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.

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

Mr. Jovanovic, I'd like to continue with you.

In your last exchange with Mr. Turnbull, he was saying that if Bill C-234 were to receive royal assent, we could be removing an incentive for farmers to try to transition to different technology. If we take that same logic and apply it to the exemptions that exist in the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, does that mean then, rhetorically, that the government gave up on incentivizing a change in technology when it passed Bill C-74?

The government at the time I think recognized that there were no commercially viable alternatives. That is why they specifically spelled out what eligible farming activity is, eligible farming machinery, what a qualifying farm fuel is. They listed them. There's a farm truck or a tractor—the farming machinery on a farm for the purposes of farming. There's a recognition of that.

My question for you, though, is this. We have those exemptions that already exist, but are there not other financial tools and other ways that the government has at its disposal to incentivize changes in behaviour while recognizing that there are no commercially viable alternatives?

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

Great.

I remember being here in the 42nd Parliament when we were debating Bill C-74. That was the budget implementation act, if I remember correctly. Within that bill was the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act.

I'm trying to understand this. In the act, the drafters did take the time and effort to spell out what eligible farming activities are, what eligible farming machinery is and what a qualifying farm fuel is. Why do you think the drafters took the time to carve out those specific exemptions in the parent act?

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

In my riding, there is the largest concentration of greenhouses in North America and second-largest in the world. It is my understanding that in the previous pricing regime in the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act greenhouses received an 80% exemption.

Under your proposal, I believe they would go to 100%. Do you have any comment on what $1.47 for last year to $1.73 now would do to the greenhouse industry given the fact, obviously, that they're heating their greenhouses through the wintertime?

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Thank you.

The Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act exempted on-farm gasoline and diesel. Greenhouses received an 80% exemption, but mushrooms nothing. Bill C-8 obviously is proposing a rebate, and Bill C-234 is proposing an exemption. In broad strokes, can you comment on the impact between the three different processes for mushrooms and for the greenhouse industry?

[Fred Ghatala, Director, Carbon and Sustainability, Advanced Biofuels Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. It's an honour to present to you today.

My name is Fred Ghatala. I'm the director of carbon and sustainability with Advanced Biofuels Canada. We are the national voice for producers, distributors and technology developers of advanced biofuels.

Our members are global leaders. They have built and operate plants on four continents, with the capacity to produce over 15 billion litres of advanced biofuels annually. In Canada, our members currently operate seven facilities with an annual capacity of over 670 million litres. We are developing new technologies and production facilities to meet increasing demand for advanced biofuels and other non-fossil clean fuels.

In response to policies such as the clean fuel standard, the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act and provincial measures, a recent survey of our members identified over 60 capital projects planned to 2030, with over $15 billion of capital expenditure. Economic modelling of the clean fuel standard indicates that biofuels demand could increase by twofold to threefold by 2030, supporting 20,000 jobs and generating over $10 billion in new economic output.

Canadian feedstocks are fundamental to supporting investment in new domestic advanced biofuel capacity. Canadian crop and forestry sectors have established a global leading record of performance on the sustainability of harvested products, with sound data to evidence impacts on land, air and water.

As the global demand for sustainable agricultural and forestry products and non-fossil clean fuels has expanded over the past two decades, our biomass supply systems have invested broadly in innovation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental impacts, all while increasing overall supply with less acres. Statistics Canada data shows that, since 2000, Canada has reduced total seeded acres by 0.4% per year, an eight-million-acre reduction. Canada has the proven capacity to sustainably harvest crops, supply low-cost and low-carbon agricultural and forestry residues and adopt circular waste management solutions to support expanding clean fuel production.

We have a wealth of clean fuel supply options: conventional crops, rendered animal fats, municipal and industrial wastes, direct air capture of carbon dioxide, biocrude and even expanded lipid production within existing crops. Ensuring Canadian farm and forestry sectors are strong participants in low-carbon markets is integral to realizing the broad benefits that new policies like the clean fuel standard present.

More clean fuels produced in Canada also mean reduced import reliance on refined petroleum products and biofuels products in western and central Canada. The Canadian Fuels Association reports that in 2019 these markets relied on over 12 billion litres of imported gasoline, diesel and jet fuels. We view the proposed amendment as a recognition that agricultural producers are indeed trade-exposed and that measures are needed to enhance their competitiveness.

Further, because the carbon intensity of biofuels has dropped significantly over the past decade, we know that farmers are working hard to improve their greenhouse gas emission reductions by investing in sustainable yield improvements and enhanced on-farm practices. Simply put, farmers are a key part of the climate solution, and we support policies that allow them to continue to deliver results.

To conclude, expanding advanced biofuels use is the most affordable, immediate and effective tool to reduce emissions in the internal combustion engine vehicles that drive our economy today. In the future, we will increasingly expand use of electric vehicles and low-carbon hydrogen. However, to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, we must address the hard-to-decarbonize transport sectors, such as the legacy vehicle fleets, long-haul transport, aviation, marine and rail that are in operation today.

The economic benefits of advanced biofuels are being realized across Canada's rural farming and forestry communities from coast to coast. For Canada to succeed in attracting investments in advanced biofuel production, innovation and supply chain and infrastructure expansion, it is critical that our domestic agriculture producers are positioned to participate.

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear today. I look forward to your questions.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Yes, but.... Excuse me. I am out of time. I don't mean to be rude, but we get about equal time to answer and ask questions.

There is no other alternative. The idea behind the greenhouse gas pollution act is, where there are elastic markets, to encourage people to go to greener solutions. In many places that may work, but here, there are no viable solutions. By not giving farmers this exemption, you're literally pushing some farmers into bankruptcy. What would you say to those farmers, sir?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Perfect. Thank you very much.

Now, for the CFA, are your members fully compensated by the credit provided in the greenhouse gas pollution act for the carbon tax?

Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by thanking the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South for bringing the bill forward for debate. He has substituted on the agriculture committee a few times and I have sincerely enjoyed working with him. I look forward to having him join us again in the future, this time as a witness to defend his bill.

