thousands of dollars for a table. That is all funnelled back to Liberal Party coffers.

We know they have to be more creative at the federal level to do it, but we know it is all for the same thing. The Liberals are giving their friends the contracts, and somehow some of that money is going to find its way back so they can try to get back into power.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we go to resuming debate, I just want to note that we have crossed the five-hour mark of this debate since the first round of debate on the question that is before the House. Consequently, all of the interventions from this point onward on this part of the debate will be limited to 10-minute speeches, followed by five minutes for questions and comments.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Markham—Thornhill.

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on the budget implementation act.

Budget 2018 represents an opportunity to unlock the full potential of our economy by ensuring that every individual has the chance to succeed. As the member of Parliament for Markham—Thornhill, I am honoured to stand in this House and speak in support of this budget.

I have spent the last year in conversations with my constituents, meeting vibrant female entrepreneurs who had an idea and chased it, feeling the tide of representation finally moving in their favour; shaking the hands of the researchers who feel the support of their government as they reach for tomorrow's great discovery; and introducing myself to hard-working moms and dads, who work tirelessly to get their kids to school before the bell and for the first time have enough money to register their kids in soccer this summer.

I have seen, over this year, the effects of this government's intentional leadership in my community of Markham—Thornhill. Therefore, I am thrilled to support the continued decision of this government to place our country's shared goals at the centre of budget 2018. These are goals like ensuring that women and girls have an equal opportunity to thrive, preserving and celebrating the diversity that is so integral to the fabric of this country, and supporting middle-class families as the backbone of our economy.

Our budget is not just a fiscal plan but a plan for all Canadians. We believe that when each individual in our society is supported and given the chance to succeed, the entire country thrives.

Are we taking women in the workplace into consideration, for example?

It is for women like Vivian Chen, owner of Bakery 18 in Markham, whose business supplies large grocery chains and supports newcomers through stable employment. It is for women like Linda Zhang, the president of the Canada China Club, which is a not-for-profit that helps brings jobs and business opportunities to Markham and cities in Canada. It is for women like Sylvia Chan, owner of the Creative Genius Art Academy, an after-school art program that supports young artists in the community. Despite their shared ambition and success, these women still encounter obstacles as a result of being women.

With budget 2018, we are investing in levelling the playing field. Our new women entrepreneurship strategy provides $1.6 billion over three years in financing for women in business. We are also providing $130 million over five years for venture capital investments for women-led tech firms and $115 million to address the challenges women entrepreneurs face when developing and growing their businesses. With budget 2018, we are taking action to boost women entrepreneurs like Vivian, Linda, and Sylvia in Markham—Thornhill and across our country.

What is more, our government is taking a historic step to introduce proactive pay equity legislation to make sure that women and men in federally regulated sectors will receive equal pay for equal work, because this government understands what I fundamentally believe: only when women realize their full potential can our economy and society be truly successful. Therefore, to the women in the workforce tired of coming up against obstacles they should not have to face, we hear them, we support them, and we will help them succeed.

We are also building on the innovation and skills plan that this government announced last year and transforming federal innovation programs to better support Canadian business innovators. Four flagship platforms will help businesses access innovation programs by cutting red tape and streamlining processes for entrepreneurs. The enhanced industrial research assistance program, IRAP, will support the development of projects of up to $10 million, while a more focused strategic innovation fund will now support projects over $10 million. The expanded Canadian trade commissioner service will help Canadian businesses access new opportunities in markets around the world.

This government recognizes that when small businesses succeed, the Canadian economy succeeds.

That is why we have continued to support small businesses by following through on our promise to lower the small business tax rate to 9%, saving these businesses up to $7,500 a year.

These measures have a direct impact on communities like Markham. From family businesses like Chauhan's India Grill House to innovative tech entrepreneurs like Peytec, one of the many companies in Markham's own venture lab, budget 2018 would ensure that Markham continues to be the hub for innovation and Canada's high-tech capital.

To the small family businesses looking to expand or the mid-sized firms looking to scale, their businesses are important to this country, and we will help them grow. However, we cannot innovate economically if we do not support the research that makes innovation possible.

From open-heart surgery to the discovery of insulin, Canadian research benefits not just Canadians, but the whole world.

Canada must continue to be a global leader in research and innovation. That is why in budget 2018 we are proposing the single largest investment in fundamental research in Canadian history. This will total over $3 billion in funding over five years. Of this, $1.7 billion will support Canada's granting councils and research institutes, impacting about 21,000 students and researchers. We are also investing $1.3 billion in lab infrastructure that Canadians use every day.

Pond Technologies Inc. is an example of what can happen when research meets entrepreneurship. The company's research has developed a technology that can burn CO2 from any source into valuable bio-products, which can solve such global sustainability issues as climate change and food shortages. Pond Technologies began as an idea, was fostered through research, and has grown now into a company that is creating jobs in Markham.

For students and researchers at institutions like Seneca College or York University, whose new campus will be in Markham, this means more support to continue their work on the leading edge of tomorrow's biggest discoveries. From graduate students working in the lab, to early career researchers establishing a path, to pioneers at all levels of research and academia, this government believes in their potential and supports their work.

The broad themes of budget 2018 are equality and growth.

Not a single Canadian should be left behind in that progress, which is why budget 2018 would ensure support for all facets of Canadian society, youth, seniors, and diverse cultural communities included.

The government is enhancing our youth employment strategy through an investment of $448 million over five years to help young Canadians gain valuable skills, work experience, and job opportunities.

Budget 2018 proposes $23 million to support multiculturalism programs and a national anti-racism strategy, an investment that would also address discrimination targeted toward indigenous people.

The community of Markham—Thornhill thrives not in spite of its diversity but because of it. The Markham African Caribbean Canadian Association, the Federation of Chinese Canadians in Markham, and many others in our community are the kinds of organizations that can act as examples for the government as it works to increase inclusion. To the people who feel that they do not belong, we see the strength of their diversity, and we will help them thrive.

In order to build on our past innovations for future growth, it is fundamental to support middle-class families so that every individual has the opportunity to succeed. We introduced the Canada child benefit in 2016, and last fall we committed to indexing the CCB to keep up with the cost of living. This will ensure that nearly six million children currently benefiting from the CCB will continue to be supported.

Budget 2018 introduced the Canada workers benefit, which would help an estimated 300,000 additional workers and would help lift 70,000 Canadians out of poverty. We are working hard for the middle class and those working hard to join it.

Budget 2018 is an opportunity. It is an opportunity to ensure that every Canadian has a real and fair chance at success. For women building a business or career, this budget is for them. For researchers working on their next great discovery, this budget is for them. For entrepreneurs with a brilliant idea, this budget is for them. For middle-class workers supporting their families, this budget is for them.

That is why I am proud to support budget 2018.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to share with the member from Markham my experience on the special committee for pay equity to let her know that not one single expert witness said that the government would need 18 months to implement pay equity legislation. We are coming up to two years. The hon. member made a comment that pay equity legislation is coming. There is no money in this budget to implement pay equity legislation. When will the government implement pay equity legislation? Women are waiting, and I feel that they have been waiting much longer than they need to.

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would agree that women are waiting, and waiting too long. That is why I am so proud that in budget 2018, we will put forward progressive legislation that will bring pay equity to women who deserve it. We said earlier in the House that the commitment was there. Everyone on all sides agrees that pay equity legislation is important. I think that is supported across the way.

I am very proud that our government will be introducing this. I look forward to equal pay for equal work for women and men in our federal sectors.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, sadly, 70% of Canadians who are in the last days of their life do not have access to palliative, end-of-life care. It was a decision of this Parliament to make that a priority so that 100% of Canadians who needed palliative care would have access to it. Funding for that was was in the 2016 budget and in the 2017 budget. However, this year's budget does not mention it. Palliative care appears to be gone.

Why would the member support a budget that now neglects the needs of Canadians in the last days of their life? Why are the Liberals abandoning the goal of providing palliative care to every Canadian who needs it?

My other question for the member is this. Why is the funding for seniors being very selective? Only in one Liberal riding is there a research project. In fact, the largest concentration of seniors in Canada is in the west. Why would the west be ignored again? The Liberal government seems to have a habit of ignoring the west.

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, speaking of the west, I am proud the government has reached health accords with all provinces. In those health accords will be a delivery of health care services and seniors care for our senior population across the country. I am also proud of the investments we have made in home care, which will support seniors.

The budget is a further step with further investments to investments we have already made in support of our seniors. Our government has acted and has the track record of supporting seniors in all communities across the country.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's intervention, but she did not answer the question on pay equity. When the government came to power, in the first months after that it said that we should not to worry, that nothing had been cast in stone on democratic reform, that it was coming. On pharmacare, the Liberals have been saying this for now over 20 years. On pay equity, for it to be in the budget and not in the budget implementation act is a betrayal of the work that so many activists have undertaken for decades to achieve pay equity in our country.

Therefore, I would like the member to answer the question from the member for Saskatoon West. Is she is disappointed by the betrayal of Canadian women on pay equity?

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary. I am proud of budget 2018 because it is a budget for women. I talked about investments for our women entrepreneurs, about gender equality, and about investments for women. We have put together a gender statement in the budget, and this is what will happen going forward.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe my time is going to be limited today, but I am pleased to rise today to speak to the budget implementation act.

Typically, when we are debating budget implementation bills, we are actually debating a true fiscal plan, a plan that sets out the proposed spending of the government to help the Canadian economy.

Through its budget and its implementation bill, it is clear to many Canadians that the government has no true coherent plan for the economy. The so-called budget that was announced by the government earlier this year was full of empty promises and very short on substance. The only true substantive part of the bill is the implementation of the Liberal carbon tax, which will raise the price of gas by 11¢ per litre for Canadian consumers.

I represent a rural riding in central southwestern Ontario. Driving to work, to the grocery store, and to the hockey rink is the only option. It is very similar to your riding, Mr. Speaker, so you know what I am talking about. Residents in Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound do not want any form of carbon tax, whether it is from Kathleen Wynne or from this government.

Another concern that has been expressed by a number of constituents in Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound is the complete lack of new initiatives for agriculture and Canadian farmers. It is shameful that the government in its last budget implementation bill was able to find $480 million for the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank to fund projects outside the country, while Canadian farmers were left behind. People in my riding, including myself, still shake our heads over that. It is not fair, and it is wrong.

The truly disappointing, though not surprising, that part of the government's most recent budget is the continued commitment to further debt and deficits. As a fiscal conservative, it is infuriating to see the government come out year after year, since 2015, and present us with budgets that commit to deficits.

In the election, the Prime Minister promised modest deficits of $10 billion per year for two years, with a pledge that we would return to balanced budgets by 2019. Last year, the deficit was $19.4 billion. This year, the government is projecting a deficit of $18.1 billion. There is absolutely no plan in place for Canada to return to balanced budgets. In fact, the Department of Finance has projected that we will not be able to balance the books until the year 2045.

I have four grandchildren, but my oldest one just turned 13 less than a month ago. Because of the government's economic mismanagement, she will be 40 years old by the time Canada is able to return to balanced budgets. I cannot run my household or business like that. Neither can anyone else. However, it seems the government can.

I look forward to finishing my speech whenever that time comes up.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member will have six and a half minutes remaining in his time for his speech and the usual five minutes for questions and comments when the House next gets back to debate on the question.

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 from April 17 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 Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound has six and a half minutes coming his way.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to pick up where I left off last night with respect to the budget implementation bill.

When I ran out of time last night, I was in the middle of explaining that due to the government's economic mismanagement, my oldest granddaughter, who just turned 13 last month, will be 40 years old by the time Canada is able to return to balanced budgets, if the government is allowed to continue on. It is simply unacceptable.

Canadians are tired of seeing the government run deficits to accommodate their out-of-control spending disease, and it is a disease.

I note that the Prime Minister has also given himself the title of Minister of Youth. I wonder whether the Minister of Youth has informed young Canadians across the country that they will be paying for the Prime Minister's out-of-control spending. The Prime Minister is spending and spending, and it is on the backs of future generations, like my 13-year-old granddaughter.

I have always believed that when necessary, the government should step in and stimulate the economy in tough economic times. It is important for any government to spend when it is necessary, but it is equally as important to pay down debt when it is possible. That was the plan under the previous government. The previous government ran deficits, but it was at a time when the economy was recessing. The GDP growth rate in 2009 was negative 2.9%. By comparison, in 2017, the GDP actually grew by 3%.

As we can see, despite significant economic growth, the government continues to pile on the debt and spend without any true plan of action. Perhaps the most frustrating part of these continued deficits is that Canadians are not seeing the bang for their buck. Where is this money going? What is the plan? I am asked these questions on a daily basis.

A recent report from the Parliamentary Budget Officer revealed that half of the infrastructure funding that had been promised by the government had not been spent yet. This accounts for a total of $7.2 billion in unspent funding that local municipalities desperately need.

All the budget has to offer with respect to correcting his is that the government is finalizing negotiations with the provinces and territories. Really? The government also said that three months after the 2015 election. Again, there is no real plan.

Earlier, I mentioned that in 2009, the previous government began running deficits in order to stimulate the economy in response to the economic recession. Unlike the deficits that the Liberal government is running, that spending was necessary. There was a clear and direct plan for all of that spending. Initiatives were targeted and had a purpose. It was not simply spending for the sake of spending.

For example, the 2009 budget made $2 billion over two years available in direct, low-cost loans to municipalities to finance improvements to local projects. Furthermore, the budget also expanded infrastructure funding so immediate action could be taken to stimulate the economy. Most important, there was a plan to return to balance, and we did that.

Prior to the 2009 budget, the previous government paid down almost $40 billion on the national debt. so when times were good, we paid down on the debt. Just like a mortgage on a house, a business, and student loans, we paid it down. Just think of what it would be like to pay interest on another $40 billion in debt.

We can see that the difference here is pretty clear. In 2009, the budget was clear that funding for infrastructure was to be significant and immediate. There were no political lines about finalizing negotiations, which we all know means further delays. The budget set out what the government was expected to do, and that was take action.

After my twelve and a half years experience in municipal government, one of the things that was always tough was getting infrastructure money through the federal government and the provinces. I can honestly say that in my years in federal government and municipal government, I never saw infrastructure money flow as quickly as when Minister Baird, minister of the day, was here. It was done the right way. I give the minister of the day credit for that.

Furthermore, the budget empowered local municipalities to address issues of real local concern.

Recently, the main bridge in the community of Chesley in my riding was severely damaged. The bridge connects the north and south end of the town, so right now the community is quite literally split in two.

Bruce county has earmarked funds to fix this immediately and has applied to the provincial government for disaster relief funding. However, it would have been nice for me, as the local member of Parliament, to have been able to work with the community to see what kind of federal support would be available. Unfortunately, though, with the government's plan, or lack of, when it comes to infrastructure, it is such a mess that it is impossible to figure out what money might be available.

Again, on infrastructure, the government's plan is a total mess and the budget does absolutely nothing to fix it.

The reason I am presenting the House with this information is because I want to show what a real economic plan looks like. I entirely disagree with the government's decision to run deficits during a time of growth, but if this is the direction the Liberals have decided on, it is vital there be some form of a plan and not, as I said, simply spending for the sake of spending.

With that said, I will not be supporting the budget implementation bill, and I am happy to take any questions from my colleagues.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that the opposition is choosing not support this budget implementation bill. We are calling on a number of very important things to support, such as money for veterans, ensuring workers have the necessary resources to have the ability to continue to receive income even when they are preparing to get back to work.

Could the member explain why he can, just carte blanche, say that this entire budget is not worth supporting, given that he might disagree with just one or two elements of it?

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member knows full well what Canadians across the country have been saying, and my riding is no different. They cannot get their heads around why their municipalities cannot get funding. All the Liberals keep saying is that they are working on an agreement. However, they have no problem funding, carte blanche, an economic development corporation in China, but not to build projects in Canada. People cannot get their heads around that. This is just one bad example, because there are many of them.

The Liberals have no problem spending money in countries all over the world. However, Canadians expect our tax dollars to be spent in the right way and in their own country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member speaks fondly of his grandchildren and his children, as I do with four children. Living in Ontario we have seen a disastrous economic policy of debt and deficit and we are literally on the same path federally.

Could the hon. member comment on the impact this has on young people, his grandchildren, my children, and future generations that have to pay for the debt and deficit being placed upon them by the Liberal government through this budget?

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague's riding well and his constituents are very similar those who live in my riding. They care about the future of their children and grandchildren. We are getting a double whammy in Ontario as far as out-of-control spending and mismanagement. Luckily we will fix that on June 7 this year in Ontario. However, we will not be able to fix the overall bigger federal problem until October 19, 2019.

This kind of spending cannot go on. I talked earlier about mortgages, student loans, and that kind of thing. We have to pay them back at some point. The government just does not get it. To make my 13-year-old granddaughter not have a balanced budget until she is age 40 is just plain unacceptable.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what is in a budget is just as important as what is not in a budget.

I note that this week the Minister of Immigration made an announcement with respect to the policy impacting people with disabilities. In particular, he was very proud to say that for the government to discriminate against people with disabilities 25% of the time is better than 100% of the time. From my perspective, discrimination is discrimination is discrimination. One of the issues why it was so delayed, even for that announcement, was that he said he was engaging in a process of discussing the issue with the provinces and territories. After two years there is nothing in the budget implementation act that addresses this issue. I would like to hear the member's comments around that.

By the way, there was a unanimous recommendation from the committee to the government that it repeal this discriminatory policy.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the comments of the minister; however, based on what the member has just said, it sounds inappropriate and irresponsible.

We have an obligation to look after the disabled and the handicapped, the same as we do for veterans and seniors.

We all know that the minister said that the veterans asked for more than the government could give. It sounds like it was the same thing for disabled people.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, advancing gender equality is one of our most important priorities. From appointing the first gender-balanced federal cabinet and the first federal minister fully dedicated to gender equality, the government continues to introduce new measures and key investments that underscore our ongoing commitment.

Since then, we have launched the first federal strategy to address gender-based violence, released the first gender statement as part of last year's federal budget, and enhanced the use of gender-based analysis by federal organizations. To ensure our leaders better reflect Canada's diversity, we have increased gender diversity across 4,000 senior federal appointments and used the comply or explain approach to increase diversity on corporate boards.

Our efforts to advance gender equality extend beyond our country's borders through our work and membership on the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women, which I attended a few weeks ago. We are taking an active role in shaping gender issues on the international stage. Through these and countless other actions, we continue to play our part and lead by example.

Budget 2018, “Equality + Growth: A Strong Middle Class”, builds on these achievements. It is a bold step forward that reflects the government's feminist agenda, putting gender at the centre of decision-making, and focusing on equality as a driver of economic growth. It recognizes a simple but powerful idea that when we invest in women, we strengthen our economy for everyone.

Budget 2018 ensures that this idea will continue to guide Canada's way forward. It introduces new GBA+ legislation that would enshrine gender budgeting within the federal budget-making process. Moreover, Status of Women Canada will be made an official department, strengthening its capacity to apply the gender and diversity lens.

Budget 2018 proposes a number of investments in Status of Women Canada including, very importantly, $100 million over five years for the women's program, which will strengthen the women's movement. This will fund projects to end violence against women and girls, improve their economic security and prosperity, and advance women and girls into leadership positions.

Budget 2018 will also invest $25 million over five years for research and data collection in support of the government's gender results framework. The framework is essential to measuring our progress towards our gender equality goals.

Building on our efforts to end gender-based violence, budget 2018 invests $86 million over five years in the gender-based violence program. That is over the $100 million that we invested in the previous budget. This will increase our capacity to meet the needs of vulnerable survivors.

The budget also invests $6 million over five years in a national framework to address gender-based violence in post-secondary institutions, our university campuses. Engaging youth is key to creating an inclusive society, which is why the Government of Canada is proposing an additional $7.2 million in funding over five years to lead a national conversation on gender equality with young Canadians. This is in addition to the $2 million over two years put forward for a strategy to engage men and boys on gender equality, which is a topic I will be playing a leadership role in.

Finally, as part of our commitment to GBA+, the government will invest $1.3 million in 2018-19 in a national round table to share results and best practices with key stakeholders, including provinces and territories.

These investments recognize the role Status of Women Canada will continue to play in implementing the government's feminist agenda.

As budget 2018 makes clear, gender equality is a government-wide priority. The budget includes a number of important measures that will create opportunities for all Canadians.

Introducing proactive pay equity legislation is an important step on the road to fulfilling the government's feminist agenda. It will help reduce the gender wage gap and support women's economic empowerment.

The new women's entrepreneurship strategy, which I hope all of us in this place will support, will help women entrepreneurs grow their businesses through access to financing, talent, networks, and expertise.

The strategy will help break down barriers to growth-oriented entrepreneurship, including new direct funding from the regional development agencies targeted to women entrepreneurs, mentorship, and skills training, as well as targets for federal procurement from women-led business.

The new employment insurance parental sharing benefit supports gender equality in the home and in the workplace. The government is proposing an investment of $1.2 billion over five years, starting in 2018-19, and $344.7 million per year thereafter. The benefit will provide additional weeks of “use it or lose it” El parental benefits when both parents, including adoptive and same-sex couples, agree to share parental leave. This incentive is expected to be available starting in June 2019.

In addition, we are strengthening the Canada child benefit so that it continues to help families that need it most. The 2017 fall economic statement indexed these benefits, starting in July 2018, to keep pace with the cost of living. This will provide an additional $5.6 billion in support to Canadian families over the 2018-19 to 2022-23 period.

Winding down, we also know that indigenous peoples, especially those living in remote and northern communities, face distinct barriers when it comes to accessing federal benefits, such as the Canada child benefit. To help indigenous peoples access the full range of federal social benefits, the government will provide $17.3 million over three years, starting in 2018-19, to expand outreach efforts to indigenous communities and to conduct pilot outreach activities for urban indigenous communities.

Finally, through innovative initiatives and essential investments, budget 2018 is helping create a strong foundation to achieve gender equality in Canada. Gender equality is not just a shared goal, it is a pathway towards an inclusive, prosperous country where everyone has the opportunity to thrive and succeed.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's speech specifically dealt with some of the gender elements in the budget.

A friend of mine, a young woman, said to me that this appears to be a budget written for women by men. I think part of the reason many people see the budget in that way is that it talks about gender equality, but it really tries to dictate to women on the choices they make, and in a way which I think is out of step with where society actually is right now.

The biggest instance of this is the “use it or lose it” parental leave. The government wants to say to families that parents can no longer decide for themselves how they divide up their parental leave. From now on, the government thinks that each person has to take a certain portion of parental leave. That is because the government wants to micromanage how families divide up their responsibilities. For many families, it is not going to work. It may be a single parent family. It may be a family where one person has the kind of job where it just is much less practical for that person to take the leave than for the other person. In many cases, there may be a desire to breastfeed, which is something that men cannot do.

I wonder if the member can tell us why this budget presumes to dictate to families how they divide up their child care responsibilities. Is it not more in keeping with the nature and goal of feminism to let people make their own choices, to give them the tools and the ability to make their own choices about how they divide up responsibilities within their own family?

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his commitment to feminism. I appreciated his remarks.

As the hon. member will know, according to our present legislation and the way that maternity and paternity benefits work, there is enormous parental choice. The father or mother can take parental leave. My next-door neighbour, who is a man, has done exactly that.

For the first time, we are introducing “use it or lose it” benefits for the second parent. We know that this has worked well in Scandinavian countries. We know that this has worked well in Quebec. We are on that pathway. We know that this is going to help more women get into the workforce and increase labour attachment. It is a very good policy.

Women's organizations across the country have applauded this budget, and I think would take issue with the hon. member's opinion.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke a lot about the importance of gender equality. I said earlier that what is in the budget is as important as what is not there. I looked, in vain I might add, in the budget, and it does not include the much-anticipated and hoped-for pay equity legislation. It is a promise that the Liberals made 40 years ago. It is a promise that the current Liberal government made back in 2016. It is a promise that the Liberals made in the budget speech. However, in the bill itself, when the rubber hits the road, there is no pay equity legislation. How can the member square this circle? When will women finally see pay equity legislation pass in the House? Talk is cheap, and we are constantly asking women to wait, and to wait, and then to wait some more.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member that it is about time, and it will be time. She is absolutely right. It was a commitment in the Liberal platform and in the budget, and proactive pay equity legislation will be brought in, in the fall of 2018.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to thank the Minister of Finance and his staff for all their hard work over the past several months to create this year's budget. Their efforts have more than paid off. Budget 2018, entitled “Equality + Growth: A Strong Middle Class”, is a win for all Canadians, including my constituents of Brampton North. I am particularly excited to see the changes to the small business tax rate, which was one of our campaign commitments. It was announced in the fall of 2017, and it will come into effect once Bill C-74 is passed. We made a promise to middle-class Canadians that we would lower their taxes and make sure that everyone pays his or her fair share. With this reduction in the small business tax rate, we are keeping that promise.

When we first took office, we cut the small business tax rate down to 10.5%. We are cutting it again, down to 9% by 2019. For small business owners, this latest change would mean savings of up to $7,500 per year.

There are almost 900 small businesses in my riding alone, a fact that continues to impress me, given that Brampton North covers just 36 square kilometres. We should never underestimate the entrepreneurial spirit of Bramptonians, and indeed of all Canadians. That number should tell us just how many of my constituents this would impact.

It would mean that local institutions like Mackay Pizza, a place I loved to visit growing up as a kid, can save up more quickly for a new oven, stove, or fridge. It would mean that new restaurants like Paranthe Wali Gali, which I just visited last month and which opened a little while ago, can have the financial flexibility they need to get the most out of their first year in business. It would mean that day care centres like Alpha Child Care can buy more blankets for nap hour and more books for storytime. When small local businesses can invest in themselves, that is a win for all Canadians.

Budget 2018 also takes significant steps to strengthen Canada's workforce, making sure that for every new job our economy creates, there is a Canadian ready to fill it. We will provide $448.5 million over the next five years to the Canada summer jobs program, building on our budget 2016 commitment to more than double the number of jobs in the program.

There are many programs in my riding that take advantage of the Canada summer jobs program to hire students and provide fantastic services to the community. The Aspire for Higher basketball camp is just one of many excellent examples from Brampton North. Founded in 2013 by a group of young but passionate men and women, Aspire for Higher has made a change in the lives of many kids through sport, and makes this its number one priority regardless of each child's financial circumstances. I am grateful to Aspire for Higher for the work it has done in the Brampton community, and I am happy to say that our government has been able to provide support to its summer programming every year since we were elected. By increasing Canada summer jobs funding, we can support even more local initiatives like Aspire for Higher as they continue to build a brighter future for our communities.

This year's budget also provides substantial investments in job training for Canadians who are no longer in school, with a focus on women and minorities. The key to ensuring strong and sustainable growth is to make sure these groups have just as much opportunity to succeed as every other Canadian.

Skilled trades, especially red seal trades like welding, baking, and electrical work, offer high-quality and well-paid middle-class jobs that are critical to Canada's economic growth. Despite this, women are often significantly under-represented in these fields, making up just 11% of new registrants. As the Minister of Finance pointed out in the new budget document, this shortage hurts the few women who do work in the skilled trades. Many are both paid less and viewed as less capable than their male counterparts.

Let me be very clear: this is unacceptable. That is why we are providing $19.9 million over the next five years to a pilot apprenticeship incentive grant for women. The grant will provide funding to any woman who decides to receive training in a red seal trade that is male-dominated. Based on current industry demographics, almost 90% of red seal trades fit that definition. This means that with this one grant, we would be making an entire job sector more accessible to women. This is nothing short of remarkable.

Finally, I was thrilled to see that the budget is allocating $81.4 million over the next five years to improve the passenger protect program. The No Fly List Kids organization did invaluable work to make sure that this funding was included in budget 2018. I would like to take this opportunity to applaud its members for their tireless advocacy on this issue.

I would also like to thank the Ontario caucus, which I chair, for its work on this file. In the fall of last year, we sent letters to both the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Public Safety asking that they take action on updating the passenger protect program. Looking at budget 2018, it is clear that our government is listening. The money would make a world of difference to the innocent Canadian children and their parents who have been unfairly caught up in Canada's air traveller screening program. It is unfair. Travelling as a family is stressful enough without delays. My son is just five years old, so I can speak from personal experience. I cannot imagine what it must be like to have one's young child stopped again and again every time one tries to fly. Our government is going to make sure that we have a fair redress system in place, so that Canadian children and their families can book flights and know with confidence that they will be safe from unnecessary and excessive screening. This is real, significant change.

Budget 2018 would have an overwhelmingly positive impact on the lives of Canadians, and I look forward to watching that happen.

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

Mr. Speaker, it was very generous of my friend to congratulate the work of the caucus that she chairs, and I appreciate the Brampton restaurant recommendations. I can assure the member that next time I am door-knocking in Brampton, I will pull up that list and be sure to take advantage of those opportunities.

I want to ask the member about the supercluster policy in this budget. She spoke about small businesses. On this side of the House at least, we agree that small businesses are very important. However, what the government is doing is continually squeezing small businesses. On the other hand, the Liberals want to spend public money from those taxes on some of these superclusters. The government wants to be involved in picking winners and losers in the economy, when it will not actually support businesses by allowing them to keep more of their own money and have the flexibility to make those investments. It is no wonder that as a result of these policies we are seeing a decline in business investment.

I wonder if the member would support the idea of moving away from these kinds of big-business government subsidies, and instead moving to a system where we actually recognize that business is best left alone to create value on its own, without the kind of interference in small-business activities that many people were concerned about in the fall and that we know still needs to be rolled back.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to address that. As I mentioned in my speech, we have lowered the tax rate for small businesses. For corporations, our tax rate is extremely fair, one of the lowest in comparison with many countries. The supercluster idea is a phenomenal idea. So many small businesses have actually created relationships in the city of Brampton. Our educational institutions and our big businesses have reached out and created bonds that are going to last a lifetime. Whether they were the chosen ones or not, businesses have been coming up to me saying that they have immensely benefited from the relationship-building and the bonds they have created by working with industry partners and institutions in their local areas.

The program is a success, and our tax rate cuts are a success. Businesses feel the confidence they need in order to create jobs and spur growth. That is exactly what our government and Canadians have done over the past several years. We have created over 600,000 jobs for Canadians, and that is with the help of the businesses that are creating these jobs, because they are confident in the work and the investments that this government is making.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the key issues Canadians are faced with, particularly in the immigration stream, is around the work of the IRB. At the moment, the IRB is faced with a major shortfall in resources. Although the budget recognizes that and has put some resources into it, the amount of money put into the IRB from budget 2018 would not reduce even half of the backlog of existing cases that are sitting there waiting to be processed. Over 40,000 cases are waiting to be processed, at a time when we have a situation where new claims are being added on a monthly basis to the tune of 2,100 cases.

Does the member not think that the dollars in the budget are inadequate for the IRB to do its job, and that if the government does not ensure that the IRB has the resources to process the cases in a timely fashion, then we actually put our immigration system in jeopardy?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am a tireless advocate for immigration and for making sure that we have an effective immigration system that Canadians and those wishing to become Canadians and members of our society can rely on.

When we took office, the immigration system was a complete mess. What hurt me the most were those cases that had to go before the IRB, such as the legacy cases that existed because the Conservatives had just said, “Whoops, well, we don't have the time to process these cases. You can wait five to six years.” I had constituents waiting five to six years who had not even had a single hearing. That is ridiculously unfair, because as we were processing new people who were arriving to the country, those people had been completely forgotten.

Now, finally, I can say that with the help of our immigration minister, the department, and the IRB, they have been quickly getting through all of those cases that were long forgotten. My constituents, those legacy cases, are getting processed. They are having their hearings. As of this last fall, I have had such good news to share with my constituents.

We have made immense improvements and we continue to make it even better. We hope to make sure that the system is perfected by the end of our term.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, may I, on behalf of my constituents in Battle River—Crowfoot, pass my condolences to the people of Humboldt and to the parents who lost a child and a hockey player in that horrific accident. I know we are all moved and we have seen other statements, but on behalf of my constituency, I want to pass on our sympathies and condolences.

It is a privilege to stand in this place this afternoon to speak to budget 2018. I would like to begin by echoing the words that our Conservative leader said on budget day, words that have been mentioned many times here in the House already. I would quote him when he said, “Never has a [Prime Minister] spent so much to achieve so little.” I may add that never has a Prime Minister so blatantly made a promise and so blatantly broken a promise, not only once, not twice, but now three times.

During the 2015 election, Liberals promised there would be three modest deficits of $10 billion or under before they would return to a balanced budget in 2019. Did they keep that promise? Obviously, no. As a direct result of that broken promise, the Liberal government is on track to add $450 billion to Canada's national debt over the next 27 years, with a budget projected not to be balanced again until 2045.

The deficit this fiscal year is $18 billion, three times that which was promised. We now have a national debt of $669 billion, and the interest rate for that crippling debt is rising. This year it will be $26 billion and by 2022 it is projected to be $33 billion, which is more than the spending on any one government department, including the $25 billion that is spent on our national defence. If this is not an insult to our men and women in uniform, perhaps the fact that there is no mention of military spending in the budget is.

Of extreme disappointment to many of my constituents, there was also no mention in the budget of the agricultural sector. The only reference to farming in the budget was the $4.3 million over five years that was brought forward to support the reopening of farms at two Ontario federal penitentiaries. What does it say about Liberal priorities when inmates in our federal penitentiaries come before our farmers?

Budget 2018 also failed to address any uncertainties related to the North American Free Trade Agreement or provide a response to the major tax cuts that were announced in the United States. One month after the finance minister delivered the budget, he was quoted in the Financial Post as saying in reference to the significant tax changes in the United States:

There was no place in our budget for saying speculatively what we might or might not do in the future based on analysis that hasn't been completed.

I could argue with that. I could argue, knowing the finance department, that I very much doubt that there was no analysis done or that it was incomplete moving into a budget. In terms of a budget that is going to give confidence to investors and people here in Canada, he backed away from mentioning anything that would give some confidence on the completion of that trade agreement.

He said that the Liberal government is not yet prepared to help Canadian businesses tackle competitive challenges in the face of the corporate tax rate in the United States being cut from 35% to 21%, in the face of a U.S. tax system that fully supports the adoption of new technologies, and in the face of new U.S. incentives for intellectual property and marketing until he has undertaken a complete analysis of the impact of these reports.

He said this despite the fact that investment in this country has been waning since the oil price collapse of 2014, with a total decline of almost 18%. Once the strongest in the G7, it has been the weakest over the past four years.

He said this despite the fact that we are struggling to attract capital investment from abroad, with foreign direct investment plunging last year to the lowest level since 2010; despite the fact that Canada's average corporate tax rate is about 27%, three percentage points above that of the world's advanced economies; and despite Canadian businesses being faced with regulatory changes, new carbon taxes, carbon prices, minimum wage hikes, and higher energy or electricity prices. He said this despite the fact that the Business Council of Canada, representing chief executives from dozens of major companies, asked the finance minister prior to the release of budget 2018 for an immediate response. There was silence.

John Manley, former Liberal finance minister and head of the Business Council of Canada, stated:

We’re hoping for a signal that the government is on the case. There’s really no indication in the budget they’re on the case. The first step to solving the problem is admitting that there is one. And they’re not admitting that there is one.

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce concluded that budget 2018 is long on spending and short on growth. It agrees with the Business Council of Canada and has implored the Liberal government to “...act with urgency to implement measures that will retain and attract business investment in Canada.”

They get it: we need to attract business investment opportunities back to this country.

We on this side of the House applaud the efforts of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Business Council of Canada because we know, as do many economic experts, that business investment is the most important source of economic growth in this country. The government must leave more money in the hands of business so that it can invest more in innovation, productivity, and enhanced technologies.

However, before the government takes any steps that affect business, it needs to invite small and medium-sized business owners to the table. In his keynote speech at the April meeting of the chamber of commerce, Ken Kobly, president of the Alberta Chamber of Commerce, called out our provincial and federal governments for failing to talk with business owners on policy that affects them. As a result of this failure, Mr. Kobly said, the federal government’s budget “was heavy on platitudes but light on any real long-term economic diversification plan.”

Jack Mintz, of the University of Calgary's School of Public Policy, said that rather than providing real tax reform to more powerfully impact economic growth, most provisions of budget 2018 are “aimed at raising taxes, whether it's tightening international rules, throwing money at CRA to curb avoidance, [or] capping the deduction for small businesses on passive income.” He said that to get any economic growth, “the Liberals are relying heavily on government spending.” He further said, “It all harkens back to the 1970s, when Pierre Trudeau's policy framework offered regional development, politically driven grants, wage and price controls, a far-too-generous employment insurance program, and subsidized Crown corporations.”

Obviously it comes as no surprise that the apple has not fallen far from the tree.

The province of Alberta has experienced the worse decline in investment in this country. Energy investment is at the lowest level on record, below even the worst of the 2009 recession, with a loss of over $80 billion and more than 110,000 jobs. With drilling rigs heading to the United States, where there is a more hospitable investment climate, there has been a significant decline in capital spending.

If these facts are not bad enough, a week ago Kinder Morgan announced that it has suspended work on the Trans Mountain expansion project. The blame for this development rests squarely on the shoulders of our Prime Minister, who has failed to take a single concrete step to ensure this project is completed.

John Ivison said last week, “The consequence of failure is the collapse of his entire economic and environmental framework, not to mention reputational damage from which he might never recover.”

We need this project in Alberta. We must do all we can to get the oil moving again to a deepwater port so we can build our markets around the globe. We cannot rely on the United States. The budget does not give any encouragement for investment to come back to our country. We need to see a plan, soon, that will do this.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his great display of passion and conviction as he was alliterating his points today. I heard him reference a lot of different sources, such as Jack Mintz and various other individuals who provided their input. The fact is that we are the fastest growing country in the G7 right now. Canada is doing extremely well.

My question for the member opposite is very simple. Does he ever look to get any facts from sources other than the Fraser Institute and Rebel Media?

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

Mr. Speaker, I quoted a number of other articles, authors of those articles, and economists. I know the member would rather quote George Soros and that group.

However, what we have seen with the Liberal government is huge growth in program spending. The member wants to talk about all of the other things, but there has been a huge growth in program spending.

Since coming to power, the Liberals have increased program spending by 6.3% each year. This amounts to $304.9 billion projected for 2017-18, from $253 billion in the fiscal year 2014-15. This is much faster than the growth in revenue coming into the federal government, which is at 3.3%.

If we fall into another downturn and if we should fall into another recession, with the government spending as it is in good times, what will the response be in times when we fall back into zero growth or negative growth? We would not have the opportunity then to invest and kick-start the economy. We will see that it will not have the impact it would if we had balanced budgets, paying down debt, lowering taxes, and all of that, which the Liberal government has negated and not done.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, could my colleague comment on the fact that we have a 556-page bill. It is an omnibus bill, which is rather obese, not just omnibus? Could he suggest to the Conservatives that they support the NDP motion to split the bill in two? The government should take out the greenhouse gas pollution act part of it, which really stands on its own, so we can debate it properly in the House. It is a very important issue. I think perhaps the Conservatives would have very different reasons to want to pull that out than the NDP, but it is a very important part of the bill. There are a lot of parts of it that need more clarity.

Will the Conservatives support our desire to have that part of the bill split out so it can be debated properly here and in committee?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer the member by relating a story. Not that long ago, I went to a restaurant. I sat down and had the salad. This nice big salad came, but then a bug crawled across the top if it. The waiter came, took the insect off my salad, and said “There you go”.

There is nothing in this budget that is good. When we see the bad crawling across the budget, as this is, then removing one or two pieces of it is not going to make it good again. It is a bad budget. It does not meet the needs of Canadians. It is a budget that adds taxation. It is a budget that does not bring investment back to Canada. It is a budget that we see a lot of spending that even former Liberal governments would not have been caught up in.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated that in 2017, only $1.9 billion was spent in infrastructure. The Liberals brag about their infrastructure, but the budget does not answer the questions of why they were incapable of getting their infrastructure dollars out the door.

Although the Liberals may talk about gender equality and some of the things that may be very well intended, as far as bringing economic growth, even John Manley, former deputy prime minister in the Liberal Party and finance minister, said this budget offered very little.

Therefore, I do not think that opening it up and pulling one or two parts out it is going fix anything in this budget.

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today in support of Bill C-74 and budget 2018. This is our government's third budget and another step to ensuring every Canadian has a real and fair chance at success.

Our government's plan to strengthen the middle class and to grow the economy is working. Since November 2015, the Canadian economy has created nearly 600,000 new jobs, most of which are full-time positions. Our unemployment rate is at near historic lows. Canada has had the fastest-growing economy among the G7 countries. I have heard this optimism first hand from the residents of Brampton West.

In budget 2018, we put forward steps to ensure the benefits of our growing economy would be felt by more and more people. This budget supports our government's people-centred approach and introduces policies that will help Canadians and the middle-class, and those working hard to join it.

Imani, a constituent of mine, is a single mother and is working hard to make ends meet. She is working part-time as a server at a restaurant, while searching for a full-time job as a research analyst. Imani did not know that she was eligible for the working income tax benefit last tax season, so she did not claim it. To give Canadians like Imani a real chance at success, our government will replace the working income tax benefit with a new and improved Canada workers benefit for up to $2,335. The Canada workers benefit will increase both the maximum benefit amount and the income level at which the benefit phases out.

The Canada Revenue Agency will automatically consider residents for the Canada workers benefit when they complete their tax return, even if they do not claim it. This means Imani and 300,000 other low-income workers who did not claim WITB last year will receive CWB in 2019, and 70,000 Canadians will be lifted out of poverty by this policy by 2020.

Speaking of significant policies, we have to talk about the Canada child benefit. The Canada child benefit has proven to be one of the most impactful social policies for the lives of hard-working middle-class Canadians. The CCB is helping nine out of 10 families in Canada. In Brampton West alone, 36,000 children have benefited from the Canada child benefit, with $134 million in payments last year. Across our country, six million children have benefited from the CCB, with $23 billion in payments last year, with an average payment of $6,800.

At a hockey tournament in Brampton West last week, I met Reena. She told me about her 10-year-old son Raj's dream of goal tending for the Toronto Maple Leafs. With modest incomes, Reena and her husband Gautam could not afford to enrol Raj in a hockey league without the Canada child benefit. This year's CCB payments went toward Raj's goalie equipment. I am proud to report that Raj earned his first shutout last week. Increasing the Canada child benefit payments amount and indexing payments will help ensure more children like Raj have the opportunity to explore their dreams.

