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

[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.