Before I go into the specifics of the bill, I want to say that the NDP believes there should be a price on pollution. The fact that human-caused climate change is occurring is no longer in dispute; it is a verifiable scientific fact. Canada is facing a climate emergency, one that will manifest itself in increasingly costly ways to our natural environment and economy.

A change in climate will bring more extreme weather events, and it is our farmers who will suffer. Changing precipitation patterns will bring increased frequency and longer durations of flooding and drought in different regions of the country. Fluctuating temperatures could have devastating impacts on livestock production. There will always be the increase of deadly forest fires. There will be real and catastrophic economic costs to this, both in adapting to the changes and in doing our best to mitigate them.

This will indeed be the fight of the 21st century. Unfortunately, the continuing political fight over the carbon tax ignores these realities and sidelines the leadership we as a country need to take against climate change.

I want to talk a bit about farmers and the important role they play in this conversation. This centres on carbon sequestration. The only way we are going to solve climate change is if we significantly reduce the amount of carbon we are putting into the atmosphere and find new and innovative ways to sequester the carbon that is already there.

One of these ways is through good agricultural practices and giving farmers recognition of agriculture's potential for carbon sequestration. It is estimated in scientific literature that agricultural soils have a storage capacity of 30 to 50 tonnes of carbon per hectare. Ecological, agricultural practices, which include low tillage, no-till and intercropping, already sequester more carbon in soil than farmers are currently given credit for.

Recently, I took a trip to the interior of British Columbia to talk with ranchers who had won sustainability awards. They were using proactive management of their grasslands with their cattle herds. This is the leadership we need to see, and farmers are indeed taking it. We can all use this as a good example of what Canada is doing right. Also, our farms in Canada have great renewable energy potential, both in harnessing the sun and wind, and of course in their production of biomass for biofuels.

Despite the advances we have made and the potential that good agricultural practices offer in the fight against climate change, it is still an inescapable fact that farmers today depend on fossil fuels. This is especially true when it comes to drying grain.

The unseasonably wet autumn of 2019 was called the “harvest from hell”. It saw extensive and prolonged rainfall right before and during harvest time in many parts of Canada. Early snowfalls and frost also ruined many crops. Farmers had to use propane and natural gas heaters to dry their grain. Without the use of these grain dryers, their cash crops would have become worthless, as rot would have set in. That would have been a huge economic hit. As it stands, there are currently no viable alternatives to the use of propane and natural gas for the operation of these dryers.

With a changing climate, the new reality is that there will be many future years during which significant amounts of grain drying will be necessary for farmers across Canada. As certain pockets of western Canada are losing workers at harvest year after year, grain drying is now moving from something nice to have to something they need to have.

Let me outline the value of this sector to the Canadian economy.

Canola alone is worth $26.7 billion and pays out $11.2 billion in wages, and 90% of it is exported. It is Canada's largest agricultural export.

Let us look at other grain sectors, wheat in particular. We exported 20.5 million tonnes of wheat in 2017, and that was worth $21 billion in export sales.

This is a significant part of our economy. If farmers are suffering, as they have been with recent harvests, I believe, through the spirit of the bill, that they require some help.

Now let me turn to a more specific discussion on Bill C-206.

As the NDP agriculture and agri-food critic, I can say that the NDP will be supporting the bill at second reading. I believe the principle of the bill is sound and that it deserves to make it to committee for further examination. In fact, I wrote to the Minister of Agriculture in February to bring this particular issue to her attention.

Let us look at what the bill does. The bill makes amendments to the interpretation section of the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act to broaden the definition of what a qualifying farm fuel is. The Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act was brought about through the enactment of an omnibus budget bill, Bill C-74, in the previous Parliament. Bill C-206 would add natural gas and propane to the definition, which is currently limited to gasoline, light fuel oil or a prescribed type of fuel.

This is important because the term “qualifying farm fuel” is used in several important sections of that federal statute. It is referred to in section 17 and again in section 38, as two examples. This is important because those sections specify that a charge for the carbon tax is not payable. If we list these two additional fuels, natural gas and propane, as qualifying farm fuels so they are understood to be used only on the farm for farming purposes, the charge for the carbon tax would not be payable.

As my colleague, the sponsor of the bill, correctly noted, there are provincial precedents. In my home province of British Columbia, coloured fuel purchases can be made, such as coloured gasoline and coloured diesel. These are exempt from both the motor fuel tax and the carbon tax in British Columbia. British Columbia also lists propane as having an exemption from the motor fuel tax. It is understood that propane is going to be used by a qualifying farm for a farm purpose if certain conditions are met.

I believe there is strong provincial precedent, and that is why the bill deserves to go to committee for further examination. Hopefully we can hear from some qualified witnesses there.

Seeing that my time on the bill is wrapping up, I believe that Bill C-206, at this second reading stage, does deserve to go to committee. I am happy to be supporting it for that discussion.

As part of the broader discussion on the bill and the costs that farmers are bearing, we need to recognize, as has been detailed by the National Farmers Union, that Canadian farm debt is now listed at over $100 billion and has nearly doubled since 2000. Since 1990, the corporations that supply fertilizers, chemicals, machinery, fuels, technology services and credit have captured nearly all farm revenues, leaving farmers with just 5% of the total revenue.

While the measures provided in Bill C-206 would have a measurable impact and benefit, especially when farmers are having to dry their grain, I hope we can use the bill to broaden the discussion on the other costs that farmers are having to bear. As a country, we all need to come together to tackle the farm crisis. It is going to required a sustained effort to actually put our support in the farmers' corner.

I will conclude there. I would like to again thank the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South for bringing the bill forward. I hope the House sees fit to vote in favour of it at second reading so we can have a more specific discussion at committee.

[Philippe Dufresne, Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, following last week's letter from the Board of Internal Economy, I am pleased to appear before you today with my colleague Robyn Daigle, director of Members' Human Resources Services, to discuss the potential regulations on non-attendance related to maternity and paternity.