Budget 2018 is also putting gender at the heart of its decision-making. Advancing gender equality is not only the right thing to do; it also makes sense from a purely economic standpoint. A study by McKinsey and Company states that we could add $150 billion to the Canadian economy by 2026 through steps to advance gender equality for women.

Budget 2018 was guided by a gender results framework and helped form policy that would work to help support women and girls, reduce the gender wage gap, and increase the participation of women in the labour force, which helps boost economic growth for all Canadians.

An example of this policy-making is the new employment insurance parental sharing benefit that will give greater flexibility to parents by providing an additional five weeks of El parental benefits when both parents agree to share parental leave. This “use it or lose it” incentive encourages a second parent in two-parent families to share more equally in the work of raising their children, which will allow greater flexibility for new moms to return to work sooner, if they so choose.

A few months ago, I had the opportunity to meet a young family in Brampton West. I heard about the challenges the parents faced in raising their newborn child while having to worry about how the mother would return to work. With the changes made by our government, she will be able to go back to work to support her family and not fear being left behind when it comes to her career.

Budget 2018 id also supporting women-owned businesses so they can grow, find new customers, and access more opportunities.

Balbir is an extremely motivated entrepreneur with a passion for teeth as a dental hygienist. Some members of the House may have seen her on the last season of CBC's Dragon's Den, discussing her mobile dental hygiene practice. Through budget 2018, we would make more capital available for women entrepreneurs, like Balbir, so many more women can take their businesses to the next level.

The $1.65 billion in new financing for women will help us create the economic foundations of tomorrow. Additionally, with a total commitment of $105 million over five years, budget 2018 also supports investments directly in women-owned businesses and in initiatives that provide women with better access to essential business resources, such as networking and mentorship opportunities.

While we work to become more inclusive of women in our economy, we must also look to supporting those who have served our country. As a proud sister of a brother who continues to serve our country in the Canadian Armed Forces, the government is committed to ensuring the well-being of our veterans and their families. The budget delivers for our veterans and helps them live a productive life post-service. In budget 2018, we are implementing our new pension for life option for veterans which will deliver a tax-free monthly payment for life to recognize pain and suffering. It will provide an income replacement payable at 90% of a veteran's pre-release salary, indexed annually.

The Conservatives had 10 years to make the changes veterans were asking for, but they did absolutely nothing. They did nothing but cut budgets, close offices, and ignore the voices of our veterans. Budget 2018 also shows our continued commitment to veterans and their families. That is a commitment we made to our veterans and we will do exactly that to support them and their families.

The steps we have taken in budget 2018 will help Canadians of all stripes access more opportunity by ensuring they have the support, the resources, and the confidence they need to succeed. We have made great strides for the past three years. I know Canadians are looking forward to many more this year, and we will continue.

I am proud to be part of a government that is committed to improving the lives of so many Canadians in Brampton West and across our country. I am proud to support the bill and the budget. It creates opportunities for middle-class Canadians, while making lives easier. I strongly encourage all members to do the same and support this critical legislation.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, with the parliamentary secretary for national revenue's expertise on the national revenue file, why is there nothing in the budget implementation bill, or the budget, or anywhere else in the government's legislation plan to tackle issues such as the CEO stock option loopholes, and especially the offshore tax havens? There are estimates that we could bring in $10 billion to $12 billion more revenue every year if we closed down offshore tax havens, which would help her government pay its debts.

I will again mention one egregious example. A Canadian mining company has gotten away with not paying $690 million in Canadian taxes because it funnels its profits through Luxembourg, where it has one part-time employee. Could she comment on that, and why we continually not only allow this but add to the number of countries where we allow people to put their tax money offshore instead of in Canada?

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have said many times in the House that cracking down on tax evasion is a priority for our government. Budget 2018 invests almost $100 million in the CRA, and that is in addition to nearly $1 billion in the last two budgets to allow it to go even further in terms of fighting tax evasion.

This budget also includes legislative changes that would close tax loopholes used by multinationals. We have fully adopted the international standard for the automatic exchange of information with our OECD partners. Starting this year, we will have access to even more data from other jurisdictions, which will enable us to pursue tax cheats even more efficiently. As I have said before, tax cheats cannot hide anymore.

This government has shown leadership on this, and we will continue to do just that.

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I heard an earlier speaker talk about SMEs. I am an entrepreneur, and as an entrepreneur and a woman, I appreciate so many of the measures in the budget that support women and the work we do.

In my role as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, I have the great privilege of meeting with many industry leaders and having conversations about how they see the benefit of more women, more indigenous people, and more people with disabilities involved in the world of work as well as on boards and in positions of authority.

I wonder if the member could talk a bit about the importance of getting women into these roles, and particularly about the $74 million for women to get into the red seal trades. There is a shortage of trades in this country, and we are getting a great response to that. I wonder if she could talk a bit about that as well.

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely proud of budget 2018, because it puts gender equality at the centre. For the first time ever, a GBA+ analysis was done on the entire budget to make sure that every budget policy was looked at through a gender lens. This is a policy we will continue in the future.

We are taking a leadership role in addressing the gender wage gap in the budget, in supporting equal parenting, and in tackling gender-based violence and sexual harassment. We are also introducing a new entrepreneurship strategy for women.

As I stated earlier in my speech, and as studied by Mackenzie Global, by taking steps to advance equality for women in the workforce, such as employing women in technology and the trades and boosting women's participation in the workforce, we could add $150 billion to our Canadian economy by 2026.

We understand that to move forward as a country, we have to include everyone, including women, indigenous voices, and minorities in this country. That is exactly what the budget does, and that is exactly what we will continue to work toward.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Order. 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 Peace River—Westlock, Natural Resources; the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, Employment Insurance; and the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, Indigenous Affairs.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today to speak to Bill C-74, the budget implementation bill for 2018, and to provide comments on the budget in general.

I will start by simply pointing out that this is another unnecessarily huge bill that is very difficult to digest and properly critique in the time allotted. It is not just an omnibus bill. It is really an obese bill that is 556 pages long and amends 44 separate pieces of legislation.

The Liberals decried the practice of the past Conservative government numerous times and ran on an election promise to abolish these bloated bills. However, they have not only continued the practice but have actually restricted the length of debate on these bills at committee.

The NDP, for one thing, is asking that the greenhouse gas pollution pricing act within this bill be pulled out and debated separately. This is a very important issue on carbon pricing, and I think it needs a full debate so that Canadians can hear how critical it is to our efforts to tackle climate change and meet our Paris targets. There is a lack of clarity in the greenhouse gas pollution pricing act, and a lot of details have been left out. It really needs to be studied carefully at committee.

Carbon pricing is an important tool in our fight against climate change, and we need to ensure that the positive outcomes from such legislation in British Columbia, where carbon emissions declined as long as its carbon tax was gradually increasing, are replicated federally.

In such a large bill, it is perhaps not surprising that there are a few parts of the budget I was very happy to see. One is the nature fund, a $500-million fund that will be matched by non-governmental partners to provide over a billion dollars to protect important ecosystems across the country.

Before I was elected to this place, I sat on the board of the Nature Conservancy of Canada, and I was proud of the accomplishments of that organization in protecting more than a million hectares of land across the country. Many of those projects were at least partly funded by a similar fund created by the former Conservative government.

I do not often have good reasons to thank the previous Conservative government, so I will take this opportunity to do that and hope that this nature fund will do even more for conservation efforts across Canada, such as in the Garry oak savanna of southern Vancouver Island, the desert grasslands of the Okanagan valley, the native prairie grasslands, the Carolinian forests of Ontario, and the salt marshes of Atlantic Canada. This fund provides an exciting opportunity to really make a difference, and I commend the government for creating it. I wait anxiously to hear the details, because they seem rather lacking right now.

On the subject of protected areas, I must add a bit of disappointment related to the Minister of Finance's budget speech. He clearly said that the national park fees were going to be done away with for good. I actually applauded that, and I do not really applaud the Minister of Finance very often. Unfortunately, I found out the next day that he had misspoken and that the promise only applied to youth. I will say that free parks would be a brilliant way to get Canadians out into this country's most beautiful places to appreciate the natural wonders Canada has to offer.

Getting back to the good news in the budget, I was also glad to see the significant new funding for fundamental research, an action that was recommended in the recent Naylor report. I used to work at the University of British Columbia and can speak first-hand to the essential nature of basic research. While applied research is important, the most innovative and game-changing discoveries science has given us have come from the pure curiosity of scientists, and this funding is most welcome.

We in the NDP were very happy, at least initially, to hear the word “pharmacare” mentioned in the budget. Canada is the only country in the world with universal health care that does not have universal coverage for prescription drugs. The Parliamentary Budget Officer reported last year that Canada would save a minimum of $4 billion per year if we had a universal pharmacare program. We in the NDP have been championing this for years, and last year we tabled a motion asking the government to begin talking with the provinces within the next year about creating a pharmacare system across Canada. The Liberals inexplicably voted against this eminently reasonable motion, saying that it was not the right time.

Now is the time for pharmacare. Unfortunately, our initial excitement about the mention of pharmacare in the budget was dashed when we realized that this would be only another study, and a study without a dime of spending attached to it. Of course, it is not mentioned at all in Bill C-74.

The government should act immediately to bring pharmacare to Canada, and while it is at it, the Liberals might want to consider adding teeth, eyes, and ears to universal health care, and any other body parts we might have forgotten about when we created medicare.

What else is missing from this budget and from this massive bill? Despite government claims that this budget was all about equality in gender, there is not one cent in it to tackle the pay equity gap in Canada. I was really encouraged a couple of years ago, very early on in this Parliament, to see the Liberals vote in favour of an NDP motion on pay equity, but two years later, there has been nothing done to really advance pay equity across this country.

For a budget on equality, this budget completely missed the boat on narrowing the income gap between the one per cent, the wealthiest Canadians, and the rest of us. Today the two wealthiest Canadians, two individuals, have as much wealth as 11 million other Canadians. Many CEOs of big Canadian companies receive much of their salary, millions of dollars per year, in stock options, on which they pay only a fraction of the tax that we mortals pay. Fixing this inequity alone could bring $800 million to help balance the budget or fund programs that would make Canadians' lives easier.

Offshore tax havens are an even more blatant form of tax avoidance. Following the release of the paradise papers, some analysts calculated that Canada is losing between $10 billion and $15 billion per year in lost taxes. The Conference Board of Canada has suggested that the gap between what taxes are owed in Canada and what the government actually collects may be as high as $47 billion. One Canadian mining company has avoided paying $690 million in Canadian taxes simply because it reports its profits in Luxembourg, where it has one part-time staffer. It is ridiculous and shameful, but it is completely legal, because the country got written permission for the scam from the Canada Revenue Agency. The government continues to add offshore tax havens to the list available for Canadian companies and individuals, so now they can hide their wealth in Granada or the Cook Islands if Barbados and the other many countries with very low tax regimes do not suit them.

Finally, I will wrap up by simply pointing out that there is no new spending in this budget for climate action, despite the clear signals that Canada will fail to meet its Paris climate targets. We need bold action and significant investment on this front. Instead of pouring money into Barbados, the Cook Islands, or Luxembourg, let us invest those billions in eco-energy retrofits, renewable energy incentives, and electrical vehicle infrastructure to get back on track and make Canada a better place to live for our children and their children.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, I just heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue talk about the investments we have made over the last three budgets in the CRA. I happened to be in Granada when we signed the agreement between our two countries to share information around our taxes to ensure that we were adequately taxing companies that had accounts there, and they were able to share that information with us. I wonder if my hon. colleague could correct the record on the relationship we have with some of these countries to ensure that the companies are sharing the information we need to crack down on tax evaders.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not an expert on the Granada situation, but I do know that Canadians and Canadian companies can funnel their profits through other countries that have very low tax regimes. There is the example I just gave. Here we have a company that puts its profits through Luxembourg, where it has a part-time consultant staffer and can report that profit as being made in Luxembourg, and the company is avoiding $690 million in Canadian taxes. It does pay $80 million or something to Luxembourg, but Canada is losing $690 million. That is not some shady thing. It is legal, because the company went to CRA beforehand and got a signed letter saying that it was okay. This is where that has to stop.

I am not a tax lawyer. I do not know how these things work, but that is wrong, and we have to fix it. All the talk about how much CRA is working to go after the little fish in Canada and after the small businesses is really annoying to most Canadians. They want the big fish caught, and they want to see that money stay here in Canada where it can be put to good use.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for giving credit to our previous Conservative government for some good policies.

We hear from the government that there is $1.1 billion being given to the Canada Revenue Agency in order to help fight tax evasion. However, we hear how annoyed Canadians are that the CRA is going after the small guy here in Canada.

Does the hon. member believe that the money that is given to the CRA is working to fight tax evasion or is it just rhetoric to blow more money on an agency like the CRA?

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would follow up on what I said previously. The CRA seems intent on getting $100 here or $1,000 there, and is going after the little fish, regular Canadians and small businesses. They are not the real tax avoiders. They are not the real tax cheats. Many of them are just trying to make a living and trying to build their companies to provide jobs for Canadians. The CRA and the government seem intent on making it more difficult.

The government floated the small business tax measures in the middle of last summer with only a short comment period. Canadians rose up in real anger over that. I heard from so many of the small business owners in my riding. Naturally, they were very irate about that. However, after a lot of push-back from the Conservatives and the NDP, the government has moved back on some of these measures.

This whole attitude of going after the little fish is wrong. We should be bringing in strong legislation that helps us fight offshore tax havens and limits the CEO stock option loopholes, that can fight tax cheats in Canada and bring in revenue that we need to help Canadians who are struggling in their daily lives.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the budget implementation act is the next step in the government's plan to grow and strengthen the middle class by promoting equality and investing in the economy of the future. As the representative for Richmond Hill, I am proud to stand today to speak to these targeted measures, which are evidence-based policy proposals that are not only the right thing to do, but are also the smart thing to do.

I would like to take advantage of this opportunity to discuss Bill C-74 and the measures in budget 2018 by highlighting two of the most important and innovative benefits the budget has to offer, namely the Canada child benefit and the Canada workers benefit.

Unemployment rates are near the lowest levels we have seen in 40 years, and over the last two years, hard-working Canadians have created nearly 600,000 new jobs, most of them full-time jobs. We should all be proud that since 2016, Canada has led the G7 countries in economic growth.

I will spend the rest of my time today on what steps the government is taking to provide more support for parents and low-income workers, strong measures that create greater opportunity.

In budget 2018, the government introduced the new Canada workers benefit, CWB, putting more money in the pockets of low-income workers. The new CWB encourages more people to join the workforce, and offers real help to more than two million Canadians who are working hard to join the middle class.

This new benefit would provide even greater support than existing benefits by raising maximum benefit levels and expanding the income range so that more workers can qualify. By ensuring low-income workers take home more money while they work, the benefit encourages more people to join and remain in the workforce. It gives them more purchasing power and more money to invest in what matters to them most. This single measure supports businesses, workers, and families.

I am going to take a moment to give hon. members a rundown of exactly how the CWB would help working Canadians. The low-income workers earning $15,000 would receive up to almost $500 more from the CWB in 2019 than under the previous system in 2018. Whether this extra money is used for things such as helping to cover the family grocery bill or buying warm clothing for winter, the bottom line is that the Canada workers benefit helps low-income working Canadians make ends meet.

The government is also proposing to increase the maximum benefit provided through the CWB disability supplement by an additional $160 to offer greater support to Canadians with disabilities who face financial barriers to entering the workforce.

Again, these measures are not only the right thing to do, but they are also the smart thing to do. These targeted measures will help Canadians day to day, while the increased economic activity will lift the Canadian economy quarter by quarter.

Furthermore, starting in 2019, the government will also make it easier for people to access the benefit they have earned by making changes that would allow the Canada Revenue Agency to calculate the CWB for any tax filer who has not claimed it. Allowing the CRA to automatically provide the benefit to eligible filers would be especially helpful to people with reduced mobility, people who live far from service locations, and people who do not have Internet access.

In my own riding of Richmond Hill, I coordinated a free tax clinic for many constituents, helping to ensure that nearly 50 of them received the full tax benefit that they were entitled to. The reality is that many Canadians do not have the money to hire tax consultants or the time to invest in researching the tax benefit that may be available to them. By simplifying our tax code and automatically providing the benefits to eligible filers, we will ensure that everyone who can benefit from the CWB actually will.

An estimated 300,000 additional low-income workers would receive the new CWB for the 2019 tax year because of this change. These are Canadians who would not have otherwise received the benefit to which they are entitled.

In my riding of Richmond Hill, based on the 2011 census data, 3.7% of the workers in my riding make below $10,000 annually, and 5% earn between $10,000 to $19,000. That translates to 17,400 people who potentially will benefit from this.

The bottom line is that enhancements to supports under the new CWB will also raise roughly 70,000 Canadians out of poverty by 2020. Combined with the previous enhancement, the government is investing almost $1 billion in new annual funding starting in 2019 to put more money into the hands of low-income workers, which means more money into Canadian businesses and new opportunities for low-income Canadians.

Over the next year, the government will also begin work on improving the delivery of the CWB to proactively provide better support to low-income Canadians throughout the year rather than through an annual refund after filing their taxes.

I would like to spend some time highlighting one of the most important social benefits introduced in decades. Since 2016, the government has been supporting Canadian families through the Canada child benefit, CCB. The CCB gives low-income and middle-income parents more money each month, tax-free, to help with the high costs of raising kids through a streamlined, generous, and, most importantly, targeted system. Thanks to the CCB, nine out of 10 Canadian families have extra help each month to pay for things like healthy food, music lessons, and back-to-school clothes.

In 2016, there were 9,220 families in my riding of Richmond Hill, which translates to 14,360 children, who had received over $4.5 million through the Canada child benefit. This is real help going to families who need it the most. It is a number that will only increase as our community continues to grow. Canadians realize the impact of this program in making it easier to start a family, and our new measures expand the benefits of the CCB.

Families benefiting from the CCB are getting $6,800 on average this year. Since its introduction, the CCB has lifted hundreds of thousands of Canadian children out of poverty. I cannot overstate the importance of this accomplishment, and every member in this House who supported this initiative should be proud of the very real difference they have made in the lives of children across the country. This is the real change we promised, which is why I am pleased to say that Bill C-74 will strengthen the CCB by increasing the benefits annually to keep pace with the rising cost of living. This is two years earlier than originally planned, which was made possible thanks to a growing economy and an improved fiscal track.

In conclusion, to ensure that the benefits of a growing economy are felt by more and more people with good, well-paying jobs for the middle class and those people working hard to join it, we need to maximize workforce participation by creating more incentives for people to transition to work and to stay in the workforce while providing targeted benefits that assist Canadians who need it in their day-to-day activities. This bill, I believe, will do just that.

For these reasons, I urge all members to support the budget implementation act.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the hallmarks of this budget, given the fact that it is an omnibus budget bill, is that ongoing debt and deficit situations are going to happen. To put it in perspective, my 14-year-old right now will be approximately 42 or 43 years of age before we return to balanced budgets. The deficit situation is going to increase by almost $500 billion to become $1 trillion. Today's debt and deficits are tomorrow's taxes and service cuts.

I wonder how the member reconciles the fact that we are saddling so many young people in this country with debt and deficit.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the perceived deficit is an infrastructure deficit. This is an investment that we are making in the growth of our economy. As the member can see, it is already paying off. Over the last two years, we have created 600,000 jobs, most of them full-time jobs. Also, as members know, the debt-to-GDP ratio is the lowest among the G7 countries.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Richmond Hill for his speech and his focus on families, but I hope everyone has brought their sense of irony with them today.

Bill C-74 contains 556 pages and amends 44 separate acts. It is bigger, by 100 pages, than anything the Conservatives ever did.

What I am going to ask, since the government has gone that far, is why there are no concrete measures in this budget to protect workers' pensions. Why is there nothing there to prevent companies from paying—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Do you want a bigger bill?

[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, Liberal, 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, Liberal, 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 waste water 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.

Bill C-74—Notice of time allocation motion

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Madam Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-74, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures. Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

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.

Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, 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?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, implicit in that question is a conversation about the plan of the government to grow the economy.

We campaigned on a promise to invest in our infrastructure, among other things. One of the consequences of that plan is that, in the short term, there would be deficit financing. The difference between just running deficits randomly without a plan for the economy and what we have chosen to do is that the investments we are making are going to help grow the economy.

We need to be taking advantage of the opportunities that present themselves. When interest rates are at a historic low, and we have an opportunity to achieve the kind of economic growth we are achieving, it is a far better plan to take advantage of these circumstances than it would to be to say that we are going to balance the budget at all costs. If that includes selling assets that appreciate, like sales by the General Motors Company, which in the long-term do not serve the interests of Canada, I would take every time the plan of this government to invest in our country, grow our communities, create jobs, and grow our economy.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member's area of Central Nova very well. I have knocked on doors throughout his riding. I know that people in Central Nova actually believe in fairness. However, what we see in this budget is the actual opposite of that. We see massive tax loopholes for Bay Street, for wealthy corporate CEOs. We are seeing the Liberal government doing the same thing the former Harper Conservatives did, which is, of course, signing tax treaties with notorious overseas tax havens so that the wealthy and privileged in Canada can take their money overseas and pay a zero tax rate.

I know that the member's constituents in Central Nova would oppose that. I think they would also be very concerned that we are putting off pharmacare, we are putting off pay equity, and we are putting off all these issues that Canadians feel very strongly about to feed what is an increasing problem of unfairness in the tax system, tax havens, and tax loopholes.

Would the member not agree that constituents believe in tax fairness in Central Nova?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot say how ecstatic I am to answer the question. Had the member been here yesterday, he would have heard that this was a focus of the remarks I made in the House. I said that the pursuit of ensuring that Canadians have the ability to participate fully in the economy, whether they come from money or whether they come from nothing, is a priority for our government. Ensuring that the benefits of federal government policy accrue not only to the wealthy but to the most vulnerable people in our communities is essential.

We have been trying to tackle some of the loopholes the member mentioned. I do not blame people who were taking advantage of tax measures as they have existed, but that does not mean there cannot be room for change. Our government is lowering the tax rate for small businesses but ending practices that allow the wealthiest individuals behind private corporations to profit if that does not help to grow the economy.

At the same time, we are helping individual Canadians live more fulfilling lives by indexing the Canada child benefit and by implementing the Canada workers benefit, which is going to help 45,000 low-income Nova Scotians alone.

This is a massive sea change in the way we are adopting economic policy in Canada. I could not be more proud of our government's record on supporting those who need our help, and not just the wealthy few.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the biggest benefits of budget 2016 was the Canada child benefit. It has lifted so many children out of poverty and supports families all across Canada. In my community of Oakville alone, $48 million a year comes in for children and families under the Canada child benefit program. It helps them with sports, groceries, rent, daily living costs, and daycare. It is a fundamental plank of what is supporting Canadian families right now, and it has been a great improvement.

Could the member speak about the importance of indexing that and some of the other changes that are happening to the Canada child benefit that will continue to ensure that Canadians benefit from this going into the future?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is absolutely correct. The Canada child benefit is a marquee policy of this government. We stopped sending child care cheques to millionaires and put more money in the pockets of nine out of 10 Canadian families. In my riding, the median income is about $21,000. The difference this policy is making for the people I represent cannot be overstated.

During my remarks yesterday I had the opportunity to share two examples. I have met folks who have told me that they have been able to enrol their kids in swimming lessons for the first time because of the Canada child benefit. I have had a single mother approach me and tell me that for the first time in her life, she was able to buy new outfits for her kids on the first day of school.

There is a very human impact to this policy, and I am so proud to see that we are not only supporting it but indexing it to ensure that as the cost of living rises, the benefits will continue to accrue to Canadians.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak today on budget 2018. I am very proud to be in the House to speak about this budget, which provides a lot of investments to Canadians.

However, before I talk about the budget, I will talk about the overall economy. We have heard many times in the House a debate about where the economy is going, but the facts are unprecedented growth in Canada and almost the lowest unemployment rates in Canada in my lifetime. That is because of the investment we have made in Canadians and in Canadian institutions, and budget 2018 continues that investment.

Before I start on the specifics of the budget, I will say that, currently, when we compare ourselves to the G7 countries, we are in very good shape economically. When we compare ourselves to our neighbours to the south, certainly when we look at our deficit-to-GDP ratio, we are in a much better position. When we look at the deficit itself as a percentage of our GDP, we are at 0.5%. The U.S. is at 4%.

I have heard many times since November last year that the U.S. has cut taxes. At the same time, it is running record amounts of deficit. We cannot have it both ways. We have to be responsible with our investments, but at the same time responsible with our economy. That is exactly what budget 2018 does. By investing in Canadians and keeping the debt-to-GDP ratio on a downward slide, we are in one of the best fiscal positions across the world, while lifting families out of poverty and making sure that children get education.

At the same time, we are having a conversation about pharmacare, which is one of the elements of budget 2018. How do we move forward as a society and as Canadians on pharmacare? We also look at private pension security. How do we ensure that people who have invested in their pension have 100% of their pension when they get to retirement?

In my riding of Sudbury, there are unprecedented investments coming along by the private sector. Over $3 billion will be invested in the mining sector alone in the next few years. Three mining companies will start three new mines in the area. That is thousands of jobs in our area. The challenge we are actually facing in Sudbury is to find workers to fill those jobs. This is a great place to be, but at the same time it is very challenging.

That is why one of the pillars of budget 2018 is parity, ensuring that access to jobs for females is at the same level as for males. Ensuring that we are investing in education for females, certainly in trades, is a signature piece as well in our investments. We are looking at tens of millions of dollars to ensure that females have access to trade jobs and education with respect to the jobs that need to be filled.

Another investment that budget 2018 makes with respect to females is in women in sports, to ensure that the same number of women as men have access to spaces in sports. I have a daughter who plays hockey and aspires to play at the university level. The fact that we can create opportunities for girls at the same level as boys is very important.

Thirty-five years ago, in my hometown of Kapuskasing, my sister wanted to play hockey. Because she was a girl, my dad actually went to sign her up. They took her in and said okay. A week later, they came back with his cheque and said, “Sorry, she is a girl. She can't play.” She was devastated. Now, 35 years later, here we are, investing for girls to be at parity with boys in sports, and my daughter is aspiring to play university hockey.

In my riding of Sudbury, next year we will have the Esso Cup, which is the national championship for midget girls hockey. Again, when we look at where we were 35 years ago and where we are now, and the investment we are making to ensure parity so that girls have the same opportunities as boys, to me, this is a great way forward. That is how we build an inclusive society.

Two weeks ago, I was at the reserve of Wikwemikong, about a two-hour drive from the riding of Sudbury. Four thousand indigenous people live in that riding. I was with the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River, to have a discussion with him about the needs and concerns they have. They expressed to us how happy they were that our government was moving forward. However, they had concerns about how they would be able to tap into the investments. One of the investments they were ecstatic about but, again, wanted to make sure we were moving forward with, was on languages.

Wikwemikong is an Ojibwa community where around 20% of the population still speaks fluent Ojibwa. Now, with this budget, we are able to continue investments in indigenous languages. Given the fact that this is such an important community and the language is so strong, it is one of the biggest exporters of indigenous languages, certainly of the Ojibwa language, across the country and across the area, because people who live there train other people to teach the language.

When we talk about reconciliation, about language and culture, those are very important investments that need to be made. This is our government making those investments, after 10 years of cuts and no investments by the previous government.

I would like to talk about the major investments we have made in official languages. Here in Canada, we have a choice: either we are bilingual or we are not. Do we have a truly bilingual country or do we have a country that is not bilingual? In the Harper era, the Conservatives slashed funding for official languages. They even padded the last Roadmap for Canada's Official Languages 2013-2018 with other expenditures, further reducing investments in official language communities across the country.

In budget 2018, we are setting a new record. Over the next five years, the government will be investing more than $400 million to ensure our country is bilingual and to support cultural institutions in French Canada and English Quebec. We want to make sure official languages continue to thrive.

Through the budget, the new roadmap, and the action plan, we are also investing in youth as a way to invest in our communities and ensure that our young people continue to blossom culturally. Language and culture are expressed through the arts. Other very significant investments in the arts will be made through this roadmap.

I have four uncles who have intellectual disabilities. Two of them have participated in the Special Olympics at the regional, provincial, and national level. This budget continues investments, after stagnant investments, to give them the opportunity to participate.

Again, these are small amounts. These are small investments that go a long way for Canadians. That is why, in this budget, we are reinvesting in Canadians.

We are going to hear, just as we did with the question posed to my colleague, “When are we going to balance the budget? When will we have zero deficit?” Conservatives want to treat Canadians like numbers. We want to treat Canadians like people, and invest in Canadians. When we compare ourselves and our fiscal situation right now, we are in a great position to continue investing in Canadians.

It is not time for austerity. It is time to continue investing: in our veterans, in our indigenous communities, and in training. To remain competitive on a world basis, we need to ensure that we have the best and the brightest in the country and around the world. That is what we are doing. We are continuing to invest.

Another big investment, a record amount of investment, is in scientific research. A few weeks ago, after the budget, the Laurentian University president wrote a column in our paper, an op-ed, saying how proud he was that finally there is investment in Canada and Canadian research, instead of ignoring Canadian research.

That gives opportunities on so many levels for Canadians to thrive in Canada and around the world. These investments also go a long way toward educating our population here. At the end of the day, when we compare ourselves to other countries, we have fairly accessible universities. It is comparatively cheap to go to university here in Canada, although it is still expensive. We have more opportunities for research at the master's level and the Ph.D. level in Canada. We are on the cusp of continuing the Canadian brand, investing and expanding around the world.

On that note, I will end my comments. There is a lot more in this budget that I would like to speak about. Maybe I will have another moment to continue that conversation.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of serving on the environment committee, and the testimony we are hearing about Bill C-69, the new impact assessment act, is truly horrifying, and I use the word advisedly. My colleague across the way had a rosy comment about Canada's economy. That view is not shared by the resources sector. One in 10 Canadian jobs is provided by the resources sector, which is rapidly declining. Canada is losing investment. We have lost about $80 billion, and the Royal Bank says that investment is fleeing Canada in real time. Chris Bloomer, the head of the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association, went so far as to say that Canada has a “toxic regulatory environment”. We can let those words sink in. We see what is happening with Kinder Morgan. Again, the uncertainty is starting to increase.

With the natural resources industry being about one third of our economy, how is my colleague across the way going to deal with the investment that is fleeing the country right now? It is project after project: Petronas, energy east, and on and on. These projects are dropping by the wayside, along with thousands of jobs. Does the member even care about the workers in the energy industry?

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, in my area alone, private international businesses are investing over $3 billion in the mining sector, in the natural resources sector. They made a decision on where to invest around the world, and they decided to invest in Canada because the economic conditions in Canada make it the best place to invest. There are three mines: Vale, with an investment of around $800 million; Glencore Xstrata, investing $1.2 billion; and a gold mine just outside my riding, investing another billion dollars. Canada is a great place to invest, and in Sudbury we are seeing those investments take place.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in the previous Parliament, when the Liberal Party occupied this corner of the House, it used to be quite critical about the use of omnibus bills. In fact, we have pages of quotes from members, such as the member for Winnipeg North and the Minister of Public Safety. Now, all of a sudden, when the Liberals are in government, they feel that a giant 556-page omnibus bill, changing over 40 different statutes, is okay. I can remember that the Liberal candidate in Cowichan—Malahat—Langford in the 2015 election used to decry the use of omnibus bills to the applause of the crowd. With all the criticism that the Liberal Party used to levy against the Conservatives for this tactic, why does the member feel it is okay, now that the Liberals are in government?

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, this is a budget. In a budget, there are many items that we need to go into to move things forward. Investments in Canada are not just on the tax side; we need to invest on a broad spectrum, and that is what we are doing here. At the same time, one of the tenets, which I briefly mentioned, is with respect to gender equity and equal pay for equal work. Unless the member wants to set other legislation aside, this is a budget item, and this budget invests in Canadians. There are many items, I agree, but that is how we move forward to have these debates and to ensure that we are investing. We have listened to Canadians. That is why there is a lot here. We have invested in Canadians. We have listened to them, and now we are seeing the fruits of this listening and work.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's eloquence in both official languages.

I have next to me the member for Kildonan—St. Paul, and we were very pleased to see record investments in our regional development agencies. For Western Economic Diversification, there is an additional $185 million, and $35 million for women entrepreneurs alone. I wonder if the hon. member could comment on his regional development agency in northern Ontario, and how it is assisting in building his local economy with the additional investments.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, certainly FedNor plays a critical role in the economic development of northern Ontario. In the past two years, we have reinvested in FedNor to the tune of around $10 million a year, after investment was reduced by almost 50% by the previous government. As well, in the last debate, the Conservatives actually voted against more investment in our regional development agencies. That is critical to expansion and helping businesses thrive and continue the great investments they make. These investments go a long way, and FedNor plays a critical role in reinvesting. I have heard from many constituents, and they are extremely happy with these new investments.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the budget implementation act.

A few weeks ago, I spoke to the original budget and I had different names for it. One of them was the “Honey, I sunk the kids” budget, because it sinks our children and grandchildren by adding almost $100 billion in debt over the next several years. In fact, about five years from now, we are going to be spending more on interest payments than we do on our military.

Another name for it is the “Dude, where is my infrastructure” budget. The government, in offering so much infrastructure, it is almost like watching the Oprah Winfrey Show. Instead of Oprah saying, “You get a car, and you get a car, and you get a car”, it is Liberal after Liberal saying, ”Here is infrastructure for you, here is infrastructure for you, and here is infrastructure for you.”

Unfortunately, none of it can be found. The PBO cannot even find half of what has been promised in budget 2016. Of about $15 billion identified in 2016, only $7.2 billion can be found. A lot of it is missing. A lot of it has lapsed. I understand that. He did note that of the $7.2 billion that has been spent so far, it has only created a certain number of jobs. In fact, it has cost us $700,000 per job created by the Liberals' infrastructure spending.

I have another different name for the budget. I am going to call it the “Vantablack” budget. For members who are wondering what Vantablack is, it is a chemical substance made of vertically aligned carbon nanotube arrays and is the darkest substance known to man, absorbing 99.965% of radiation in the visible spectrum. In fact, Liberals talk about openness and transparency. They say that sunlight is the world's best disinfectant. Liberals said that they will shed new light on government and ensure it is focused on the people it is meant to serve, which is Canadians. However, even a supernova could not shed enough light to get past the Vantablack in this budget. We have seen the Liberals fail again and again on transparency.

We have seen the President of the Treasury Board fail with his update to the Access to Information Act. Our office has been submitting maybe ATIPs, access to information requests, since we started here two years ago. Some of them are almost two years old. At the rate of the Treasury Board president's sloth-like pace, we could actually see these ATIPs being eligible for parliamentary pensions before they actually come to light.

There is a gentleman named Allan Cutler who helped the government operations committee write a very good report, which the President of the Treasury Board promptly threw in the garbage. It was about improving whistle-blowing protection for public servants. He submitted an ATIP regarding the UBS banking scandal, one of the largest banking scandals in the world. It involves Canadian firms and banks sending money abroad, basically laundering money and bringing it back. He received a response from the government saying that it would take 800 years to fulfill the ATIP. Members are hearing that right: 800 years.

We also have the Atwal case, where the Prime Minister trotted out the national security adviser with some cockamamie story about rogue Indian government involvement. I had to laugh. I am sure a lot of us saw the interview with the public safety minister, where the press cornered him and he ran so fast to the elevator. He ran at such a speed even the Russians were asking for a doping test.

We also see the lack of transparency with respect to shipbuilding. The PBO said the national shipbuilding strategy was about $60 billion. We have some experts saying it is $100 billion now. We are not sure because the government will not release the RFP to the public or even to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. To talk about the costing for this shipbuilding program, the Parliamentary Budget Officer actually had to go down to the United States and use his top clearance to access its costing for the Arleigh Burke ships to bring back and extrapolate the cost for Canada because he cannot get the costing or the access for the DND.

I want to quote from the budget. I want to thank the Liberals for only spending about $800 on the cover, unlike the $200,000 they spent for last year's cover. For those following at home, on page 313, it says:

Compared to FES 2017, direct program expenses are lower, reflecting lower projected expenses for consolidated Crown corporations...year-to-date results...and updated departmental outlooks.

That is fine. When we look at page 324 of the budget, we see that the actual spending between 2017-18 and 2022-23 for operating expenses is only increasing 1.8% overall.

Normally I am quite fine with lower spending. However, with over five years of inflation, five years of population growth, as well as billions for the national housing strategy the Liberals have announced, billions and billions for ships, billions for infrastructure, half of which I know cannot be found, and billions for indigenous plans, a lot of these are very valid plans, but there are billions and billions that are not reflected in the outlook for program expenses.

We asked the government's finance officials to explain where the money is as identified on page 313. They have updated departmental outlooks. Where is the money? They refused to respond. The Parliamentary Budget Officer asked for specifics on the spending the government is doing over the years. Where is it going to cut to get 21.8% when there are billions in spending? The government refused to publish the information. A couple of scant details were sent to the PBO and were marked as confidential. Again, it gets back to zero transparency with the government.

Here is the kicker, the real part behind the “Vantablack” budget, as they call it. It is not the 600 pages of legislation. It is not the 200-page morass of the BIA that is the explanation of the carbon tax. It is not even the issues identified on pages 313 and 324 which I just spoke about. It is what is called vote 40. That is the $7.4-billion slush fund that is in the estimates.

The estimates process is when Parliament actually approves specific spending. The President of the Treasury Board has decided to try to reform the estimates process to make it more transparent. He is obviously going the wrong way. He is making a lot of changes which take away accountability from Parliament for the sake of transparency. This is what the Parliamentary Budget Officer shared about the main estimates:

With respect to delaying the main estimates, the Government indicates that the core impediment in aligning the budget and estimates arises from the Government’s own sclerotic internal administrative processes, rather than parliamentary timelines.

The President of the Treasury Board said that these materially delay the implementation of the government programs.

The government's own administrative issues are the problems with the line in the estimates. What is the solution? It is less oversight and scrutiny. The government cannot get its act together to get its programs out the door, so it takes away the ability of members of Parliament and the public to hold the government to account.

Normally there are spending authorities put into the main and supplementary estimates. Ministers come to committee with their deputy ministers and their staff to defend their spending decisions and explain exactly what the spending is going to be used for, but this is all taken away now for $7 billion. When we take away infrastructure from the operating expenses, it is over 10% of the government's spending and the oversight is taken away. Now $7.4 billion will sit with the Treasury Board to dole out without explanation or oversight until it shows up in the public accounts after the next election. The government is very good at avoiding scrutiny and this is just one other step.

The Prime Minister's own cabinet and the Treasury Board oversight team have not actually vetted the $7.4 billion in the slush fund. It makes one wonder why he thinks they are actually worthy of parliamentary approval if the cabinet has not even approved them. The alleged programs being funded through this vote have not been approved by cabinet nor have had Treasury Board oversight. If they end up actually being ineligible for funding, the money is frozen. The Liberals are assigning funds to programs that have not been approved yet on the chance that they are feasible when they could be putting that money toward needed things such as infrastructure.

The language around vote 40 is so vague one could actually drive a truck through it. There is no actual legal authority that says the money set out in vote 40 has to be used for the items identified. The government can take that money and spend it any which way it wants. The same people that brought the sponsorship scandal, the same people who thought it was a great use of taxpayer money to spend $8 million on a hockey rink on Parliament Hill, the same people who spent $500,000 to wrap a building in Canada 150, the same people who cannot even plan a birthday party for Canada on July 1, want $7.4 billion for free spending without oversight.

That is a disgrace. This side of the House will not stand for it. Canadians will not stand for this attack on parliamentary principle and oversight, and I will not stand for it either.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I found it interesting what my hon. colleague did not talk about in his remarks.

In my community of Oakville, I have several veterans. I have had round tables with them. We have two Legion branches, Legion 114 and Legion 486. They are very proud organizations that support their veterans. When I met with them they talked about the concerns they had about government services. The Conservatives had 10 years to make changes the veterans were asking for, and the Conservatives did nothing. Actually, they did worse than nothing. They cut budgets, closed offices, and ignored the voices of our veterans.

The budget delivers on the promise of a pension for life for veterans. It is a monthly payment for life. It is tax-free, and it provides income replacement payable at 90%. There is also another $67 million in the budget for further investments in veterans services.

Could my hon. colleague talk about veterans in his riding and why he does not feel they should be supported through this budget?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an offensive comment to say that I do not support veterans in my riding. I am actually a member of the Vancouver Island Aircrew Association, which is made up of RAF veterans, RCAF veterans, and American veterans.

Let me point out something on page 331 of the budget. Going forward, it shows $67 million for support for Canadian veterans in 2018-19, then minus $311 million in 2019-20, minus $323 million in 2020-21, minus $255 million in 2021-22, and minus $196 million 2022-23. That is the Liberal record on that.

This shows a lack of transparency. Every time we stand in the House and point out the lack of transparency when we are talking about the slush fund, the government, instead of defending it or explaining it, gets up and tries to distract. Nothing is going to distract from the fact that the government is taking $7.4 billion of Canadian taxpayers' money, squirrelling it away in a slush fund for the election, and it will not show up until a year after the election.

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

Mr. Speaker, our colleague from Edmonton West made a very passionate speech.

It was interesting that the member for Sudbury was talking about three mines in his region of Sudbury and $3 billion. However, in the last two years alone, $80 billion in investment has left our country. That is the Liberals' math. We have $3 billion coming in and $80 billion leaving, most of it from Alberta and Saskatchewan, where the Liberals are non-existent. What is going on is shameful.

The member for Edmonton West was the one who found the $7.4-billion slush fund. I would like him to talk a little more about that slush fund that will go forward to the next election for the Liberal Party.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's passion for his province of Saskatchewan and for energy workers in Alberta.