You will likely be familiar with this issue because, as the chair mentioned, it comes from a recommendation the committee itself issued in one of its reports presented to the House earlier in this session.

Under the Parliament of Canada Act, a deduction of $120 is to be made to the sessional allowance of a member for each day the member does not attend a sitting of the House of Commons beyond 21 sitting days per session. Days in which a member is absent by reason of public or official business, illness or service in the armed forces are not computed as days of non-attendance and no deductions are made in such circumstances.

There is, however, no similar exemption if a member does not attend a sitting due to pregnancy or providing care for a newborn or a newly adopted child. Your committee considered this issue earlier in this session. In its 48th report entitled "Support for Members of Parliament with Young Children", this committee, after reviewing the relevant provisions respecting deductions for non-attendance, concluded and recommended as follows:

It is the Committee’s view that a member should not be penalized monetarily for his or her absence from Parliament due to pregnancy and/or parental leave. Therefore, the Committee recommends

That the minister responsible for the Parliament of Canada Act consider introducing legislation to amend section 57(3) of the Parliament of Canada Act to add that pregnancy and parental leave be reckoned as a day of attendance of the member during a parliamentary session for the purposes of tabulating deductions for non-attendance from the sessional allowance of a member.

Following that committee recommendation, Bill C-74 was introduced in Parliament and passed. It amended the Parliament of Canada Act to authorize the two Houses of Parliament to make regulations regarding the attendance of their respective members and regarding amounts to be deducted from the sessional allowance for the parliamentarian missing meetings owing to their pregnancy or any parliamentarians missing meetings to take care of their new-born or newly adopted child.

Earlier this year, the Board of Internal Economy asked the House Administration to prepare a bill for its review. While preparing the proposal, the administration took into account the fact that members are not employees. Members hold public office and are not replaced when they are absent as would be, for example, an employee on parental leave. National emergencies or other important matters can always occur and force the member to return to the House or to take care of an issue in their riding.

So the issue before you is not a matter of leave in the strict sense. It is rather about whether absences related to maternity or paternity should be considered as less justified than those related to other motives such as illness, public or official business, or service in the armed forces.

The administration examined the rules in provincial and territorial legislative assemblies in Canada. We have also reviewed Great Britain's practice. That review helped us see that the majority of legislative assemblies allow members to miss sittings, without a financial deduction, by reason of maternity or paternity, over a definite or indefinite period of time.

The members of the Board of Internal Economy unanimously endorsed the following proposal in terms of potential regulation: first, that no deduction be made to the sessional allowance of a pregnant member who does not attend a sitting during the period of four weeks before the due date; second, that there be no deduction to the sessional allowance of a member providing care for his or her newborn child during the period of 12 months from the child's date of birth; and, third, that there be no deduction to the sessional allowance of a member providing care for a newly adopted child during the period of 12 months from the date the child is placed with the member for the purpose of adoption.

This proposal is in line, in my view, with this committee's 48th report, presented in 2017, and with new section 59.1 of the Parliament of Canada Act.

I note that the proposal is not about a period where members will not attend at all to their parliamentary functions, but rather, as mentioned, members of Parliament are not replaced when absent. They are not in the same situation as employees and there will always be issues of either national or local importance that will warrant members and require members to attend either to Parliament or to their constituency. As such, the aim of the proposal is to make sure that no deduction is made to the sessional allowance of a member who misses a sitting of the House because the member is pregnant or providing care for his or her newborn or newly adopted child.

The document entitled “Draft Regulations”, which has been circulated to the members of the committee, contains the legal text that, if adopted by the House, would implement what is proposed. I note that we've made small editorial changes since it was first sent to the members by the board. They do not affect the substance of the proposal. We also removed the coming into force provision, presuming that the committee and the House would want the regulations to come into force immediately upon their adoption, but if the will is otherwise, a different date could be inserted.

I also note that the letter from the Board Of Internal Economy to this committee indicated that the board was also supportive of having no deductions made for the period of four weeks before the due date for a member whose partner is pregnant. In so doing, the board recognized the important role that the non-pregnant partner plays in the weeks leading up to the due date.

That idea is certainly worth exploring. We have analyzed the provisions of the Parliament of Canada act to determine whether, in its current form, the act would make it possible to include those circumstances in the proposed regulations.

Following that analysis, I'm of the opinion that extending the application of the four-week non-deduction period to members whose spouse is pregnant would go beyond the wording of the new section 59.1 of the Parliament of Canada Act, which sets out situations where the House of Commons can make regulations. It states that non-attendance could apply to its members who are unable to attend a sitting of the House by reason of:

(a) being pregnant; or

(b) caring for a new-born or newly-adopted child ... or for a child placed with the member for the purpose of adoption.

The English version is similarly drafted and does not include the situation of a member whose partner is pregnant, and so I note that under the existing regime a member whose partner is pregnant could still be absent prior to the due date for some or all of the 21 sitting days without any deductions.

Under the circumstances, I am not suggesting that the committee recommend extending the application of the non-deduction period prior to the child's birth to members whose spouse is pregnant. The implementation of that suggestion would require an amendment to section 59.1 of the Parliament of Canada Act.

However, this is an important issue that is worthy of consideration. The committee could decide to explore this issue in the next session to find potential options. Those options could include legislative amendments or data analysis to clarify trends and measure the repercussions of the current rules on pregnant individuals' spouses.

Last, the board raised the issue of vote pairing for members who are absent from the chamber for family reasons. The committee may also wish to consider this as a topic for a subsequent report.

This will conclude my presentation, but we will of course be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Bill C-84—Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, part of the minister's argument today has been that we need to get this legislation to the Senate to speed things up. I can understand that. We only have so much time.

That being said, by the same token, Bill C-75 has gone to the other place and it is a much larger bill. Would the member not agree that this particular bill, Bill C-84, should have been wrapped up in Bill C-75, gone to the justice committee and had full exposure to all of the different parts in that omnibus piece of legislation, so it could have maybe left a stand-alone bill for us to have a full discussion on the deferred prosecution agreements, an issue which was in Bill C-74, division 20?