I would like to talk a bit more about the slush fund, but I want to follow up on his comment about the amount of money that is leaving Alberta, $80 billion in investment. I get the opportunity to go to schools from time to time and speak to the students, and I talk to the principals. We like to do a mock parliament. I went to one school and asked the principal what we should talk about, maybe marijuana, rock bands, rap. He said, “No, it's stress. It's stress on children whose parents are losing their jobs. They're not sure if their parents are going to stay together or if they're going to have a roof over their heads.” These are grade 6 students.

I spoke about this in the House a year and a half ago, and this problem still exists a year and half later because of the government. It is letting Albertans down on the Trans Mountain pipeline. It is letting the people from Saskatchewan and other Canadians down on energy development. It is disgraceful. It is hurting Canadians. It is hurting Albertans. It is hurting Edmonton. We are looking forward to 2019 when we can change that.

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Youth)]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House today and add my voice on behalf of the 100,000 people in my community in response to budget 2018.

Presented on February 27, 2018, our government's third budget takes bold action to support our environment, ensure fairness, and help the middle class. Most importantly, this budget takes a huge step to improve gender equality with new pay equity legislation. This measure will give Canadian women a real and fair chance of success. Every day I am truly humbled by the strength of Canadian women all across the country. They are leaders in business, in their communities, and in the environmental movement. Women are at the heart of Canadian society and push us to do better, to be better, and to expect better. I have the privilege of serving alongside many women who make me proud to be an MP. On top of that, we are even stronger because we have an equal number of women and men in cabinet, at the decision-making table.

However, my pride in the work that we have accomplished together is dampened by the magnitude and importance of the work that remains to be done. Budget 2018 lays the foundation of a promising future for all Canadians. For my constituents in Vaudreuil—Soulanges, this budget opens the door to greater success for middle-class families, greater security for our most vulnerable seniors, and a better future for young Canadians.

I am proud to say that budget 2018 provides for an additional investment of nearly $300 million in Quebec's health care system, which means that our government wants to support the provinces and ensure that Quebec will be better prepared and able to meet the needs of its changing population in the years to come. This investment means that, since we took office, we have increased health transfers to Quebec by $600 million. This builds on the nearly $100 billion in historic investments we have made in benefits for seniors, children, and workers this year alone.

The government is taking measurable and tangible actions to meet the needs of people in my community and across Canada. People in my riding are fortunate enough to enjoy many gifts from Mother Nature, such as the summit of Rigaud Mountain, the Île-Perrot rapids, and the wooded trails of Saint-Lazare. The people of my riding of Vaudreuil—Soulanges expect and deserve a government that takes environmental risks seriously. They deserve a government that supports science and technology and that recognizes and appreciates Canada's natural treasures.

Budget 2018 takes necessary and significant steps to do that and a lot more thanks to a historic investment of $1.3 billion over five years to protect our beautiful natural surroundings. This investment means that wildlife, land, and ecosystems will be better protected and will be able to recover from damage already caused by climate change.

It means that our government's management of protected areas and natural parks will be increased. The plan put forward by the budget also ensures that our conservation areas will be better managed, integrated, and coordinated in a network supported by our provincial, territorial, and indigenous partners.

Finally, it means that my two children and thousands like them across Canada will be able to see our cherished natural parks for free until their 18th birthday.

Canadians across the country and in my community are also concerned for their future and the future they will leave behind for their children. As greenhouse gas levels continue to rise, they worry about our changing climate and the real impact it has and will continue to have on our region.

I was proud that in budget 2018 we set aside nearly $110 million over the next five years to implement our government's promise to set a national price on carbon. My children and our children's children will be thankful for the leadership of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Environment in making the protection of our air, our water, and our future a priority.

We also know that in order to protect future generations, we have to ensure young Canadians have a real and fair chance at success, those opportunities developed first from strong, supportive, and comfortable middle-class families. That is why we will be indexing the Canada child benefit to provide an additional $5.6 billion in direct support to Canadian families that need it most, starting this July.

Each and every month families in my constituency receive $6 million in direct investment for over 22,000 of our kids through the Canada child benefit. That investment goes toward lifting thousands out of poverty, putting food on the table, and helping our children enrol in organized sports. Now, more than ever before, our kids will grow up with the supports they need to succeed.

Based on the discussions I have had with members of my community, it is already having a significant impact. I have spoken with parents who say they can now afford proper clothes to send their kids to school. I have spoken with parents who say they are now able to buy the proper school supplies they have wanted to buy for years but could not afford it. I have spoken to directors of our day camps who have told me that six months after the initiation of the changes to the Canada child benefit, for the first time in 25 years, they now have a waiting list of children looking to get into summer camp, most for the first time.

When they eventually grow up, our government will be right there to help them get the work experience and skills they need to get good, meaningful, and well-paying jobs through a nearly $450 million investment in the youth employment strategy. Budget 2018 also offers support for pre-apprenticeship training in partnership with the provinces, territories, and post-secondary institutions. Now, more than ever before, our young people will be ready to succeed, prosper, and lead the Canada we leave behind.

We are also taking significant measures to protect our heritage and culture. In Vaudreuil-Soulanges and throughout Quebec, we are proud of our history and our heritage, which deserves to be protected.

Budget 2018 supports the action plan for official languages, which will allocate more than $400 million in new funding to community organizations and francophone and anglophone minority newspapers. It will also improve access to services in English in francophone majority communities.

These initiatives come with a $50-million investment over five years in support of local journalism. By taking these steps today we are sending a clear message to Canadians and members of my community of Vaudreuil-Soulanges. In our Canada, everyone is welcome. We will support them. We are taking action to provide them with the best services in the language of their choice for years to come.

The budget is a clear commitment and promise to the people of Canada. It shows that this government is not simply here to make investments and to develop programs. We are here to implement real change for Canadians, change that recognizes we need to do more to promote equality, to protect our environment, and to help our middle class grow and succeed.

This budget proves that our government is listening to Canadians from coast to coast to coast. It is not simply hearing problems but it is actively working to solve them. That is change of which, as always, I am proud to be a part.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talked about the plan to tackle climate change. Within the budget, over 200 pages talk about carbon taxing, carbon pricing, as the Liberals like to vanilla it as. Many questions have been asked on this side of the House as to how much a carbon tax will cost the average Canadian and how much it will actually reduce emissions. To this point, not only have we received redacted answers for the paper questions we have asked, but we have received no answers.

We have asked the Minister of Environment directly how much it will cost Canadians. There are reports that it could cost upwards of $2,200 a year for a family of four, $264 a year to heat homes, and an 11¢ increase in the cost of a litre of gas.

Therefore, I am asking the hon. member this. How much will a carbon tax cost Canadians and how much will it reduce emissions? It is a pointed question, and I expect a very pointed answer.

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that question is very close to my heart.

One of the reasons I presented myself as a candidate in the last election was that I felt the Harper government was not doing enough to ensure we were putting in place measures to meet the challenges posed by climate change. The reality, and I think my hon. colleague knows this very well, is that the methodology we have adopted to meet the challenges posed by climate change are ones that are supported by many Conservatives. We are using market mechanisms.

A price on carbon, which was implemented in British Columbia, worked very well in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, while also seeing a growth in the economy in British Columbia. It debunks one of the myths put forward by many of the members opposite that this will have a negative impact on the economy. In fact, it has had a very positive impact on the economy.

In regard to the question about what it will cost Canadians, the member knows full well that the money to be collected will be given right back to the provinces and territories so they can invest in areas, right back in the communities, in the most effective ways to reduce our GHGs. He knows that, and I hope he will share that with his constituents.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague, I represent a riding in the Montérégie area, but on behalf of the people of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, whom I represent, I could not be more disappointed in this budget.

I am disappointed because this is the third Liberal budget that tells rural communities that they can keep waiting for employment insurance reform, when six out of 10 workers do not have access to EI. I represent people who are currently going through the spring gap. Employers are calling me to say that it makes no sense. Their employees are out of money and have not received an income in weeks, but they cannot be called to work because winter is not over yet.

The temporary foreign worker program needs to be reformed. I represent a community where the agricultural industry has a significant presence and these rural communities are still being told to wait for cellular and broadband Internet infrastructure.

Why is the government still telling rural communities to keep waiting?

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Montérégie for her question.

I represent a riding that encompasses both rural and urban areas. Therefore, we always have to strike a balance. My priority is to share with my constituents information about the investments that will help families living in urban areas and explaining to them what we have done for those living in rural areas.

My hon. colleague probably already knows full well that we have invested $500 million to put in place high-speed Internet in rural areas. This historic funding will help communities such as Pointe-Fortune, in my riding of Vaudreuil—Soulanges, which has 600 households and still no high-speed Internet access.

I share my hon. colleague's frustration because rural communities have been asking for high-speed Internet for a long time. We are in the process of keeping all these promises to help above all the people living in Canada's rural areas. I would be pleased to discuss with my hon. colleague how we can further work together.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I too am happy to stand today and have an opportunity to talk about why I am pleased to see what our government's 2018 budget is all about.

When we talk about equality and growth and a strong middle class in this budget, so many of us and so many of our communities are represented.

I want to particularly talk about the infrastructure investments that are in this budget, but I need to go back to my days as a City of Toronto municipal councillor.

As part of my job as a city councillor in North York or in Toronto, I was always doing budgets. I would have to figure out at the end of year how we were going to meet the needs of our cities while not significantly raising property taxes.

The first year that I became a councillor, I was inundated with phone calls from seniors and other low-income folks in the riding, who told me they could not afford these tax increases. At that time the increases were 2.5% or 2.8%. There were so many tears and so much sadness in those phone calls that to this day I have never forgotten those conversations, and that was some years back.

I committed at that time to those folks that I would do everything in my power to not raise their property taxes, because many of them were living on a limited or fixed income and there was no way they could afford to pay the increases. There were so many increases in other areas that adding property tax increases made them feel they were being driven out of their homes. I made the commitment to them at that time that I would do everything in my power to protect them and to avoid tax increases.

That meant getting a task force together and examining budgets and looking at ways that we could trim from here or find money from there. For 11 years we were constantly trying to balance budgets while seeing what we could cut from here in order not to increase something there.

We did zero budgeting in the city for probably about six years, but sooner or later everything comes home to roost, because money is still needed to advance. There's only so much that can be cut or saved or trimmed. There comes a point when additional funds have to be found; otherwise, roads deteriorate and the needs of the transit system cannot be met. Community centres were being neglected and the city was not in as good a shape as I would have liked to have seen it.

That was one of the reasons I decided that I was going to become a candidate at the federal level. I felt the federal government was where the money was, and if we going to be investing and building our cities, then the challenge for me would be to go to Ottawa and argue for the same things that I was arguing for at the city level, meaning investments in transit and investments in the quality of life of our citizens to make people's lives a bit better. Subsequently I did seek office, and with the blessing of my community I have had the good fortune of representing it at the federal level for 19 years or so.

The first thing I did when I arrived here was exactly what I said I was going to do. I started arguing about how I could get more money for the cities. I approached the then prime minister, Jean Chrétien, and told him about what was going on at the city level. He reminded me that cities are creatures of the provinces, not the federal government. We could not use the word “cities” here in the House. I could not talk about the City of Toronto or Hamilton or Niagara and their difficulties because they were not directly a federal responsibility.

In spite of that and my persistence, Mr. Chrétien put together a task force and asked me to chair it. He also asked me to consult with our urban centres. I think it was his way of keeping a new MP busy, but I took on that 18-month challenge that he gave me. I travelled a lot more in the city and across the country. I consulted with the urban centres about the pressures facing them. I worked with FCM, York University, Vancouver, and a lot of academics as well, and we put together a great report that talked about the need for a national urban strategy that would address their needs.

In addition to to that, of course, we now have a gas tax, we have infrastructure programs, and we can freely talk about the challenges facing our cities across the country. Hence the reason for my enthusiasm for what we have been doing as a government in the last almost three years in investing in transit, infrastructure, and all of the things that we need the federal government to do because the cities do not have enough money and the provinces are struggling with their own challenges.

Therefore, working in partnership is what it was all about. It was about establishing a partnership between federal, provincial, and municipal governments to ensure that our country would move forward in a positive way. Being able to do that and to see it happening, frankly, was the best satisfaction I have had since I came here. With the billions that we are investing in this budget going out into cities all across the country, we are ensuring that we will have infrastructure that can compete with any other country, and it is desperately needed.

We talk about the congestion in cities. In order to relieve that congestion, we need to be investing in transit, both in small communities and in large ones. I am very fortunate in being able to say that after $685 million was invested some years back, we have just opened the new subway that goes up Highway 7 to the city of Vaughan and has a stop at York University. It takes thousands of cars off the road and, more importantly, it reduces congestion. It also provides a better transitway for many of the students, increases the opportunity for York University to expand, and makes for a better quality of life for all of the students and academics going to the university every day.

Of course, we are now starting on the LRT across Finch Avenue, which will be a tremendous asset for the thousands of people who use the bus line to get to Humber College.

Connecting all of that costs money. There is no way around it, and it would not happen without significant investment from the federal government, which is why I am so pleased to see what we are doing with this budget in 2018, as well as in the budgets of 2017 and 2016.

Let me talk now about some of the folks who live in my riding.

All the seniors at 35 Shoreham, a seniors residence, are people who have struggled. They are low-income seniors and are all receiving the GIS that we topped up a bit more, which we continue to do almost every year. We are trying to keep it up with the cost of living, recognizing the challenges that are facing all of those seniors. Many of them suffer from poor health, are new immigrants to the country and have language issues, and are struggling.

We have also invested in research. Whether it is the genomics centre or NSERC, research is such an important thing to help us identify the answers to some of the terrible diseases that affect us. As a member of the ALS caucus, I think of Mauril Bélanger very often, and I think all of our colleagues remember the sad loss. Putting more dollars into research will help us find answers and solutions to rare diseases like ALS.

Pharmacare is our new initiative, and I hope that in the future we can bundle our efforts together to reduce the cost of drugs throughout the country. This is a new initiative that I look forward to seeing come to completion, and I know all of us in this House would like to see that happen.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's speech, but I take issue with the conclusion of her speech. She referred to the pharmacare plan as a new initiative, when we all know in this House that the Liberals first promised it in 1997 when they had the advantage of a majority government, as they do now. After all the years that have passed, the broken promise back then, and all of the studies that have been done on pharmacare, most recently with the Standing Committee on Health, I hope national pharmacare does get achieved this time. Can the member make the promise that instead of more studies and consultation, we will actually get the job done?

There is evidence everywhere that this program works. It will truly benefit Canadians, so I would like to hear assurance from the member that this time, finally, we will actually get it done.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is something that we all want. When I say that, I mean all members of Parliament. The government would like to see us to be able to establish this program. It is not an easy program, because it affects so many people. As well, the provinces and territories must be respected and everyone must be brought together. No major initiative like this will come easily.

I wish that we had proceeded much faster, as my colleague would like to do, and I hope that the good work that the health committee has just done on pharmacare in their report is one more tool moving us forward. We have the commitment from the Prime Minister in his appointment of Dr. Eric Hoskins to head that up. It gives me hope that we will see it sooner than later.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Humber River—Black Creek on her speech this morning and for her years in municipal government, because that is the grassroots level where one must deal with phone calls every day.

She made a reference to “come home to roost”. I have kids and I am a grandparent now, and it is going to come home to roost. The massive debt that the government has given our kids in the last two and a half years will come home to roost.

We have asked the government many times in the House when it will balance the budget. We are into decades. We are told now that it will be in the 2040s or maybe in the 2050s.

It is coming home to roost, so when will the government balance the budget?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have to go back a little bit. When I was in municipal politics, I was not a member of any political party. I had been asked by several parties, but I decided that I was a Liberal, because I am fiscally conservative and socially responsible. That is what I call a Liberal.

At the same time that we were doing these things municipally, the Liberals had a great track record, with seven years of surpluses. When Jean Chrétien came into office as prime minister in 1993, the country was near bankruptcy. Those are not my words, but the comments made by all of the specialists out there. We turned that around, and we ended up having seven years with surpluses. I have never seen that happen with any other government, without naming one in particular.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned seniors. In the budget, in relation to the Canada pension plan, there is new “drop in” language that replaces the “drop out” language for people with years of low earnings due to child responsibilities and people with disabilities.

Why has the government not provided actuarial modelling for the new drop-in measures? Can the member assure us that women and people with disabilities are not going to be disadvantaged with this new drop-in period?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, again this is one of the initiatives that we are putting forward in this budget with the intention of helping people and making it easier for them to access small pockets, because there are not huge amounts of money in those drop-in or dropout programs.

Another part of that is investing money to make sure that people file their income tax at the end of every year. A quite remarkable number of people do not file their income taxes because they feel they do not have any income; they then miss out on a variety of different benefits that would have been available to them. Our government is investing in making sure that people know they need to file their taxes to be able to get the benefits that are there.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about budget priorities and spending by the federal Liberal government.

Being elected in British Columbia and representing Nanaimo—Ladysmith, a coastal region, the Prime Minister's tease last weekend, that he was considering putting taxpayer dollars into the Kinder Morgan pipeline, was certainly a shock to voters who thought he was campaigning on a climate change initiative, not to mention his other broken promises on reviewing the Kinder Morgan pipeline process. There certainly was no mandate for that from voters. I am sure it was quite a shock to the people who believed his promises around climate change, indigenous assent, and new environmental reviews before threatening our coastline with any bitumen oil tankers.

That said, I am going to talk about the gender provisions missing from the budget implementation bill and missing from the government's budget. Women are named hundreds of times, but very little is delivered that will actually affect the lives of women on the ground right now and next year. There is no money for pay equity. There is no money for universal affordable child care.

How can the government think it is for women's equality, when it has not funded universal affordable child care and when it has not reformed unemployment insurance so all women are able to get access to parental leave? These are all serious goals. The government had lots of advice from lots of activists in the women's movement, including international organizations like Oxfam, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, CUPE, and Canadian Labour Congress. The government has been getting the best advice out there, and I am discouraged that it has not taken it up.

On Tuesday, with two of my NDP colleagues, I issued a report card on Canada's equality day, the anniversary, 33 years after the equality provisions were introduced into the charter by the Conservative government, forced by the courts. We are still waiting. In our Tuesday analysis, we found the gender provisions of the budget and the budget implementation bill very disappointing.

Speaking to Bill C-74, one of the first pieces is the child care crisis. There is still no universal affordable child care system. The current system barely serves one in four children. My sister had to move out of Toronto because she could not find affordable child care. She was paying more for child care than she and her husband were paying for rent. This is the same story for families across Canada.

The International Monetary Fund recommended that the Liberal government invest $8 billion a year into a universal affordable child care program and said that it would pay for itself. It would allow working women to return to work, to earn more money, to spend more in the economy, to be taxed on their income. Countries that have taken on a bold, new, progressive program like universal affordable child care find these programs pay for themselves. That is certainly the Quebec example.

In March, the Conference Board of Canada gave similar advice, as has the Governor of the Bank of Canada. They all recommend it. There is no more credible economic advice the government could get, yet no new dollars.

My colleague, the member for Parliament for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, has been doing good work on this in her critic role for children and families. We are going to continue to push for this most fundamental investment. This would be the first thing the government could do to help get women further ahead.

Pay equity is another big hole. These are the words of the finance minister when he made his budget speech. He said:

In this budget, the government is taking a historic and meaningful step by moving forward with proactive pay equity legislation in federally regulated sectors....What we can do is lead by example...

However, there is zero money for pay equity in the budget, not even the very simple ask of the Canadian Labour Congress and other labour partners made, which was to establish, right now, a pay equity commissioner, an office of gender equality to be able to put the infrastructure in place, the program and administrative infrastructure, so the government could make a program like pay equity run. Still there is no legislation for pay equity, although the Pierre Trudeau government promised it 42 years ago.

The current Liberal government promised it, under pressure from me and my colleague, the member of Parliament for Jonquière, on our very first opposition day motion in the House. We were so glad to have agreement from the government that it would implement pay equity. However, here we are. The Liberals are ragging the puck until the very end of the term. Surely if they had wanted to campaigned in the 2019 election on true feminism and truly investing in women, they would have done this most fundamental thing. There are zero dollars in the budget, and still no legislation.

Under questions in question period, the status of women minister said that the bill would not be tabled until autumn. That is not consistent with the advice it got from the consensus all-party pay equity task force. It is not consistent with advice from any NGO partners. It is a great disappointment.

We did see some movement in the budget, which I am glad to see, about federal leadership on coordination of policies for preventing on-campus rape and sexual assault. That was good news.

However, a piece that was missing, and mentioned in my gender report card, was an analysis of the New Democrats' repeated ask that the Liberals fund front-line women's organizations that were doing the bulk of the work around immediate servicing for women. They are answering the 24-hour hotline. They are giving shelter to women who are victims of domestic violence. They are helping homeless women who are in terrible economic trouble.

Again and again, we have heard these front-line groups say that they do not want program funding that has groups writing grant applications and competing with their NGO partners, hoping they might get the funding. They do not want to have to do something innovative, then having their funding expire at the end of the year and having to lay off people. Instead they want operational funding so they can keep the lights on and keep the staff they have hired. The budget might have gone some way in that direction, but we could not tease out the wording.

Since February, I have been asking the minister, in private correspondence and by getting her to make a commitment at committee, to please clarify what this funding will do. Is it operational funding for these front-line women's organizations that keep women safe and fed? There is still no clarification.

In the House on Tuesday, in response to my colleague, the member of Parliament for Victoria, when he said that in Victoria the sexual assault crisis hotline had to close because it could not get operational funding, the minister said that our report card was unkind, which was crazy language. Her budget was unclear. We have been giving her the opportunity to clarify. I really hope she has heard women's organizations. If she is going to give them operational funding, if that is being provided for in the budget, then I thank her, but we cannot tease it out. If it is still speculative, competitive only program funding, then that is a big disappointment.

Public transit is another piece that is an emerging part for rural women in particular. If there is no public transit, it makes them unsafe in British Columbia, and the Highway of Tears is a prime example of that. It also keeps women from saying yes to jobs. It is a true limiting factor. We urge the government to make deep investments in rural public transit infrastructure. It keeps women safe and keeps them better ahead economically.

We still found no measures to include equity hiring provisions in infrastructure projects. There have been great examples. In the 1990s, the NDP government in British Columbia put that as a condition on infrastructure investments. Employers have to hire 20% women and equity employees and indigenous employees. That worked very well on the island highway on Vancouver Island, where I was elected. It is such an opportunity. With the government making unprecedented spending in infrastructure, the Liberals should be tying in those conditions. That was absent from the budget.

We are glad to see gender-based analysis legislation being committed to, but it really needs to be now. Our all-party status of women committee asked for it two years ago. It still has not happened. That would make, in a transparent way, all budget decisions come through a gender lens.

We are glad to see the status of women ministry become a full department. The NDP has been advocating for this in many election platforms. My colleague, the member of Parliament for Elmwood—Transcona, advocated for this at committee. Two and a half years later, the government has taken our advice, which we are pleased to see.

In summary, this is a lot of talk, not enough action, and not enough delivery for women on the ground. I urge the government to accelerate and make real investments in women now. The economy will be better off. We will all be better off. It will be more fair.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I take exception to a number of issues in the member's statement. I was a provincial MLA for many years and for most of those years, we had an NDP administration in the province of Manitoba. If I can contrast that to what this government has done on gender equality and the movement toward that, it far exceeds many years of what the NDP did in government in Manitoba on pay equity.

Right from the get-go, the Prime Minister appointed a cabinet with an equal number of females and males. A gender analysis is being applied to all aspects of the budget. In addition, there are many different government initiatives, through the Minister of Finance, to encourage and provide support for women. I question the real sense of the NDP wanting to see progress. The members talk a lot about progress, but I doubt that would happen if they were ever afforded the opportunity to be in government.

The member started by saying the Liberals talked about being environmentalists, but acted in the national interest with respect of the pipeline. We have to balance economy and the environment. We have to balance one NDP premier in one province saying “yes” a NDP premier in another province saying “no”. There is a balance. We have to work with others to get things done.

Would the member acknowledge that at times we need to work with stakeholders to get things done?

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is the most convoluted question I have ever been asked. Absolutely, if the government were taking the advice of stakeholders, all the items I recommended, pay equity, universal child care, and the list goes on, would have been in its first budget implemented two years ago.

It is good that the Prime Minister appointed a gender balanced cabinet, but that does not change women's lives right now. It has not reformed employment insurance. It has not helped working women on the ground to have a better life.

I will give the Manitoba New Democratic government credit for being the first province in Canada to implement paid domestic violence leave. I believe it is five days paid leave. If women are victims of domestic violence, it is kind of the same as sick leave. They have time to get the family resettled, find a new home, and they will have a job to return to and be paid while they have to be absent.

Sadly, the Liberals only introduced three days unpaid leave in its labour bill last year. However, under great pressure from the women's movement and following the example of the Manitoba NDP, in this budget implementation bill, it now will be five days paid leave for domestic violence. I am very glad to see that and I applaud the government for making that move.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, following on the previous question, I have been listening to the debate on this subject for a number of days now and we are continually hearing from the NDP that we are not doing enough. Whether it is on pharmacare or gender equality, we are not doing enough. However, in the last election, the NDP committed to balancing the budget.

My question is very simple. How would the NDP accomplish balancing the budget, yet provide all the things that we are clearly not going far enough on and providing everything for which everyone is asking? Will this be the strategy we can expect to see in the next election from the new leader, Jagmeet Singh? Will he propose the same thing, that we have a balanced budget, yet arbitrarily and carte blanche give everyone everything they want?

This is unfortunately one of the realities of having not had the opportunity to government, perhaps not having a clear sight as to how to accomplish it successfully. How would NDP have done all of this and balanced the budget?

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is what the New Democrats campaigned on in the last election and what our leader, Jagmeet Singh, is also campaigning on. It has to do with the Liberal government being too deeply friendly with the 1% and its very wealthy corporate supporters. It has repeatedly failed to close tax havens and the CEO stock option loophole. Calculations show, again and again, that this could be a $11-billion benefit to taxpayers every year. Imagine if the Liberal government had had the courage to transfer the wealth from those who have so much into social programs that would support everyone and lift everyone up. With the programs I mentioned, which everyone in the progressive movement wishes the government had invested in, if it truly were a feminist government, such as pay equity and universal child care, the economy and women would prosper.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an absolute pleasure for me to stand in this House on behalf of the residents of Davenport, a riding I am very proud to represent, to speak to Bill C-74.

Budget 2018 continues what we have tried to do since we were elected in late 2015 and in our first budget of 2016-17, which is continue to support Canadians, their families, our youth, and our seniors and continue to set up both Canada and Canadians for success moving forward. If I had to summarize, that is really what we are trying to do with this budget. It is a continuation of what we have already been trying to do.

I will focus my comments over the next few minutes on areas where I think budget 2018 is of particular benefit to Davenport. I will start with something that is top of mind for me right now, which is the skills and jobs of today and tomorrow.

I recently attended the Public Policy Forum, where Mark Carney was one of the honourees. He talked about a few things. He said, “Any large period of technological change mercilessly destroys jobs and livelihoods and therefore identities.” He also referenced a number of surveys. He said, “More than 90 per cent of people don't think their jobs will be affected by automation, while CEOs expect the exact opposite.” He also said that everyone will be going back to school and that there is a need to not only go back for lifelong learning but to look at our social welfare system with respect to how we are going to support our population moving forward.

I say all of this because in 2015, in one of the debates during the election, at J.J. Piccininni Community Centre, a 17-year-old asked me how the government was going to protect him and ensure that he has a job, because robots are taking over the jobs he wants to do. My response was that the world is changing faster than ever before, but we have a chance to actually chart our future. I want people to know that our government is seized with this issue. Last year we put a significant amount of money in budget 2017 for skills and training and put far more flexibility into our social welfare system to allow people to train and do all we can to encourage lifelong learning. Whether they want to do part-time studies, are on EI and want to do some retraining, or are in mid-career and want to completely change careers, we have put in a whole bunch of programs.

This year, in budget 2018, we have continued on this track. We have made a historic investment of nearly $4 billion over five years to support the next generation of Canadian researchers. What we are trying to do is invest in some of the areas where there will be future jobs. How will we invest in areas that will create those future jobs and encourage some of those innovations? There is $1.2 billion over five years for Canada's granting councils and research chairs in addition to additional dollars for laboratories, equipment, and infrastructure that researchers rely on every day. We have also put in quite a bit money to support our colleges. I am delighted to see that they are very much at the forefront of creating some of those programs that allow Canadian workers to transition.

We have put in quite a bit of money, $2.6 billion, for entrepreneurship. We want to make it easier for Canadians to do business and for entrepreneurs to more easily access the resources they need to innovate, scale up, create jobs, and reach customers around the world.

I will mention a couple of other things. We are spending some additional dollars, almost $2 billion, to support women-owned businesses, which I think is wonderful, and a whole bunch of programs that are going to help companies innovate and expand right across this country and around the world. We are very proud of that.

I want to move on to the next section, which was at the top of the list in my pre-budget consultations for 2018 in Davenport. People who came out let me know that Canada cannot achieve its potential if 50% of the population is held back. As members know, we have put quite a bit of money into making sure that women have an equal opportunity to succeed in whatever areas they want moving forward. The government is putting gender at the heart of its decision-making and working to help support women and girls, reduce the gender wage gap, and increase the participation of women in the workforce, which will help with economic growth for all Canadians. I am sure members have heard this many times before, but we are very proud of it. It is high time we put some significant money into these areas.

We are finally introducing our gender wage gap legislation, which will be introduced this fall. I was part of that committee. We named the report “Action Now”, because we knew it was a long time coming. Finally, at the federal level, we will ensure that we have pay equity nationally.

We are also putting quite a bit of money into helping women enter the trades and succeed in the trades. There is $20 million over five years for an apprenticeship incentive grant for women. We will see how successful it is and whether we need to put in more money moving forward.

There are a whole bunch of other initiatives around women in the workforce. I mentioned the entrepreneurship program, which would encourage and support more women when starting up and trying to build their businesses.

I should mention the employment insurance parental sharing benefit. I have had a number of parents say that this is a point of pride for them. It allows up to eight additional weeks if both partners raising children decide to take parental leave. It actually allows women, who have traditionally taken more of the parental leave, to go back into the workforce much more quickly. I am very proud of that.

The government proposes to provide $23 million over two years, starting this year, to increase funding for multiculturalism programming administered by Heritage Canada. The budget says that the funding would support cross-country consultations on a new national anti-racism approach. It would bring together experts, community organizations, citizens, and interfaith leaders to find new ways to collaborate to combat discrimination and would dedicate increased funds to address racism and discrimination targeted toward a number of minority groups that we have identified.

I was at the local mosque a couple of weeks ago. One of the congregants came up to me and said that he was having a hard time finding a job, and he was fairly convinced that it was because of his name and not his qualifications. I told him that we have money allocated in budget 2018 for anti-racism and systemic discrimination. I committed to him that I would hold something in our riding with employers and minority groups that feel that there is some sort of systemic discrimination or bias within the system. That is something we can study together to come up with solutions. I am very proud that we have that in our budget.

I also see this as a way of promoting multiculturalism. Fifty-two per cent of Davenport riding residents were born outside of Canada. I have a huge Portuguese, Italian, Hispanic, and Brazilian population. I am very proud of that, and I think they will be very happy to know that this funding exists.

Davenport is very proud of its environmentalism and of our federal government's commitment to achieving the Paris accord targets and to fighting climate change. In this budget we have committed $1.3 billion over five years to protect Canada's ecosystems, landscapes, and biodiversity, including species at risk. We love our nature. We are so blessed to have such a beautiful country, with lots of parks, lakes, and natural beauty. I am very proud to be part of a government that wants to protect it for today and for generations to come. We have also put some money in to make sure that we support the federal carbon pollution pricing system.

Small businesses have told me that they are elated that we are decreasing small business taxes from 11% to 9%. Seniors, in particular, have told me that they are very happy that we are serious about national pharmacare. We have created an advisory committee to look at how to implement it. We are not trying to decide whether we want to move ahead with it; we are trying to decide the best way to implement it across Canada.

I also want to mention that I am very happy with the dollars for border security and the no-fly list, the support for local journalism, the cybersecurity support, and the support for indigenous peoples.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to a lot of Liberal speeches and I am trying to get my head around this, because Liberals are only talking about the extra money they are spending. They are not talking about anything that helps the Canadians who actually pay the bills.

It is very clear that the Prime Minister has this war against our traditional Canadian strengths. He made it clear this week when he reiterated in Europe that he wants to commit to phasing out our fossil fuels. He said during the election that he wants to transition away from manufacturing. He has killed capital-intense industries like mining because of his regulatory and tax policies. He is regulating our fisheries. He is refusing to negotiate to end the softwood lumber dispute. All of these things were traditionally Canada's strengths, and the Prime Minister and his policies are actually decreasing the amount of competitiveness in these industries and their ability to make money to pay for these things.

Which industries and which Canadian companies are going to be left to pay for all of these incredibly costly expenses that the Liberals are talking about?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned at the beginning of my 10-minute speech, what we are very much trying to do is prepare the way for Canada and Canadians to prosper and succeed moving forward. We are strengthening Canadians and have actually reduce income taxes, which was one of our first acts in government.

We are trying to do everything we can to actually remain competitive. I mentioned the fact that for small businesses, we have reduced their tax rate from 11% to 9%, which really helps. We have also invested very heavily in a number of industries, which we call superclusters. It is a way for us to say that we think these industries are leaders not only here in Canada but can absolutely be leaders in the world. We are putting additional dollars at the federal level to leverage the dollars that are already there in order for us to be global leaders and competitors for years to come.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, during the election, Liberals actually talked about working with the provinces on creating a pan-Canadian climate change framework. They said they would not use a stick to work with the provinces, that they would give them carrots. Now we find out in the budget bill that 200 pages of it has to do with a nationally imposed carbon tax. We have not been able to get information from the minister's office as to the policy rationale, including figures that would show what an average family would pay under this.

This place is dedicated toward making sure there is not taxation without representation. Does the member agree that this lack of transparency inhibits the ability of members of Parliament, including herself, from being able to accurately decide whether or not this tax is fair to the people of Canada? That information is funded by Canadian tax dollars, and I believe it should be presented to decision-makers in this place. Does the member agree with this lack of transparency?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government is absolutely serious and committed to achieving our Paris Agreement targets. We made that very clear. We are going to be leaders and collaborators in fighting climate change, and it will take all of the provinces, territories, and municipalities to work with us to do that. We came together over a year ago. We signed a pan-Canadian framework. We all agreed that we wanted to achieve the Paris Agreement targets and that we all have a role to play.

Canadians expect this leadership at the national level. It is what we are trying to do. We have put some money around carbon pricing, and we are working individually with each of the provinces to achieve those targets, to be on a track, and do our part to fight climate change.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the member of Parliament for Davenport, was on the Special Committee on Pay Equity that was initiated as a result of a New Democratic Party motion in 2016. The government, very sadly, has delayed implementation again, 42 years later, of pay equity legislation. It is not in this budget. It will come, we now hear, in the fall.

I am wondering if the member as part of the Special Committee on Pay Equity heard any witnesses who actually recommended such a long delay, because that is not what I have heard.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my NDP colleagues for their leadership in pushing forward pay equity legislation at the national level.

I would have wanted all of this done yesterday, but what we did hear on the committee, if I recall correctly, is this last bit of pay equity equalization that we need to do is complicated. There are categories and a lot of complexity around different pay structures within the government. We knew it would take a little time, but we want to make sure we are doing it right.

The story is not that it is taking so long to get there, but that we are finally going to get this done.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to begin my comments on this budget implementation bill with a bit of trivia.

Who was it who said, and I am going to quote directly, “omnibus legislation as a way of avoiding debate, as a way of putting everything into a piece of legislation, whether or not it had links to it”? We all know it was the Prime Minister, who of course is also quoted as saying he would not use omnibus bills, period, full stop. Yet, here we are. This is another example of the “do as we say, not as we do” approach to governing that the Prime Minister likes to use.

I am reminded of the Prime Minister doing away with what is often referred to as boutique tax credits. I only mention that now as it is tax time. I have heard from families with active children and public transportation users who are upset at the loss of those tax measures.

We also know that while the Prime Minister was quick to eliminate those tax credits, he was quick to bring in one of his own. The tax credit I am talking about was the teachers tax credit. I am sure the measure itself was absolutely welcome to many teachers. However, many in this place might quietly question why the Prime Minister seems to be intent on supporting measures that are done by his government, whether or not they are welcome in the community or in the country. It is about whether or not it was put forward by a Liberal government or a Conservative one.

Shortly after the budget was released, I asked my constituents if this budget would do anything to help them or their families. I have a large and diverse riding. One comment in particular was quite telling, and that was that this budget is “pure fluff, borrowed money thrown everywhere to shore up their chances in the election next year. Zero in it for the average person, no plan, no vision....”

To be candid, I have yet to have a single person tell me how this budget is going to help them. I am not a pessimist. I believe that all federal governments set out to build a stronger and more prosperous Canada. That also includes helping citizens. However, I am also reminded of the comment from our Parliamentary Budget Officer who stated:

Budget 2018 provides an incomplete account of the changes to the Government’s $186.7 billion infrastructure spending plan. PBO requested the new plan but it does not exist. Roughly one-quarter of the funding allocated for infrastructure from 2016-17 to 2018-19 will lapse. Both legacy and new infrastructure programs are prone to large lapses.

This just shows that the government will say one thing during the election, that infrastructure is good, but when it comes time to actually put it in place, the government plays shell games with the numbers. This is not in the interests of Canadians. Quite frankly, when my constituents read that, when they found that their hopes for their area would not be funded because the government has not actually allocated the money, they raised legitimate concerns. As members of Parliament, we all have a duty to raise those concerns in this place.

Going through the budget bill itself, there are quite a lot of measures. I mentioned earlier that the budget has a nationally imposed carbon tax. Some 200 pages of the 534-page document are dedicated to a nationally imposed carbon tax. British Columbia already has a carbon tax. British Columbians have been paying a carbon tax for quite some time. The previous premier, Christy Clark, had actually called it , as the member for Davenport had mentioned earlier, a pan-Canadian framework on the environment to take measures.

First of all, not all provinces signed on. Some provinces signed on reluctantly, asking for an equivalency. As we know, Quebec and Ontario utilize a separate system for allocating carbon, and that is a cap-and-trade system. A cap-and-trade system allows large exemptions. We need look no further than to the European Union and the issues it had in first instituting that measure.

Further to that, the carbon tax in B.C. was revenue neutral. The only thing that has really changed since the the government came into office in British Columbia is the carbon tax is higher and it is no longer revenue neutral. In fact, the B.C. government, which is a minority supported by three Green members to allow surety of supply, has raised the carbon tax as of April 1. People in British Columbia are paying more at the pumps, but that money is not being returned to them.

When we view a carbon tax system, which puts a price broadly on everything, the exception being jet fuel and I will get to that in a moment, compared to a cap-and-trade system that can allow for large exemptions, particularly for those who are well connected and can lobby for those exemptions, the question is whether we have a uniform approach. The answer is no. At the finance committee, I asked the premiers of Nunavut, Northwest Territories, and Yukon, and there was a different approach in every territory. In fact, the Nunavut premier actually stated that 80% of the money that is spent on diesel fuel and energy for homes is subsidized already. His case was quite clear. A carbon tax that only increases the costs in those areas does nothing for them and the fact that if it is revenue neutral and is sent back, that is money the government has already circulated. Therefore, there is a lot to be said about the approach here.

When I asked the member for Davenport whether she agreed with her government's approach to not share information, she seemed to want to talk about taking action and leadership. In this place, I believe there is a role for a belief that we can make Canada better. However, we also need to temper that with the fact that governments will have excesses. A member from Winnipeg, in the last Parliament, used to make regular speeches about the excesses of the previous government, ones that he found to be negative. I would hope that privately he might have had a few that he had focused on that he thought maybe were good for Canada. I will say that parliamentarians should be able to get the information about this nationally imposed carbon tax, what it will cost the average family and how it will circulate and percolate in our economy, because not all taxes are created equal. Some will have very specific impacts on certain parts.

Going back to British Columbia, the cement industry there used to have just around 90% of the local market. Some people near the border of Alberta or near the border of Washington state may have used cement that is mixed from those places. As we know, cement mixing is very carbon intensive. What has ended up happening in British Columbia is that by applying this carbon tax, there has been a tremendous drop in the industry. I believe it is at 60%, and that is with a subsidy from the government.

When we ask questions about the numbers that the government is not presenting to Canadians, there is a challenge because we cannot make an informed decision. I would beg Liberal members of Parliament to talk to the finance minister and to the Prime Minister, because they made commitments on transparency, on working with governments. For example, they have singled out the Province of Saskatchewan, which is not convinced that a nationally imposed carbon tax is the way to go. Again, provinces have most of the levers of energy policy and if the provinces are not working with the federal government in a proactive way, it could lead to a lot of negative consequences.

In summary, we will be studying this bill at the finance committee. I have a lot of concerns around transparency. There are measures in here, I am sure, that some Canadians will welcome. However, if we cannot distinguish between what is good for Canada and what is not, I would argue that is not in Canada's interest. I would ask this House to not support the budget without seeing some of that transparency.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a few of the items that popped into mind as the member was presenting were the investments being made in Statistics Canada in order to get third party information on programs that are being implemented. I wonder whether the member would support the investments in Statistics Canada, a group that was really hacked and slashed by the previous government.

Also, there is the role we play in collaborating with provinces and territories versus the previous government's way of ruling from the top down. I wonder whether he has some thoughts about that.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in short, I have listened to a variety of podcasts. CANADALAND has a podcast called OPPO. There was a discussion about Statistics Canada with two journalists, both of whom were considered to be on different ranges of the political spectrum. The one thing they cited was that if we looked at Statistic Canada's website today, we would find it confusing and information could not be found. Certain information was collected to 1992, but there was no further information, so the information did not match up.

People who are paid to look into these things are having difficulties accessing it. We have the Library of Parliament. We have committees where analysts can condense this information in a way that is usable for us in our work. If journalists feel they cannot get accurate statistics on the current website run by the government, which, by the way, has some serious feedback about recent revisions under the government, those journalists feel at a loss. That is Canadians' information. It was paid for, collected, and it should be in a form that all people, including journalists, should be able to utilize.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague sits on finance committee. That committee will be looking at the budget bill. What has become increasingly concerning for the opposition, which should also be concerning for all Canadians, is the fact that a $7.4 billion slush fund in the main estimates has been given to Treasury Board, which for all intents and purposes could be used for election purposes as we get closer to 2019.

Could the hon. member comment on that Liberal election slush fund?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as a former parliamentary secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, the member has raised a good issue.

Historically, the Treasury Board was created for the war effort to allow for a more timely response to Canada's contribution to World War II. The member has raised, quite rightly, that there should be some concerns, because this is a remarkable change.

Some government members have said that in 2009, at the pit of the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression, a smaller fund was allocated in order to get stimulus money out. That was because it was the will of Parliament and there was quarterly reporting. That was during the minority years and it enjoyed support from enough members in this place to allow it to go forward. However, it was temporary, it was targeted, and it was measured.

In this case, the Treasury Board is a group of Liberal ministers. They will have the authority to exchange funds from one fund to another without the oversight of Parliament. When Parliament's ability to vote for a specific item with a specific vote is removed, we undermine no taxation without representation. That is really what Parliament is meant to serve. By proposing this, the government is fundamentally undermining that process.

I again ask that the Liberal members speak to the President of the Treasury Board and the finance minister to disallow this ability by parliamentarians.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand in support of the proposed budget, Bill C-74, the budget implementation act, 2018, No. 1, which really has the four areas that we have been looking at as a government, taking input from across Canada and working with all parliamentarians. Those include growth, progress, advancement, and reconciliation. It is a wide-ranging budget that covers all aspects of Canadian society and business, as well as our environmental needs.

This is the first legislation our government is tabling to implement budget 2018. Budget 2018 continues to prioritize the needs of all Canadians.

Over the last two years, Canada's economic growth has been fuelled by a stronger middle class. Canadians' hard work, combined with historic investments in people and communities, has helped to create good jobs, almost 600,000 of those jobs created since November 2015. This budget means more help for those who need it, those who then go on to reinvest in their families and businesses in the communities in which they live.

Canada has renewed its relationship with neglected researchers, scientists, and universities and colleges, with the largest commitment to fundamental research in Canadian history. We have also reignited the reconciliation process after the scrapping of the Kelowna accord in 2006, and have removed 57 boil water advisories. This is an example of what we are doing, working with our indigenous partners.

Over the last two years, the environment has been at the heart of our policy and is inseparable from our economic success. By protecting our coasts, we protect our fisheries. By protecting whales, we protect one of our great natural inhabitants that share the country with us. Our tax credits for clean energy are helping to generate clean tech jobs, the jobs of the future.

Women represent half of Canada's population, and their full and equal participation in Canada's economy is essential for our future. Removing the systemic barriers to women's full economic participation will support economic growth, strengthen the middle class, and build a fairer society that gives everyone a real and fair chance at success. The McKinsey Global Institute estimates that by taking steps to advance greater equality for women, such as reducing the gender wage gap by employing more women in technology and boosting women's participation in the workforce, Canada could add $150 billion to its economy by 2026.

Equality in pay cannot be achieved without transparency. In the spirit of transparency, our government will provide Canadians with more information on pay practices of employers in federally regulated sectors. The government will commit $3 million over the next five years, starting in 2018-19, to implement this pay transparency policy.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology committee, I was proud to play a role in reviewing Bill C-25, which is an act to emphasize diversity on corporate boards, getting women around boardroom tables to make decisions on behalf of business in Canada.

Canada's economic success rests not only on the hard work of Canadians, but also on strong trade relationships we have in an increasingly globalized world. Canada is, and always has been, a trading nation. Canadians recognize that done properly, trade can be a positive force for change. The ratification of CETA, which began under the previous government, and also the resurrection of the TPP, which is now the CPTPP, reflect the determination of our government as we open markets for Canadian goods.

Our government is also focused on rural Canada. Agriculture is at the heart of our rural economies. To support Canadian farmers, we have introduced the Canadian agricultural partnership. I was pleased to sit on the agriculture committee as we reviewed and made recommendation toward this new policy. This program will provide hundreds of millions of dollars to protect farmers and bring new innovative technologies to Canadian farms, while at the same time increasing innovation and public trust.

To make use of new agricultural technologies, farmers need reliable Internet access. The government is investing $500 million to extend high-speed Internet services to rural and remote communities across the country.

Budget 2018 also proposes additional funding of $100 billion over five years for the strategic innovation fund to support low earth orbit satellites and to develop the next generation of rural broadband. These satellites will be going on a north-south route versus an east-west route, which will help our northern communities and our fly-in communities in northern Canada.

Federal government scientists enrich Canada's research environment, contributing to research focused on the public interest as well as the kind of discovery science that breeds innovation. To accomplish this goal, budget 2018 announces a reimagined National Research Council and proposes to provide $540 million over five years. Coupled with the largest investment in fundamental research in Canadian history of $3 billion, Canadian scientists now have the tools they need to compete with and to attract scientists around the world.

This budget also advances Canada on the path to reconciliation with indigenous, Métis, and Inuit peoples. Together, we are working hard to improve the quality of life for first nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples, as well as forging a new relationship based on recognition of rights, respect, cooperation, and partnership.

In addition to the $11.8 billion invested in budgets 2016 and 2017, the government proposes to invest an additional $5 billion over five years. This investment will go to ensuring indigenous children and families have an equal chance to succeed in life, to build the capacity of indigenous governments, and to accelerate self-determination, as was announced by the Prime Minister on February 14.

To date, as I mentioned, we have removed 57 boil water advisories from reserves across Canada. I am pleased to serve as a champion to the Minister of Indigenous Services, working on water on first nations.

The government also understands that reconciliation entails a new relationship between the government and Canada's indigenous peoples. That is why budget 2018 proposes to invest $8.5 million over two years to work with first nations to understand how to make the programs more responsive to the needs of individuals and families on reserves.

Budget 2018 also continues the important work initiated in 2016 to build a greener and more sustainable Canada. To support the implementation of this historic national plan, the government has allocated $5.7 billion over 12 years, including $2 billion for the low-carbon economy fund to combat climate change and to advance clean technologies in Canada.

In November 2016, the government also launched a $1.5 billion national oceans protection plan to improve marine safety and responsible shipping, to protect Canada's marine environment, as well as to offer new possibilities for indigenous and coastal communities. This is being discussed in the House a lot lately as we talk about pipelines on the west coast.

One example of how these investments can make a real difference in our communities is the energy neutral waste water treatment project at the city of Guelph. Utilizing a whole-of-government approach, both the federal and provincial governments came together with industry and invested $1.5 million in an initiative to make our waste water plant energy neutral. We are also using research from the University of Guelph.

Our partnerships between the research community, the business community, and our governments at all levels really are advancing the clean technology agenda for Canada. Projects like this demonstrate how this type of collaboration and targeted investments build results for Canadians, results we can share across Canada, and around the world.

I encourage all members of the House to support budget 2018, our equality and growth budget.

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

Madam Speaker, if I may be indulged, I will have to ask the pages for a new pen for all of the zeros I had to write down during the member's speech, and the billions and billions of dollars the government will spend.

This brings up an important point. When the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party ran in the last election, their platform talked about four years of deficits. This year, in 2018, they talked about $6 billion in deficits, so we now know it will be $18 billion. In fact, for a generation, there is no return to a balanced budget.

With all of the billions of dollars he talked about spending, how can he go back to the people of Guelph who will have to pay for this, the children, and grandchildren of Guelph who will have to pay for the Liberal Party and the Prime Minister's uncontrolled spending?

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is not surprising to hear the question from the hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil. We have heard this question many times. We heard it during the election, and we have heard it since in all debates in the House.

There are obviously two different ways of approaching Canadians' future. One is to invest in Canada, to invest in Canadians, and to invest in research, and the other is to cut budgets to try to get economic growth, which we know did not work for the last 10 years. We now have unprecedented economic growth because of investments we are making.

We also have researchers developing solutions resulting in changes for the whole world to benefit from. Investing in Canadians and investing in our future is the way forward. It is the successful way. It is the way we have shown more growth in two years than the previous government did in 10. We are not going to be changing course back to the hack-and-slash budgets of the Harper government.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague on the government side describes with pride the dollar investments to protect the coast. We hear about the $1.5 billion oceans protection plan. That is a five-year spending program spread over three coasts, and it is being asked to do all kinds of things, such as protecting us from a spill of bitumen in the event of Kinder Morgan oil tanker traffic damaging B.C.'s coast and economy and solving the abandoned vessels problem.

Two weeks ago, the transport minister came to Ladysmith in my riding and announced $64,000 to remove abandoned vessels. It is better than nothing, but honestly, given that the previous vessel removal cost $1.2 million, $64,000 is not much. It probably cost him that much just to travel there to make the announcement.

Could my colleague please comment on whether he agrees that this feels to us on the coast like a drop in the bucket?

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, the project the member is describing shows how the revised National Research Council will be able to help solve problems such as she is describing on the coast. Funds for the ocean, coastal and river engineering programs are being consolidated under the National Research Council technology development advancement program. We will be attracting money from provinces as well as private industry to leverage funds from the federal government. We have to work together with provinces, industry, and researchers to solve some of the major problems we have on our coast, and we are working on that. I am proud of the work we are doing.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, one of the issues I like to talk about is the Canada child benefit and the amount of money that is going into communities. It does not just apply to Winnipeg North. It applies to every riding. Literally millions of dollars are being put into support for the children of our communities.

Could my colleague and friend provide his thoughts on that?

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, it was staggering to see the numbers for Guelph. Some $8.8 million per month is going into our Guelph economy and helping the families of Guelph as well Winnipeg North. The budget will be indexing those funds starting this July, which will give us future growth for supporting families in our communities and supporting local small businesses, which now have customers coming in the door with additional funds to spend on their goods and services. It is going to help our economy as well as our families. It is a wonderful program, and I am very proud to say that we have developed a winner here.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, as this is my first opportunity to rise in this House, I just wanted to express my deepest sympathies and condolences for the Humboldt Broncos. This has been an incredibly impactful disaster in our country, and people are feeling it.

I also want to take an opportunity to thank Port McNeill, the Port McNeill IGA, and the Port McNeill Minor Hockey Association, which fundraised $6,000 to donate. I really appreciate, across the riding, how this has brought people together, when we think about those small communities where sports play such a fundamental role.

I also want to take this opportunity to express my deep condolences to a former member of this House, John Duncan, who used to represent a large of my part riding, who recently lost his wife, Donna Richardson Duncan. We may not have always seen eye to eye in terms of policy, but I deeply respect the hard work that every member does in this House. I know that John Duncan is well respected on the north island. I just wanted to share my deepest condolences with him and his loved ones.

Today I am here to talk about Bill C-74, which is implementation legislation for the budget. It is a little hard for me to speak here, because I feel that it is a bit of a timid budget. When I look at the riding of North Island—Powell River, and I look at the fundamental needs there that I work really hard with my staff every day to address, I wish we could see more action coming out of this. One thing I have heard from many of my constituents is that the time for studying is over; the time for action is now.

We are talking about a bill today that contains 556 pages and amends 44 separate acts. It is another omnibus bill. This always concerns me, because I think debate is a fundamentally important part of what we do here. It is also about transparency for Canadians. This bill also has a new bill inside it on carbon pricing. This should be a stand-alone bill so that we can meaningfully debate this.

There are a few positives. I really appreciate the fact that a promise that was made and betrayed is now actually coming to fruition, which is a reduction in the small business tax rate. Small businesses have had a hard time in the last several months as the government has looked at them in a way that was not friendly. I know that it my riding, I have been talking to health care professionals, doctors specifically, who were appalled by the process that happened. They felt very offended and actually dealt with patients being angry with them because of some of the things that came out of this. They asked me to let the Prime Minister know that there are not a lot of rich doctors, just a lot of hard-working doctors, in our rural communities.

I am happy to see that there are some additions for judges to address significant shortages. I also appreciate improving access to the Canada workers benefit.

I want to come back briefly to carbon pricing. We really need to have this separated out. It deserves a robust debate. This is an issue that is becoming more and more important across the country, as people are concerned about emissions and whether we are tackling them in a meaningful way. As a member from British Columbia, and with what we are seeing with Kinder Morgan, this is something that has not been addressed. People need to understand and have a fruitful discussion.

We know that polling has said that a lot of Canadians are very unsure that this will actually reduce emissions. People want to see an impact. It would be great if the government would take this step so that it could go to committee and we could have a report that goes back to parliamentarians and back to Canadians. We want to make sure that what is happening is actually working.

The other thing I found very disappointing is that we are not seeing what we need to see, which is a more fair tax regime. The government has again not addressed the significant loopholes for wealthy CEOs and the very wealthy. Oxfam has just reported this year that about 82% of the wealth accumulated last year went to the top 1% of earners across Canada. I do not represent a lot of those people in my riding. I represent a lot of hard-working people.

We just had a senior come into our office the other day who is now having to pay back CRA, because his wife had to go into a care facility. They did all the appropriate paperwork for CRA. They talked about the forced separation. They were given a little support and relief because of that. Now CRA is saying that they have to pay it back. That is not a fair tax system. The most vulnerable people are being asked to pay back what little support they desperately needed during a very hard time in their lives.

Another issue is pharmacare. Across my riding, the issue of medication and the cost of medication comes up repeatedly. The Parliamentary Budget Officer was very clear about there being over $4 billion in savings to Canadians if we could address this issue. In my riding, we have too many people who are having to make significantly hard choices about what they can cost out. It is important to recognize that when people cannot afford to take the medication they need, the expense to the taxpayer increases, because those people go in and out of hospital. It is not good for their health, it is not good for their families, and it is not good for the taxpayer.

As I said earlier, many constituents in my riding are saying that the time for studies is over. The fact that the only investment we are seeing is another study on whether we need pharmacare is ridiculous. We just need to get to action. We now have a report from the health committee that has been very clear. All parties know that this needs to happen. We do not need to study. We have studied this repeatedly. This is a long-term promise the Liberal Party has made over many years. Let us get to the action part.

I represent rural communities, and I am very proud to do so. One of the things I find disheartening about this budget is that it is not addressing a lot of the fundamental issues rural communities have. Resource industries have built a large part of the wealth of this country, and many of those communities are like those I represent: they are small, rural, and hard-working. The resource sector has a history and a present, but it also has a future. We are not seeing the investment in innovation and diversification in smaller and rural communities. We do not want to leave our small communities. We want to make sure that they are robust. We want to make sure that they are healthy, and we sometimes need the government to give them opportunities for that to happen. I will be attending, for example, the Forestry Friendly Communities celebration in Port McNeill in May, where we are going to be talking about the innovation happening in that sector. We need to see that the government actually cares about these communities.

I have the great joy of representing the 19 Wing base in Comox in my riding. One of the sad and wonderful things about representing this area is that we have a lot of veterans who move to our community. I am happy to have them there. They provide a lot of support to our community, and I respect the work they do. However, one of the sad parts is that we often have veterans who have multiple challenges. A few weeks ago, we had the Wounded Warrior Run BC running through our communities. It was amazing to see the support. One of the most important things they were doing was fundraising so that more veterans who have post-traumatic stress disorder and need support get service dogs. It is a step in the right direction that we now see in this budget a tax credit to help with those service dogs. I want to be very clear that this is an expensive investment.

Another issue for veterans in my riding is access to housing, especially if they have service dogs. Sometimes it can be very challenging for veterans to find homes that will allow them to bring a service dog with them. It is heartbreaking for me that there are a few steps in the right direction, but they are too little and too slow. Veterans have waited a long time for some support, and we definitely want to see that happen for them.

Housing is a big issue in our riding. There are communities as small as, for example, Port Hardy, with 4,000 people, that are struggling to find housing for people. They do not have a lot of affordable housing. This is not just an urban issue. It is an issue across the whole country. I encourage the government to step forward. The Liberals have made announcements about funding. The majority of it is not coming to fruition. I encourage the government to please make that money flow faster. People need homes, and they need them now.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, at the beginning of the member's speech, she noted that in this budget, there is funding to hire new judges. In budget 2017, there was also funding to hire new judges. The NDP government in Alberta, by way of order in council, in October 2016, established 10 new judicial spots in Alberta to deal with the court backlog. A year and a half later, the minister has managed to fill only one of those spots, and that was just in December. It is one thing to talk about money and allocating money, but when it comes to actually appointing judges, it seems that the minister just cannot get it done, and as a result, serious criminals continue to be let out on the streets. I wonder if the member could comment on that.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, if we look at a lot of realities, we see that money is promised and then sometimes it does not flow as quickly as we need to see it. A lot of small communities across Canada are asking for the process to happen a little more quickly. They know that there are serious incidents that they want addressed. I know that a lot of people who are in the system themselves are feeling overwhelmed with the number of people waiting to be processed.

I hope the minister will get on top of that. I know it is very frustrating for small communities and communities across Canada to just wait and wait.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was very happy to hear the member for North Island—Powell River speak about national pharmacare and the reference to it in budget 2018 and I was happy to hear support for it. I am a member of the committee, and we are very proud of the report released yesterday. I certainly believe no Canadian should be denied access to necessary prescription medicines because they cannot afford them. That is fundamental.

The committee made 18 recommendations. Two of them dealt directly with the model of how national pharmacare should be designed and 16 of them dealt with implementation challenges. What we heard from expert witnesses is that implementation of a national pharmacare program, given the nature of our Confederation of provinces and territories and federal government, is incredibly complex. I was delighted to see in the budget the creation of a national council that will study implementation of national pharmacare. Dr. Hoskins has one year and will be back next spring with a very comprehensive analysis of how best to implement national pharmacare.

Does the member not support taking more time to make sure we get this right and not lose it because we have rushed implementation?

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the work he has done on this very important issue.

From people in my riding, I know this is something that comes up quite frequently. One of the first experiences I had was meeting with a woman who bought a van, because with her health issues she could not afford both rent and medication. She said to me that she was doing the best that she could, but she was really worried it was going to get cold.

I come from Vancouver Island in B.C. A lot of people like to joke about how warm it is where I am, but if someone is living in a van because they cannot afford rent and medication, it can get pretty damn cold. Excuse my language.

I appreciate that making sure we implement this program really well makes sense, but there are a lot of models we could look at. We could continue to study and study and study, and I want to be very clear that this is what it says. The bill does not talk a lot about implementation; it talks about the study.

We have done a lot of studies in this place. This has been a promise, and people get tired of waiting. At some point we have to say that it is not going to be perfect right away but that we are going to get to the action part of this, and we are going to make it really clear.

The member is saying a year, so we are going to wait here and see if it happens. Unfortunately, that promise has been made many times. We will watch and we will wait, and hopefully it will happen, because a lot of people are having to make terrible choices, such as living in a van.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs]

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to stand in the House today to talk about our 2018 budget. It is a fitting budget, called “Equality + Growth: A Strong Middle Class”, which is the direction our government is leading in Canada.

This budget is the next step in the government's plan, which is investing in people, investing in communities, and investing in our economy. It has already been able to put more money in the pockets of Canadians, it has helped create more well-paying jobs, and it is giving Canadians greater confidence in their future.

Since November 2015, when we took office, Canadians have created more than 500,000 new jobs, and the unemployment rate has fallen from 7.1% to 5.9%, close to its lowest level in over four decades. The Canadian economy has been very strong, growing at a pace that is well above all the other G7 countries since mid-2016.

Measures like those that we introduced around middle-class tax cuts and a new Canadian child benefit mean that Canadian families now have more money to save, invest, and spend on their families and in their communities because we have lower taxes for the middle class and we are helping them with the high-level cost of raising a family in many regions of this country. Therefore, Canadians are felling more optimistic about the future, and I certainly feel that in the riding that I represent.

Whether it is the ability to be able to save a little more, to buy a home for the first time, to go back to school and train for a new job, or obtain employment in regions where it has often been difficult, these are all things that people see as strength in our economy and in their communities. As the government, we are going to continue to grow that sector, to create those jobs that people want, and to ensure that people have opportunities.

New investments will support many pieces of infrastructure across Canadian communities. One of those pieces that has been critically important to many first nations, Inuit, and Métis communities in Canada has been the ability to ensure good housing on and off reserve in communities, as well as the ability to ensure that they have access to clean drinking water.

Investments we are making in this budget include committing over $170 million over the next three years to continue on the path of improving access to clean and safe drinking water on reserve. The Minister of Indigenous Services has been very adamant on meeting this target and ensuring that long-term drinking water advisories in Canadian communities, especially indigenous communities, are eliminated.

We have also been making tremendous investments in housing. In the northern part of my riding, in the Inuit region of Nunatsiavut or in either of the first nation communities, if we were to ask today what their number one infrastructure priority was, they would say that it is housing. For the first time, every indigenous government had the ability to deliver on housing money in their own regions. Last year, for the first time, Inuit across the north received direct transfers from the Government of Canada to ensure that they were able to build and modify houses to meet their immediate needs.

This year's budget includes an additional $600 million over the next three years to support housing on reserve for first nations communities. It includes an Inuit-led housing plan for Inuit regions such as Nunavik, Nunatsiavut, and Inuvialuit, and the government has proposed $400 million over the next 10 years to address the needs of housing in Inuit communities. This is in addition to the $240 million that was announced in budget 2017.

The government is also proposing $500 million over the next 10 years to support the Métis nation's housing strategy. These housing strategies are important to indigenous Canadians. It is important that they have proper housing in their communities in order to make real progress in many other areas where they have concerns.

This year I was proud to be a member of Parliament in the Government of Canada, representing the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, because we saw major transfer increases to our province from the federal government. We saw increases in the Canadian health transfer and the Canadian social transfer, increases that will allow the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to meet and address some of the growing needs we have as a province, which ridings like mine are dealing with. For example, there are issues with respect to mental health and suicide. Here there are fundamental social programs that our government has continued to invest in. We have worked with indigenous communities in my riding to develop suicide strategies and to invest in those strategies, working side by side with them to eliminate and reduce suicide and addiction levels in communities.

We also work with those indigenous governments and the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to invest more in mental health and addiction services. Last week I had the opportunity to be in Happy Valley–Goose Bay with the premier to announce that for the first time ever there will be six mental health beds opening at the hospital in Labrador and that two psychiatrists will be hired in that rural northern region where we have never had those services.

This is a government that is listening to the needs of Canadians. No matter how remote or how northern or how isolated those Canadians are, it is listening and acting to ensure that it meets the needs and addresses the issues that are important in those regions.

There were many things in this budget that my constituents and people across the country were proud of. I want to outline what some of those pieces are. I think it is important that we reiterate the investments that we are making, because these are not our investments but the investments that Canadians have asked for. We have worked with Canadians to form a vision of where they would like their country to be going. What we do as a government is in response to what they are asking.

I represent a riding that until a few years ago was basically unconnected in many ways, whether it was through Internet and broadband or through highway transportation and ferry services. As a government, we have invested in those areas. To date, we have been able to to build nearly 400 kilometres of paved road through one of the most northern remote regions of the country in my riding. We have invested in some of the smallest communities to allow them to have Internet and broadband access, a basic service that many Canadians have enjoyed for many years.

We have also listened when people talked to us about the need for EI reform for those people who work in seasonal industries, the need for reform for women and parents who are taking leave to have a child, the need to extend maternity leave benefits, and the need to look at sick benefits for people who have to care for sick family members, sick children, or themselves.

We listened to northerners across Canada when they told us that the northern tax deduction had not increased in many years, and we acted to ensure that northerners are receiving tax deductions that allow them to have a better quality of life, like other Canadians.

We have invested in small craft harbours, having listened to the fishing industry, which quite often had been ignored by previous governments, ensuring they have the infrastructure in their communities to create jobs in an industry that has allowed for tremendous opportunity in the Atlantic regions of our country.

We also brought great certainty to military operations. I represent a riding that is home to 5 Wing Goose Bay. For the first time in many years, we have ensured the operational requirements of that base and its stability and longevity as part of the national infrastructure for defence in this country.

We support workers in communities that I represent, such as Wabush and Labrador West, which are heavily engaged in the mining industry.

This budget is a reflection of Canadians.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, as the member knows, I have been in her riding and knocked on doors in her riding. Folks in Labrador believe in equality and fairness. I am sure she would agree with me on that.

We have a budget that profoundly continues what is one of the most unequal periods in Canadian history. In fact, two Canadian billionaires hold as much wealth as one third of the Canadian population. We are seeing more and more tax treaties signed with notorious tax havens overseas, a practice started by the Harper Conservatives and continued by the Liberals. We are seeing more wealthy Canadians and large businesses not having to pay a cent of tax because they can take their money to overseas tax havens.

There are more and more tax loopholes that the government refuses to close. As a result, the government says it does not have the resources to bring in pharmacare, pay equity, and all the other programs that would actually make a difference in people's lives. My question is quite simple. Would the member not agree with me that her constituents in Labrador would want to see a fair tax system and a closing of these tax loopholes, and that they would be very disappointed to see none of that in the Liberal budget?

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Madam Speaker, it is very fair to say that the government has taken tremendous action on taxation. First, we have been able to reduce taxes for small businesses in Canada. Second, we reformed the taxation program for individual income earners across Canada to ensure that the wealthiest pay more and the lower-income and middle-income people get a break on taxation.

The other thing we have done, which we have committed to do and are continuing to do, is to ensure that we crack down on offshore tax havens. The minister has said this time and again in the House of Commons. It is the commitment of our government to do so, and we are continuing to do so.

We believe that every Canadian deserves to be treated fairly and equally when it comes to taxation. We do not believe that people should be allowed to escape paying taxes in our country. We expect them to pay, and we are going to ensure that it happens.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is a budget with heart. It is a budget that cares. It is a budget about people and about equality. How does budget 2018 attach itself, that equality throughout this nation, to each and every individual throughout our great nation?

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Madam Speaker, I know my colleague shares my sentiment that Canadians deserve to benefit from the wealth of their country, no matter where they live in this country. They deserve to benefit, no matter the status they hold. This government is reflecting that in the decisions we make. Whether one is urban or rural, indigenous or non-indigenous, wealthy or poor, we as a government are implementing investments, infrastructure, and programs and services that are reaching all Canadians. We are not cherry-picking one region or another. We are not sacrificing one province for the sake of another. We are fair to all Canadians, because that is what Canadians want from us. They want a government that is going to listen to their issues and act on them, and that is exactly what we are doing.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, our colleague said that the Liberal government listened to Canadians' views on employment insurance. I think it is important to note that the government only half-listened, because sweeping reforms are needed and six out of 10 workers still do not have access to employment insurance.

Can my colleague tell us when the government will make it easier for people to get employment insurance benefits?

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Madam Speaker, we did make modifications to the Employment Insurance Act, allowing claimants to earn money and keep more of their employment insurance during the off-season. We also extended maternity benefits to those who needed them, and we are continuing to look at the employment insurance program.

It is safe to say that the program today is available to and being used by many Canadians across the country. Without the support of this program, there would be much jeopardy in many seasonal industries, and I think we all understand that.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Québec debout, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, never has Quebec been so diminished in Ottawa. Bill C-74 is a 556-page budget implementation bill, and all 556 of those pages ignore Quebec. To the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister, Quebec does not exist. Bill C-74 is for people in the GTA, the west, and the Maritimes. It is for Canada, but not Quebec. Quebec does not matter here. With Bill C-74, the government continues to rack up deficits so that it can give handouts to others, like the $75 million given to Irving to combat the spruce budworm in the Maritimes. This is a nice handout, but what an insult to Quebec, which does not receive a cent.

In Quebec, the budworm affects an area larger than all of New Brunswick. Bill C-74 is a massive 560-page document, larger than any other tabled so far by the finance minister. Never mind that the Prime Minister had made an election promise not to introduce massive bills. Unbelievable. These 560 pages do nothing to fix the EI spring gap for our seasonal workers.

In Quebec, we believe in using our lands. We want everyone across Quebec to be able to live and earn a living, not just those in major cities. Seasonal industries are a reality in the regions, and these workers need support. The government needs to do something about the period during which these workers are not receiving employment income or employment insurance. The EI eligibility rules must be changed. This has been going on for years. Every year, seasonal workers experience the same stress as they wonder whether they will be able to make ends meet. In its budget, the government announced that seasonal workers would be able to take 30 hours of training a week and receive replacement income, but this does not fix the problem. The government needs to listen to these people's concerns and take the necessary action to fix this problem once and for all.

Bill C-74 is a 556-page manifestation of the government's schizophrenia when it comes to the environment and the fight against climate change. We have a Prime Minister who wants to maximize economic opportunities from western Canada's dirty oil in order to raise money to protect the environment. Wow. We have a Prime Minister who has decided to side with big oil and force the Trans Mountain pipeline on a province and a government that do not want it. So much for democracy. Meanwhile, this same Prime Minister was patting himself on the back at COP 21 in Paris on climate change. This has led Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University to the conclusion that the Prime Minister and his government have lost all credibility in the fight against climate change.

Bill C-74 does not contain a single line or a single measure to support green energy, nor does it have anything for the electrification of transportation. Yes, imposing a carbon tax means there is a baseline to ensure that one province's efforts are not cancelled out by another province's. However, another thing missing from Bill C-74 is a clear plan and firm resolve to seriously protect the environment. For example, what is the Canadian government going to do if Doug Ford is elected premier in Ontario? Mr. Ford has already promised that he will eliminate Ontario's carbon exchange system and that he will fight the federal carbon tax. The same is true in Alberta, with Jason Kenney. As everyone knows, Quebec is way ahead when it comes to the environment, but its efforts are likely being unfairly cancelled out by other provinces that refuse to join the 21st century.

Ottawa is keeping the targets from the Harper era. The environment minister has already said that the tax would apply regardless of what the provinces think, but we have our doubts. In the Trans Mountain file, the federal government chose to side with the oil industry. Just imagine, it is even prepared to fund the project. The Liberals' targets are the same as the ludicrously low targets set by Stephen Harper's Conservatives, yet the government is not even on track to meet them. That is something we need to do.

Quebec needed Bill C-74 to include provisions that would support its fight against climate change, but no such luck. Bill C-74 is the first mammoth implementation bill for this budget. It talks about the cannabis tax. As we know, Quebec, the provinces, cities, schools, and law enforcement are not ready for legalization. They are asking for just a little more time to prepare, but Ottawa is ignoring their pleas. This will cost Quebec and the municipalities quite a lot of money.

We are seeing the same thing with taxes. Ottawa has decided to occupy the entire field of taxation. That means it will get to scoop up a quarter of the tax without having to spend a penny. It is easy money. Furthermore, Ottawa is not bearing any of the costs associated with cannabis legalization. We have reason to be concerned about the conditions that will be tied to the transfer of the tax to the provinces, like the health transfers. With this government, there are always plenty of conditions. It cannot even pay its own employees, yet it wants to stick its nose into everybody's business and tell Quebec how to run its own affairs. I worry that this will happen in this case too.

Since Ottawa occupies the whole tax field, it has the upper hand. I can already picture the Prime Minister forcing the provinces to do his bidding if they want the money even if everyone tells him he is out of line. It would not be the first time. That is what happened with health transfers, which are lower than they should be, as I said. Apparently health care funding does not win a lot of votes, so they cannot be bothered with it. Quebeckers want it, but nobody here cares. The same goes for infrastructure money.

Conditions are laid out and everything is negotiated separately, so money stays locked up here just because the government wants control over a decision it knows nothing about. I should point out that this is not what Quebec wants, and it breaks an election promise. So many broken promises. The budget does have a few little things, such as the Canada workers benefit, that will help Quebeckers. It is not a lot, but it will help people with low incomes. Quebeckers will also benefit from measures for veterans and the lower small business tax rate. These are measures we have been asking for since 2015, so we are glad to finally see them.

Of course we know that the government improvised this measure because it was roundly criticized for the tax reform it planned to introduce. It ended up backing away from the tax reform and, in fact, basically abandoned it. It kept the passive income measure, but watered it down so much that it will not be very effective.

Instead of wasting everyone's time with a tax reform that was going nowhere, why did the government not tackle tax havens? That is the most glaring inequity in the entire system. The projections vary greatly, but according to the Conference Board, the government would recover at least $9 billion. It could use that money to balance the budget, but of course, the influential Bay Street lobby prevents it from doing so. So much for Quebec's request to fix the problem of the illegal use of tax havens. Quebec does not exist. I said at the outset that Quebec has never been so weak in Ottawa. Each and every one of Bill C-74's 560 pages reminds us this. Our needs, our concerns, and our aspirations are nowhere to be found in this massive bill.

Bill C-74 makes it crystal clear that Quebec does not count in this place. That is what I wanted to say.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I can assure the member that Quebec counts for a great deal.

My colleague across the way made the argument in his comments as to why it is important to have a strong national government here in Canada. Let us think about what the member was saying. He talked about the price on carbon and the impact if one province were to go ahead of another province in a progressive fashion. For the first time in many years, we finally have a Prime Minister who has a strong national vision, which is one of the reasons why we saw a national program for a price on carbon, rather than having one province doing it one way and another province doing it another way. That is in essence what the member across the way was calling for.

My ancestors came from the province of Quebec.

We want to see national programs. One of the wonderful things in this budget is the increase to the Canada child benefit program, which brings millions of dollars into every riding across the country, including the ridings of my friends across the way. It is a strong national program that contributes to the well-being of the nation as a whole, and by doing that we can see more progressive policies.

I am wondering if my colleague would agree with me that there are a number of strong national programs that can have a profoundly positive impact on all provinces, including the province of Quebec, a province—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Joliette.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Québec debout, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, we see the government implementing national programs and policies for English Canada. We see it in the government's decision to grant all the construction contracts for new ships to the Maritimes while giving nothing to the Quebec shipyard.

My colleague opposite spoke of a national policy on climate change and the carbon tax. What this national policy tells me is that the government has decided to support an oil-based Canada. We take issue with that national policy, and I think British Columbia does too. We are no longer allowed to manage our own affaires. This is a clear example of that. The government imposes its will and serves its own financial interests by pursuing aggressive policies that are funded by Bay Street to support Calgary. That is the Canadian model.

Given all of that, how can the government's environmental and climate change policy have any credibility whatsoever? It does not, and we are not the only ones saying so, since economist Jeffrey Sachs from Columbia University also shares this opinion. The Prime Minister has lost all credibility on the international stage when it comes to climate change.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciated my colleague mentioning the tax haven issue, because that is certainly an issue that we in the NDP fundamentally agree needs to be dealt with. It is very important to illustrate this. We see the amount of revenue that we lose to wealthy and well-connected Canadians who are able to evade paying their fair share. Would he not agree that not only prevents us from investing in people who need the most help, the most vulnerable members of our society, but it also shifts the tax burden onto everyone else?

If the Liberal government is all about helping the middle class and those hoping to join it, would he not agree that one of the best policies would be to tackle the issue of tax evasion to make sure the most vulnerable members of our society, the middle class, and so on, are not having to shoulder that burden?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Québec debout, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank and congratulate my colleague for his wise comments. The inequality problem, which is the elephant in the room here, primarily has to do with tax havens. Why does the government stand by as the wealthiest members of our society shirk their obligations and responsibilities? We know that this government has ties to the Bay Street lobby. The finance minister is evidence of that. He is unwilling to take action to address the tax inequities between the very powerful and the middle class.

I agree with my colleague's comments that the government boasts about doing a lot for the middle class, but the problem is that they are just talking the talk to win over voters and get re-elected. In reality, the government is complicit in the use of tax havens, which primarily benefit big banks, an industry that does not even create jobs. Unbelievable. This is unacceptable and it must change.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise on this occasion to speak in support of the 2018 budget, and Bill C-74, the budget implementation bill, which will continue to advance the priorities of Canadians.

What I thought I would do this afternoon is break up my remarks into three themes. I will talk a little about where we were in 2015 when this government took office. I will talk a little about where we are today, mid-mandate. Finally, I will foreshadow where I think we are going in the future.

The budget introduced this year by the finance minister put into very sharp context and focus the many challenges that we faced coming into office. The former Conservative government had a record weak amount of growth, the weakest performance when it came to jobs and economic growth since the Great Depression, and this from a party that talks about being a champion of industry and enterprise, a champion for small business and hard-working Canadians. It was a Conservative government that promised not to ever run a deficit and ran six during the course of its 10 years in power.

Those were the challenging circumstances when the Liberals took the reins of authority and power. We did so with a commitment to actually deliver for hard-working middle-class Canadians.

Among the very first things that we did to turn things around was provide a tax cut to middle-class Canadians. It was the very first order of business that we did in December 2015, a little more than a month after taking office. This put more disposable income into the pockets of middle-class Canadians so that they could provide for their children, their relatives, their loved ones. This began the turnaround of the Canadian economy, a resilient and competitive economy, at a time when the global economy continued to face some uncertainty.

The second major thing this government introduced to spark and spur on economic growth was the Canada child benefit. This plan has been one of the bedrock principles that has helped families, young families. It is done through a means-tested approach, not a “one size fits all” approach. It looks at the needs of the family through the lens of the number of children in the family, their ages, and the overall income of the household. It is tailored to their needs to provide them with the transitional measures and supports so that they can provide for their children as they raise them to be successful and innovative, thriving young Canadians for future generations.

As a result of that, not only have we provided support for the present day, but we have lifted approximately 300,000 children out of poverty, something that every member in this House should be celebrating.

I hear my hon. colleagues heckling, which is an awful shame. It is tragic that the Conservatives do not realize that it is a positive thing to be lifting children out of poverty, and it reflects just how out of touch they continue to be. Canadians are watching very closely.

Something else that we have done since taking office is we have listened very closely to small and medium-sized businesses. They have been telling us that they need the support to remain a competitive jurisdiction in light of the uncertainty across the globe, and they want to keep taxes at a competitive rate. One of the key pledges we made in the last election was that we would reassess the small business tax rate and we would lower it. We went through an exhaustive consultation process, during which I heard from small businesses in my riding about the importance of keeping that commitment.

I am very proud to say that the 2018 federal budget will ensure that we are lowering small business taxes to 9%, which is among the most competitive in the G7, in the G20, in the OECD, so that the conditions are set for their success. This is in stark contrast to the last Conservative government that talked a big game around wanting to lower small business taxes. However, when the Conservatives had the opportunity to support lowering small business taxes in the 2018 budget, they voted against it.

Again, Canadians will be watching very closely. They will not just be listening to the conventional rhetoric they hear from Conservatives, that tired, recycled rhetoric, around being great champions of industry. Canadians are going to look at the Conservatives' voting record and ask their members of Parliament why they voted against this. Those members will not have a compelling answer.

Another area that we have been trying to address as Canada continues to succeed, thrive, and grow in an increasingly competitive global economy is to provide more flexibility around young families who are growing. We do that by ensuring that mothers, fathers, and parents can take the leave that is necessary when they are having children or adopting children. The flexibility that is in the 2018 budget will do that. Once again, I wonder why my Conservative colleagues do not support measures like that. If they truly are for families, why are they not supporting it? We get no answer, only silence. Let us remember their actions over words.

There are a few other areas I would like to touch on that will capture where we are today. We have made progress from where we were to where we are today. How do we know that? Over 600,000 jobs have been created since this government has taken office, a record jobs growth.

[An hon. member]

Full-time jobs?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

The majority are full-time jobs. I thank my hon. colleague for clarifying that. We had seen record unemployment. Statistics Canada has been taking very precise measurements around unemployment. We have seen it go through the floor.

This government has made investments, such as the Canada child benefit plan, reducing small business taxes, and creating the Canada workers benefit. The Canada workers benefit will ensure that low-income earning Canadians, those Canadians who are working hard to get a leg up to provide for their loved ones will have some additional support as well.

Very recently an issue that has hit very close to home for me and the people I represent in Eglinton—Lawrence has to do with gun violence. We have seen far too many innocent Canadians lose their lives as a result of organized crime, getting their hands on illegal guns but also guns which were purchased legally but then were commandeered through organized crime. This government is very sensitive to that issue. It is an issue which touches all Canadians.

[An hon. member]

What about the Criminal Code?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

I hear my—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. Members have been here for quite some time now and should know what the rules of the House are. I want to remind them that when someone has the floor, that member has the right to speak without interruption. If members have questions, comments, or want to have their views heard, then they wait for the period for questions and comment to do that.

I also want to remind the person who is making the speech not to engage with the other individuals who are making comments whether it is on his side or the opposite side of the House.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Madam Speaker, I remain very focused on being a voice for my community, notwithstanding the heckling.

Before being interrupted, I was saying that gun violence is an issue that touches all Canadians. We have seen far too many lives lost. We have restored many of the cuts which were made by the last Conservative government to law enforcement, to our public safety apparatus. We have introduced legislation which will be supported by the investments which are outlined in budget 2018. I once again call on my Conservative colleagues to support those measures if they truly care about keeping Canadians safe.

The last area I will touch on before I conclude my remarks has to do with some of the new investments which we have made to protect Canadians' privacy. In the 2018 budget we are allocating approximately $155 million over the next five years to protect privacy by creating a new cybersecurity centre which will strike a balance between protecting our national security and ensuring that Canadians have the choice and access to the Internet and social media which touches on every aspect of our lives.

Again, there are important, forward-thinking investments and priorities in the budget which I am calling on my Conservative colleagues and all members of the House to support. We cannot do that when we see the kinds of dilatory motions which get routinely introduced in the House to stop the business of the people from being advanced. I am glad we were able to dispense with the motion that was introduced earlier, but now is the time to think forward, to continue record jobs growth, to continue record employment—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The time is up, but the member will be able to continue his remarks in the questions and comments period.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Calgary Shepard.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the member's pontification. He mentioned the middle-income tax cut, which did nothing of the sort. The people who got the biggest tax cut were members of Parliament. They enjoy the biggest tax cut, because that happens to be in the middle bracket. That is how the tax system works. The more we earn, at tax time the more we will pay in taxes as one moves through the brackets. Therefore, those earning $45,000 and under did not get anything. They got a higher carbon tax, higher fees, and pay more today. According to the Fraser Institute, it is $2,200 more per family.

I hear members heckling me now, but there were three Nobel laureates sitting on its board of directors.

How can the member claim that middle-income Canadians got a tax cut when it is absolutely not true? In fact, every member of Parliament got the biggest tax cut benefit out of what the Liberals did.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is how I can claim that. We look at the hard-working people in our ridings and we see all the ones who are in the middle class getting a tax cut, which is nine million Canadians right across the country.