That piece of legislation did not get a full hearing at finance committee. Only one witness from the justice department came to speak to it. I still get calls on a regular basis from people in both the academic and the legal communities who feel that the Liberal government's approach to that piece of omnibus legislation maligned Parliament and denied the proper hearing of major changes to the Criminal Code.

Would the member not agree that this place must be respected? Would he agree that that kind of sleight of hand by the government needs to change?

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate that the Minister of Justice has not been the Minister of Justice throughout this Parliament, so he is taking on some legislation he had no role in crafting. However, he is the representative of the government today, and he needs to stand and answer and be accountable to the people and their representatives.

Why such a different approach? On this piece of legislation, we have a stand-alone piece of legislation that has gone through committee process and whatnot, and through debate, yet shamefully, in Bill C-74, an omnibus piece of legislation, the Liberals pushed through a provision for deferred prosecution agreements. They did not have a single witness from the academic community or bar association come for a thorough discussion about that particular regime, which is unlike any that has been used in the Criminal Code before. Why did they do that while giving a stand-alone bill to this, when they could easily have taken that DPA section from division 20 of Bill C-74 and put it in Bill C-75, another piece of omnibus legislation? Why is there such a mismatch in how they present to this place and with where their priorities are?

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

You were also Minister of Justice and Attorney General on June 6, when Parliament voted in favour of Bill C-74 and you yourself voted in favour of Bill C-74.

Opposition Motion—Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this debate, even though, as a Canadian, I would have preferred if this sad story had never happened.

What we want to know is how much political interference, by the Prime Minister or the PMO, occurred in a criminal case.

One of the cornerstones of our democracy is the separation between politics and justice. There has to be a wall between the two. However, unfortunately, there has obviously been political interference in a criminal case.

Let us review the facts. In 2015, criminal charges of corruption were brought against a large corporation in Montreal regarding its dealings in Libya. Unfortunately, this same company was found guilty of corruption less than a year ago in the case involving the McGill University Health Centre, or MUHC, in Montreal.

Then, on June 21, the government passed omnibus Bill C-74. At the very end of the bill, there is a measure concerning remediation agreements that has absolutely nothing to do with the budget.

Over seven or eight pages, the government clearly defined a process to allow a company that is facing serious international prosecution, as is the case here, to sign an agreement with the government. If, by chance, this were ever to happen, the bill explains the procedure.

I want to remind members that subsection 715.32(3) explicitly states that “the prosecutor must not consider the national economic interest”. The prosecutor is the Government of Canada.

This omnibus bill passed with clauses regarding agreements, as defined earlier, that have absolutely nothing to do with the budget. This happened on June 21.

In similar cases, the director of public prosecutions could look into the matter, make a decision and inform the respondent. This is exactly what happened. On September 4, the director of public prosecutions informed the company in question that she would be moving forward and that an agreement was not possible. There we go.

Nearly three weeks ago, The Globe and Mail reported that strong pressure on the former attorney general allegedly led her to quit her job, a very prestigious position in our parliamentary system if ever there was one.

What happened?

On September 17, the Prime Minister of Canada contacted the former attorney general to discuss this case. On December 5, the Prime Minister of Canada's principal secretary contacted the former attorney general to discuss this case. On December 19, Canada's top public servant, the most powerful man in the public service of Canada, the Clerk of the Privy Council, picked up the telephone and directly contacted the former attorney general. On January 14, the former attorney general was relieved of her duties by the Prime Minister. Those are the facts.

We now want to find out just how much undue pressure was applied to influence the former attorney general.

I should mention that last week, The Globe and Mail, the newspaper that broke the story that has been tarnishing the government's image and consequently Canada's image abroad for the past three weeks, published another story claiming that the former attorney general told cabinet that she had been subjected to undue pressure.

Was she subjected to undue pressure, yes or no?

Last week, Canada's top public servant clearly stated three times that, yes, there had been pressure, but that it was not undue pressure.

Of course it was not undue pressure. It was just pressure from the Prime Minister, his principal secretary and Canada's top public servant.

One, two, three people pressured the former attorney general about a specific matter, and that was not undue pressure? Clearly, there was undue pressure on Canada's former attorney general.

Canada's highest-ranking public servant testified that, yes, there was pressure, but it was not undue pressure. With all due respect to that important figure in our political hierarchy, I have something to say to him. If the question is whether the pressure was undue, I would rather hear the person who was pressured, not the party applying the pressure, say whether it was undue or not, whether it was appropriate or not. In this particular case, the end result was the former attorney general's departure, since she was relieved of her duties.

As I said, The Globe and Mail exposed the whole affair three weeks ago. What happened then? The government and the Prime Minister have treated us to a comedy of errors ever since. The Prime Minister changed his story at least five times over the first few days. He contradicted himself at least five times. He started off by saying that no one could comment on the matter due to cabinet confidence. Canada's highest-ranking public servant contradicted the Prime Minister last week when he said it was never discussed in cabinet.

The Prime Minister clearly stated that the continued presence of the former attorney general in cabinet spoke for itself. Fifteen hours later, she quit cabinet for good. It does not get much clearer than that. That is what happened.

A few days later, a teary-eyed Prime Minister apologized for not being quick enough to condemn the bad people who had attacked the former attorney general. An hour later, here in the House, she said she was eager to speak her truth.

I was here in my seat. The Prime Minister was 10 or 12 feet away from me. I can say one thing. If looks could kill, it would not have been pretty. He was not happy when the member said she was looking forward to sharing her version of events.

From the start, we have wanted everyone to testify, from the former attorney general to the Prime Minister's chief adviser or the Prime Minister himself. Initially, when we asked for that, government members called it a witch hunt and a distraction. Eventually, they realized it was the right thing to do. The country's top civil servant and the former attorney general can testify. That is a win.

We need the whole truth to come out. That is why, in this motion moved by the leader of the official opposition for the good of Canada, we are calling on the Prime Minister, the one who ignited this scandal, to give his side of the story.