My hon. colleague from across the aisle cites the Fraser report. However, the flaw in that report, which has been debunked time and again by people who have read it, is that it does not take into account the Canada child benefit plan. How do we have an objective assessment of whether there is more or less financial burden on an individual or family if we do not take into account what has been one of the most significant investments in the middle class in the history of our country?

I encourage my hon. colleague to take a close look at all of the facts. If he wants to make a compelling argument, he will do so.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, what becomes quite evident to any observer of Canadian politics over the last several decades is that Liberals are masters of the long promise. We can look at the example of pay equity. It was the Pierre Elliott Trudeau government that promised it back in the 1970s. We have been looking at health care, which was a Liberal promise in 1997. I specifically want to narrow down on the pharmacare promise. We had study after study, we knew the benefits, yet now we are having more consultation and another working group set up.

I simply want to hear the member's assurances that with all the broken promises the Liberals are responsible for, they will follow through on this promise and deliver something that is beneficial to so many Canadians.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his work on the file.

We have a public health care system that is the envy of the world. At the same time, we know that approximately one in five Canadians do not have sufficient pharmacare coverage, which is why the Prime Minister and this government created an advisory council to spark a national conversation to address this issue. He recently appointed Dr. Eric Hoskins, who is a member of a provincial parliament and someone with a lot of experience in the area of health care, to continue that conversation. Yesterday, the Standing Committee on Health issued its report, and I have started to take a look at the recommendations.

We believe consultation is an ongoing process to ensure there is adequate coverage, to ensure approvals for pharmacare coverage are streamlined, and to ensure there is a responsible evidence-based national drug formulary. We will continue that work, hopefully with the hon. colleague's support.

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, one of the issues between the Liberals and the Conservatives is that when the Conservatives were in power, the economy was much lower as far as employment and the growth of the economy. Then when the Liberals are in power, things start to really pick up. The Conservatives say that every time the Liberals are in power, they are just lucky the economy does much better.

Maybe the member can tell us about the differences in vision between the two parties and why our strategy tends to make the economy grow much better.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Madam Speaker, ours is a party that believes in the charter. Ours is a party that believes in hard-working middle-class Canadians who want to provide for their children and future generations. Canadians are watching the work of this government. I believe they will continue to support it, as opposed to the Conservatives who talk a big game but fail to deliver. The Conservatives talk about always wanting to balance budgets and running surpluses, but what do they do? They have a record history of running deficits. It is actions over words.

The Liberal Party enjoys the broad support of Canadians, and we will continue to do so.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, before I get into the details of the bill, I want to mention a sentiment, which I think all members of the House will share. I hope the member for Bay of Quinte makes a speedy recovery. I know it has been in the news that he has been hospitalized. I want to express my best wishes to the members of the opposite caucus, and I hope he returns to the House. I am told he is doing quite well, but I am looking forward to seeing him back here.

As I do in many of my speeches, I have a Yiddish proverb I would like to use. I know some members expect it and the table expects it sometimes too. However, “a gentle word can even a bone”, which is a good thing since I do not have any gentle words to share about the budget implementation act, and I have gone through most of it.

Almost a third of the budget document is about the carbon tax. We were always told that the carbon tax would be so simple to implement. However, when we go through this document, it seems like it is a litany of how this will punish Canadian society, how it will punish individual Canadians, and some of the exorbitant and ridiculous reporting standards to which Canadians will have to adhere. There is very little with respect to transparency and reporting standards expected of the government. Those are two things I want to mention.

Another part is that I took the time to go through provincial budget documents. The interesting thing I found, and I will to go through them, is how taken provincial governments are with balancing the budget and demonstrating either an intent and a date, a specific timeline to get there, and the procedure by which they will get there. This is very different from what we see in this budget document. There is no table, no intention, and no words to convey that message to Canadians or to members of the House of Commons that the Liberal caucus or the Liberal government intends to get to a balanced budget.

We know the deficit for this year is $18.1 billion, which is three times larger than what the Liberals promised during the election. That is a broken promise right there. There is not a single fiscal table and there is not a single graph in the budget document, or in the BIA, that demonstrates whether they will return to a balanced budget.

The B.C. budget, at page 139, talks about a projected surplus of $219 million.

There is the Alberta budget document, although there is a question whether we should believe the document and its intention to reach a balance. However, even the Alberta NDP know that it is a culturally Canadian asset to say that it intends to get to a balanced budget and this is how it will do it. On page 12, it indicates that through efficiencies such as controlled spending, eliminating waste, and so on, it will get to a balanced budget by 2023-24.

On page 3 of the Saskatchewan provincial budget, it makes reference to this common cultural context in Canada.

Ever since the 1990s, we have tried to balance our budget on behalf of the hard-working taxpayers of Canada, who will be expected to pay for all this. All of this borrowed money will have to be paid for either by this generation or the next, or the one that comes after it.

The Manitoba budget, on page 3, expressly states, “We are on schedule to reduce the PST during our first term, and deliver a balanced budget during our second term. It is there in white and black. It knows it is important.

In the Ontario budget, and, again, whether we can believe the Premier of Ontario and the promises she makes, on page 166, it makes an attempt. There is a table there and wording as to the fact that the government will try to balance its budget. There is some shifting around of the numbers, but even it knows it is important to say the words and to understand how the mechanics of public budgeting work, and to present it to the public and make a case for it.

The federal Liberal government does not even bother making that case in the budget implementation act or in the budget document itself.

The 2018-19 Quebec budget, section A.3, says, “A budgetary surplus of $850 million is forecast for 2017-2018 and a balanced budget is forecast for subsequent years.”

The New Brunswick budget, at page 7, says, “a return to balance by 2021-2022.”

The Nova Scotia budget is in a surplus. It says, “third consecutive balanced budget for fiscal year 2018–19 with an estimated surplus of $29.4 million (Table 2.1).”

The Newfoundland and Labrador budget and financial plan is not balanced, but it states on the very first page, “Government remains on track to return to surplus in 2022-23.” The government there understands that it has to demonstrate to residents that it is returning to a balanced budget and it has a process by which it will do it. It is on page 1. It knows it is important.

In its budget, Prince Edward Island admits to a deficit of $46 million and that a balanced budget is expected in the foreseeable future. It has a table that demonstrates expenditures and revenues of the government. People can see the graph showing that in the very near future, in 2023-2024, the budget will be balanced. The lines meet, and at some point there will be a surplus. It is there.

Every provincial government in our country has a finance minister who, in his or her budgetary documents, has been able to demonstrate or prove a balanced budget, or an intent and method by which the government will reach it.

The federal government does not. The Minister of Finance cannot seem to bring himself to say those two words and explain how he will get there. He did not do it in the budget document or the budget implementation act, and he has not done so before the finance committee. In fact, when we ask him the question, he resorts to attacks. He cannot even explain it. He does not even understand it.

On the specifics of the budget implementation act, let us admit one thing. It is an omnibus legislation. Subdivision K, Inspections, under “by whom” in regard to carbon tax will allow:

...inspect, audit or examine the records, processes, property or premises of a person that may be relevant in determining the obligations of that or any other person under this Part...

That part is the carbon tax compliance. Does this mean it will be civil servants of the Government of Canada inspecting the premises and properties of Canadians to ensure they are paying the carbon tax they are supposed to be paying? Is that the expectation, through this section of the bill in subdivision K, that Canadians can expect civil servants to come onto their property to ensure they are paying the carbon tax due? It goes on:

...enter any place in which the authorized person reasonably believes the person keeps or should keep records, carries on any activity to which this Part applies or does anything in relation to that activity...

It is a lot of legalese, but I do not see anything about there being a warrant. It just speaks of a person authorized by the minister who may at all reasonable times, for any purpose related to administration or enforcement of this part. This is a lot of compliance measures to ensure every Canadian pays the carbon tax, and how the government can ensure every bit of revenue is extracted from Canadian business and individual Canadians. That is the only reason to have such a section.

At committee, other members of Parliament have attempted to ask the Minister of Environment how much GHG emissions will be reduced, if we pay a carbon tax and how much total revenue will be generated through the carbon tax. It is reasonable to ask the question. The Minister of Environment was unable, or unwilling, to answer the question posed by a Conservative member of Parliament.

I want to draw the attention of the House to part 4, report to Parliament, the annual report expected to be tabled on the carbon tax. That section states:

Starting in the year in which the second anniversary of the day on which this section comes into force falls and each calendar year after that, the Minister of the Environment must prepare a report on the administration of this Act and have a copy of the report tabled in each House of Parliament.

It is reasonable. I like reports to be tabled before Parliament, especially before they appear on some government website under carbon tax administration. However, should we not expect there to be some type of detail? Should Parliament not dictate to the Minister of Environment exactly what he or she will be reporting on? It should be things such as how much money has been collected by the carbon tax across all provinces and territories of Canada, how much residents have paid versus how much corporations have paid. It should also have the statistic that shows how much GHG emissions have been reduced by. That is a reasonable thing for Canadians to expect.

However, we know the Liberals do not know the answer to the question, because they have never bothered to look into it. From the very beginning, when members on this side of the House have asked questions on how the carbon tax will work or how it impact will middle-income Canadians, we have received either redacted documents or non-answers in question period and during debate. Now it continues at committee.

There is no way we can support this budget. All it will be is further punishment to the middle class and Canadians. I am opposed to the budget. I look forward to questions from the other side.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened quite intently to my colleague's discussion about a price on carbon. I am very proud to be part of a government that recognizes we need to do something now, and we are running out of time. If we listen to the scientists, 99 out of 100 scientists tell us that we are changing the climate, that humans are doing it, and that we need to act now and do something.

I find it baffling that the Conservatives, who think they understand economics better than anybody else, do not understand putting a price on carbon can actually make a shift in the economic and business model away from pollution.

I have heard it all for several days now about the costs of it. I want to know what the member has to say about the costs of doing nothing. What will the dire consequences be? Will a single Conservative stand and admit there will be serious consequences if we do nothing?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, shifting behaviour of Canadians by using a carbon tax, according to the International Energy Agency and Carbon Management Canada, would require the price for carbon to go up to about $200 a tonne. When we see so much opposition already to $10, $20, $30 per carbon tonne, no wonder the Australian government, under pressure from the Australian public, abandoned it. No wonder France is considering abandoning it now.

Trevor Tombe, at the University of Calgary, estimates the carbon tax will cost every single family $1,100 at the price point it is at now. The member is telling me this is the only way, the only solution. It is a fallacy. It is their solution; it is not the best solution.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting to listen to the Conservatives talk about the price on carbon. A majority of Canadians are actually paying a price on carbon already, today. In fact, what we are seeing, which we never saw with Stephen Harper, is what we call national leadership. We actually have a Prime Minister who wants to see Canada deal with a price on carbon as a nation.

The Conservatives, and a few others, want to leave it the way it is. Some provinces would have it, while other provinces would not. Do the Conservatives have a natural inclination to want to see that sort of Canada, versus a Canada where there is more national leadership, where we have programs such as CPP, potentially pharmacare, and other programs that all Canadians can benefit from, including a price on carbon?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, as the member knows, CPP was voluntarily created by all the provinces coming together. What the member is doing instead, by supporting the budget and supporting the government, is imposing carbon taxes when the provinces do not want it.

For those provinces where the provincial government wants to do that, so much the better. The residents there can keep them accountable. However, in my province of Alberta, we do not want it. In 2019, we will remove the provincial government, and there will be a new government that will be adamantly opposed to having imposed upon it a carbon tax that residents did not ask for.

The Minister of Environment has said that a price on carbon would have to go as high as $100 per tonne in 2020 and $300 per tonne in 2050 to meet the 2030 GHG targets. That is the Minister of Environment of this government. When we have such opposition to it from the Canadian public now, imagine what the opposition to a carbon tax will be like at a $300 a tonne.

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

Madam Speaker, I had a question for the parliamentary secretary of justice about his comment about gun crime, but I am sure my colleague will be able to comment on it as well, and will probably do a better job than the parliamentary secretary.

The parliamentary secretary told us about the work they were trying to do on gun violence. The member probably knows that 2% of murders in our country involve legal registered guns, and 7% of gun murders involve legal guns, so clearly we need to be targeting criminals, not that very small percentage.

Could the member talk a little about how making it harder to take one's gun to the repair shop is not going to address the real causes of gun crime?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the question on the gun control legislation the government has put forward.

Of course it will not change anything. Asking law-abiding firearms owners to obey more laws will yield abidance of the law. Law-abiding gun owners have been abiding by the rules and regulations set forth by the government since they were introduced. The problem is gangsters, and it does not help when judges are not appointed to hear cases. A leading gang member of the FOB gangsters in Calgary was released yesterday because of the lack of judges.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Before I go to resuming debate, I seem to be getting a little feedback on how I am selecting members to ask questions or make comments. I will bring members back to an extract from Debates of November 3, 2016. It is the Deputy Speaker's point of view. It says:

...the time for questions and comments is often the most valuable time for an exchange between members [and we recognize that]. In accordance with the procedures and practices, we will do our best to ensure that time is generally afforded to the members of the parties who are not associated with the member who has just spoken....

This is not to the exclusion of a member, however; it is to allow for proper debate on the issue.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for—

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

Madam Speaker—

[Carol Hughes, NDP, The Assistant Deputy Speaker]

I have basically indicated it. If the member has an issue with that, he can come back to the chair and see me directly.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Saint John—Rothesay.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to stand today and speak to budget 2018, our Liberal government's move forward to restoring economic prosperity to Canada.

Let me start by saying that I am a proud member of this House and a proud member of the riding of Saint John—Rothesay in southern New Brunswick. It is a riding that has a strong industrial base, a riding that is very strongly unionized, and a riding that has a strong heritage. It was Canada's first Loyalist city.

I am a proud member of the Liberal Party. When I ran for the Liberal Party, I ran on three different things. Number one, I ran on restoring infrastructure investment and infrastructure spending in southern New Brunswick and Saint John—Rothesay. Number two, I ran on being an advocate in championing the fight against poverty and championing poverty reduction in Saint John—Rothesay. Number three, I ran to lead the charge on restoring historic assets in Saint John—Rothesay, a riding in a city that has a wonderful history as Canada's first incorporated city and Canada's Loyalist city.

Over the 10 years of the previous Harper government, we saw a continued decline of attention to Atlantic Canada, a lack of attention to spending in Atlantic Canada, and a deterioration of infrastructure spending in Atlantic Canada, particularly in my riding of Saint John—Rothesay. Now there certainly seems to be clear attention to my riding. The Conservative Party is running Facebook ads naming me and pointing out my record in Saint John—Rothesay. The Leader of the Opposition is coming to Saint John—Rothesay in a couple of weeks to speak. Let me state very clearly that the constituents of Saint John—Rothesay are going to ask the Leader of the Opposition many direct questions when he comes to my riding.

The party opposite likes to wrap itself up as being a steward of the economy, presenting itself as the best manager of the economy. Let me say that the previous government ran six straight deficits, ran deficit after deficit after deficit, and all of a sudden in its last year—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I know that we are nearing the weekend and that people would like to return home at some point, but I want to remind members again that somebody has the floor. According to the rules, members who have the floor have the right to be able to do their speech without interruption, so I would ask the official opposition members to stop heckling and stop yelling across the way so that the member can go through his speech. There will be opportunities for questions and comments, with the official opposition having the first question.

The hon. member for Saint John—Rothesay.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Madam Speaker, this is a government that basically inherited deficit after deficit. We have turned that around. We are investing in our economy. When the Leader of the Opposition comes to Saint John—Rothesay, there will be questions asked of him. For example, which of the programs and infrastructure investments that we have seen in my riding, historic investments made over the last two years, would he cut? Would he cut the historic $67-million investment to transform the port of Saint John, which employs thousands and is an economic stimulus for southern New Brunswick? Would he pull back the $6-million investment for the new trade school at the New Brunswick Community College? Would he pull back the over $10-million investment for the YSJ airport, which the Minister of Transport recently announced when he came to my riding last week, the first federal investment announced for the Saint John Airport in almost 20 years? Would he pull back the investments made into historic assets like Fort La Tour, the Martello tower, the Imperial Theatre, and the Saint John City Market? The residents of Saint John—Rothesay would like to know.

What would he do about the historic and transformational Canada child benefit, which is changing the lives of tens of thousands of people and families across our country, and is better for nine out of 10 families? Would he pull that back? I do not think so.

We are a government that believes we play a role in the lives of Canadians. We are a government that believes in investing in infrastructure, in our communities, and in historic assets in Saint John—Rothesay.

Let me clearly say that the government of the party across the way ran deficit after deficit. Then, mysteriously, in its last year in government, it balanced the budget. It threw in a little bit of an EI rainy day fund, it sold GM stocks, and it laid off workers and managers of the Phoenix system, all to balance the budget. That was not right. The Conservatives know it was not right.

We are turning our economy around. We are investing in Canadians. We are investing in children. In particular, in my riding I am thrilled to lead the fight against poverty. Unfortunately, Saint John, New Brunswick, leads the country in child poverty. One out of every three of our children lives in poverty. That number is not acceptable and needs to change, and under the leadership of the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, we are making that change. We are reducing the number of children who are living in poverty.

Through our budgets, we have invested historic amounts into housing. We are leading a national housing strategy. We have invested historic amounts into early learning and child care. We have signed bilateral agreements with the Province of New Brunswick and Premier Gallant. Most recently, we invested $70 million into a seniors pilot program. I can go through investment after investment and project after project that our government is delivering in my riding of Saint John—Rothesay.

As a member of Parliament and the representative for Saint John—Rothesay, I am trying to make my riding better each and every day, for each and every person, by moving each and every project forward one at a time and by working hard for the wonderful citizens of Saint John—Rothesay. That is what our budget is about. That is what investing in Canadians is all about. As Liberals, we believe that we can have an impact on the lives of Canadians. We do not want to pull programs back. We believe we can invest and provide transformational programs that change people's lives.

When I go door to door in my riding, I find that people are genuinely appreciative of what our Liberal government is doing and what we are delivering in our budget.

Let us be transparent. I come from an industrial city, a unionized city. I come from a city that understands its role. I talk with industry people regularly. The industry wants to be a part of the solution. It does not fight carbon pricing. The industry wants to be a part of the solution.

The growth and investment in Saint John—Rothesay has been significant over the last two years. We are changing the culture of our city. We are showing the people that the federal government and strong federal representation is good and can change the lives of citizens of Saint John—Rothesay as well as citizens right across the country.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for voting against the government's misguided small business tax changes, at least initially. I had hoped he might have joined us in voting against this budget as well, which proceeds with the government's high tax agenda. I am sorry that will not happen. This will be a topic of conversation when our leader goes to visit the good people of Saint John—Rothesay, as the member spoke about. He is clearly very aware of our leader's travel schedule, and I congratulate him for being so aware. He is currently following it in more detail than even some members of our caucus.

Does the member think the budget should be balanced, ever? Why is the present finance minister the only finance minister in the country who has not been able to come up with a date by which he will balance the budget?

When we have asked this question before, Liberals have said that they are investing. If they are going to call it an investment, then they have to have a sense of how much, how long, and what the balance is.

It is no excuse to talk about spending when one is being asked a direct question. I want to know from the member if he thinks the budget should be balanced. If so, when should it be balanced, and when will it be balanced? Can the finance minister, like every other finance minister in the country, give us a timeline?

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Madam Speaker, I remember when a former finance minister of the party opposite was interviewed about the tax-free savings account, an account that was maximized by 3% of Canadians. The party opposite wanted to double that tax-free savings account. I have to laugh at that. When that former minister of finance was asked who was going to pay for the doubling of that account, he said the “Prime Minister's grandchildren”, that we will worry about that down the road. I take no lessons from members opposite about fiscal responsibility and balance.

I was an entrepreneur. My background was sports and small business. I understand the importance of balanced budgets. I understand the need for balanced budgets. I also understand the need for investing in Canadians, the need for investing in infrastructure spending, and the need for strategic investment in different parts of the country that need that investment.

Southern New Brunswick and my riding of Saint John—Rothesay needed that investment. We did not have that investment over 10 years under the Harper government. My riding is now reaping the benefits of strategic—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry to interrupt the member, but we have to allow time for other questions and comments.

The hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, currently the member's government subsidizes the oil and gas industry to the tune of a few billion dollars a year. The government is showing a willingness to invest money into a pipeline that would export diluted bitumen, which makes an absolute mockery of our climate change efforts. The government still has done nothing to fix tax loopholes. It still has tax-saving treaties with some notorious tax havens. It has done nothing to close the stock option deduction loopholes. These are all issues that the government in one way or another promised to take action on.

I have a simple question for the member. When are we going to see the Liberal government live up to commitments that it made to Canadians in 2015, or are we going to see more broken promises, more false hope again in 2019?

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Madam Speaker, I am always puzzled by the NDP, their stance and their strategies. We have an NDP provincial government that is pro-pipeline. We have an NDP provincial government in B.C. that is anti-pipeline. We have a party, depending on where they are, that is for or against.

We are focused on a developed national energy policy. I think we have been very consistent on that.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-74, the budget implementation act.

Two and a half years ago, when the government was elected, it could be said that it hit the jackpot. The Liberal government hit the jackpot because it inherited the sound fiscal management of the previous Conservative government, a government that paid down a historic $40 billion of Canada's national debt between 2006 and 2008 during good economic times. It was a government that resulted in leading Canada towards a balanced budget, and not only a balanced budget, but a surplus budget.

The Liberals inherited the Conservative jackpot. Then, to top it off, there were a lot of external factors, such as low interest rates, low inflation, a housing bubble that has resulted in an employment boom and revenue boom, a stronger than average global economy, a U.S. economy that has taken off, and the doubling of oil prices.

Having inherited such a good situation, what has the government done to the fiscal health of this country? The answer is that it has made an absolute mess of it. In fairness to the Prime Minister, during the last election, he said that he would take the Conservative surplus and turn it into a deficit. He said he would do it for a few years, for three budgets, but, not to worry, by 2019 there would be a balanced budget.

True to the Prime Minister's word, he has delivered deficits. He delivered deficits in the first year, the second year, and this year. The deficit in the first year was more than double what he said it would be. The deficit in the second year was more than double what he said it would be. This year, the deficit is going to be three times what he said it was going to be.

What about that promise to balance the budget? According the projections for next year, we can kiss a balanced budget goodbye. We are not going to have a balanced budget. Instead, we are going to have a massive deficit of nearly $20 billion. Indeed, on the question of balancing the budget, there was no mention of a timeline towards a balanced budget, either in the budget or in the budget implementation bill. There was no plan for how Canada would return to a balanced budget. Indeed, there was no mention of a balanced budget at all in the budget or the budget implementation bill.

It seems that the Prime Minister hopes that Canadians will forget that he ever promised a balanced budget. I think it is important that we put it in some context. During the last election, the Prime Minister said that he would run some deficits but that he had a four-year plan to return Canada to a balanced budget.

When is the budget going to be balanced? At the current rate, based on current Liberal fiscal policies, it is not going to be in 2019. It is not going to be in 2020 or 2029 or 2039. It is going to be in 2045. What we have is a Prime Minister who has taken what he promised to be a four-year plan to return the budget to balance, and he has turned it into a 40-year plan to balance the budget.

Imagine, if during the last election the Prime Minister had come clean with Canadians and said that a Liberal government would run deficits, but not to worry because in 40 years the budget would be balanced. How would Canadians have responded to that campaign commitment? He would have been laughed off the stage.

Here we are with this fiscal train wreck, with a 40-year plan to balance the budget. In addition, with all of these deficits, the sea of red ink, the government is set to add nearly half a trillion dollars to the debt over the next 20 years. While we talk about a $20-billion deficits this year and next year and as far as the eye can see, and when we talk about half a trillion dollars in new debt, as gloomy as those figures are, they are conservative figures, because in order for those figures to be realized, next year's budget would have to not increase spending at all. Direct program spending could not go beyond a 1.5% increase. For the last three years, the government has increased direct program spending by over 6%. The idea that somehow after increasing direct program spending by 6% that it is suddenly going to be reduced to 1.5% is a fairy tale.

Moreover, the numbers in the budget are predicated on the basis that both Keystone and Trans Mountain are going to be built. Both of these projects are well behind schedule, thanks to the policies of the government. Indeed, Kinder Morgan is on life support. There is $450 billion of new debt, $20-billion deficits, and it is not going to be that; it is going to be far worse.

There are some very real costs associated with all of this Liberal red ink. One of those costs is debt servicing costs. Debt servicing costs are set to increase by one-third in the next five years. Debt servicing costs are scheduled to go from $25 billion today to $33 billion in five years, which is more than the federal government spends on any single federal department. Who is going to pay for all of this red ink, all of this borrowing, all of this spending? Why, it is the taxpayer, and there is only one taxpayer.

We have seen a government that has made life more difficult for everyday Canadians as a result of its fiscal mismanagement. We have seen the average middle-class family have their taxes go up by, on average, $800 out of their wallet. We have seen a government that is now going to make life even more difficult for everyday Canadians, with its tax on everything, its massive carbon tax, which is disproportionately going to impact lower income and middle-class Canadians. Indeed, in the province of Ontario under the Kathleen Wynne cap-and-trade scheme, one-third of lower income earners pay one-third more of their income as a result of that tax than wealthy Ontarians. That is who is going to pay for it.

The government is not only targeting everyday middle-class Canadians with more taxes to pay for its out-of-control spending, it is also shaking down small business owners, the job creators, people who invest in local economies and create jobs, with unfair tax changes that are, among other things, going to significantly limit the ability of small businesses with respect to passive income.

There are some very real, serious costs as a result of the government's fiscal mismanagement. What budget 2018, in the end, means is more deficits, more debt, higher debt servicing charges, higher taxes for middle-class Canadians, and a sea of red ink. As the hon. leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition so aptly stated, never has a government spent so much to deliver so little.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The member will 10 minutes for questions and comments after question period.

Bill C-74—Time Allocation Motion

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That, in relation to Bill C-74, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the bill; and

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period.

I invite hon. members, in the usual way that we do, to indicate how many might wish to participate in the 30-minute question period, and I think we get a sense of that. We will confine the interventions to around one minute, both for the member posing a question and for the government response.

The hon. opposition House leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have the government shutting down debate on its budget implementation act, a budget that has not bothered to mention NAFTA, a budget that has no plan to pay down the massive deficit it will give to our grandchildren and great-grandchildren, and a budget that will implement a carbon tax, which the government is covering up not only the cost of to Canadians but of the effect it will or will not have.

Today, the PBO told us that the carbon tax would have a cost to the GDP of $10 billion by 2022. Will the Minister of Finance tell us today how much this carbon tax will cost everyday Canadians? Would he please be upfront, stop the cover-up, and tell us once and for all?

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to answer questions on Bill C-74 today, and to address the fact that we are moving forward on a plan that will continue the very positive economic results we have seen over the last two and a half years. It is not by accident that Canada has now had the fastest growth among G7 countries over the last year and a half. It has truly been a remarkable turnaround from the 10 years before, when we saw ourselves in a very difficult growth situation, engineered by the previous government's lack of investing in Canadians.

We are now in a position of having among the lowest unemployment rates we have seen in 40 years. Our plan to continue our economic success put forward in Bill C-74 is an important one in order to continue the good results for Canadian families. As well, it will continue our mission and approach to ensuring we deal with climate change over the long run. It is a responsible approach that we know will be positive for Canadians today, tomorrow, and in the long run.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to express the profound disappointment I have, and I think a lot of the members on this side of the House have, with the government. It promised during the election that it would be different, that it would respect Parliament, and that it would ensure we all would have a voice and input. What it is doing today is muzzling our voice, not letting us represent our constituents, being that strong voice for our constituents in the House of Commons.

It is disappointing because this budget implementation act is 556 pages. It is huge, omnibus, obese legislation. It is really important we study it and have a healthy debate in the House of Commons.

If the government is so proud of the budget, why is it muzzling debate in the House of Commons?

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the bill has been debated in the House for four days. Forty-five members of Parliament have spoken to the bill, which includes 13 members of the Conservative Party, six members of the New Democratic Party, and of course one member from the Green Party. It is important that we have had that sort of discussion. We know as well that we will be able to then move the bill from this format into committee, where we can continue to ensure we have discussion.

We believe this is an important way for us to move forward on the agenda that will help Canadians be successful in the future. Clearly, what has happened in the last couple of years is that the kinds of measures we have put in place have been positive for our economy. Now we want to ensure that positive direction continues. This bill is the way to ensure that happens. The debate that has gone on has been important, and now we can move it to committee so we can continue that debate.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today the Parliamentary Budget Officer produced a report in which he calculated that the Liberal carbon tax would erase $10 billion a year from our economy. The finance minister thus far has refused to reveal how much the average family will pay for his carbon tax. Two hundred pages of the bill before the House today deal with the implementation of that very tax.

If the minister is able to put 200 pages of complicated rules, regulations, and taxes into the bill, why can he not stand now and answer this simple question. How much will the Liberal carbon tax cost the average Canadian family? How much?

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are happy to talk about why we think pricing carbon is the right way to go. The reality of our situation is that climate change has real costs. Climate change is expected to cost Canada's economy $5 billion a year by 2020. We know that as much as $43 billion a year will be expended by 2050. That is if we do not take action.

We know the appropriate way for us to deal with this is to price carbon. That is why we have come forward with an approach to do this. It has been proved in a province like British Columbia that it can be done in a way consistent with continuing to successfully grow the economy.

We know that to ensure we have a long-term situation where our economy remains healthy, we price the things we do not want, such as pollution, while we encourage the activities we want, such as investing in clean technology over the long run. These things will most certainly go forward with our approach. We know that will help us continue the very positive economic situation we have engineered over the last two and a half years.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, how ironic. I stood just a few minutes ago and raised a point of order, which you will be considering, given the size and scope of the fattest, most obese omnibus legislation in Canadian history. Just a few minutes after that, the Liberals moved closure to shut down debate. It is absolutely absurd for Canadians who believed the Liberals when they made commitments to be different in Parliament. We are seeing the Liberals act like the Harper government on steroids. What is going on here is absolutely and profoundly disrespectful to Parliament. Closure is being invoked on the most massive budget implementation act in Canadian history.

We know why the Liberals are moving closure. It is because, as debate started, we found out that pharmacare was just a study, that they were not going to implement it, and pay equity was not mentioned anywhere in the budget implementation act. Is that not the real reason they are invoking closure because the Liberals do not want Canadians to know what is not in the budget implementation act?

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is important for us to be clear with Canadians on what we are trying to achieve.

We are trying to achieve the continuation of the positive economic results we have seen over the last two and a half years. Two and a half years ago, we were facing stubborn unemployment. We had a situation where the growth rates we had seen over the decade before were the lowest since the depths of the great recession. We said we would move forward on investing in Canadians to ensure we had good, well-paying jobs for Canadians and families to be successful. That is exactly what has happened.

Through our investments over the last two and a half years, we have engendered a real change in our economic situation. This bill will continue that approach, and we have done that in a respectful way. We have had four days of debate on the bill. Forty-five members of the House have had the opportunity to debate the bill, including six members of the NDP. We now know that it is best for it go to committee so we can move forward with the agenda that is right for Canadians.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement]

Mr. Speaker, one particularly good thing in this year's budget is the substantial increase to the Canada workers benefit. One of the biggest complaints I hear from business owners when I am walking around my riding has to do with finding skilled workers.

We must expand the labour market and make choosing to work more appealing. Social assistance makes this choice very difficult, but people rely on this assistance, and we obviously do not want to lose it.

I therefore thank my colleague, the Minister of Finance, for this significant increase.

Why does he think it is so important to enhance the Canada workers benefit?

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what a great question.

It is important for us and for our country. It is obviously important to encourage all Canadians to join the labour force. We know that people who are struggling often find it challenging to start working.

This is why the Canada workers benefit is so important. It will give people joining the labour force financial assistance until they are earning enough money to meet their families' needs. We enhanced this benefit so that it can continue to have a significant impact. Not only will this measure have a more significant impact on our economy, since there will be more workers, but it will also help families that are struggling.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I had higher hopes coming into the House of Commons this morning. After the Liberal Party met with its delegates from across Canada this past week, I thought the Liberals would have at least listened to their delegates tell them not to treat Parliament with such great contempt. Even with the sunshine outside, I would have hoped that some of that would have found its way in here. The sunny ways have disappeared.

My question for the finance minister and the leader of the House in Parliament is this. Why cut off debate on this important information? There are 540 pages that deal with the expenditures for the country. Is it (a) because they are embarrassed that over 90% of middle-class families, which the Liberals supposedly support, are actually paying higher taxes; or (b) because they are raising taxes on small businesses; or (c) because this morning the Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed that not only would the deficit be $18 billion for this year, but it would be $22 billion, $4 billion higher than they estimated just in February? It is out of control.

Is it (a), (b), or (c), or are the Liberals embarrassed in all of the above?

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is really important that we have the opportunity to talk about this in the House. That is why we have spent four days debating Bill C-74. We think as well it is important that we go to the committee so that we can do a deeper dive.

To the specific questions, I think it is important to recognize what has actually happened over the last two and a half years. We find ourselves in a situation where our economy is in very good shape because, in the first instance, nine out of 10 families with children have significantly more money to invest in their families. That provides a spark plug for our economy which helps us to be in a better situation. Facts matter, and the facts are that two and a half years later, we have significantly lower employment and significantly higher growth.

We will continue on that approach of making sure the taxes for middle-class Canadians are low. As well, with respect to the member's question (b), we will continue our support for small business. We have lowered small business taxes. As of January 1, 2018, those small business taxes went down, and they will go down again on January 1, 2019. We think it is important to ensure that our economy continues to be strong.

Finally, we want to assure Canadians that we will continue our fiscally responsible approach to reduce our net debt-to-GDP ratio over time. This puts us in a very positive situation right now and also makes us resilient to deal with any challenges in the future.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will tell the minister what the facts are. The fact is that we are a laughing stock internationally, because we cannot apply taxes to OTTs, and stuff like that. This is a joke.

These are the facts that you are presenting to me this morning, and you know very well that we are late on these taxes. He is looking at me like he does not understand.

The truth is that the minister—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Once again I would ask all hon. members to direct their comments to the Chair in all speeches made in the House. The hon. member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You are quite right.

It is shameful that the European community's finance minister had to come to Canada to tell us that Canada's decision not to tax web giants is untenable.

If the minister would come to my community, Longueuil, he would see the situation facing community groups taking care of refugees crossing the border. Despite the minister's utter gall in saying the government is taking care of refugees, he would actually see how difficult things are for the community groups.

It is a travesty that this government is eliminating tax credits for public transit and committing atrocities like this one here today.

I therefore have to ask, why did the government decide to limit debate on this today? Is it because suddenly its spin doctors and media relations staff can no longer explain the government's bad decisions?

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting question. It is very important for us to work with our counterparts in other countries and discuss corporate and personal taxation in an international context. I was at the G20 and the G7 last week, and I can tell you that we are working together to figure out a tax system that works around the world. The OECD has produced an important report that helps countries consider how to tax companies in the digital sector. It is a crucial issue. The report offers an explanation of the current situation as well as a vision of what the international tax landscape might look like in the future. As you can see, Mr. Speaker, we are working together, because cooperation in international matters is the only way to go. We are clearly leading the way on the world stage, and we will continue working with other countries to find an appropriate solution.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised in the last election that this year's deficit would be $6 billion. The finance minister said a few months ago that it would be $18 billion. Today, the Parliamentary Budget Officer said that it is now $22 billion. In other words, the deficit is going to be more than three times bigger than the Prime Minister promised and 20% bigger than the finance minister said only a few weeks ago.

My question is simple. How did the finance minister get it so wrong?

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me first say that I appreciate the reports that come from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. It is an important function of Parliament that he comes out with reports.

I can also say that the numbers we put out in our budget remain exactly what we think our estimates will be. We have taken an approach over the last two and a half years to very clearly enunciate how we are going to make investments so that we can grow the economy, and how we are going to be able to do that in a fiscally responsible way.

Each year we have shown where those investments are going, and we have projected what might happen in terms of the growth that would come from those investments. In fact, the growth has been stronger than expected. Canadians have had a better situation in terms of job creation. Hard-working Canadians are creating jobs at a record pace, and we are in the lowest rate of unemployment that we have seen in about 40 years. It is an extremely positive situation for Canadian families as they consider how to raise their children.

We are going to continue with those investments. We are going to do it in a responsible way, while reducing our debt-to-GDP ratio over time so that we can always be prepared for the future for Canadians.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is disheartening to see that every day there is another broken promise from this Liberal government.

The Liberals promised they would not do omnibus bills and here we have a 540-page document to look through. They promised they were not going to run more than $6 billion of deficit this year, but we have just heard that it is likely to be $22 billion, despite their predictions that it was only going to be $18 billion. We see these kinds of broken promises going on, and we hear the finance minister say, “Yes, but we had four days of debate.” If one divides $22 billion by four, that is $5.5 billion. Is it worth taking more than a day to discuss the spending of $5.5 billion of taxpayer money?

Why does the finance minister have so much trouble keeping his promises and making his budget targets?

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to consider the promises that we made and the promises that have been kept. We promised Canadians that we would lower middle-class taxes. The members opposite voted against lowering middle-class taxes, but we went ahead and kept that promise. We promised that we would ensure the Canada child benefit did not go to the wealthiest so that we could give more to families. Nine out of 10 families have significantly more, on average $2,300 more, which is now indexed to inflation so that they can raise their families. These are promises kept.

What we put in this budget, of course, are some new promises. We said that the Canada child benefit will keep up with inflation. We said that the Canada workers benefit will help those in the most challenged situation to do better over time. We are keeping our promises to Canadians. What we are doing with Bill C-74 is making sure that we continue with these positive economic results. We have had four days of debate on this bill. We think it is appropriate for the bill to go to committee so that we can examine it in more detail. That is responsible.

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

The Minister of Finance takes us for fools, Mr. Speaker; how very sad. Liberal spin doctors have been working to throw us off the scent for a long time now. The minister knows perfectly well that it is unacceptable that the services in question are not subject to any transaction tax, which includes GST, QST, and the other provincial harmonized taxes.

Because of this, we are the laughingstock of the international community. We were led to believe that this issue would be discussed at the G7 summit in Charlevoix, and the Liberals are definitely going to be laughed at if they bring it up, because everybody in the entire world charges tax on services.

I wonder why the Minister of Finance is acting like nothing is wrong and evading the issue by saying it will be discussed. Give me a break. Last week, the European Union's finance minister said it was an untenable position. I would like to get an answer in that regard.

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I urge the hon. member to familiarize himself with the OECD's reports. We are working with the other countries on possibly creating an international tax system that works. It is very important. We know that international companies have many options as to where they will invest their money. That is why we need to work together and that is what we are doing.

I was with G20 and G7 representatives last week and I can assure the House that we will continue to work together on finding a solution. These things take time, of course, because we have to do our due diligence to ensure that major investments continue to be made. In the meantime, we will continue to ensure that the system performs well in the future.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I find it disgraceful that the government is moving to end debate on the budget. If we keep in mind that for every day we have debated the budget it has cost Canadians about $5.5 billion of debt, maybe cutting off a day will save Canadians money.

The PBO report said that international growth is going to be 4% this year and 4% next year. That comes from the OECD. For the U.S., it is going to be 2.8% and 2.4% real GDP growth. Canada lags behind at 1.9% and 1.9%.

Considering we are falling behind a booming economy around the world, and rather than just accepting falling further behind, I am curious as to why the government would choose to end debate instead of discussing ways to increase our economy.

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will continue to speak up for how great Canada is doing. We are in a fantastic situation internationally. The member opposite can talk about his hypothetical idea of where the future may or may not be going, but what we can do instead is rely on facts.

What are the facts? The facts are that since this government has had the opportunity to come into office, we have made investments. Since this government has come into office, the rate of growth in this country has increased significantly. We only need to look at the last year and a half to say that Canada has grown faster than any other G7 country. That is just a fact.

We only need to look at what has happened in unemployment over the last two and a half years to say that we are at the lowest unemployment rate we have seen in 40 years. That includes the entire period of time the previous government was in office.

As we consider facts, let us think about the real facts. These are the real facts that Canadians are experiencing today.

We are going to continue with positive economic results by putting forward Bill C-74.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, over the years I have witnessed budgetary measures that continue to support and enhance Canada's middle class and those who want to be part of it and the impact that has had in getting Canadians involved in the success stories that the Minister of Finance is talking about.

I am wondering if the Minister of Finance could provide some thoughts on how we as a government are able to work with Canadians to increase their disposable income and how that is fostering a healthier economy.

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when we get really positive results, we go back and see what actually happened to get ourselves those positive results, because clearly, we want to do more of that.

What has changed over the last two and a half years? Middle-class taxes have gone down. The Canada child benefit has gone up. Canadians have had the ability to invest more in their families, and as a result, our economy has done better. These are just the facts. The economy has done better. We have lower rates of unemployment. As we looked at that, we said to ourselves that we want to make sure we continue to advantage Canadian families.

That is why we indexed the Canada child benefit, so that benefit can keep up with the cost of inflation.

That is why we also introduced the Canada workers benefit. We took what was there before, the working income tax benefit, and improved it and added funds to it, so that there would be more of an incentive for people to get into the workforce. In addition, we made it automatic, so that people who were not getting it before would have a greater incentive to get into the workforce. What we are going to see from this is not only an increase in the size of the workforce but increased potential for our economic growth.

That is how we are going to continue with the very positive last two and a half years through the course of the next period that Bill C-74 represents.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, over the last two weeks, there have been debates about pipeline construction. I am wondering if the finance minister can tell us whether he supports Alberta's legislation to throttle pipelines within that province.

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we see the expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline to be an important issue for Canadians, for Canadian jobs, and to grow our economy over the long term. It is something we are putting in place because we believe that to be the case. We approved it after a robust environmental review, after talking with indigenous Canadians, and after putting in place an oceans protection plan.

Our view is that the project needs to go forward. That is why we are moving forward with it. As we do that, we are not going to be throwing around threats to anybody across the country. We are going to try to find a productive way to get to the best solution that will allow us to assure that this important economic project goes forward.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the minister and wondered which Canada he was talking about. I am from Alberta. When I go to the GTA and talk with businesses, people are uncomfortable. Taxes are on the rise. He is talking about job creation, but he does not tell Canadians how he increased the size of government. He is buying jobs. He has borrowed $80 billion in the last two and a half years, which means, doing the math, that he should be able to create close to one million jobs.

How can the minister claim that he is improving the economy while people in Alberta and other provinces are complaining and suffering?

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, simply said, the member opposite has pretty well every number wrong. Over the last two and a half years, we have had a turnaround in growth in our country. We have seen an increase in the number of jobs, with over 600,000 new jobs. We have actually seen that the economy in Alberta is starting to produce more jobs. What we are seeing across the country is that there are places where we are doing very well, and there are places that are recovering. We are going to continue with our investments to make sure the entire country does well.

We will not in any way accept erroneous statistics. The fact is that middle-class taxes have gone down, small business taxes have gone down, our economy has grown, and more Canadians are working. This is all positive. We are going to continue on our track to make sure this is the case for Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I can see why the minister wants to end the debate. Every time I ask him a question about the fact that Internet services are not subject to sales tax and GST, he goes on about taxing those companies, which will obviously require a great deal of coordinated effort on the global stage. However, he knows full well that I am talking about the GST and provincial sales tax, but he keeps denying and deflecting. I can see why he does not want to debate the issue for too long. He is concerned that he will eventually have to stay on topic.

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will continue to be truthful. In Canada, the tax system is working. We will continue to do what we must in order to ensure that the system is working here, in Canada. However, at the same time, we must collaborate with our counterparts in other countries to consider how the international system will continue to operate. That is very important. We will continue with our approach because it is the only way to ensure that the system works in the future.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put the question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #650

Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed from April 19 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 Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I wish to inform the House that because of proceedings on the time allocation motion, government orders will be extended by 30 minutes.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in reply to the point of order raised earlier today by the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby with regard to Bill C-74. In his arguments, the hon. member correctly stated that Standing Order 69.1 permits the splitting of votes on bills considered as omnibus legislation. As my hon. colleague also indicated, Standing Order 69.1(2) states that:

The present Standing Order shall not apply if the bill has as its main purpose the implementation of a budget and contains only provisions that were announced in the budget presentation or in the documents tabled during the budget presentation.

As the hon. member stated, the carbon pricing initiative was mentioned in the budget tabled on February 27. If one looks at page 151, one will find a section called “Pricing Carbon Pollution and Supporting Clean Growth”, which as my hon. colleague indicated, specifies our government's intention to introduce carbon pricing legislation.

As such, I disagree with my hon. colleague that the current legislation goes against the spirit of Standing Order 69.1. Consequently, I respectfully submit that Bill C-74 should not be split into multiple votes.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary, in this case for his timely intervention on the matter. I will get back to the House in due course on the question that was raised by the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

When the House last took up debate on the question before the House, the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton had five minutes remaining for questions and comments. Therefore, we will go to that now.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the question I have for my colleague has to do with the record of the Liberal government chronically breaking its promises. The Liberals were elected on a promise to run a small $10-billion deficit. They promised that this year's deficit would be only $6 billion, and it is more than three times that. They promised no omnibus bills, yet we see that. Could the member comment on how he sees the current government's ability to keep its promises?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the budget implementation act is a product of the Prime Minister saying one thing during the election and then doing quite another. He said he would never, ever introduce an omnibus bill, and here we have a 500-plus page omnibus bill. It was the second omnibus bill introduced in a single week by the current government. So much for that promise.

As the member for Sarnia—Lambton rightfully pointed out, the Prime Minister said that he would run three years of so-called small deficits. In the first year, it was twice as much, and in the second year it was twice as much. This year, the deficit was three times larger than what he promised. With respect to the commitment to balance the budget in 2019, instead of a four-year plan, the Prime Minister has replaced it with a 30-year plan.

It seems that the only promise the Prime Minister has been able to keep is the legalization of marijuana.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I happened to be in the House when the member for St. Albert—Edmonton made his comments when we last spoke to this. If I remember correctly, I believe he started off by saying that the Liberal Party won the jackpot when we won the election because of this amazing fictitious surplus that the Conservatives had left behind. He went on to say that we currently have a fiscal train wreck. However, the reality of the situation is that Canada currently has the best growth in GDP among the G7 countries. The difference between what the current government has done and what the previous government did is that instead of investing in gazebos and helicopter trips to private cottages, we are investing in things that are changing lives. We are investing in people and the resources to improve their skills and give them what they need to truly succeed.

Therefore, I ask the member opposite, how could he possibly say we have a fiscal train wreck when we have the best growth among the G7 countries?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands had listened to my speech, he would know that I alluded to the fact that in the first two years under Prime Minister Harper, we paid down nearly $40 billion in debt, which was the largest debt repayment in modern Canadian history by any government. We led Canada through the toughest economic times since the 1930s through to a balanced budget, which the current government inherited. By contrast, the current Liberal government has run massive deficits, a sea of red ink, $500 million of additional debt over the next 20 years. When comparing the record of Stephen Harper and the current government, I would take the record of Stephen Harper any day.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's words are always encouraging, and I find him very inspirational when he does a speech in the House. I would like him to comment on something that is of particular importance to me. I am the MP for Oshawa, which manufactures. We are stuck with what John Manley, who used to be the Liberal finance minister, said was a lack of things in this budget to address the competitiveness problem. In Oshawa, we are fighting against the highest electrical rates, this new carbon tax, all kinds of different taxes, while the American government is taking an aggressive route to increasing competitiveness.

Could he comment on the requirement to address the competitiveness issue and what it is going to do to Canada unless the government gets moving on it?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Oshawa raises a very good point. What the Liberal government has failed to do is address and respond to the North American reality where our largest trading partner and competitor is cutting taxes and rolling back regulations. Instead, the government is increasing red tape and taxes, which is putting Canada in a competitive disadvantage. Nothing could be worse than the government's tax on everything. For example, there is massive carbon tax, which, by the way, is going to do absolutely nothing to reduce GHGs. The Conference Board of Canada estimates that at $200 per tonne, carbon emissions would be reduced by just 1.5%. By contrast, under Stephen Harper, when we took a responsible sector-by-sector approach, we reduced GHGs by 3.1%.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-74 and budget 2018 today. This plan will help increase growth in urban communities in Pontiac and our rural communities, and will make them more prosperous. I feel engaged and inspired by the potential to make our country more equal for Canadian men and women. I am very proud of our government and this bill. This plan is based on the principles of growth, reconciliation, advancement, and equality. I would like to talk about some of budget's many initiatives that are particularly important to Pontiac.

I want to start with the assistance that workers will receive through the Canada workers benefit. There are many low-income workers in the riding of Pontiac, especially in the rural areas, but also in our communities in Gatineau. For example, in 2014, the average salary in the RMC of Pontiac was $32,556 per year. In the RMC of la Vallée-de-la-Gatineau, the average yearly salary was $28,603. Some people in our riding are really struggling. The Gatineau valley has the highest level of low-income families, at 14.4%.

I was so pleased when I saw that the government introduced in the budget the Canada workers benefit, which will take effect in 2019. Thanks to this benefit, low-income workers who earn $15,000 a year will have nearly $500 more in their pockets. That is important for the people in my riding of Pontiac. The Canada Revenue Agency will automatically establish eligibility, which will ensure that 300,000 additional low-income workers receive the Canada workers benefit.

Seasonal workers are another important issue. In Pontiac, many people work in the outfitting, forestry, and ecotourism sectors. Many municipal officials in the Pontiac area approached me about the shortcomings they have seen in the employment insurance system. I am thinking in particular of the mayor of Montcerf-Lytton, Alain Fortin, and the Gatineau Valley council of mayors. Our government listened to what they had to say, and it will invest $230 million over two years to improve the situation of seasonal workers who depend on employment insurance in the off-season. The terms and conditions will be presented in the coming months following discussions with the provinces. Simply put, this measure responds directly to the needs and requests of people in the Pontiac region who work in the forestry, outfitting, and tourism sectors.

Another very important issue in my riding is Phoenix. I am personally very concerned about the Phoenix pay system and so are many people in my riding. It affects far too many residents of Pontiac. No one should have to worry about being paid incorrectly or not at all. As members know, our government inherited the Phoenix pay system, a project that was poorly managed from the outset, before we took office. The previous government demonstrated a lack of governance and oversight, failed to allocate adequate technical and human resources, and used a poor change management strategy, which led to problems with the launch of the Phoenix pay system.

Nevertheless, we understand the urgency and the magnitude of the problem, and we know that it is up to us to fix it. Our government is doing everything in its power to ensure that federal employees are always paid on time. We have already taken a number of measures, such as steadily increasing the number of employees who process pay transactions.

The federal government has hired approximately 561 employees in recent months to make the Phoenix pay system work better. In budget 2018, I was pleased to see that our government is continuing to allocate resources to resolve this problem. Budget 2018 proposes an investment of $431 million to continue to address the problems with Phoenix, including the hiring of additional employees to support the system. The government is also proposing to invest $16 million over two years to work on the next steps of implementing a new pay system with the help of experts, federal public sector unions, and technology providers.

I hope that our government will finally be able to resolve this problem. When I knock on my constituents' doors, they ask me to do something about this. I will be there for them, and I will continue to work to resolve the problems with the Phoenix pay system.

With respect to official languages, as I am sure everyone knows, Pontiac is a very bilingual region. Both the francophone and the anglophone communities have a lot of cultural activities going on. I was pleased to see that the 2018 budget includes $400 million in new funding over five years to support the 2018-23 action plan for official languages. That includes funding for English and French community newspapers and radio stations in minority communities. There will also be money to provide better access to official language services for anglophone communities in Quebec as well as funding for local cultural activities, which are very important in ridings like Pontiac.

On the issue of environment and conservation, earlier this year, as the media reported significantly, 116 of our parliamentary colleagues signed a letter that I had the privilege of drafting, sent it to the finance minister and to the Prime Minister, and urged them to deliver a budget that would allow us to achieve our commitments under the UN Convention on Biological Diversity to protect 17% of our terrestrial land mass and 10% of our ocean by 2020. I was so proud of members opposite, members from our party, and senators.

These are really important commitments. This is one of the issues that most motivated me to run for office. I was so proud of the finance minister, the Prime Minister, and our government for making the decision to invest a historic amount of $1.3 billion over five years to conserve Canada's ecosystems, landscapes, and biodiversity. This budget, on this measure alone, is an incredible victory for all of Canada.

In addition to thanking the Prime Minister, I would like to thank a number of people in our community of Pontiac, in particular Alison Woodley and Éric Hébert-Daly from CPAWS, who worked so hard on this issue. This achievement is theirs as well.

I would also like to thank all the parks and wildlife officials working in the federal civil service, who, for so many years, desperately needed this kind of investment. It really is a big boost, and I would like to thank them for working so hard on this issue for so many years. We all know that conserving our environmental heritage is an issue that transcends partisan politics. Canadians believe in it, and we have stepped up to do it.

On infrastructure, I was so pleased when the federal government announced that it would increase its portion of financial support for rural infrastructure projects up to 60%. This would allow communities of fewer than 5,000 people to tap into an extra percentage of funding from the federal government so that we can move beyond the formula of one-third, one-third, one-third, where municipalities have to pay one third of the cost. For small municipalities in the Pontiac, that kind of contribution is crucially important.

I want to give credit where it is due, to our infrastructure minister, who made that decision and is now working with the provinces so that our small municipalities do not get left behind in terms of infrastructure investments.

Regarding the Internet, when I knock on doors in the Pontiac, this is the number one topic. This is what people want fixed. It is an infrastructure issue for sure, but it is also an issue of democracy and socio-economic development. I am absolutely convinced that we are going in the right direction.

I would like to highlight the fact that we have doubled down on our $500 million over five years. The connect to innovate program has already delivered results in the Pontiac, but this budget brought forward something more: $100 million over five years to update to the next generation of broadband Internet services in rural regions, using new satellite technologies. This is good news, and I am looking forward to making more announcements like the $6.7 million that was just announced in the Gatineau valley. There is more good news to come about the Internet in Pontiac, and I look forward to working hard.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, at different times throughout my colleague's speech, he mentioned that he was proud of, or pleased with, the budget. I would like to ask my colleague if he is proud of the fact that during the campaign the Liberals promised vociferously that they would never introduce omnibus legislation, use time allocation, or go beyond $10 billion in deficit, and yet here we have an $18-billion deficit in the budget. Worse than that, just today we found out from the Parliamentary Budget Officer that it is not $18 billion; it is $22 billion. Between February and today, we have increased our deficit by $4 billion.

Let us think of the amount of money that is going out the window each year just to pay the interest. Currently, we spend $26 billion a year on interest, and by 2021 that will be $33 billion, with no plan to balance the budget. Is he proud of that?

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will answer in a very Pontiac manner. The riding of Pontiac, where the average median income in a number of major sections hovers around $30,000 a year, desperately needs investment. Our government committed to investing, and that is one of the biggest reasons why this riding went Liberal in the last election. The simple fact of the matter is that for 10 years Pontiac was starved of federal investment. Voters in Pontiac know that the debt-to-GDP ratio is declining very rapidly. This is managed investment that is absolutely going to help pick up jobs and help support families. When the Canada child benefit comes every month to the many thousands of families that desperately need help, the single mothers and the single fathers, the families living on the edge in the Pontiac, boy, are they happy that we are making those investments.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I really want to commend my colleague from Pontiac. I had the privilege of chairing the national capital region caucus, which embraces his riding. It is a very beautiful place, but as he mentioned in his speech, there are a lot of needs, and there are a lot of folks who are on the edge, so to speak.

I want to ask him specifically about the Canada child benefit. Recently, I came across a constituent in tears in my riding, who said to me that without the Canada child benefit, she, a single mother of two, would not be receiving an additional $9,000 a year of tax-free support. We are trying as best we can to help eliminate the scourge of poverty. We are trying to reach up and meet the sustainable development goals, one of which is to leave no one behind. That is something very important. I believe that only a foolish society would let people slip further and further behind.

I want to ask my colleague how he feels about the Canada child benefit in the context of his beautiful riding of Pontiac and its needs.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my learned colleague has been a mentor to me over many years.

The simple fact is that Pontiac families desperately need the Canada child benefit. Specifically, 23,190 children are being supported, and there are 12,600-odd payments. The average payment is $540, tax-free. At the end of the day, yes, this is about poverty alleviation, and we are doing a great job on that, but it is about more than just that, more than our families. This is about supporting small businesses across the Pontiac. What does a family in need do when they get those monthly payments? They go straight to the grocery store, the sports equipment store, or the bookstore, and they invest for their families. That is what makes our small-town economies roll.

At the end of the day, the Pontiac needs support. That is what they said time and time again, and they are not going to stop saying it, because we are a region with many rural communities in need. I am not going to stop defending them until the day of the next election, and hopefully thereafter, because this is just too great an opportunity to make a difference in families' lives.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we resume debate and go to the hon. member for Sarnia--Lambton, I will let her know that we have only about three or four minutes before we have to interrupt for the usual statements by members. She will have the remaining time when the House next gets back to debate on the question.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I guess I should consider myself lucky to be speaking to the budget bill, Bill C-74. I say that because many of my colleagues will not have the opportunity to do that. The Liberal government has once again shut down debate, and this is an important bill.

It is bad enough that the government was planning to spend $18 billion in deficit this year, but we have found out from the Parliamentary Budget Officer that now it is going to be $22 billion. It seems to me that we should take more than one day for each $5.5 billion of Canadian taxpayer money that is going to be spent by the government. I am very disheartened that the Liberal government would once again shut down debate.

In the small amount of time I have, I want to cover a few things: infrastructure, some issues with the border, health, seniors, and a number of my concerns about the tax changes that have been announced.

With respect to infrastructure, the Liberal government was elected on a promise that it would run tiny deficits and put money into infrastructure in municipalities. Here we are, and it has not spent even 40% of the money that has been pledged. On top of that, the government took $15 billion away from municipalities to put it into an infrastructure bank that is not going to build roads and bridges in communities like mine.

I had a project in my community that was going to create 3,000 well-paying jobs. It was called the oversized load corridor project. I discussed this project with the Minister of Infrastructure for nearly three years. He said the government was in support of the project. The province was in support. The municipality was in support. I needed $6 million from the federal government in infrastructure money to create 3,000 well-paying jobs in Sarnia—Lambton. The government told me to wait for the trade corridor funding, which was coming. Then it put the Minister of Transport in charge of that fund, and I have just found out that he will not give $6 million of infrastructure money to Sarnia—Lambton to create 3,000 Canadian jobs.

I am not sure what kind of priorities the government has when it cannot fund 3,000 jobs with just $6 million. It spent $10 million to put an ice rink on Parliament Hill, which created zero long-term Canadian jobs. When it comes to infrastructure spending, I certainly think there is a big problem.

The Sombra ferry in my riding is a border crossing. The other thing I would say with respect to infrastructure is that the government seems to be able to put hundreds of millions of dollars in the budget to support illegal immigrants, but it cannot put $2 million in the budget to restore the border crossing at the Sombra ferry. Once again, I feel that the Liberal government's priorities are terrible.

In the words that have been said so often in this chamber, “never has a government spent so much to accomplish so little.”

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton will have seven minutes remaining in her remarks when the House next gets back to the question.

Now we will go to statements by members. The hon. member for Montcalm.

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 second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The hon. member for Sarnia--Lambton has seven minutes remaining in her speech.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will recap briefly for those who missed the brilliance of my remarks earlier. I said I suppose I should consider myself lucky to be speaking to the budget bill. Many of my colleagues will not have that opportunity because the Liberal government once again has shut down debate on an omnibus bill. This one has more than 540 pages. Once again the Liberals are breaking another one of their election promises.

The first issue that I raised was with respect to infrastructure. The government promised to spend infrastructure money in municipalities. Currently, the Liberals have not even spent 40% of the money that was promised and they took $15 billion away from municipalities to create the infrastructure bank.

I gave some specific examples from my riding. Members will recall that $10 million was spent to build an ice rink here on Parliament Hill. To spend that same $10 million in my riding, the government could have provided $6 million for the oversize load corridor to create 3,000 well-paying jobs, $2 million to restore a border crossing that would allow trade with the United States of America, and $2 million for rural Internet to completely fill the gap that exists with high-speed Internet in my riding.

I find it hard to believe that the government is committed to spending infrastructure money when there are projects like the ones in my riding that are so good and have such great outcomes that are not supported. I can only assume that partisan politics are at play here and not any kind of reason or logic.

I did not see anything in the budget for seniors. Fifty per cent of the people in my riding are over the age of 55. Many of them have difficulty affording to live. The government has come forward with a totally inadequate response to help seniors in my riding and the rest of the country.

As the shadow health minister, obviously I have some comments about the health content in the budget. I am really disturbed to see that the words “palliative care” were removed entirely from the budget.

My private member's bill on palliative care received unanimous support of the House. The government pledged $6 billion over 10 years for home care and palliative care, and I think mental health was another $5 billion. Now we find it is only home care and mental health that will receive any money. Where did the money for palliative care go, especially since my bill has been passed into law? By June 11, the government has to meet with the provinces to determine the services that will be provided, the levels of training for the different service providers, and come up with a consistent plan so all Canadians can get access to palliative care. I have heard no mention of that. There is no money at all for that in the budget. That is concerning to me.

There is a huge amount of money being spent to legalize marijuana. There is $800 million in the budget to legalize marijuana. This may seem a bit hypocritical, because on the one hand in the budget there is $80 million to get people to stop smoking tobacco, but on the other hand, there is $800 million to get them to start smoking marijuana. Something is wrong with that.

The other thing that is really wrong is that only a fraction of the money the government is spending to legalize marijuana is being spent to address the opioid crisis in this country. Thousands of people are dying every year and the government's response has been totally inadequate in order to stem the flow of deaths from opioids. For the families who have lost somebody to this opioid crisis, it is insulting to see the government spending more money to legalize the smoking of marijuana than to address the deaths that are happening from the opioid crisis.

Mental health is a crisis in this country. The government has pledged $4 million in the budget going forward every year for dementia. Four hundred thousand people in Canada suffer from dementia. This is a totally inadequate response to the huge problem that exists.

Our colleague from Prince George brought forward a private member's bill on PTSD and it was unanimously supported. However, when we look at the budget, we see a very small amount, $10 million, for PTSD and only for public safety officers. What about first responders? What about all of the problems we are seeing among our veterans? This is an inadequate response to be sure.

When it comes to mental health, we see the priority has been put on spending $20 million on mental health for inmates. I would say that inmates certainly need just as much mental health care as others, but when we do not have it in the rest of the country, why is that a priority? It just does not seem to be the right priority.

Meanwhile, the government is spending a lot of time and energy on doing things like working on the food guide. The Liberals have been consulting and consulting, but there is nothing coming forward with it.

The Liberals are implementing a new program to change how the PMPRB approves and prices drugs to make the process even longer. All the stakeholders and people who have been commenting are saying that this is going to be a problem. Not only is it going to eliminate the clinical trials that are being done in Canada, but it will actually prevent Canadians from having access to the new drugs that are being developed.

When I look at this budget, it seems to me that the government has its priorities wrong. It is spending an inadequate amount of money to address crises that exist. Of course when it comes to my riding, I cannot see at all that the government is keeping any of the promises that it was elected on, such as to spend money, to go slightly into deficit, and to build infrastructure in municipalities. Certainly that is not happening in my riding.

I want to finish by saying that I was disheartened to hear that instead of the $6-billion deficit the government intended to run this year, it is now going to be $22 billion. Never has a government spent so much to accomplish so little.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned the opioid crisis. This government has expanded safe consumption sites and expanded the use of naloxone. In the most recent budget, it has invested $230 million to immediately inject $150 million in the provinces to expand treatment. It has also spent millions of dollars on a public education campaign to address the stigma associated with seeking treatment.

We know that the number one stigma associated with seeking treatment is the criminalization of low-level possession. We are not talking about legalizing production or trafficking, but we know from around the world that the single biggest way we can save lives is by removing the criminal sanction for low-level possession, and to treat patients as patients and not as criminals.

I wonder what the member would say to that.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the member would bring this up, because people do talk about the decriminalization of drugs, and they cite Portugal as a place that has been successful. What they miss is that Portugal put in place huge numbers of treatment centres in advance of any of this to get people off drugs. That is where the government has totally missed the point. It is about preventing people from getting on drugs in the first place and building treatment centres, not safe injection sites where people can safely keep themselves addicted to drugs on the public dime in perpetuity.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague. Two weeks ago I was in a cab in Toronto, and the cab driver was a retired aeronautical engineer. He was 74 years old, and he was driving a cab because his wife had kidney failure and they could not afford the medications. I think there is something fundamentally wrong in our country when people have worked their whole lives and they have to go out and drive a cab at age 74 because our medical system cannot help loved ones who are senior citizens.

Previous to that I met a 68-year-old man who told me that he had to go back underground to work on the drills in a mine because his pension was insufficient for him and his wife to be able to pay their hydro bills.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague about the sense of priority we see from the government, which seems to think that issues facing senior citizens are maybe not cool enough, not sexy enough, or not hip enough. These are issues facing seniors who are falling through the cracks. They have worked hard, have paid their taxes, and have done everything right their whole life. They are being left behind.

I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is absolutely true that the government has not put a priority on seniors. We see this in the fact that the Liberals removed the minister for seniors. It used to exist as a full portfolio. With one in six Canadians being a senior now, and that number going to one in four, this has to be a priority area.

My colleague is absolutely right. Some seniors have worked their whole lives and they cannot afford to live in retirement. This is happening more and more, especially among single seniors. The government's response is totally inadequate. I certainly saw this as I was door knocking. Seniors were in tears telling me they could not afford to get hearing aids, dentures, or cataract surgery, and they were really struggling to pay the hydro bill and buy food to eat.

The government needs to put a priority on seniors, and it needs to put adequate funding toward addressing the issues. These people built our country, and we have a duty to support them in return.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member has looked at the public safety committee's unanimous report on mental health and public safety officers, a term that includes first responders. This budget actually includes $20 million for a new national research consortium and $10 million for an Internet base to reach out to rural and remote communities, plus additional funding for RCMP officers. Has the member spoken to public safety officers in her community? I have spoken to public safety officers in my community and across the country, and they are thrilled with the investments we are making in their mental health.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, the people I have talked to are not thrilled with the response. They see the need as being much greater, and this $10 million is a drop in the bucket to address what is really a chronic problem, not just among first responders but even among nurses in hospitals.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, over the last two years, Canada's economy has been fuelled by the hard work of a stronger middle class, combined with our government's historic investments in people and communities. Canada now has the fastest-growing economy in the G7 and has added more than 600,000 good, well-paying jobs since we were elected.

I am pleased to speak today to budget 2018, which supports our commitment to building an equal, competitive, sustainable, and fair Canada. Our strong economy, anchored by a low and consistently declining debt-to-GDP ratio, means that our government has the confidence to make the investments in our future that will strengthen and grow the middle class and lay a more solid foundation for future generations of Canadians.

As vice-chair of the status of women committee, I have had the privilege over the past two-plus years to work extensively on the issues of gender equality, gender-based violence, women's access to justice, and women's economic security. That is why I was so pleased to see so much of this work reflected in this year's budget, which puts gender at the heart of decision-making, helping to support women and girls, address harassment and gender-based violence, reduce the gender wage gap, and increase the participation of women in the workforce, which in turn helps boost economic growth for all Canadians. Recently, in my riding, I held a budget breakfast with business and stakeholders like Halton Women's Place, Sexual Assault and Violence Intervention Services, and the Halton Multicultural Council to highlight this focus.

There is no reason that women should earn less than their male colleagues for the same work. Budget 2018 would move forward with new, proactive pay equity legislation to ensure that employees in federally regulated workplaces receive equal pay for work of equal value. Our committee heard about the importance of both parents sharing parental leave to support gender equality in the home and in the workplace. Budget 2018 would provide $1.2 billion to introduce a new employment insurance parental sharing benefit, giving greater flexibility to parents by providing an additional five weeks of “use it or lose it” parental benefits when both parents agree to share parental leave.

During the course of our committee study on gender-based violence, we heard that there is a need for federal leadership to support a national approach to eliminating sexual violence on post-secondary campuses and removing the stigma for survivors seeking support, and the government is delivering. Budget 2018 would commit $5.5 million over five years to develop a national framework to ensure comprehensive and consistent approaches in addressing gender-based violence in post-secondary institutions across the country.

This government believes that advancing gender equality is a responsibility that should not fall exclusively to women and girls. In my community, we have seen the success of the engagement program at Halton Women's Place and the SAVIS male ally network in engaging men and boys to end gender-based violence. The government would provide $1.8 million to Status of Women Canada to develop an engagement strategy for men and boys that would promote equality and pilot innovative, targeted approaches to addressing inequality, making Canada a world leader in this area.

The government would provide an additional $86 million over five years, and $20 million per year thereafter, to expand Canada's strategy to address gender-based violence. New investments would focus on preventing teen dating violence, developing anti-cyber-bullying initiatives, expanding investments to front-line crisis centres, and equipping health care professionals to provide appropriate care to survivors.

We know that there are not enough women in skilled trades. To encourage women to pursue careers in the trades, the government has allocated $19.9 million over five years to pilot an apprenticeship incentive grant for women that would result in a combined $8,000 of support over the course of a woman's apprenticeship as she works to become a welder, a machinist, or a pipefitter, or work in other skilled trades.

A few months ago, I hosted the Minister of Small Business and Tourism at a round table in my riding with a group of female entrepreneurs. We heard about the need for resources to help them scale up their businesses. Therefore, I am thrilled that budget 2018 would help women entrepreneurs do just that, with the new women entrepreneurship strategy.

Budget 2018 would also commit $50.4 million over five years to address sexual harassment in the workplace, $25.4 million of which would be dedicated to boosting legal aid funding across the country. In addition, the government would invest a further $25 million to develop a countrywide outreach approach to better inform workers about their rights in cases of workplace harassment.

Our Oakville North—Burlington community is growing rapidly, and as it grows, the needs of the community grow and change with it. With budget 2018, the government takes a people-centred approach to investing in Canadians, from helping young people find work placements to empowering new Canadians to contribute to a growing economy that benefits us all.

I know that my constituents are excited about the creation of an advisory council on the implementation of national pharmacare, which was announced in the budget. The council would begin a national dialogue that would include working with experts from all relevant fields, as well as with national, provincial, territorial, and indigenous leaders.

In my region, over 13,500 children live in low-income housing, and over one in 10 children live in poverty. To encourage a stable supply of affordable rental housing across the country, the government is committed to providing $3.75 billion over the next three years to support housing projects that address the needs of modest- and middle-income households struggling in expensive housing markets.

Our government would also provided an additional $448.5 million over five years to the youth employment strategy.

Employment is the key to the successful integration of newcomers in Canada, but for many newcomer women, there are significant barriers, including both gender- and race-based discrimination, precarious employment, and lack of community and social supports. To help reduce these barriers, the government has allocated $31.8 million to support programming for newcomer women who are also members of visible minorities.

Moving on to public safety and access to justice, whether through the guarantee of a fair and equitable justice system or the knowledge that their private information is secure, Canadians deserve to feel safe and protected. The budget commits to a number of measures that would benefit the efficiency of Canada's safety and security institutions, without compromising our shared values as an open, inclusive, and welcoming society.

Addressing operational stress injuries and post-traumatic stress injuries in public safety officers is an issue I have been deeply committed to. Having studied the issue at the public safety committee and spoken to first responders and public safety officers both in my riding and across Canada, I know that our investment in mental health has been well received. There is $20 million over five years to support a new national research consortium to address the incidence of post-traumatic stress injuries among public safety officers, as well as an additional $10 million to develop an Internet-based cognitive behaviour therapy pilot to provide greater access to care and treatment across Canada. Recently, I was joined by first responders in my riding to share this news locally, and I know they appreciate the government's recognition of the issue and the funding we are providing toward their mental health.

Budget 2018 proposes investments of $506.6 million over five years, and $108.8 million per year thereafter, to fund a new national cybersecurity strategy that would ensure secure and resilient Canadian systems, provide a trusted federal source for cybersecurity information for Canadian citizens and business, and support effective collaboration between different levels of government and international partners.

Finally, I know that my constituents place a great value on preserving Canada's nature, parks, and wild spaces. In budget 2018, the government is making investments to preserve Canada's natural heritage, while helping to grow a healthy and sustainable clean economy. To support Canada's biodiversity and protect species at risk, the government would make historic investments totalling $1.3 billion over five years, one of the most significant investments in nature conservation in Canadian history.

These are just a few highlights of budget 2018, and time does not permit me to further outline the investments our government is making to grow our Canadian economy for all Canadians.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, the special committee on pay equity tabled its report in June 2016. Canadian women have been advocating for pay equity legislation for over 40 years. We talked about it in 2016. It was mentioned in the budget, but unfortunately we have seen no money in the budget implementation act as far as implementation is concerned.

I wonder if the member might wish to comment on how people might be cynical to think that this legislation is not coming very soon. With no money to implement it, how can we actually see it roll out on the ground for Canadian women?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her party's advocacy on this issue.

There was a special committee on pay equity, which was one of the first things our government did after being elected, and it came forward with recommendations. I would be disappointed if anyone was cynical based on what was in the budget. We have committed to introducing proactive pay equity legislation, something this government feels is incredibly important for federally regulated employees to have. There is no reason that women in the workplace should not be making the same as their male counterparts.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, in the last campaign, our colleague, as did many of her colleagues, promised that there would be no more omnibus legislation by the new government. The Liberals promised there would be no time allocation. However, we have both of those things happening in one day.

A couple of weeks ago, the finance minister tabled a budget in the House that indicated Canadians could expect a deficit of $18 billion in this budget, which is three times what was promised in the campaign. Today we find out through the Parliamentary Budget Officer that it is not $18 billion, that it has risen now to $22 billion for the next year. Is the member proud of the inability of her finance minister not to more accurately predict what the budget deficit will be?

There are many other things we could talk about with respect to broken promises in this budget. Could she indicate to the House how she feels about those broken promises?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not see any broken promises in this budget. In fact, I see the commitment our government is making to invest in Canadians.

We have the fastest growing economy in the G7 and we have one of the lowest debt to GDP ratios. This means we can invest in all Canadians today and ensure that everyone can participate in the economic recovery happening right now.

I am very proud of what is in the budget. I am very proud to be delivering on what we promised. We actually put a gender analysis on a budget for the first time in Canadian history, of which I am incredibly proud. I am proud to take it back to my riding of Oakville North—Burlington.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned repeatedly the “fastest growing economy”, but what we heard today from the PBO is that the U.S. economy this year will grow 50% faster than ours. Next year, it will grow 25% faster. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the world economy is expected to grow 100% faster than the Canadian economy.

I wonder if my colleague would care to correct her comments about Canada being the fastest growing economy this year.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, we can look at what is going on in Canada right now. Just recently, UPS, which is headquartered in my riding, announced it would be investing $500 million to create 1,000 new jobs. I am really proud of that. It shows that businesses are confident in where the Canadian economy is going, so they are making the investments they need to grow their workforce in Canada. Five hundred million dollars is not a small investment to be making to create 1,000 jobs.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that 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.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-74, the budget implementation bill. It is a daunting task, given the bill is over 500 pages and amends 44 pieces of legislation. It is an omnibus bill for sure, which is unfortunate in and of itself.

What is even more unfortunate is that the bill does not include all the things the government put forward in the budget. Just prior to getting up to give my speech, I made a comment about the fact that the pay equity legislation was not included and no dollars were in the budget to implement that pay equity legislation should it eventually come. This is disappointing.

The bill misses bringing a lot more needed change to address the inequity in the lives of people, to ensure the change that everyone pays their fair share of taxes, and the change we need to build an economy that is working for everyone, not just a few.

Child care, housing, and affordable prescription medication are the three issues that my constituents in Saskatoon West see as a need for real change, and fast. I raised these same issues in my very first speech as an elected member of Parliament. Three budgets later, I am still raising these issues, and those whom I represent are still waiting for the promised change.

Many in my riding had high hopes that the Liberals, given their promises on the campaign trail, would have moved the needle substantially on all three issues by this point in their mandate.

Let us start with child care. There are zero new dollars for child care in this budget. To date, the government's investment in child care has been more symbolic than anything. It is not a priority for the government. If it were, three budgets later we would not be talking about the lack of affordable and accessible child care.

In December of last year, I had the honour of meeting with an extraordinary group of women. They were participants in the trade journey program at the YWCA in Saskatoon. The trade journey program is a bridging program for women who are seeking a career in one of three trades: carpentry, plumbing, or electrical. I was invited to share some of my tips and, dare I say, survival skills for working in a male-dominated profession. My workplace was politics and their soon-to-be workplaces would be in the skilled trades.

As often is the case, I find myself so impressed and in awe of the determination of these women and their tenacity in the face of the both personal and institutional challenges of sexism and racism. As with almost 99.99% of the conversations I have with women in my riding, the conversation turned to child care. They were emphatic of the need for and the importance of affordable and accessible child care to their success as journey persons. They just could not understand why the government did not understand how critical child care was to their success in the workplace and to the health and well-being of themselves and their families. I agreed with them. I really did not have an answer for them as to why, regardless of what political party was in power, women continued to have to fight for child care.

The fight continues as we once again see a federal government paying lip service to one, if not the one, social policy that would improve the lives of so many women in our country and really increase the productivity of the country as a whole. A truly feminist government would understand this and by now would have invested what was needed to bring about real change for women.

Let me turn to affordable prescription medication. Almost a million Canadians give up food and heat to afford prescriptions in Canada. Affordable prescription medication is key to the health and well-being of all Canadians, to a sustainable universal health care system, and to the people in my riding of Saskatoon West. In conversation with older adults in my riding, the high costs of medication always comes up. It is raised because of the challenges of living on a fixed income and with that, the challenges of maintaining a home or an apartment, to be able to pay rent or a mortgage, and to pay for medication.

What happens, as was documented in a recent study, because of the unaffordability of medication? People get sick, they stay sick, and they end up going to the doctor for multiples visits and, in some cases, even end up in the hospital.

More than 1.6 million Canadians, just over 8% of people who were prescribed medication in Canada, did not fill their prescriptions or skipped doses because they could not afford it. In a riding with a median income below $40,000 a year, I represent a lot of people who are doing just that: skipping doses or not filling prescriptions at all. The UBC study that surveyed over 28,000 people found that people without insurance, lower-income people, and young people were more likely to struggle to afford medication. Women were twice as likely as men to report that they struggle to afford medication, as were indigenous people.

Canada is the only country with a universal health care system that does not include free access to prescription medication. It is time, after studying the issue to death, by governments, researchers, by Parliaments, to stop kicking the proverbial can down the road. I would like to use a phrase made famous by a certain shoe company, “Let's just do it”. However, instead we are going to study it again and offer ourselves further advice. It is time that the government moved from the hope to the hard work of pharmacare.

The only people benefiting from yet again more talk, more consultation, and no action are the pharmaceutical companies, which continue to gouge Canadians and the health care system. Canadians pay some of the highest drug costs in the world. If, right now, Canadians were paying even just the average prescription drug costs of OECD companies, we would have paid $3.6 billion last year. Instead, we paid $13.7 billion. That is a lot of home care services. That is a lot of money to address the crisis in mental health for young people.

Most of us are tired of hoping and wishing for the day of a universal prescription drug plan for all Canadians. It is time to stop giving excuses and start the work of implementing pharmacare in this country.

My final comments on the trifecta of challenges that folks in my riding face are on housing.

Last November, the highly anticipated national housing strategy was released. However, in the budget implementation act, we see no new legislation. The Prime Minister clearly stated at the launch of the national housing strategy that housing rights are human rights. However, instead of legislation and debate on a bill to legislate the right to housing, we continue with consultation. I believe that we need much more hard work on this file. We need more specifics. We need promised new investment now and not years down the road, and certainly not after the next federal election.

To elaborate, the $40-plus billion of planned spending connected to the national housing strategy over the next 10 years only budgeted $11.2 billion of new money. The rest of the funding envelope is a rearranging of current programs, loan funding, and of course the important matching funding from the provinces and territories.

The government's response to what, for many, is a crisis in affordability and a rising number of people living on the street is not good enough. We have a minimal investment of new dollars, the largest allocation of new investment coming three years down the road, and we have a huge 10-year horizon for the investment. The speed and the amount of the investment does not match the urgency faced by many communities, including my own. When we look at the amount of investment specifically focused on those Canadians with no roof over their heads, and the target number of reducing the number of Canadians who are homeless by 50% over 10 years, we do not see a government with the resources or the plan in place to truly recognize housing as a human right.

We know that the growing number of Canadians living on the street without the safety and security of a place to call home are often young people, and a large number of those young people are those who have aged out of the foster care system and are LGBTQ2 youth. We must speed up the investment. We must set more aggressive targets. We must work harder and set a much more courageous timeline if we are to make a difference in the lives of these young Canadians.

We are still waiting for a separate strategy for indigenous people living in urban centres. We saw a very modest amount of funding in the previous budget, but no detail.

Sorry, I did not realize that I had run out of time. I look forward to offering more during questions.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, it is always good to hear from my colleague from Saskatchewan. I think we share priorities in terms of child care, affordable housing, and pharmacare. On the issue of child care, it is not this budget that she should look to, but the budget of 2016, which invested $7.5 billion over the next 10 years. Those accords have been signed with the provinces. That money is being spent. In my province, 100,000 new regulated day care spaces are being funded as a direct result of that budget.

On the issue of pharmacare, I agree that it is not being implemented immediately. There is a strategic plan being produced by a panel of experts that will show us exactly how to do that. I invite her to be standing in this House next year when we do just that, in terms of acting on those recommendations.

On the issue of affordable housing, I am gobsmacked. I remind the member opposite that her party only promised $40 million for homelessness over four years, which was $10 million extra a year. In our very first budget, we spent $100 million more than the previous year. We doubled it from $100 million to $200 million, which means we are going to be spending $400 million on homelessness over the four years of our term of office, not the paltry, meek, timid $40 million promised by her government.

Where it really gets me is when she says there is no new money for housing in this budget. There is close to $2 billion that is new for rental housing in this budget. If we look at her platform in the previous election, the final three years of their mandate there was zero, zero, zero. That is the NDP platform they think we should follow as bold advice.

Is she serious that no money is being spent, or is she just pretending that no money is being spent to make a political argument?

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, I guess I will thank my hon. colleague across the way for his comments, although he did not quite reflect what I said. What I had talked about is that the majority of the new investment into housing is coming after the next federal election. Of the $40 billion I have heard my hon. colleague repeat over and over, only $11 billion is new investment. I am not denying that the government is not looking at rearranging programs. We are hopefully going to hear some of the details about this next week, and maybe there will be improvements.

My point was that from my perspective as a member of Parliament, and from the work I have done in housing and homelessness, it is not enough money and it is coming much too late. The largest investment is after the next federal election. I think we can do better.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am seeing this recurring theme with the NDP whenever we bring forward a piece of legislation or proposition. It is always asking why we are not doing it faster. With respect to cannabis, why are we not doing this faster? With respect to pharmacare, why are we not doing this faster?

The reality of the situation is that these things take time. It takes time to properly plan this so it is executed correctly. However, I take issue with her comments with respect to child care. The truth of the matter is that when this party came into government, we changed the rules for the CCB. We created a new program where nine out of 10 families get more money for children now. This particular budget goes on to strengthen that. An individual single parent making $35,000 a year will now see an additional $560 a year to help with their children's expenses.

I am wondering how she will bring herself later on today to vote against this when we are doing real, solid things for children and families who have children.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, I guess what I am saying is there is not enough in this omnibus budget for the residents in my riding, in particular for those women I met at the Trade Journey program.

I am not denying that the Canada child benefit has helped people. However, the program does not matter if there is no access to affordable universal child care; it was not going to be helpful for these women. They were not saying that they were not appreciative of the Canada child benefit; they were saying that what they wanted and needed was universal affordable child care.