Today I heard the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons say at least 10 times that the Liberals have confidence in the work of parliamentary committees, that they respect the committees. Let them prove it. The best way to shed light on this is to allow the key players in this affair, unfortunate as it may be, to give their version of the facts. So far we have only heard the version of Canada's top public servant, the Clerk of the Privy Council. God knows that that testimony was spectacular to say the least, given all the revelations there have been. He talked about the famous phone call that he himself had with the former attorney general during which he said there was no pressure and that he simply reminded the attorney general of the significance of her decision. There was nothing wrong with that. It is just the most senior public servant in Canada.

A few days earlier, the Prime Minister's principal adviser had set everything in motion. That is not a problem in the least. It is totally normal. Not to mention that, on September 17, the Prime Minister had a conversation with the former attorney general.

Canadians want the truth—the whole truth. The best way to get the truth is to allow the Prime Minister to testify in parliamentary committee.

Canada–Madagascar Tax Convention Implementation Act, 2018

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise on behalf of the official opposition at this stage of Bill S-6.

As I mentioned earlier, I want to assure members right off the bat that the official opposition supports this bill, the spirit of the bill and the measures it proposes, and we understand that there is still a lot of work to be done to combat tax evasion. We believe that this bill is a step in the right direction.

First, I want to give some background about what we are talking about. Bill S-6 is a Senate bill that seeks to facilitate work and trade between Canada and Madagascar by cracking down on tax evasion and eliminating some of the problems that could be created by differences in administration in Madagascar and Canada and the taxation principles underlying trade relations between the two countries.

This bill contains measures to eliminate double taxation, which is good for international trade. The bill also contains measures to eliminate discriminatory taxes. The field needs to be as open as possible to facilitate trade. Every country has its own measures, which is fair. However, some tax measures can undermine things more than others. The bill would therefore eliminate discriminatory taxes. It counters tax evasion. We will be able to talk about this later, but tax havens obviously warrant closer scrutiny, and this is not an issue that can be solved with a snap of the fingers. It takes time, co-operation and the support of some 180 countries on this planet. This is not a problem that can be fixed overnight, but we must do everything we can to fix it, and this bill is a step forward.

Furthermore, this bill would create mechanisms in the unfortunate event of a challenge on either side. These mechanisms will help find a way forward for finding a way forward with trade agreements.

Lastly, this bill will enable different administrations to share information when an investigation is required, for a company or individual, either in Madagascar or in Canada.

In essence, there are five measures in this bill: eliminating double taxation, countering tax evasion, eliminating discriminatory taxes, allowing for information sharing, and creating mechanisms to settle disputes.

We agree with these principles. We also agree that this should become Canada's 93rd treaty with other trade partners to simplify the tax system and boost trade. This is not a free trade deal per se, but it will allow for better agreements and greater flexibility. Madagascar may not be the best-known country in the world, or indeed among Canadians. It is an island in the Indian Ocean off the eastern coast of Africa. It is actually quite a big country. The island is about 1,500 kilometres long and 800 kilometres wide. Fifteen hundred kilometres is like the distance from the Alberta Rockies to the Ontario border, spanning the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. That should give everyone a rough idea of the size of this country, which has a population of 25 million.

History tells us that Canada and Madagascar share similar roots, because Madagascar is a francophone country. We both belong to the Francophonie. We know that the Francophonie summit was held there a few years ago and that Madagascar was a French colony that gained independence in 1960 when a wave of decolonization swept through British and French societies around the globe. The decolonization movement reached Madagascar in the 1960s.

We should also know that Canada and Madagascar have had a trading relationship for years, particularly in the mining sector. A Canadian company has set up shop there, so to speak, to operate one of Madagascar's biggest mines. Furthermore, trade between Canada and Madagascar hovers around $100 million or $115 million.

Canada buys roughly $100 million in goods and services from Madagascar and in return Madagascar spends roughly $20 million buying in Canada. For the record, that represents 0.001% of our volume of trade with our biggest partner, our friends and neighbours, the U.S. Yes, that is significant. We recognize that, but we should still maintain some degree of perspective in terms of Canada's trade with Madagascar and our trade with the U.S.

The thing about this bill that we need to discuss is the issue of tax evasion. I addressed it briefly earlier. Tax evasion is an ongoing challenge facing every country in the world. Yes, we must make an effort. We certainly did when we were in government, and efforts to combat global tax evasion must continue. That is why the 180 or so countries on this planet cannot work in isolation in that regard. Everyone must join forces, work together and share the knowledge, efforts, energy and potential talent of each country and each country's experts in order to combat the scourge of tax evasion.

Canada is making an effort. With Bill S-6, we have a treaty that will help us move in that direction. That is largely why we support this bill. It is important to always be alert and always keep in mind that tax evasion is a blight on our planet that must be tackled in a serious and rigorous manner. However, no one can do it alone. Major countries need to join forces, and tax havens, the smaller countries that unfortunately serve as tax shelters for some people, need to do their part to combat this situation. We completely agree with the principle that everyone must pay their taxes fully and legitimately. Everyone must pay them, and no one should be able to resort to tax havens, for when they do, Canadians do not get value for their money.

I am very concerned about this bill. We agree that this situation should be debated in the context of a truly independent bill. How many issues are never properly debated here in the House of Commons? This is a problem.

A year ago, the government tabled Bill C-74, an omnibus bill that is almost 800 pages long. Ostensibly, the bill implements budget measures, which is fine because that is how things work. However, scattered throughout the 800-page bill are measures that have absolutely nothing to do with the budget tabled by the Minister of Finance.

Need I remind the House that the Liberal Party was elected nearly three and a half years ago? I would say it was a sad day, but democracy is what it is, and we respect the choice Canadians made. Those people were elected on the strength of a clear promise.

I have here the Liberal Party's platform, which was called “Real Change: A New Plan for a Strong Middle Class”. The title sure sounds good. On page 30, under “Prorogation and omnibus bills”, it says:

We will not resort to legislative tricks to avoid scrutiny.

How interesting. That is exactly what is going on with Bill C-74.

[The former Prime Minister of Canada] Stephen Harper has used prorogation to avoid difficult political circumstances. We will not.

That is the Liberal Party of Canada saying that.

Stephen Harper has also used omnibus bills to prevent Parliament from properly reviewing and debating his proposals.

That is exactly what is going on with Bill C-74. Here is the end of the paragraph:

We will change the House of Commons Standing Orders to bring an end to this undemocratic practice.

That is the Liberal Party promise.

Bill C-74 flies in the face of the party's promise. This reversal should certainly not come as a surprise. I remind members that in their document the Liberals said that they would run three small deficits in the first three years and would then balance the budget in 2019. In reality, the three small deficits they promised were three times higher than projected. The budget that was supposed to be balanced will be presented soon, as the Minister of Finance announced yesterday, but we know that it will not be balanced. There will be a deficit in the neighbourhood of $20 billion or more.

In that same document, the Liberals also spoke about electoral reform. Did that happen? No. This is the very essence of the Liberal Party's privilege. It was elected on its promises, but it did not keep its word. On October 19, 2015, Canadians elected the Liberal Party. I respect democracy, but as they say, the people's will is not foolish, but the people can be fooled. This is exactly what is happening here.

Bill C-74 is supposed to implement budget measures, but dozens of items that have nothing to do with the budget were slipped into the bill, in particular clauses 715.3, 715.31, 715.32, 715.33, 715.34, 715.35, 715.36 and 715.37. This is no small matter. These clauses are found in the section “Remediation Agreements”. I do not have the time to read all of them. They directly address the problem that the government and, unfortunately, Canadians are grappling with today, and have to do with the special agreements that the government can enter into with corporations that, sadly, have failed to fulfill their responsibilities and find themselves in court on fraud charges.

That is exactly the crux of the SNC-Lavalin scandal, which broke two weeks ago. Every day new situations arise that are an embarrassment for the government. The problem is that they are not only an embarrassment for the government but also for Canadians, who want answers.

I would like to remind members that these clauses were inserted into an 800-page bill. Earlier, the parliamentary secretary said that we could have discussed it in committee. Quite frankly, how would he expect us to directly address this issue if we have to study an 800-page bill. Today, we are spending many hours, and rightfully so, studying Bill S-6 on trade and tax agreements between Canada and Madagascar. However, we did not have the time to appropriately debate a matter that has embarrassed the Government of Canada and, consequently, Canada and Canadians.

Unfortunately, that is typical of this government, which says one thing and then does the opposite. When it comes time to get to the bottom of things, the Liberals trip on their own shoelaces, which results in what we have been seeing for the past two weeks. It has been a real comedy of errors on the part of the government, which is incapable of telling Canadians the truth about the Liberal SNC-Lavalin scandal. What is more, the government is preventing the former attorney general from giving clear and specific explanations.

Day after day, we have been asking the Prime Minister very simple questions. On September 17, 2018, he met with the former attorney general. Yesterday, in the House, the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister more than a dozen times what was said at that meeting and who asked for the meeting to discuss what has now become the Liberal SNC-Lavalin scandal. The Prime Minister never gave a clear answer to the very simple question of who asked for the September 17 meeting. The same goes for the other very important meeting in the Liberal SNC-Lavalin scandal, the meeting that took place on December 5, 2018, at the Château Laurier, between the former attorney general and the Prime Minister's former principal secretary, Gerald Butts.

Once again, yesterday, the leader of the official opposition asked the Prime Minister a very simple question: who asked for the meeting between the Prime Minister's top adviser and the former attorney general?

The Prime Minister did not give anything remotely resembling an answer, even though it was a very simple question. Which one of them requested the meeting? He was not even able to answer that. Canadians want answers. They have the right to know what happened.

Canadians deserve clear and simple answers to clear and simple questions on this issue. The Liberal SNC-Lavalin scandal is totally unacceptable to Canadians.

What we have noticed is that we are debating this bill in the House for many hours today, which is fine. I agree we have to debate Bill S-6, with respect to taxation between Canada and Madagascar. This is an important issue and we have to take the time to address it. On the other hand, why did the government dodge its responsibility to address the specific issues we find in proposed sections 715.32 to 715.37 of Bill C-74, an omnibus bill of more than 800 pages? Those sections in the bill addressed the specific issue that we have today with the Liberal SNC-Lavalin scandal.

This is the trademark of the Liberals. They say one thing during their electoral campaign and do the exact reverse during their mandate. Do members remember that they had clearly indicated in their platform that they would never table omnibus bills containing other issues that do not address the main omnibus bill, which is the budget implementation bill?

Unfortunately, they failed to do what they had promised Canadians, just as they failed to bring about the electoral reform they promised in their electoral campaign. Everybody knows they failed to budget the Canadian economy properly. During their campaign, they said there would be three small deficits in the first three years to invest in infrastructure and then a zero deficit in 2019. This is not the situation. During the last three years, the current government has tabled three huge deficit budgets. That is the reality of the situation. It is three times more than was expected and what they promised.

Also, 2019 was supposed to be a zero-deficit year. That is not the case. We are talking about at least $20 billion of deficit. The government has failed its responsibility and nobody in the government knows when the budget will balance, or I should say, when the budget will balance itself. That was the famous economic theory of the Right Hon. Prime Minister of Canada, who is the only person in the world to table that economic theory, which is absolutely stupid. However, this is the Liberal trademark.

Talking about deficits, let me remind members that, during the election, the Liberals said they would run small deficits because they wanted to invest in infrastructure. Let me remind hon. colleagues that the plan was to invest $180 billion in infrastructure over the next 10 years, starting in 2015. Only 10% of that amount has been invested in infrastructure. Therefore, the huge deficits were not for infrastructure but for the daily business of the government, which was not elected to do that.