What they asked me is why governments do not understand that, and why has it taken so long for child care to be a priority for governments at the same priority level as other things?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, what a pleasure and privilege it is to be able to stand in this chamber and speak to the budget implementation bill. It is a bill that continues to build on what I believe is a very progressive government that understands how important it is to support Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it, to give a helping hand in trying to deal with the issue of tax inequities by having a special tax on Canada's wealthiest one per cent. We have had so many accomplishments in such a short period of time. I have said this in the past and I will repeat it now. Under this particular government, we have seen so much take place in terms of budgetary measures and legislative measures, which have had a positive and profound impact on supporting those who need it the most, Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it.

When I listen to opposition members, if I may focus on the Conservatives first and foremost, there are two things that I have come to realize. The Prime Minister talked about it at our wonderful convention that we had over the weekend. One of those is the fact that there is no change with the Conservative Party. It is almost as if Stephen Harper is still leading the party. It is absolutely amazing to see how much the Conservatives still remain out of touch with what Canadians expect of government. When I look at the ideas that the Conservatives attempt to bring over to this side of the House, it can be confusing at times. Last week, for example, we were supposed to talk about the priorities of the government. As members will recall, the members of the official opposition did not want to debate Bill C-74. Today the Conservatives are saying that they want to debate it more, yet last Monday they did not want to debate it. In fact, they brought in a motion to deal with another report as opposed to the budget. I can understand why. I can appreciate that they see how effective our budgets have been since we have taken governance.

We have worked with Canadians. We have empowered Canadians through things such as tax breaks, the Canada child benefit, something that will be indexed because of this piece of legislation. We are working with and supporting Canadians. We are supporting our communities through infrastructure dollars, with record amounts of money going into Canada's infrastructure in every region of our country. By doing that, we are giving additional strength to Canada's middle class and building our economy. By working with Canadians, we are seeing some amazing numbers. Most important is in the area of jobs. There are 600,000-plus jobs that have been created in just over two years by this government in working with many different stakeholders, in particular Canadians in every region of our country. I believe that this government has been acting on what we committed to Canadians back in 2015, and that was real change. We have seen that day in and day out, in terms of the different types of policies we have debated inside this chamber, and most importantly shared with Canadians coast to coast to coast.

I want to pick up on one issue that has been very important to me personally, and I know has been also very important to my daughter Cindy, who is an MLA in the Manitoba legislature. That is the issue of pharmacare. The pharmacare issue embodies what I believe is a very important and progressive step forward that we need to take, that we have been waiting for generations to see some tangible movement on. This Prime Minister along with this cabinet and caucus believe that we need to advance the idea. In fact, we had a standing committee, made up of members from all sides of this House, which reported last week some ideas in terms of how we can advance the idea of “one prescription”, where prescription drugs would be part of the Canada health system.

Canadians want our national government to demonstrate some leadership on this issue, and I believe we have. Earlier today, we heard the Prime Minister talk about some of the interim measures we have taken to ensure that prescription drugs are more affordable. At the constituency level, there have been many petitions and many discussions. In fact, in the last number of months I have tabled many petitions dealing with a strong national pharmacare program. If there ever was a reason to believe that it is actually doable, all one needs to do is take a look at what the government has done on a couple of specific initiatives in the last two years, in particular the Canada child benefit program.

I believe the government today has put into place, through the Canada child benefit program, a fantastic social program that has lifted tens of thousands of children out of poverty. We were able to do that in a relatively quick fashion.

On the issue of pharmacare, we recognize that there is a responsibility on the part of the national government to work with the different stakeholders. That is why, in the most recent budget, we see that there has been a task force of sorts put together, headed by a former minister of health in the Province of Ontario, to look at ways of possibly implementing a national pharmacare program.

We just came through a fantastic convention in Halifax, where Atlantic hospitality was at its best. I was very proud to listen to the speech delivered by the Prime Minister. If some of my colleagues across the way want to get a good sense of what has been taking place in the last couple of years, I would highly recommend that they YouTube it. I am sure they will enjoy it. There were 3,000-plus Liberals in Halifax who loved it.

Personally, I really enjoyed the fact that every constituency was represented. I believe there were 3,000 Liberals attending, and I think 50% of those were individuals who were attending a national convention for the first time. The number of young people attending that convention was truly amazing.

The number one resolution was on pharmacare. The Liberal Party, under the leadership of our current Prime Minister, has recognized the value of yet another fantastic social program. For those who try to cast doubt on the desire and the drive of the government, I would recommend they take a look at what we have accomplished in the last two years, in particular with the Canada child benefit.

I believe there is the opportunity for Canadians to have hope once again that after many years of no leadership on the health care file, we finally have a Prime Minister, a Minister of Health, and a government caucus who are committed to finding out if we can make this happen. If we can make it happen, it will happen.

We are working hard and being diligent in crossing the t's, dotting the i's, working with the different levels of government, and working with Canadians to find out what they would like to see and how we might be able to proceed on this particular file.

[An hon. member]

More, more.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

There is lots more. There is not enough time. That is the problem.

When I think about what we have been able to accomplish, I think about about the tax breaks for small business, an issue that is so important. The Minister of Small Business and Tourism has talked a great deal about small business being the backbone of Canada's economy, and reducing that small business tax was an important step. It is consistent with what we did in the first budget through the middle-class tax cut, by supporting guaranteed income supplement increases to our seniors, and by enhancing the Canada child benefit program, as no other government has done previously.

We have put more disposable income in the pockets of Canadians in every region of our country, thereby supporting small businesses, because they are the great consumers. Those small businesses cultivate the economy, generating the jobs that are necessary.

There is so much more I could say, but unfortunately my time has come to an end. It has been a privilege to address yet another great budget.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to hear this entertaining speech today and hear the member opposite give himself and his government so much credit for all these achievements they have made throughout the last two and a half years. He never mentioned anything about the disastrous policies, the tax increases on Canadians, the deficit, the borrowing, or the debt services, and the list goes on and on. What the Liberals were able to achieve in two and a half years would take a failed government 25 years to do. Why does the member opposite not tell Canadians about the disastrous policies and the results of them that we see every day?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the only thing I can think of that might be somewhat relatively close to what the member is talking about is when we identified that we needed to put a special tax on Canada's wealthiest one per cent, something which the Conservatives voted against.

Most significantly, with regard to taxes, we actually decreased taxes for the middle class. Imagine hundreds of millions of dollars taken and given back to Canada's middle class. What did the Conservative Party do? It voted against it. The Conservative Party voted against one of Canada's single greatest tax breaks to Canadians, to Canada's middle class. The Conservatives actually voted against it. They are not necessarily consistent in what they say.

This government continues to remain focused on what we can do to enhance and give more power and authority to Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it, and give a helping hand for those who need it most.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague is all the more convincing because he is talking so loudly. At least it is entertaining.

I am sure those watching at home must feel sorry for the Liberals because they are constantly being told that they said all kinds of things during the campaign and that they are not keeping their promises, which is true.

A year ago, at the Montreal electric vehicle show, the Minister of Transport promised to establish a strategy for the electrification of transport, but there is nothing about that in this year's budget.

Can my colleague explain why there is nothing in the new budget about the electrification of transport?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, over the last couple of years the government has invested hundreds of millions. In particular, with regard to infrastructure and green technology, we have a government that has not only been talking about it but has committed millions going into hundreds of millions of dollars. Much of that money is going into our rural communities. In fact, we designated $2 billion of infrastructure dollars to go specifically for rural communities.

There are many different ideas out there. When it comes to public infrastructure, public transport, we would have to go back many years prior to see a government that has been more committed to advancing green technology and investing in Canada's public infrastructure and public transit.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague went on and on about how the Liberal government has delivered on its promises. Not so fast.

First of all, there was a promise to end omnibus bills and then a promise to end time allocation. There was a promise to give individual members of Parliament freedom of speech to represent their constituents and a promise to have only a $10-billion deficit this year. It is $22 billion.

How can we go on and on about delivering on promises when there are so many broken promises? When will the budget be balanced?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, when Stephen Harper inherited governance, he also inherited a multi-billion-dollar surplus. He converted that into a multi-billion-dollar deficit, and that was prior to the recession. The Conservative government continued to have deficits year after year, accumulating well over $150 billion. This government has nothing to learn or any advice to take from the Conservatives in dealing with how to manage a budget.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is always nice to get up in the House and talk about sensible policies and not shout, the way my hon. colleague does, with all his fluff and bluff. I have been listening for the last 16 years. He was in the opposition, and now he is over there.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would ask the hon. member to turn down the volume on his hearing piece. We are getting a lot of feedback.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is all clear now, right? I was just trying to speak as loudly as he was speaking.

Today the Parliamentary Budget Officer issued his report. It is timely, as we are debating the budget bill. Of course, I would remind all my listeners out there that today the government brought in closure so it could stifle debate, because there are a lot of issues, as has been pointed out by the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

Very clearly, when the government was over there, it was telling Canadians that it would not increase the deficit by more than $10 billion and would be bringing in a balanced budget by 2019. These were the promises the Liberals made. Today the Parliamentary Budget Officer said quite clearly that everything they did was wrong. Their projections were wrong. The estimates are wrong. They are fooling Canadians by using different numbers. It is good that the Parliamentary Budget Officer talked about it today.

Most importantly, he talked about the carbon tax the Liberals are forcing on all Canadians and all the provinces, and the fact that the carbon tax is supposed to be good for the economy and the country. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has quite clearly stated that the way they are going is not the right approach.

Let me be very clear on one issue in reference to carbon taxes. All of us want clean air. All of us look out for the environment. We live in this country. It is our environment. We want a clean environment, but not the way the Liberals are going, by forcing carbon taxes on provinces that do not want them. Saskatchewan does not want it, and the, hopefully, Conservative government in Ontario does not want it. The, hopefully, Conservative government, in Alberta does not want it. Then, lo and behold, we have the government in British Columbia being held hostage by three Green members.

Three Green members are holding hostage the whole of Canada on the Trans Mountain pipeline. Premier Horgan will not agree because he would lose the government. He does not want to go to the people. If he is so confident about speaking to the Trans Mountain pipeline, and all the polls are showing that British Columbians want it, someone just said that the easiest way to resolve it is to go to the people. That is the best way in a democracy. He would probably find that he would get a pink slip to go back to the unemployment line.

However, the question here is about the government and its budget. We just heard the government side talk about reducing taxes for the middle class. We hear the Liberals talk about it here, but we never hear them talk about their increase in taxes, the payroll taxes. Actually, the great indication by the Fraser Institute showed how much Canadians are paying in direct and indirect taxes. It is what they call “freedom day”. For the first time in the history of our country, under the previous Conservative government, we pulled that back into June. The date was sometime in June because of our reduction of taxes, but under this government, freedom day has gone back into July. That is the real issue.

That is where it really shows where the government, by not by showing the whole picture, is raising taxes. We have had a serious problem over here on this fact. The Liberals are just blindly spending money.

One of the key issues I talked about last time was the government of China's infrastructure bank. We have already given half a billion dollars to it. Why is that? Why are we giving it to that bank? It does not do anything good for us. It is great for China, but not for us. We already contributed to the African Development Bank, to the Asian Development Bank, and to the Inter-American Development Bank. We are already doing our bit to help countries through these development banks. Why are we following this with a half a billion dollars?

These are questions Canadians are asking. Where is our money going? Why does the deficit keep increasing?

The Liberals came out with infrastructure funding. However, in a province like mine, Alberta, we do not know what the government is doing. Where is this infrastructure funding going?

The issue here is on the fundamental issues of economic progress, and in this case it is the Trans Mountain pipeline, which everybody agrees is good for Canada. Of course, the NDP members do not agree, but that is all right; they are a small bunch. The fact remains that it is good for the country. However, the question is on leadership. This is where leadership needs to be shown, and it is not coming from the government. We have waited and waited, but nothing is happening.

We agree that we also want a clean environment, but there are ways and means of doing that, and it is not in stifling economic growth. When jobs and economic growth are lost what happens? The budget goes up and taxes go up. Somewhere down the line, we will have to pay this deficit.

Let us look at the deficit. The PBO came out and said that there would be a $22.1 billion shortfall this fiscal year. The Liberals projected $18.1 billion. Again, according to the Liberals' figures, the projected deficit would be $17.5 billion. However, the PBO projects $21.4 billion. The total is a $8 billion difference in deficit. Also, according to the PBO, there is a 5% chance of the budget being balanced by 2025. However, the Liberals are not interested in that, because, after all, when they lose power, they will leave this whole mess behind.

We left the economy in very good standing, and the Liberals quoted all these figures. I remember when they wanted change in Canada and sunny ways, but as they progressed, all the policies we had put in place they carried on with and implemented. Why? Because they were good policies. Despite the fact that the Liberals keep trying to blame the Conservatives for everything, it is not going to fly. They had good management from us when they took over. When they are gone, and hopefully we will take over, we will have to clean up their mess and look at the deficit.

Canadians are concerned where the government is going. What is the purpose of the government? Back home in Africa, we say that the ostrich has its head in the sand. The Liberals have their heads in the sand. They are not looking around at what is going on. They will not answer to the future generation, because they will not be around.

However, the issue is always on how we bring confidence to Canadian businesses. It is interesting that in Lima, the Prime Minister said that big projects would go ahead. Well, big projects are not going ahead in our country under the current government.

The Liberals keep talking about Conservatives not building pipelines. We built the environment where the energy industry grew up. The Liberals are running something where the energy industry is going down under their leadership. However, it is good to see that the NDP government in Alberta agrees with us.

The fact is that we need common sense policies, but they are not coming from the Liberals. We do expect any common sense policies coming from that side.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, my friend talked about the deficit. I wondered if he could point out in Hansard a time when he rose and condemned the Harper government for all those deficits it ran. It is probably zero.

The member also mentioned that he wanted to clean up the environment, that the Conservatives were behind that, but then he glossed over the fact that there was no plan. The Conservatives have offered nothing. They did nothing for 10 years. Could the member stand in the House and offer any type of plan as we are seeing the dramatic effects of climate change? Spoiler alert: it is probably zero again, but I would like him to have the opportunity to do so.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, if I recall correctly, the current government carried on with our targets, the targets we had put in place. The Liberals carried on implementing those targets. They did not change those targets because those were common-sense targets.

Therefore, the government has been acting on the environment, but it has its head in the sand. The question still remains. Will Canadians pay for the reckless policies of the government? That is the question every Canadian is asking.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, Canada has a number of key infrastructure issues with respect to keeping our economy going, and one of them is our highway system. If we travel across the country and travel on the Trans-Canada, we will be on four-lane highways. Then, when we get to northern Ontario, we get to two lanes, Highway 17 and Highway 11, which twist and turn through rugged rock country. This is the main truck transportation for the country. All the goods of the country travel on those roads. Year after year, we see them getting more dangerous. We see, with the privatization of truck maintenance by the Wynne government, the number of deaths we have had on the road.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague about the disregard we have from the present government toward the people of Ontario on issues of infrastructure that are literally life and death, that are issues about our economy, and the lack of involvement of the federal government in working with the province to establish a credible system of transportation that ensures the safe passage of goods but also the security of people who travel on these roads.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will answer that because northern Ontario is part of Canada. The question the member very rightly asks is where the government's priority. Is its priority to ensure there is infrastructure? Good roads are prosperous for everyone, like good pipelines are prosperous for everyone.

When we were in power, our government had infrastructure programs, which was why we built a highway up north. They opened it up, but remember the construction was started by us. I agree with the member. Absolutely the government, in co-operation with the province, and, by the way, a Liberal government in Ontario, could easily work with Ontario to look after the needs of northern Ontario.

Good infrastructure in northern in Ontario and all across the country is extremely important for us to ensure economic growth in our country.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I take issue with one comment made by my colleague with respect us not having to answer to future generations. The fact is that this government is all about looking out for future generations, whether it is the social well-being of them or the environmental well-being of them. How can that member suggest this government and this party are not looking out for the future of Canadians and our children?

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals have reckless policies that are not looking out for our future. l look at what they are doing to the deficit with this budget. That is spending recklessly, writing cheques without thinking. I look at what the Liberals are going to leave for the future generations. I look at what the PBO said today as to the amount of deficit and the cumulative deficit of the budget. At the end of the day, the government has yet to bring in some good policies. It is the future generation that will be paying.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. 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 Nanaimo—Ladysmith, Indigenous Affairs; the hon. member for Saskatoon West, Health; the hon. member for Drummond, Justice.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for West Nova.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today in support of Bill C-74, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018, and other measures.

First, I would like to talk about why this bill is so important to Canada as a whole. Then I will highlight some of the specific measures that will help my beautiful riding of West Nova and, most important, its people.

This budget continues to build on the strong foundation for growth that our government began putting into place when it took office just over two years ago. In that time, Canada's economic growth has been fuelled by the middle class, and there has been more support for those working hard to join it. Because of the hard work of Canadians, together with historic investments in people and communities, more than 600,000 good new jobs have been created right across Canada. Most of these are solid, full-time jobs. Consequently, under this government, the Canadian unemployment rate is at its lowest in my lifetime.

Also, Canada now has the best balance sheet of any G7 country, with the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio, and the downward trend of that ratio will continue into the future. Our debt as a portion of our economy is shrinking steadily and will soon reach its lowest point ever in my lifetime.

However, while the Canadian economy is doing very well, the most important indicator for any government is not some economic formula, but rather how people are doing. Do people have the tools to lift themselves up, to make their communities stronger and more vibrant, to be secure in the knowledge that they will have a dignified retirement, to help children living in poverty, to ensure veterans are looked after, and to ensure we position Canada to allow our industries to flourish?

While we know the economy is doing well and that thing are on the right track, we also know there is much more work to do so all Canadians have the opportunity to reach their full potential and, indeed, so people end up doing well. Our government wants a real and fair shot at success for all our people.

Let us start with the Canada workers benefit. Budget 2018 introduces the new Canada workers benefit, a more generous and accessible benefit that will put more money in the pockets of low-income workers than the income tax benefit it replaces. For example, a worker making $15,000 a year will get about $500 more in 2019. By allowing these low-income workers to keep more of their paycheque, it encourages more people to enter the workforce and it will deliver real help to two million Canadians, including 45,000 Nova Scotians who are working hard to join the middle class. This new measure will lift about 70,000 working individuals out of poverty and will promote economic independence for so many who would otherwise be left behind.

Let us turn to the Canada child benefit. Speaking of lifting people out of poverty and giving them opportunity, the CCB was introduced in 2016 and provides more support for nine out of 10 Canadian families. With the measures in budget 2018, the six million children currently benefiting from the CCB will continue to benefit for the long term, because it will be indexed, starting this July, to keep up with the cost of living.

In West Nova, the effects of the CCB are real. Thirteen thousand children are benefiting and over $4.5 million each month are being invested in the well-being of the kids in my riding. As a result, hundreds and hundreds of children in western Nova Scotia are no longer living in poverty and many are now able to receive adequate school supplies, join minor hockey, take dance or music lessons, have warm clothes for the winter, or go to summer camp. This is real and this is making a substantial difference in the lives of children in West Nova while also helping our local economy.

Let us talk about security retirement for our seniors. Like many members of rural ridings, I represent many seniors and I am so pleased that our government supports them. While there is more work to do, we restored the eligibility age of old age security and GIS from 67 to 65, and increased the GIS by 10% for single seniors. Also, working co-operatively with the provinces, the Canada pension plan has been strengthened for the long term. In fact, it will result in an increase of the maximum CPP retirement pension by about 50%, phased in over time, and it will mean even greater support to persons with disabilities who need support from their government.

As the member of Parliament for West Nova, an area with Canada's most lucrative fishery in lobster, scallops, and other seafood, it is critical to me that the fishing industry, which is the backbone of the economy in southwestern Nova Scotia, is supported. That is why I, along with other colleagues, have been advocating for increased investments in our small craft harbours to allow for the continued growth of fisheries operations.

I am very pleased the government has responded in budget 2018 with an investment of an extra $250 million over two years into our critical harbour infrastructure. This will help expand capacity and support the flourishing seafood industry being able to get its product off the boats and to world markets.

We know that with the coming into force of the European trade deal, CETA, and now the CPTPP, the demand for our seafood exports will continue to grow. This will diversify our customer base and sustain the high prices our fishermen have been getting for their lobster and other high-quality seafood. This makes a huge difference to our local economy in southwestern Nova Scotia.

I am also fortunate not only to represent an area with one of Canada's most important fisheries, but also to represent 14 Wing Greenwood, the largest air force base on the east coast. As a result, I represent many veterans all across my riding. It is vitally important that we support them for all they have done in their service to Canada. We know there is lots more to do, and we know that some may not yet know about the investments being made, but we are on the right track, and we are making things better for our veterans.

The government has made substantial investments to benefits and services for veterans and their families, so far totalling $10 billion. This includes new education and training benefits and expanded services to families of medically released veterans. We have reopened offices, increased the earnings loss benefit, and the disability award. There will be an option for a pension for life rather than the lump sum amount. There will be more front-line staff, more for mental health, and a new caregiver benefit for those taking care of ill and injured veterans.

Budget 2018 will expand the medical expense tax credit to include the cost of psychiatric service dogs that are so important in the support they provide to many of our veterans.

We know there is more to do, and I am committed to working with our government and continuing to advocate for the veterans I represent, but the fact is clear that we have made substantial investments and we are really beginning to fix the damaged system left to us by the Conservative government.

I am proud of the Acadian communities in West Nova, and I fully support them in protecting and promoting their cultural heritage, as well as our official languages.

Our government recognizes the importance of supporting official languages across Canada and is serious about its duty to actively promote the development of official language minority communities. We recently announced an action plan for official languages, which represents the largest investment in official languages in over 15 years. We have listened to the needs of these communities, and budget 2018 meets their expectations.

Our budget will invest in our community and cultural organizations, such as the Société acadienne de Clare, the Conseil acadien de Par-en-Bas, and the Université Sainte-Anne in my riding of West Nova, so they can continue their important work preserving and promoting Acadian culture and the French language in my riding.

Budget 2018 will support radio stations and newspapers like CIFA and Le Courrier de la Nouvelle-Écosse. Despite the challenges faced by francophone media outlets in minority communities, they continue to offer content that reflects the French-speaking Acadian community they serve.

When we look at this bill to implement budget 2018, we see a vision for the future of Canada, one that builds on the foundation already laid by this government and one that continues to invest in our communities and their people so that all Canadians have a real and fair shot at success no matter what circumstances they were born into, so they can have a dignified retirement. It is a budget that continues to sustain our strong economic performance well into the future and keeps Canada on top as the very best country in the world.

That is why I am proudly supporting Bill C-74.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague commented on his vision for Canada and that this budget clearly lays out a vision for Canada.

What my colleague did not do was tell Canadians that part of that vision includes a massive debt that will be left to future generations of Canadians. He commented about the Canada child benefit. We champion the Canada child benefit, but it would be nice if, along with the cheque the government is sending to the parents of the children of Canada, there was a little disclaimer on the bottom to say, “P.S. You, your children, and your grandchildren will be obligated to pay for the out-of-control spending that the Liberal government is currently incurring on your behalf.”

How can my colleague actually believe this is a positive vision for Canada when it leaves us paying $26 billion a year just in interest, going to $33 billion in just a few years? That is not even counting the carbon tax. It is not counting the extra $4 billion that the Parliamentary Budget Officer indicated today would be added to this year's deficit, which was forecast to be $18 billion and is now $22 billion.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, I always find it interesting when I hear Conservatives talk in this place about deficits and debt. Most Canadians understand the fact that the last government ran up over $150 billion in deficits and debt. That has to be paid by Canadians. The result of that deficit and debt was one of the lowest and worst-performing economies in the G7, and a stagnant GDP.

This government is investing in Canadians and their communities, including the Canada child benefit, to put Canada on the right track for the future. It will strengthen local communities. Investing in our children is the best investment we can make. We are seeing the results. Canada has the highest GDP in the G7 right now because of wise investments like this one.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is not enough for the Liberals to tell Canadians they are going to implement pharmacare, or ask Canadians to just trust them, or tell Canadians they are going to have an advisory committee but it takes a long time, that kind of thing.

It would really be helpful if Liberal members stood up in the House and said they were going to implement pharmacare and that they were going to do the hard work to see that happen. Simply asking us to go along with a vague promise is not respectful to parliamentarians and it is not respectful to Canadians, who are looking for real timelines and for the government to move from talk to action.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my friend that we need to get there. I support the implementation of pharmacare, as do many of my colleagues. Many members in the House support it, as do most Canadians. However, we need to have a real plan to get there. We cannot just go ahead with something that is so vitally important and risk not getting it right. We have to work with the provinces to make sure the framework is properly put into place so that the investment we make will be a wise one, one that will sustain pharmacare for the long term, and make sure that people in Canada, including the vulnerable seniors I represent in my riding, will be able to count on that program for the long term.

We have to get this right. The government is committed to doing it and putting in place the right policy to do so.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was hearing a lot of hyperbole and fiction and I was going to give my hon. colleague a pass because it is Monday, but then he started to talk about pensions. I mean, really? The Liberal government walked away on Sears workers. The finance minister came into the House to promote the interests of his family business, Morneau Shepell, and told investors that they needed legislation to take down defined pensions. Bill C-27 was the first pension bill the finance minister brought in; his family's company dealt with the Sears pensioners, and we expect the Liberal government to stand up for pensioners? This is ridiculous. The Liberals have a lot of gall to come into the House and pretend that they will do anything for pensioners.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, I respectfully disagree with all of the assertions my friend has made. It is not helpful in the course of this debate to make personal attacks against members of the House. We can disagree on policy, but to call into question the integrity of an hon. member is beneath contempt and does not show proper respect for this place or for all Canadians.

The Canada pension plan has been strengthened for the long term because of the policies of this government. That is going to have real results for retirement security for all of our people.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, this budget is another failure by the Liberal Prime Minister and his finance minister: more taxes, more debt, and more spending that does not offer solutions for hard-working Canadians. Instead, it saddles us, our children, our grandchildren, and even our great-grandchildren with billions of dollars' worth of debt at a time when interest rates are rising.

Budget 2018 was a huge opportunity for the Prime Minister. The world economy is roaring, but the Liberal government is failing to turn this favourable climate into results for Canadians. Instead, the Prime Minister is raising taxes on over 90% of Canadian middle-class families, and this budget announces new tax hikes on local businesses.

The Liberals are also borrowing an additional $18 billion, which actually has now risen to $22 billion since this morning, which is adding another $22 billion in deficit to the budget. However, despite all the spending, middle-class Canadians are no further ahead and Canada's GDP growth will slow to 2% by the end of the year.

After the budget was presented, I spoke with the chairs of the Greater Kitchener Waterloo Chamber of Commerce and the Cambridge Chamber of Commerce. Their words speak volumes about the measures in this failed budget.

Greg Durocher, the president and CEO of the Cambridge Chamber of Commerce, said, “This seems to be a typical budget from a government that has seen better days in the battlefield. As a result of the massive campaign led by the chamber movement across the country, there was some moderate tweaking of the passive income tax calculation for small business owners. The real problem with this legislation is that it is not going to achieve the objectives they intended it to. You cannot get to the wealthiest 1% by targeting middle-class entrepreneurs, it is simply wrong and will still cost small business owners $1 billion taken out of our economy. There is nothing to make Canadian business more competitive given the massive tax reductions in the United States, our biggest competitor, and possible derailing of NAFTA talks which would cause a travesty in Canada for the business community. Supporting female entrepreneurs is a good thing, but frankly it is a shame we have to do this, and gender equality should be a foregone conclusion.”

He went on to say, “We are still very much concerned with a government who simply believes that a spending spree will be good for Canadians, and more importantly, good for our future leaders. We cannot continue to spend more than we take in. The time was right during the recession of 2008-09. Now, when the government itself says our economy is good, is the time to eliminate deficits, pay down debt and provide relief for businesses and individuals who are still struggling to grow and get into the prosperity of the economy this government keeps talking about.”

I am not sure I could have said it much better myself.

I also heard from Art Sinclair, the vice-president of the Greater Kitchener Waterloo Chamber of Commerce who had this to say:

Small businesses across Waterloo Region and Canada need a tax system that is fair and straight-forward in its application. Our chamber has been consistently informed by our membership that new rules are making the system more complex and time consuming for companies who should be focused on growth and job creation.

This budget fails Canadians in many areas, but let me focus on three for the next few minutes.

First is infrastructure. This government campaigned on increasing spending on infrastructure, a promise that was popular across Canada. However, what we have seen is that even though this government is spending at record levels, very little is going into infrastructure. Meanwhile, the government is squandering $35 billion on a new Asian infrastructure bank that helps wealthy investors and ignores Canadians who want shorter commute times. In fact, this budget indicated the Liberal government is planning on cutting funding for infrastructure over the next few years.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer wrote in the report entitled “Budget 2018: Issues for Parliamentarians”:

Budget 2018 provides an incomplete account of the changes to the Government’s $186.7 billion infrastructure spending plan. PBO requested the new plan but it does not exist. Roughly one-quarter of the funding allocated for infrastructure from 2016-17 to 2018-19 will lapse. Both legacy and new infrastructure programs are prone to large lapses.

It is another broken promise by the Liberals.

Second, I will talk about the carbon tax. Over 200 pages of the budget bill create a complicated and costly new carbon tax in all provinces that do not already have their own.

That tax would raise the cost of heat, gas, groceries, and everything else that Canadians need. A carbon tax would not work. Carbon taxes do not decrease emissions. They hurt the national economy by increasing the cost of living, all the while making the country less competitive globally. In fact, just today, as I mentioned, the Parliamentary Budget Officer announced that a carbon tax would take $10 billion from our Canadian economy.

Knowing all of this, the Liberal government is moving ahead with this bad decision. Unfortunately, that is not even half the problem. The Liberal government knows full well how much the carbon tax would cost the average family, but it refuses to let Canadians know. Officials from the Department of Finance have let us know that we can expect to see an 11¢ increase per litre on gasoline, and an extra $264 for natural gas home heating per year, with oil heating costs being even more. Trevor Tombe at the University of Calgary estimated that the carbon tax would mean $1,100 in additional costs per family. Other estimates are as high as $2,500 per family, just from the carbon tax implementation. That might not sound like a lot of money to the members opposite, but I have spent 12 years in this House making sure that my constituents in Kitchener—Conestoga get to keep more of their hard-earned money in their own pockets, not less, and I will keep fighting that fight.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer wrote the following in the most recent economic and fiscal outlook:

Implementation of the federal government's carbon pricing levy will generate a headwind for the Canadian economy over the medium term as the levy rises from $10 per tonne of [carbon dioxide] equivalent in 2018 to $50 per tonne in 2022.

Based on analysis conducted by the Ecofiscal Commission, we project that real GDP will be 0.5 per cent lower in 2022 than it would otherwise be. This amounts to $10 billion in 2022.

Therefore, not only would families be paying more, but our economy would be guaranteed to suffer as well as a result. The government also knows whether its carbon tax would decrease emissions, but again we get no answers. My colleague, the hon. member for Carleton, has asked time and time again, and I will ask it now: What exactly does the Liberal government have to hide?

Third is the national debt and out-of-control spending. Canada started the new fiscal year on April 1, 2018 with a trillion dollars worth of market debt. This is the total debt upon which the Government of Canada pays interest. The net debt is $669 billion. We all remember during the 2015 election campaign when the Prime Minister, then the leader of the third party, promised that, if elected, a Liberal government would run a small deficit and return to balance by 2019. Instead, the deficits have been twice what he promised. Finance Canada now projects deficits for another 25 years, totalling almost half a trillion dollars.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer, in his review of budget 2018, had this to say in regard to the growing deficit and debt:

Despite commitments made in the Minister of Finance's mandate letter and in Budget 2016, the Government has not explicitly mentioned its fiscal anchors of balancing the budget and continuing to reduce the federal debt-to-GDP ratio in subsequent Fall Economic Statements or budgets, including Budget 2018.

The Liberal deficits today will require massive new tax increases soon after the election. Canadians will pay more tax to fund interest payments to wealthy lenders. That is money that is not being spent on our veterans, health care, national defence, or on real tax relief for the middle class.

We, as Conservatives, have a positive vision for our country. We on this side of the House have introduced legislation that supports young families, new parents, and persons with disabilities. We introduced legislation that provides more transparency about how taxpayer money is spent, and we will always support policies that create jobs and grow our economy. We will remove red tape and remove obstacles that are in the way of young entrepreneurs who are trying to start and to grow their business. I know that our leader, the Leader of the Opposition, has his private member's bill up for debate soon. I hope that members across the way will support this common sense legislation that would actually help new families, not saddle them with higher taxes.

This budget has been described by some as an election budget. While the Liberals are focused on trying to get re-elected, I will keep focusing on the hard-working people in Kitchener, Wellesley, Woolwich, and Wilmot. The people in my riding know how to work hard and contribute to the improvement of our community. I want to see them rewarded for their efforts, not saddled with mountains of debt.

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed listening to my colleague's remarks. He has a single vision, with a number of pieces that he has pulled out of a number of reports without any context at all, some of which are quite misleading. When he talks about the billion-dollar market debt, what he forgets to mention is that it first went to that number in 2012 under the Harper government. Indeed, that market debt includes crown corporations and others.

The misleading statements are not helpful to Canadians in terms of their understanding of what it really is. I would ask the hon. member if he does not think it is irresponsible to provide only partial information.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, that has been the argument that I have been making all day in this House. We are getting partial information from the government in this budget implementation bill. There is nothing in here to tell us what the carbon tax will cost us. There is nothing in here to tell us when the budget will be balanced, in spite of a very clear promise made by virtually every member of that party during the last campaign. I remember it was to be a maximum deficit of $10 billion, to be balanced by 2019. This year it should have been $6 billion, according to their projections. However, today the Parliamentary Budget Officer said it is not only $18 billion, but $22 billion.

Thus, I am absolutely opposed to partial information.

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

Madam Speaker, it seems like those two parties really rub off on each other, sometimes for the better, but more often for the worse. We were given an omnibus bill of over 500 pages, a little strategy that they liked to use. Somewhere in all this mess, there were supposed to be measures to promote gender equality. In reality, there is not a single penny in the budget allocated for that.

I would like my colleague's thoughts on that. Does he think it would have been a good idea to include concrete measures for gender equality in the budget?

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to pick up on the comment that my colleague made about the omnibus budget, which is 540 pages. Of those 540 pages, well over 200 pages are dealing directly with the carbon tax, and again there is no indication of cost.

I cannot answer specifically the question as to how much is directed towards gender equality, but based on the misinformation in this budget and the misinformation we have been given all day, I am not very confident that we will get an accurate figure for that either.

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member mentioned a couple of quotes. I want to give him a quote from the Business Development Bank of Canada: “Canada had solid economic growth...in 2017. Our economy is on a solid footing. [...] Canada should have a solid growth of 2.2% in 2018”. Some estimates are even higher.

I want to quote the member when he said that infrastructure spending is very little. He should take a drive in his constituency, because we have invested $97 million to expand the highway. We have spent billions of dollars getting the light rail transit in the region. We have spent millions of dollars in infrastructure, underground maintenance, water mains, and waste water treatment programs. There have been millions of dollars spent in the riding.

I would encourage the hon. member to take a drive and see all the construction in the region.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am thrilled that my neighbour, my colleague from Kitchener South—Hespeler, mentioned light rail transit.

When I was elected in 2006, light rail transit was one of the things that I championed as a member of Parliament for the Waterloo region. I was honoured to stand with our former prime minister, the Right Hon. Stephen Harper, when we announced federal funding for the light rail transit in the Waterloo region. It is because when we were the government and made an announcement of that funding, much of that infrastructure spending was done toward achieving the results my colleague mentioned. I am grateful for those results.

[Raj Grewal, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise in the House and discuss measures we are introducing through Bill C-74. The bill proposes important measures related to our budget 2018. With our latest budget, we are putting people first and ensuring equality and fairness for all Canadians.

We are doing this in a number of ways. These include initiatives that allow for more equal share of parental leave, an initiative to support the participation of women in the workforce, and the introduction of proactive pay equity legislation in federally regulated sectors.

We are also working hard to support Canada's most vulnerable segments of society, including seniors. The measures introduced in Bill C-74 help to do just that. It is no secret that Canada's population is aging, and Canadians are living longer and more healthy lives. This increasing longevity is good news and should be celebrated, because it brings with it more wisdom, expertise, and experience in society. However, this demographic shift also means that we need to adjust our policies and programs to ensure they remain relevant.

We have a growing seniors population, with over six million people who are 65 years of age or older. In the next 25 years, that number is estimated to almost double, to 11 million people, representing one-quarter of Canada's population. There is no doubt that private and public institutions alike must adapt, as the significant demographic shift creates new opportunities as well as challenges.

Our government places enormous value on the contribution that seniors have made and will continue to make in our communities, workplaces, families, and our country. It goes without saying that they should have access to income security that will allow them to live a safe, secure, and dignified retirement.

We have already taken concrete steps to ensure that seniors will have that dignified retirement. In the area of income security, it is well known that we have restored the eligibility age for old age security and guaranteed income supplement from age 67 back to 65, and for allowance benefits from age 62 back to 60. This is putting thousands of dollars into the pockets of Canadian seniors and keeping approximately 100,000 future seniors from falling into poverty. Since 2016, we have also increased the top-up of the guaranteed income supplement payment by $947 per year for single recipients. This has improved the financial security of close to 900,000 vulnerable seniors and is lifting approximately 13,000 seniors out of poverty. Seventy per cent of those seniors happen to be women. We are also ensuring that senior couples who receive GIS and allowance benefits and live apart for reasons beyond their control, for example, because of long-term care requirements, can receive higher benefits based on their individual incomes.

The Canada pension plan is one of the most important parts of our social support system. It is with great pride that I remind the House that in March 2017, our government enacted legislative changes to enhance the Canada pension plan to ensure greater financial security for future seniors by increasing CPP retirement benefits, and providing larger benefits for disabled contributors, widows, and widowers. The amount that Canadians pay into the plan before retirement will gradually rise over a seven-year period, starting in 2019. Increased benefits will build up gradually with each year of contributions to the CPP enhancement. When workers who participated in the enhancement for their entire careers collect retirement pensions, the CPP enhancement will increase the maximum CPP retirement pension by approximately 50%. These CPP enhancements mean more money for Canadians when they retire, so they can worry less about their savings and focus more on enjoying time with their families.

With the action taken by Quebec to enhance the Quebec pension plan in a similar fashion, all Canadians can now look forward to a safer and more secure retirement.

Building on that success, as part of the 2016-18 triennial review, federal and provincial ministers of finance agreed to more changes that will improve the CPP without increasing legislated contribution rates. These changes will provide further support from CPP enhancements for parents and people with disabilities. In our latest budget, we have confirmed that the government would move forward with these changes in 2019, in addition to those established through the CPP enhancements. With Bill C-74 we would put our promise to Canadians in action to create a better CPP for seniors today and into the future. This is why we are asking for the House's full support of Bill C-74.

The changes we are proposing in this bill include features that would protect the value of retirement benefits under the CPP enhancement for parents who take time off work to care for young children and for persons with disabilities. They also include a raise in the survivor's pension for individuals who become widowed under age 45 as well as a top-up benefit for disabled retirement pension recipients under the age of 65. We would increase the death benefit to its maximum value of $2,500 for all eligible contributors.

It is important to note that Bill C-74 would also make the required amendments to maintain portability between the CPP and the enhanced Quebec pension plan when those enhancements come into effect.

As I have stated, with budget 2018, we have committed to putting people first and ensuring quality and fairness for all Canadians. Part of that commitment means taking informed steps forward in our efforts to advance equality, especially for women, because we believe that equality between Canadian women and men will lead to greater prosperity. We are applying this lens to everything we do, and the changes we are proposing in Bill C-74 are no exception.

The changes we are making to the Canada pension plan are going to go a long way in supporting all future retirees, including, in particular, women. We know that women are more likely than men to take time away from work to raise their children, and let us not forget that women are also more likely to outlive their partners. We are making these changes because it is the right thing to do and is the smart thing to do to help seniors and advance equality for women to the benefit of all Canadians.

We know that Canadians work hard every day to support themselves and their families and to keep our economy growing. When it comes time to retire, Canadians deserve to do so with support from the very society they helped build and maintain. It goes without saying that Canadians should have access to income security that will allow them to live a safe, secure, and dignified retirement.

I am proud to say that through Bill C-74, we would continue to make that goal a reality. I encourage my colleagues in this House to support this bill and help create a better retirement for those who work so hard, for this generation and for generations to come. We owe it to all Canadians to pass this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, what is missing from my colleague's speech is any critical analysis. What is interesting is that he made reference to the move of benefits for old age security from age 67 to age 65. What he does not understand is that our economy actually needs people to stay in the workplace longer. That political move made for the election has actually been criticized by Dominic Barton, the chief economist on the finance minister's advisory council.

An analysis of the expansion of the CPP he talked about said that it will actually lead to thousands of job losses, because it is a tax on small business, an input tax. It predicted that in the future, only five per cent of Canadians would be helped by those changes. Much like we heard in the House today, there would be extra spending, extra tax on businesses, and the loss of jobs to help only a very small number of people.

When Dominic Barton himself and the chief actuary of Morneau Shepell, Fred Vettese, criticize the move from 67 to 65, does that member not agree that the government needs to think better about Canada's long term?

[Raj Grewal, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Madam Speaker, what the hon. member and the hon. member's party fail to understand is that our commitment made in the 2015 election to return to the age of 65 for the GIS and old age security has lifted hundreds of thousands of seniors out of poverty. Those are the same seniors the member's party turned its back on. That was the commitment we made in the 2015 campaign.

The member opposite wants to talk about jobs. Let us talk about jobs, no problem. Since we were elected in 2015, we have created over 600,000 jobs. That is more than the Conservatives created in 10 years of government. The unemployment rate is at a decade low of 5.8%. The Conservatives had the lowest-growth job rate, for 10 years, of any prime minister.

The member opposite and his party like to get up and talk about experts. We take our advice from the Canadian people. That is why we are sitting on this side of the House. If the Conservatives keep that mentality, they will be comfortable on that side for a very long time.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always interesting to hear people in this place fill themselves up with their own rhetoric and the arrogance that comes with it. It is very disconcerting. The more I hear the heckling in this House, the more it shows me how out of touch these people are with real Canadians.