I want to reiterate that our party supports Bill S-6, but unfortunately, although we are spending plenty of time debating the omnibus Bill C-74, which is perfectly normal, there are other very important elements that the government snuck in and that should have been debated. If they had been, maybe the Liberal SNC-Lavalin scandal we are facing today would not have happened.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by acknowledging and thanking my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance. I have often enjoyed serving and crossing swords with her at the finance committee. I imagine we will have the pleasure of debating many economic issues over the next few weeks and months, and obviously during the election campaign.

I want to mention at the outset that our party, the official opposition, supports this bill. We support any and all measures to help combat tax evasion and ensure greater flexibility to facilitate trade between Canada and countries around the world. We will have another chance to talk about that later.

I would like to point something out, however. The bill was introduced, yes, and while we recognize this is an important bill, a number of important aspects could not be debated properly here in the House.

For example, let us not forget Bill C-74, which was more than 800 pages long. Technically that bill would implement the budget passed by the House of Commons. However, there were clauses slipped into that omnibus bill, clauses 715.3 to 715.37, that were on everything but the budget. We call that an omnibus bill with clauses slipped in for the purpose of passing something without properly debating it in the House of Commons.

Bill C-74 and the clauses I mentioned included content on the remediation agreements, the very topic at the heart of the Liberal government scandal involving SNC-Lavalin.

If the government had acted as swiftly on Bill S-6 as it did on the very important issue of remediation agreements, things might be different—but they are not.

I have a very simple question for the parliamentary secretary: does she believe that Bill C-74 could have been split to allow for a fair and equitable debate on the issue of remediation agreements, as we are currently doing with the Canada-Madagascar tax agreement?

Opposition Motion—Transparency and Accountability

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased rise after my colleague from Timmins—James Bay to speak to the important revelations that have emerged, some of which came to light last week.

We already had concerns about potential political interference by the PMO and the Prime Minister himself in the case against SNC-Lavalin when we left to go back to our ridings over a week and a half ago. This is a very important criminal case, given that the company has engaged in many rather shady dealings involving corruption in other countries. Many questions were raised at that time which have yet to be answered. No clarification has been given since the first time this allegation was raised a week and a half ago.

On the contrary, many other questions have been raised since we left the House on February 8. At that time, the veterans affairs minister was still in cabinet, but she resigned last week. What is more, the Prime Minister's principal secretary also resigned last week.

Today, the Liberals would have us believe that they have absolutely nothing to hide, that the government is being transparent and that we have to get our answers somewhere else. However, all these events happened within a week, not to mention that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner has launched an investigation into the matter, which only happens when there are questions on the issue brought to his attention. Today, I am sure that the government will keep trying to have us believe that this is a non-issue, but that is absolutely not true.

A lot of questions need to be answered. That is why the NDP is calling for an independent public inquiry. What is more, the Liberals used their majority on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to simply refuse to shed light on whether the Prime Minister's Office interfered with the former attorney general of Canada regarding the SNC-Lavalin trial. This is a fundamental question that deserves answers. Given that the standing committee refused to look into this, we are calling for a public inquiry. Clearly, the Liberal majority has no intention of shedding light on this issue.

In reality, the Liberals are trying to distract us by calling people who are not involved in this issue to testify. They are trying to create distractions to divert our attention. They obviously have something to hide. I find it hard to believe that a minister and the Prime Minister's principal secretary would resign when a scandal broke if they had nothing to hide. That is why we need to shed light on this whole business.

We need to launch a public inquiry to clear up the issue of political interference, because our justice system is founded on the independence of the courts and the Public Prosecution Service of Canada. That independence is enshrined in law. The Attorney General cannot give these kinds of directions willy-nilly, or with a simple phone call. The Attorney General is required to follow clear procedures when giving directions to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada to influence the conduct of penal and criminal prosecutions.

These protections exist for a reason. Our laws are designed to guard against political interference in the judicial process, in order to avoid the slightest suspicion that the justice system might be politicized. That independence is the cornerstone of our system. Today, the independence of the court system is being called into question because of potential, attempted or actual political interference by the Prime Minister, his office and his principal secretary. The public inquiry will determine which one of those it was. For now, we do not know why the Prime Minister's principal secretary resigned, but I believe that launching an independent public inquiry is warranted.

The NDP also feels that we need to consider the employees of SNC-Lavalin. In the wake of this political interference scandal, they are worried about their future, and I can understand why.

That is why the focus today is not SNC-Lavalin, but the Prime Minister's government. His very office has brought the independence of our country's judiciary into question. That is the issue, not SNC-Lavalin, which is currently dealing with legal problems and irregularities with the awarding of foreign contracts. Naturally, this raises questions, but the employees work in good faith to support their families and they do their best every day.

The SNC-Lavalin executives are the real focus. That is why it is important to ensure that the most senior executives of the company, who were involved in the corruption at the time, are brought to justice. It is unfortunate that today we are seeing these executives get off scot-free, even though they have committed serious crimes, because of the administrative delays in the justice system.

I can understand that Canadians are worried about a company getting off so easily in such a terrible case of foreign government corruption. That is why we must absolutely look into this issue and into the political interference in our judicial system. It is extremely important to ensure public confidence. Canadians are increasingly under the impression that the government only looks after the interests of Canada's biggest players, the corporations and their executives. The government seems to listen to them very carefully when they want something. Whether it is SNC-Lavalin or KPMG, for example, the Liberal government seems to lend them a very receptive ear when some of their business practices are called into question.

SNC-Lavalin is a good example. KPMG is another. When push comes to shove, the Liberals always give priority to corporate interests over the interests of workers, as we saw with Sears and GM. They could care less about the workers, which is why we need to be thinking about them today. We must make sure that workers and the public interest are foremost in our discussions and in our minds, in every decision the government makes. It is quite clear that, in many areas, the government cares only about its buddies who give them hundreds of thousands of dollars. In the past, some companies that seem to have this government's ear have sometimes made illegal donations.