In particular, in the 500-some pages there is nothing that addresses our seniors' conditions today, here and now. When the Liberals talk about advisory committees or money that is going to be allocated at some future date, they are actually insulting people who cannot articulate in a very candid fashion the way they are struggling, because it is embarrassing. We have had two different governing parties for 150 years that have provided the narrative, “Shame on you. If you are struggling, you made bad choices.”

I want to know exactly what you are doing in this budget, right now, to address struggling seniors who cannot afford their pharmacare and who cannot afford—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I just want to remind the member to address the questions to the Chair and not to the government side.

[Raj Grewal, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Madam Speaker, I always find it absolutely amazing when members from the NDP get up and talk about helping the most vulnerable people in our society.

When the opportunity came to help middle-class families with a tax cut, and when the opportunity came, through the Canada child benefit, to lift 300,000 children out of poverty, the NDP members voted against it. They always go out and talk about helping Canadians, but when the opportunity came, they voted against it. We are not going to take any lessons from the NDP members on helping Canadians.

This side of the House is doing its job. In the 2015 election, we promised that we would invest in middle-class Canadians, and we have done that by reducing taxes and investing in the Canada child benefit. We promised to reduce the age from 67 to 65, and we have done that. We have invested billions of dollars in affordable housing.

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 second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks ago, I happened to catch Stephen Poloz's speech on budget 2018. Hearing the governor of the Bank of Canada's remarks on our federal budget filled me with pride. Hearing his optimism about the present macroeconomic situation, including the creation of over 280,000 jobs in the past 12 months and the lowest unemployment in 40 years, made me proud to be a part of this government that believes in evidence-based policy and uses it to make informed and sound financial decisions for this country.

The notable takeaway from Bank of Canada Governor Poloz highlighted the groups of people in Canada who represent sources of untapped potential. These include youth, women, indigenous people, and the growing number of recent migrants. Let us focus on youth for a minute.

The governor cites young people as one of the sources of untapped potential, and I wholeheartedly agree. There is a decline in youth participation in the economy, and for Canada to truly prosper, more young Canadians will have to have jobs and pathways to these jobs must be created. This where budget 2018 comes in.

In budget 2018, the new Canada workers benefit would encourage more people and more youth to join the workforce. Our plan will offer real help to more than two million Canadians who are working hard to join the middle class. Our plans anticipate raising roughly 70,000 Canadians out of poverty. At the same time, starting in 2019, the government will also make it easier for people to access the benefit they have earned, making changes that will allow the Canada Revenue Agency to calculate the CWB for any tax filer who has not claimed it yet.

The Canada workers benefit replaces the working income tax benefit. This means that low-income workers earning $15,000 would receive up to almost $500 more from the CWB in 2019 than in 2018 to invest and spend on things that are important to them, such as groceries, utilities, and other essentials.

Our government ensures the smooth running of any new measure we introduce. As such, over the next year the government will work to determine if the delivery of the CWB can be further improved to provide better support to low-income Canadians throughout the year, rather than through an annual refund after filing their taxes.

It is no secret that budget 2018 has been referred to as a ''gender budget", and I am proud to say that every single decision on expenditures and tax measures in this budget was informed by a gender-based analysis. A gender-based analysis such as this is important to target particular groups and produce evidence-based policy, and to help end the income gap between women and men doing equal work.

The most notable example of this in budget 2018 is the promise to fund a dedicated second parent leave under employment insurance that will see $240 million in funding a year rising to $345 million. This includes giving couples who share parental leave an additional five weeks of paid benefits, starting in June 2019. These measures seek to increase the number of men who take time off after the arrival of a new child. The new parental sharing benefit will allow two-parent families, including same-sex parents and people who adopt, to share the opportunity to take an additional five to eight weeks away from work to spend with their children.

Despite these efforts, much work needs to be done to make child care accessible to parents. Lack of child care is what keeps women out of the workforce, as research has shown. In order to encourage and facilitate more women's participation in the labour force, we must lower the cost of child care. Our government is committed to making affordable early learning and child care more accessible.

In budget 2017, the government announced a long-term investment of $7.5 billion over 11 years to support more accessible and affordable early learning. Following this, the federal, provincial, and territorial governments reached an agreement on a multilateral early learning and child care framework. The government is now entering into a three-year bilateral agreement with provinces and territories in order to review and adjust these agreements as needed over the 11-year framework. So far, we have reached nine agreements.

While I am on the topic of women's participation in the workforce, it is important to mention the important contributions of women entrepreneurs. Budget 2018 recognizes this in its strategy for women entrepreneurs, with $1.65 billion in new financing being made available to women business owners, which will be delivered over three years through the Business Development Bank of Canada and Export Development Canada.

I want to talk about the Fierce Founders in Communitech in my riding. They are the first female-focused accelerator group created to encourage gender diversity in tech and encourage women entrepreneurs to start tech companies. Communitech helps with financing with this program, and it has done tremendously in our region to help female entrepreneurs get into the start-up sector and pursue high-tech jobs.

Budget 2018 proposes an additional $511 million over five years on a cash basis, starting in 2018-19, to the regional development agencies to support the innovation and skills plan across all regions of Canada. Of the $511 million, $149 million would be allocated to the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario, of which $33 million will be for nationally coordinated, regionally tailored support for women entrepreneurs.

In addition, our government recognizes the barriers that make it difficult for women to launch their own businesses. Therefore, we are committed to providing $105 million over five years to reduce such barriers. Our government also has a commitment to make grants and programs for scientific research more accessible to women.

As a member of Parliament in the tri-cities, I want to talk about innovation and infrastructure, which is welcomed our region, especially in light of the federal government's $950-million innovation superclusters. I am proud to say that the University of Waterloo in my region will take a leading research role in two of the five winning bids as part of the innovation supercluster initiative. The government announced the advanced manufacturing supercluster, an innovation hotbed that is home to strong industrial clusters linked through their shared reliance on specialized inputs, including technologies, talent, and infrastructure. This supercluster will connect Canada's technology strengths to our manufacturing industry to make us a world manufacturing leader in the economy of tomorrow.

The Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario currently supports economic growth in southern Ontario through the delivery of federal programs and services. The agency's funding will be renewed to continue supporting that growth with a commitment of $920 million over six years.

Specifically in my region, as I mentioned, there is $950 million, and part of that is part of the superclusters where we are encouraging more innovation and industry to develop high technology to work to advance manufacturing and high-tech jobs so that we can grow our economy.

I would like to conclude by echoing the sentiments of Bank of Canada Governor Poloz:

We are living in an incredibly optimistic economic time in Canada. Our labour market needs to work, but things are looking up as we pave the way for women, youth, and other groups to participate in our labour force. New opportunities and technologies are on the horizon, and budget 2018 is laying the groundwork for their success.

I am proud that we brought this budget forward. I am proud that I represent the riding of Kitchener South—Hespeler, where we are embracing this budget with technology, innovation, and investment so that we can grow our economy and ensure that everyone in my region and in the rest of Canada prosper.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his comments. As geographic neighbours in our ridings, we have the privilege of representing the greatest part of Canada in the Waterloo region, so we certainly have a lot in common.

In the early part of his comments, my colleague focused on youth. He said he wanted to tap the untapped potential and he wanted more youth to join the workforce. However, there are not going to be more workplaces to go to if the government keeps on with its financial policies, which are driving investment out of the country. Companies are leaving fast and furious. That is one concern. The other concern is about the massive debt that the government is leaving these very youth who are trying to find jobs today.

Finally, my question is on the Canada summer jobs program. We have thousands of youth this summer who will not be working because of the discriminatory policies that the government requires of those who are providing those jobs. I wonder if my colleague could comment on how that actually helps the youth he is concerned about.

I applaud his concern for youth. We need to be concerned about the youth of our country, but I would like answers to those questions.

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member asked great questions.

I want to lay out what our government has achieved since we have taken office. Some 600,000 jobs have been created since we have taken office. Canada is doing the best of all the G7 countries. Our government has lifted over 300,000 children out of poverty.

The member mentioned youth. Our youth are facing challenges at this time. I think my colleague can relate to the fact that housing prices in our region have gone up quite significantly. A lot of young people are unable to purchase their first home. I agree with the hon. member that we have a lot of work to do for our youth.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest when my colleague talked about regional economic development. My own riding is bigger than the United Kingdom. Northern Ontario is on the other side of the map, and most people in southern Ontario in political life do not even know we exist.

When the Liberals talk about superclusters, it shows the Liberals' lack of vision. They throw supercluster here, supercluster there, as though we get three or four great winners and we are going to build a national economy. I am so pleased they are making that investment in Waterloo. However, our region is a vast region of resource-based, agricultural-based small communities, and the only supercluster we see in regional economic development is the supercluster that is forming in the office of the minister from Mississauga as he shuts down the regional voices and conglomerates them all under his watch.

We look at the Liberals' vision for FedNor, which they have atrophied year after year, and the loss of staff at FedNor. The fact is that the Liberals do not even mention FedNor any more when they do consultations. For example, on broadband, the Liberals cancelled the FedNor broadband projects, and we lost two years.

I would invite my colleague to get outside of the Liberal supercluster and come to rural and resource-based Canada. We are wonderful people. We will not bite. We will show him around. We will invite him to understand what a national economy looks like.

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have invested historic numbers in infrastructure. With this investment we have been able to get Internet and broadband access to many rural communities. That did not happen under the previous government.

In terms of the superclusters, $950 million has been given to superclusters. This is not only good for Waterloo region, but it is good for areas that have manufacturing sectors that now are transitioning to advanced manufacturing sectors, which are growing our economy and increasing jobs. That is our record. Six hundred thousand jobs have been created under our government.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

The Liberal omnibus budget implementation bill is quite the tome, coming in at 556 pages. One can only begin to imagine the multitude of changes it would impose on Canadians. For a party that decried omnibus bills, it really did not take long for the Liberals to break another one of their campaign promises.

To put the length of this legislation into perspective, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, To Kill a Mockingbird, The Catcher in the Rye, and The Handmaid's Tale were all written with fewer pages. While one can only begin to wonder what genre the Liberal budget implementation bill would fall under, I can assure Canadians that its negative implications for the pocketbooks of hard-working families all across the country and its impact on our economy would be very real.

Throughout the proposed legislation, there are numerous measures that would hike taxes and impose new taxes, and it still does not provide any meaningful plan to get spending under control. Only the Liberals could do a spending review and find no savings. I would even argue that it probably cost the taxpayers more money for the government to set up its internal spending review than what it would end up saving.

Now, after three years of the Liberals in power, Canadians have a deep understanding of the consequences of the Liberal decisions. Outside private investment has plummeted. Taxes are higher. There are deficits as far as the eye can see, and the Liberals still do not have a comprehensive plan to justify their spendthrift ways.

At a macro level, spending has grown at a furious pace. The Liberals have increased spending at a rate of roughly 6.5% to 7% per year. That means they have increased spending by 20% in the last three years.

While some of the new spending measures are welcome, we have to question where all the money is going. According to the PBO, the Liberals' infrastructure spending has contributed only 0.1% of GDP growth. We also know that a quarter of their infrastructure funding has lapsed and is not getting out the door. Worst of all, the PBO said that the Liberals do not even have a plan when it comes to infrastructure investments. How they plan on spending billions of dollars with no plan boggles the mind. Perhaps that is indicative of many other underlying problems that the government has created for itself these past few months.

The issue of everlasting deficits really does not bother my hon. Liberal colleagues across the way, and I have yet to hear a single Liberal MP openly question the finance minister as to why he failed to keep the Liberals' promise to return to balanced budgets by 2019. As noted, the deficit has gone from an election promise of $6 billion for this year to the government's broken promise of $18 billion, to be levelled at $22 billion today, according to the PBO. As interest rates rise, and they have for the last three budgetary quarters, this out-of-control spending becomes even more irresponsible.

The real question, though, is about future governments, in this case future Conservative governments, which will have to deal with the fiscal mess that is being passed down to all Canadians, and particularly to our young Canadians. Let us never forget that today's deficits are tomorrow's taxes. Money does not grow on trees. It does not magically appear out of thin air. Budgets, contrary to what the Prime Minister says, do not balance themselves.

As I have said before, the Liberals have provided zero rationale for why they need to rack up the credit—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I just want to remind the hon. members that there is nothing stopping them from crossing the floor to speak to each other, rather than shout across. It just makes it a lot easier for me to hear what the hon. member for Brandon—Souris is saying, which is very interesting.

The hon. member for Brandon—Souris, please continue.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is just another opportunity for them not to hear what they do not want to hear.

There is no economic calamity. There is no recession. We are not in one. There is no economic calamity transpiring across the border, as was the case during the great world recession of 2008-09. The only logical conclusion is that the Liberals have lost complete and utter control of the nation's finances.

Not once has the Minister of Finance provided any concrete answers as to when he plans to stop spending more than the Liberals are bringing in. Not once has the Minister of Finance actually provided a coherent answer as to why they broke their election campaign promises of a balanced budget in 2019, which just happens to be the next election year. Now, the Minister of Finance is asking parliamentarians to give him approval to continue his out-of-control spending. It sounds like the losing Wynne budget plan of Ontario, but then, it is from the same architect, after all.

For example, tucked away in the legislation is a giant $7-billion slush fund. What is it for? We do not get an answer. The Liberals say they have no idea. I believe it is safe to say that this would be the largest blank cheque in Canadian history. It would be highly irresponsible to approve their plan and give them the authorization to spend $7 billion of taxpayers' money without any explanation.

Due to the length of their omnibus legislation, I want to use the remaining time to focus squarely on their carbon tax, which takes up about 200 pages of the bill. Never before has a government introduced such sweeping tax changes without providing any meaningful information. Actually, I take that back. We only have to look at how they tabled their plan to tax local businesses the day before the House rose for Christmas. There should be no taxation without information.

Multiple requests for information filed with the government have resulted in the release of documents that have key information blacked out. The “potential impact of a carbon price on households' consumption expenditures across the income distribution” was withheld. If the Liberals want to take hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars out of the pockets of my constituents, they had better be upfront about what their carbon tax would do. Particularly for a constituency as rural and diverse as mine, families have to drive long distances to go to work, drop off their kids at school, run errands, and pick up groceries. There is no public transit picking up passengers in Elgin, Manitoba.

I would suggest that many of my rural colleagues are in the same boat. We have thousands of constituents who are going to be negatively impacted by the Liberal carbon tax, and yet the Minister of Environment is refusing to answer the most obvious question: How many tonnes of C02 are projected to be eliminated by this carbon tax?

It is not for a lack of trying from our side to get the information. The Minister of Environment has been asked dozens of times how much Canada's emissions would be reduced by implementing a $50 carbon tax. Each and every time she has been asked, she has refused to answer. She has evaded the question. She has failed to present even the most basic information on what the impact of the carbon tax would be, and then has the audacity to say that she has “no time” for elected representatives who do not support the carbon tax. This sort of tone is what some call the Liberals' kryptonite. It is demeaning, condescending, and patronizing. I would call that the Liberal hat trick.

It is unacceptable that the Liberals refuse to outline the true cost of their carbon tax and the impact it would have on Canadian families. It is unclear what impact the Liberals' national climate change plan would have on the economy, and that uncertainty is causing businesses to stand on the sidelines and wait, discouraging investment and hurting the economy.

The only information we are getting is from the PBO, who released a report this morning projecting that the carbon tax would take $10 billion out of our economy by 2022. The report warns that the carbon tax would “generate a headwind” for the Canadian economy as it is escalated from $10 per tonne in 2018 to $50 per tonne in 2022.

Another story came out this morning by Blacklock's, which stated that according to information provided to the Senate energy committee, the Liberal carbon tax “would have to more than double [the $50-per-tonne tax] if Canada is to meet greenhouse gas emission targets”.

That would mean a target of at least $130 a tonne, the equivalent of an extra 22 cents per litre on gasoline. If we thought gas was getting expensive again with the rise of the price of oil, we just have to wait until the Liberals spring that extra 22 cents on gasoline. The trickle-down effect will be disastrous for household incomes. It will cost more to heat our homes, purchase our groceries, and purchase almost everything at the store.

While the Liberals want to sneak their carbon tax through the House inside their omnibus budget bill, I want to remind them that threatening provinces will get them nowhere. Imposing this massive tax grab on Canadians without even providing the most meagre information is the complete opposite approach they should be taking.

I will never support this Liberal carbon tax. I cannot in good conscience support their out-of-control spending, and I will oppose the tax hikes contained in their budget implementation bill every step of the way.

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

Mr. Speaker, I heard my hon. colleague across the aisle say that we do not want to hear what we do not want to hear, and he talked about actions being demeaning and condescending.

In 2014, I know what it was like living in New Brunswick Southwest. I know what it was like in the field of education, as a post-secondary educator, with the cuts to science. When I decided to run, it was on the premise that we were going to restore science and the confidence the public would have in our policies and our decisions.

I am wondering if my hon. colleague could respond to why the Harper government made significant cuts to science, not to buildings but to the science itself, that inevitably discouraged young people from jumping into scientific fields.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would assure my hon. colleague that the Harper government created 1.2 million full-time jobs. Canadians had a balanced budget when we left government. The Liberal government has created a huge deficit and has still only created a few jobs.

It is certainly a misstatement to say that we were not in favour of science. As my hon. colleague indicated a number of times, when we look at greenhouse gas emissions, Conservatives were not proposing a carbon tax. We are the only government in Canadian history, as was pointed out earlier today in comments, that reduced greenhouse gas emissions. The Liberal government still has to pick up and do something to come anywhere close to what we accomplished under the Harper government.

The premise of hon. member's question is completely wrong.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since my colleague represents the Brandon area, with its high population of military personnel and veterans, given its proximity to the military base, I would like to know whether he finds that the changes made to veterans' pensions in the Liberal budget are consistent with the promises the Liberals made in the election campaign or whether he thinks that the Liberals are incapable of keeping any of their promises in the budget they presented.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that question is a very appropriate one. The Liberals did a lot of talking during the election campaign, and they promised that they would not take our veterans to court again. They have. In fact, they have gone to the Supreme Court of Canada.

In relation to my hon. colleague's question, the Liberals certainly have not met the pension obligations they promised in the platform they had when they came forward in the 2015 election. From speaking to many veterans, I know that they are very discouraged about what they have been dealing with so far with the government. They are looking forward to the day when that changes with a new Conservative government.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Brandon—Souris, my neighbour to the east. We both have farmers and ranchers in our ridings, and they will be hugely impacted by this carbon tax the member mentioned.

The minister has stood many times in this House to say that all the money that would be collected from the carbon tax would be given back to the provinces. Now we know for a fact that the money would not be given back. The GST would not go back to the provinces. It would stay in the Liberal coffers.

My question for the member is on that aspect of it. The budget talks about $120 million to have carbon police. I wonder if the member could comment on this $120 million expense to police this aspect.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is another good make-work project that we will not need when we get a Conservative government, because we will do away with the carbon tax. Therefore, we do not need that $120 million.

It is very clear that the government has no plan. It is parallel to what they were doing on the marijuana bills, Bill C-45 and Bill C-46. The government was really quite anxious to put out how many dollars it thought it could make with it. However, when I wrote to the Parliamentary Budget Officer about the costs of it, he said that he would tell me what they were if he knew them, but the Liberals would not tell him. This is the same. The Liberals are quite ready to talk about all the money they can make out of a carbon tax, but they will not tell anybody what it will cost.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to help the House advance its understanding of budget 2018.

As the third budget our government has introduced, budget 2018 outlines our government's next steps to advance the mandate given to us by Canadians so thunderously in 2015.

We were sent to Ottawa on a promise to grow the economy, support Canada's middle class and the vulnerable, and to build a more inclusive, prosperous nation for all. Over the last two and a half years, our government has made stunning progress toward this promise. In fact, our very first act as a government was to cut taxes on nine million members of Canada's middle class. Shortly after that, we began inputting more money in the pockets of middle-class and low-income families that needed it through our brand new Canada child benefit, the now famous CCB.

The CCB today is celebrated by families and economists alike as an extraordinary success, making a positive impact on our economy but, more important, a real difference in the day-to-day lives of struggling families. In my riding of Halifax, the CCB supports 11,000 kids and the average payment to Halifax families is $6,300 a year. What is more, across Canada, the CCB has lifted 300,000 children out of poverty, and that is a 40% cut from the rates in 2013.

We also promised to invest in early learning and child care, and in recent months we have seen the scope of that investment and the impact it will have on our communities. I was pleased to join the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development and the Premier of Nova Scotia, as we signed a bilateral funding agreement totalling $35 million.

That investment will create 500 new spaces in Nova Scotia, 15 new child care centres, and 90 new home-based care sites. It will mean significant improvements to child care subsidies in our province. Now families with annual incomes of $35,000 or lower will receive the maximum subsidy, up from the previous threshold of just $25,000. Remarkably, this means 80% of children will now receive the maximum subsidy compared to 66% before.

Access to affordable housing is also a serious challenge facing families across Halifax and Canada. Far too many middle and low-income families require a decent, safe, secure place to call home, which is simply unattainable for them. Across Canada, over 1.7 million families are in housing need and another 25,000 are chronically homeless.

That is why our government released the first-ever comprehensive national housing strategy, focused on giving middle and low-income Canadians better access to affordable housing, with an investment of $40 billion over the next 10 years, including in the new Canada housing benefit, the CHB. Under this plan, we have set some ambitious goals, including a 50% reduction in chronic homelessness and removing over 530,000 households from housing need.

Supporting seniors is yet another promise we made to Canadians, and we have done exactly that through enhancements to the Canada pension plan and by increasing the guaranteed income supplement, or GIS, for nearly 900,000 seniors.

At the other end of the age spectrum, we have kept our promises to students, with increases to Canada student grants; improvements to student loan programs; by doubling the number of Canada summer jobs, which means that instead of 200 summer jobs in Halifax we now have 400; by investing heavily in skills development, training, and apprenticeships; and by ending unpaid internships.

Actions like these have paid off. The Canadian economy is booming. Since our election, Canadians have created 600,000 new jobs, unemployment is at its lowest level in over four decades, and we have the best rate of GDP growth in the G7. Stats like that hardly leave anything else to be said, but I will persevere.

As I said, we were elected on a promise to do better for the Canadians who the previous government left behind, and that is exactly what we have done. This is the impact that can be made when we are in an ambitious government, a government that is not satisfied to accept the status quo, a government that believes there is a better way for our middle class and most vulnerable, and a government that is focused on improving the lives of Canadians and not on the politics of fear and division.

Budget 2018 is a reflection of the positive change we have seen so far and the bold continuation of our important work. I would like to talk a bit more about it, beginning with its focus on gender equality.

Every decision that was made in budget 2018 was informed by gender, through a process called gender-based analysis plus, or GBA+, a tool used to analyze how certain policies, programs, and initiatives impact different groups, women, and gender-diverse people.

In budget 2018, we commit to introducing new GBA+ legislation to make gender-budgeting a permanent part of budget-making in the future in Canada. That is important. We can no longer continue to make decisions without considering the impact those decisions have on women.

Historically, we have seen how doing the opposite has led to inequality between genders, where women today earn just 69¢ for every dollar earned by men. To further address this inequality, we are moving forward with pay equity legislation in federally regulated workplaces. This will ensure that, on average, women and men in these workplaces receive the same pay for work of equal value.

At the same time, in budget 2018, our government recognizes that child care disproportionately falls to women and therefore has a disproportionate impact on the careers and salaries of women in Canada, many of whom face challenges re-entering the workforce. In response, we are introducing progressive changes to parental leave, creating a benefit to encourage both parents to take leave to share in the work of raising their children, and to even the playing field when it comes to men and women leaving and re-entering the workforce as new parents. Through this new benefit, if both parents take parental leave, they will receive an additional five weeks of parental benefits, for a total of 40 weeks of leave split between the parents as they choose, so long as each parent takes at least five weeks of leave.

The next topic I want to address in budget 2018 is the redevelopment of the working income tax benefit, now improved and called the Canada workers benefit, the CWB.

In Halifax, I often hear constituents say that they see our government doing a lot for families, for children, for seniors, but what about single working Canadians who need more support? We heard the message loud and clear, and budget 2018 introduces a new and improved Canada workers benefit to answer that call. This improved benefit will offer more money to low-income workers and let them keep more of their paycheque. Specifically, the CWB will increase both the maximum benefits and the income level at which the benefit is phased out. As a result, a low-income worker earning $15,000 would receive up to $500 more from the CWB in 2019 than they did in 2018.

In Nova Scotia, this benefit will help about 45,000 low-income Nova Scotians. Single workers without kids will receive up to $1,300 per year and a single parent will receive up to $2,300 per year. All told, this means the government is investing almost $1 billion in new funding per year in helping low-income workers get ahead, and raising 70,000 Canadians out of poverty.

The next measure I want to talk about from budget 2018 is our amazing investment in science and research.

Nova Scotia is home to some of the brightest scientists and researchers in the world, at leading research institutions like Dalhousie University, Saint Mary's University, the Bedford Institute of Oceanography, the IWK Health Centre, and more. For the last year, they have rallied around the recommendations of the fundamental science review, also known as the Naylor report, which was commissioned by this government under the leadership of our Minister of Science. The report called for significant investment in investigator-led research.

Our government agreed with those calls for action. Research expands our understanding of how the world works, allowing us to address existing and emerging challenges in our region in new and more effective ways.

Equally important, basic research also serves as the foundation for the knowledge-based economy. That is why budget 2018 includes the single-largest investment in investigator-led fundamental research ever, $4 billion for fundamental research infrastructure and science. It includes a 25% increase in funding to the tri-council of NSERC, CIHR, and SSHRC. We have said it before. Science is back, but more than that, with budget 2018 it is unstoppable.

These kinds of investments will keep Canada on a path to prosperity, along with the others I mentioned in my speech today, and countless additional initiatives from budget 2018 that I did not have time to address.

I hope my colleagues from all corners of this place will agree that our plan is working for Canadians and will vote to keep this spectacular momentum going forward by supporting it.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is clear from the member's speech that he thinks he is doing a very good job, and I congratulate him for telling us that.

If I understand the government's message, it is to be afraid because the other guys are spreading fear and the bad guys across the way need to be stopped because they are sowing division.

The funny thing is that in speeches and in the budget we cannot hear responses to basic fundamental questions. Therefore, I will ask the member three very basic questions about the government's economic plan, and I will ask him to answer one of them. This is really easy.

The first question is, when will the budget be balanced? The second question is, how much will the carbon tax cost ordinary Canadians? The third question is, how much of an emissions reduction will result from the government's carbon tax plan?

Could the member answer one of those three questions?

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to choose to answer the first question, if that suits the member.

When the budget is balanced, it will not be on the backs of veterans. It will not be on the backs of families nor on the backs of our service men and women. It will not be on the backs of people who provide health support to our communities. It will not be on the backs of people who keep our country safe and secure. The budget will be balanced because we have the economy going in the right direction.

This historic investment in infrastructure comes not a moment too soon. Any further delay in repairing the state of Canadian infrastructure will only cost the next generation unimaginably more than what we are investing now, and it is exactly the right time in history to be investing.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I share a passion for old homes. My house was built in 1840. In 2014 it was in much better shape than it is now in 2018.

Perhaps my hon. colleague could comment on the outcome when we do not invest in infrastructure and do not invest in people, but invest in areas where it is not necessary. Why would we make the kind of changes we have made in that investment?

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my home was built in 1892, so I know about these issues as well.

The decision to invest heavily in Canadian infrastructure now is not just a good idea, which we know because it is working, but it is also a moral imperative. I already mentioned to another member in the House today about deferring investment into the state of infrastructure in Canadian communities to which the FCM is giving a failing grade. A very high percentage of Canadian infrastructure needs complete recapitalization and another great percentage requires a great deal of maintenance. If we do not invest now, we would only be putting that investment onto the shoulders and backs of generations to come. We simply cannot afford to do that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

The Parliament website informs us that the two last bills that the member spoke about are Bill C-377 and Bill C-364, which are between two and four pages. He must therefore have worked hard to prepare the speech he gave today about a bill that is 556 pages long.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, there are many ways to judge the quality of a bill, but I do not believe that it being long or short in length is one of them. The way we measure the impact of the bill is not by its size, but by its impact on the lives of Canadians every day.

What we have clear evidence of, two and a half years into this government and after the three budgets we have presented, is that our bills of any size are having an enormous impact on Canadians.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, obviously, there are many, many things to say about the budget, considering the record number of pages, 566 to be exact, and the fact that it amends 44 laws. It would be exhausting, but I could probably talk about it for three days. Unfortunately, I do not have three days to analyze the budget. Thus, I will concentrate on issues specific to rural areas because it is very important to understand what this budget means for people living there.

Our rural communities face many issues on a daily basis. Unfortunately, the government never has any solutions for them, and sometimes there is a real lack of understanding. For example, the labour shortage is a huge problem in rural areas. There is a shortage of not just skilled workers but also of unskilled workers. What this means is that we cannot find people to work in fast food chains, scrub the floors, all the basic tasks that require no specialized skills. People could fill these jobs quickly. Companies have closed their doors because they were unable to continue operations for lack of workers. Some companies have had to cut their hours. Companies operating as a franchise are threatened by their head office because they are unable to meet their contractual obligations due to a lack of workers. In the meantime, many migrants have crossed the border. Many people in my region are wondering if these people could be of some help to them. They have jobs for everyone who is prepared to work and no special skills are required.

Furthermore, housing prices are lower in Abitibi—Témiscamingue. There are some cities where housing prices have risen significantly, but a house in Rouyn-Noranda still costs three times less than a house in Toronto. Why can the government not inform immigrants who come here wanting to work, and whose unemployment rate is typically much lower than in the general population, that rural regions offer not only job opportunities, but a chance to build a new life?

There is no shortage of immigrant success stories to draw from. We have only to think of the late Ulrick Chérubin, who was born in Haiti and served as mayor of Amos for 17 years. He made an immeasurable contribution to Abitibi—Témiscamingue and made quite an impact on the community as Quebec's first black mayor. He was widely known as a staunch champion of the regions. There are many more examples of immigrants successfully integrating into the Abitibi—Témiscamingue region. They made the choice to not just live in Abitibi—Témiscamingue, but to become a part of the community. However, it is apparently impossible for the government to let new immigrants know that there are opportunities waiting for them in rural regions. The jobs available would be entry-level jobs, but filling them would have an impact on the economy and help us keep local businesses open. However, the government is not lifting a finger to help.

I touched on housing. Abitibi—Témiscamingue has been grappling with a housing shortage for a decade or so. Businesses are thinking about leaving because they cannot find housing for potential future workers. Instead of finding places for people to live locally, they end up in fly-in, fly-out situations. It is absolutely ridiculous. If the government builds social housing units, that will free up housing that is not at all affordable for people who have to pay rent they really cannot afford. If people have access to social housing, that will free up housing for people who can pay. I think that is important. Many other rural regions have housing shortages, but the government does not seem to understand. Every time they announce social housing programs, they talk about having to build 48-unit buildings. How about offering the people of Abitibi—Témiscamingue projects that actually meet their needs?

Can we get projects whose administrative demands are realistic given the size of our population? I think that would be entirely appropriate.

With regard to fly-in, fly-out systems, have my colleagues ever seen the price of airline tickets in Abitibi—Témiscamingue? It would almost be easier to book a flight from Rouyn-Noranda to Paris, then forget about Paris and get off in Montreal. It is cheaper to do that than to fly from Rouyn-Noranda to Montreal. It is completely ridiculous. What is more, in many regions of Quebec, there is a monopoly, unlike in Ontario where there are often at least two competing companies. That has a major impact. If I drive 45 minutes more to Timmins, Ontario, it generally costs $400 to $500 less for a return flight to the same destination than it does if I depart from Rouyn-Noranda. It takes me an hour and fifteen minutes to drive to Rouyn-Noranda and two hours and fifteen minutes to drive to Timmins. It is completely ridiculous.

This has a major impact on the economy because many workers use regional airports. Employees and executives often need to travel quickly from one place to another. Companies cannot send them by road because it takes three days, one day for the meeting and two days of driving, not to mention two nights accommodations, whereas, if they fly, employees can go and come back in the same day. Air transport is used extensively by companies, but if they have to pay ridiculously high prices, then they will be forced to move because that is not good for business.

There are some people that fight every day to stay in Abitibi—Témiscamingue, even if it would be much easier to leave. Take for example, Steve Jolin, also known as Anodajay, who owns Disques 7ième Ciel and does great work in support of Quebec's rap and hip-hop scene. It would be much easier for him to move to Montreal and manage his business from there, but he chooses to remain in the region. If there are no concrete measures to help our entrepreneurs to continue to work from the regions, very little progress will be made. This sort of thing directly impacts the economy.

One of the major problems is the infamous cell phone. I do not know how many times I have asked the minister about it. Every time I ask questions about half of our region being without cellphone service, even on major highways with a lot of traffic, the response I get is about the Internet. Those folks over there do not even know the difference between Internet and cellular service, or perhaps they simply cannot understand that there are places with no cellphone coverage. I would venture to say that the places in Abitibi—Témiscamingue where cellphones do not work outnumber those where they do. I think it is high time that the members opposite understood that without cellphones, it is very difficult for regional economies to work. It is very difficult for businesses, and a lot of time is wasted. Imagine if you had to go to a meeting and, in the end, after driving an hour to get there, you find out that the meeting is cancelled and you have to turn right around and go back home. You will have wasted two hours of your day, driving for nothing. Meanwhile, if you had a cellphone that worked all along the route, you would have gotten the message that your meeting had been cancelled and not to drive all the way there for nothing. It is as simple as that, but unfortunately, they just do not get it.

Another thing is the mineral exploration tax credit. For years, we have been pleading with the Conservatives and now the Liberals to make it permanent instead of extending it year after year. Mining companies need to be able to plan their exploratory work over the long term. When metal prices are low, it is the perfect time to explore for deposits that they can mine once mineral prices go up. In order to do that, they need to be able to plan, but that is hard to do when they are never sure if the tax credit is going to come back. Furthermore, consultation-related expenses are not eligible for the tax credit. This means that consulting local populations, especially indigenous communities, to find out what they think about the possibility of exploration work and how they view the situation is not even considered part of the mineral exploration process. It is viewed as something that should be done, but unfortunately, an attitude like that toward consultation and mining work makes it all too clear that natural resource companies are not being encouraged to think about consultation and social acceptability.

Unfortunately, this budget does not meet the expectations of rural Canadians. I am extremely disappointed. I will now take questions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, what I have seen over the last two and a half years, whether it is budgets or budget implementation bills, is that the NDP has consistently voted against them. However, I would argue that in the last two and a half years, we have very much seen a progressive government on a number of wonderful and positive social fronts. We have seen that with things such as the Canada child benefit program, increases to the guaranteed income supplement, tax breaks for Canada's middle class, and a special tax on Canada's wealthiest 1%. We have seen literally hundreds of millions of dollars invested in Revenue Canada to go after those who try to avoid paying taxes. We have seen a pharmacare program being advanced, the health care act, and the expansion of the CPP. There has been so much that has been done.

My question to the member is, what more does she believe the NDP could have done, given the fact that its campaign commitment was to have a balanced budget, yet NDP members constantly criticize us for not spending enough?

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if the Liberals ever decided to eliminate all of the loopholes CEOs use to hide money in tax havens, we would probably have enough money to do some much more useful things for rural regions. It would be dishonest to state that not a single positive measure can be found in these 566 pages. However, on average, I believe that the bad outweighs the good in this 566-page budget. When the time comes to vote on a 566-page budget, we have to find a balance. Unfortunately, the Liberals do not deserve my vote on this budget, because there are not enough measures for people in rural areas. Out of respect for my rural constituents, I cannot support a budget that does not do enough for them.

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

Mr. Speaker, we hear so much from members across the way about the alleged progressivity of this budget in comparison to what has happened in the past. However, the Liberals forget that the government is imposing taxes that have a punitive effect on low-income Canadians, in particular the carbon tax. They will not release information about how that budget impacts Canadians based on income.

Contrast that to the previous government, which raised the base personal exemption, lowered the lowest marginal tax rate, lowered the GST, and introduced a taxable child benefit. All of our tax reductions on the income side were targeted at those who needed that relief most, those who were taken off the tax rolls completely, or those who were paying the lowest marginal rate. I think objectively that it is decidedly more progressive in terms of targeting benefits to lower-income Canadians than anything we have seen out of the government.

I would be curious if my friend and colleague can comment on that.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government could have proposed all kinds of measures to help people who are struggling to make ends meet. I introduced a private member's bill featuring a budget measure that had the support of some Conservative members. It sought to eliminate the GST on basic baby products. This is a simple measure that can really help parents who simply need to buy these products. All parents buy things like diapers. This measure would have been easy to include in the budget, but sadly, the Liberals did not. I know that this measure has the support of some Conservative members. It is a very simple measure that the Liberals could have implemented to help low-income Canadians. They did not. This shows that the Liberals have their own vision and are not thinking about the daily reality facing people who are struggling to meet their family's basic needs when shopping at the grocery store, for example.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Kitchener Centre. I would point out that the hon. member will only have nine minutes, and then we will bring the bill to a vote.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to take a moment to offer my condolences to the victims of the van attack in Toronto. My thoughts and those of my constituents of Kitchener Centre are with the victims, their families, and the first responders on the scene.

Our government supports researchers, scientists, and organizations that drive fundamental research as we seek to foster the innovation which will create a better world for everyone to live in.

We believe in science. We believe in the power of ideas and the benefits of technological innovation and investment, and in supporting the work of the brightest minds as they come together to create a bright future for Canada.

That is why I am so proud to rise in the House today to talk about our 2018 budget. It is a budget that builds on our work to foster innovation while ensuring that economic growth and social progress benefit the lives of every Canadian.

Innovation is everywhere, and innovation is certainly at the heart of my own community of Kitchener-Waterloo. As we speak, Redtree Robotics is busy developing chipsets that enable users to connect sensors to robots, Miovision is finding solutions for advanced traffic signal operations, Thalmic Labs is on a mission to merge people and technology, and Clearpath Robotics is working to develop self-driving vehicles and to get drones to factory floors.

In order for us to remain at the forefront of global innovation breakthroughs and scientific discovery, we need to keep this momentum going. We need to be investing now to support our future thinkers, scientists, and innovators.

That is why I am so proud that budget 2018 proposes a historic investment in support of researchers, in big data and in the equipment Canadian researchers need in order to succeed and become world leaders in their field. This includes more than $1.7 billion over five years to support researchers, and $1.3 billion over five years that will be invested in labs, equipment, and the infrastructure they need.

As we invest in the next generation of innovators, Canada is also responding to the ongoing shift toward a knowledge-driven global economy. Brilliant minds will travel to wherever they can find a good home. We intend for Canada to be that home.

In budget 2018, our government proposes a new investment of $210 million over five years, with $50 million per year ongoing, to support the Canada Research Chairs. This program supports researchers and will help Canada attract and retain the best minds in the world, in the hope that we can benefit from their energy, their skills, and their potential. Their initiative will help Canada shine on the world stage.

Fostering innovation and investing in technology also fosters unprecedented opportunities to change social norms and foster equality.

Speaking at the SAP Next-Gen program last year, the UN Women deputy executive director highlighted that innovation, technology, and partnerships are prerequisites for the achievement of the sustainable development goals.

Social progress and innovation must go hand in hand. When small, medium-sized, and large companies, government, academic institutions, and not-for-profit organizations come together to generate bold ideas, all Canadians benefit from more well-paying jobs, groundbreaking research, and a world-leading innovation economy which fosters opportunities and improves quality of life.

Bold ideas will come out of collaborations like the ones proposed in budget 2018. In the budget, the government is proposing to provide $140 million over five years to enhance support of collaborative innovative projects involving businesses, colleges, and polytechnics.

Our government is working hard to make sure that every Canadian has the opportunity to be part of the success in an innovation-driven economy.

In part, this involves ensuring that Canadians are given opportunities to build new skills which will help them adapt to a changing economy.

Budget 2018 also contains measures that will protect workers in this new environment. In it, the government proposes legislative amendments to the Wage Earner Protection Program Act that seek to make the program fairer and to increase the maximum payment to seven weeks from four.

Our plan is working. Unemployment rates are at historic lows and we lead the G7 in economic growth. Of particular note is that over the past six months, there has been a 16% drop in El claimants from the manufacturing and utilities sector. We are making progress, but there is still much work left to do if we want to unlock Canada's true potential.

In Canada today, women earn 31% less than men. For every dollar of hourly wages a man working full-time earns in Canada, a woman in the same position earns 88 cents. Our government knows that, when women have more opportunities to earn a decent income, everyone benefits. To advance women's equality, budget 2018 will introduce a new proactive pay equity bill. To close the gender wage gap, the government will adopt measures in budget 2018 that enable women to access leadership positions and encourage them to choose non-traditional careers.

Women still only receive 38% of doctoral degrees, and in the STEM fields, that number drops to 20%. The participation rate for women in the economy is 10% lower than it is for men. The Canadian gender wage gap is larger than the OECD average. Just 25% of senior management positions are held by women. Not only are these numbers unacceptable, but this gap is potentially damaging to our economy. Clearly, we must do better.

We recognize there is a need to deliver positive systemic change. Innovation in every sector works best when diverse voices have the opportunity to be part of the conversation. It was with this in mind that in budget 2018 our government has committed to improving diversity in the research community through investments in the granting councils, data collection initiatives, early career researchers, new gender equality planning, and to investments in new El benefits through a use it or lose it incentive which encourages a second parent in two-parent families to share the work of raising their children more equally and allow greater flexibility for new moms who want to return to work sooner.

We have also committed to investments which will help women entrepreneurs grow their businesses through the new women entrepreneurship strategy, and to supporting the advancement of women in senior positions by publicly recognizing corporations committed to promoting women leaders.

We live in an era of social progress, economic prosperity, and technological change. I am proud to live in a time and place in which the celebration of diversity and the commitment to strive to equality are at the heart of policy-making, and in which we realize that our country's economic advancement and our work towards the elimination of barriers to equality must go hand in hand.

As we foster this innovation, as Canadians explore new ideas and build new paths to the future, I believe that the policies of budget 2018 will work to ensure that our country has the brainpower, the diversity of thought, and the potential to continue Canada's success tomorrow and well into the future.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It being 6:45 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #651

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I declare the amendment defeated.

The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #652

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)