The other part of the problem I want to talk about is the political influence that SNC-Lavalin had in the debate on Bill C-74. I was on the Standing Committee on Finance when the bill was studied. I asked the official what motivated the idea of a deferred prosecution agreement, and she seemed to be rather alone and a little unprepared for the many questions from the opposition and the government. The member for Hull—Aylmer asked a number of questions, including some on division 20 of Bill C-74. Although I asked which cases and files could have motivated such a bill, this official was not able to provide a single specific case. She was obviously trying to evade the question, but there was clearly something fishy going on.

This part of Bill C-74 seems to have been drafted for a specific case, namely, SNC-Lavalin. This company had been asking for such a measure for many years, and it kept asking until it was successful. Once this happened, the company continued to lobby to get this bill passed and to make sure that the Attorney General would grant this deferred agreement.

This deferred agreement has not yet been granted, which may be why the former justice minister stepped down. We must adopt this motion today so that we can get to the bottom of this affair and make sure that there was no political interference and that there will not be any under the next government.

I move:

That the motion be amended by adding the following after the word “Act”:

“and to report back to the House no later than May 31, 2019,”

[Dan Albas]

More requirements....

Anyway, thank you all for being here today. I'd like to focus on regulatory red tape from the perspective of proportionality as well as opportunity costs.

Before we go there, I'd like to ask Mr. Greer first of all about the national carbon tax that the federal Liberal government has imposed upon many provinces and territories.

I remember that Bill C-74, the implementation act for it, was about 300 pages long, and that was just the legislation, not the regulation, saying this is who you charge tax to and who you don't charge tax to. You can't charge a farmer for purple gas, but you can charge a farmer for regular gas, and on and on it goes. Whether we're talking about flying between Ontario and a territory such as Nunavut, you would have it, but in British Columbia, obviously they don't charge a carbon tax on jet fuel.

Would you please explain what impacts that would have on many of your members, particularly the small ones that proportionately have a heavier compliance burden and and where this is the most challenging?

Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2

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

Mr. Speaker, the bill is 850 pages long. Last night, at the finance briefing, I asked how many clauses and subclauses were in the bill. Nobody there from the finance department was even able to tell us how many clauses and subclauses exist in this massive piece of legislation. When the finance department itself is unaware of just how many clauses and subclauses are in the bill, thousands surely, we have to wonder about the intention, which the Liberal government has clearly signalled, to ram the bill through the House as quickly as possible.

My contention is that the government wants to push it through with a scant few days of debate, which means, in terms of each clause, that at best, they would be getting a few seconds of parliamentary scrutiny.

As the House is well aware, we wear many hats in the House. We represent our ridings, each one of us, as members of Parliament, and we are proud to do so. I am proud to represent New Westminster—Burnaby. We represent our party caucus often, except for the independents. We represent the policies that have been put together by our respective parties, so there is a partisan part to the job we do.

A key part of our job is to vet government legislation, to go through that government legislation to make sure that the wording is right and to make sure that the legislation would do what it purports to do. That is a key part of the job of a member of Parliament, and has been since the very foundation of our country.

Vetting the laws, making sure that the amendments brought forward are well written, making sure that the changes the government seeks would accomplish what they are supposed to, is a key part of being a member of Parliament.

Many of us have seen a myriad of cases where legislation was not properly vetted. It had to go through the court system and was then returned to the House of Commons, because that vetting process, the work of members of Parliament to actively look through legislation and ensure that the legislation adopted would be effective legislation and well worded, was not done in that way. It went to the courts, and then it came back here.

Words matter. Actions matter.

What I am submitting today is that it is impossible to do our job effectively with the incredible size, the almost clownish size, 850 pages, of the legislation that was tabled by the government just 48 hours ago.

The government's intention to not even take the time to respect parliamentary procedure and work through the committee structure to allow for appropriate debate so that we get more than a few seconds of scrutiny of each clause and subclause, to my mind, indicates a breach of privilege.

On page 60 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, it reads that contempt “does not have to actually obstruct or impede the House or a Member; it merely has to have the tendency to produce such results.”

On page 81, it also says:

Speaker Sauvé explained in a 1980 ruling: “…while our privileges are defined, contempt of the House has no limits. When new ways are found to interfere with our proceedings, so too will the House, in appropriate cases, be able to find that a contempt of the House has occurred”.

I would submit that this is a question of privilege that deserves the attention of the House.

Here is the recent history behind omnibus legislation in this place.

When Stephen Harper's government was in power and the Liberals were in opposition, they criticized, and rightly so, the undemocratic tactics of the Conservatives, who used omnibus bills on numerous occasions.

Here is what the current Minister of Public Safety had to say about the Conservatives' budget implementation act in 2012 when he was a member of the opposition.

This is what he said at the time:

On the procedural point, so-called omnibus bills obviously bundle several different measures together. Within reasonable limits, such legislation can be managed through Parliament if the bill is coherent, meaning that all the different topics are interrelated and interdependent and if the overall volume of the bill is not overwhelming. That was the case before the government came to power in 2006.

When omnibus bills were previously used to implement key provisions of federal budgets, they averaged fewer than 75 pages in length and typically amended a handful of laws directly related to budgetary policy. In other words, they were coherent and not overwhelming.

However, under this regime the practice has changed. Omnibus bills since 2006 have averaged well over 300 pages, more than four times the previous norm. This latest one introduced last week had 556 sections, filled 443 pages and touched on 30 or more disconnected topics, everything from navigable waters to grain inspection, from disability plans to hazardous materials.

It is a complete dog's breakfast, and deliberately so. It is calculated to be so humongous and so convoluted, all in a single lump, that it cannot be intelligently examined and digested by a conscientious Parliament.

That was the Minister of Public Safety speaking, and I could not agree with him more. The idea that we must intelligently examine legislation that is brought before us is something that is fundamental to our rights as parliamentarians and our responsibility as parliamentarians.

In 2015, the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party agreed with that point. Here is what was in the Liberal Party platform about omnibus legislation:

We will not resort to legislative tricks to avoid scrutiny....

Stephen Harper has also used omnibus bills to prevent Parliament from properly reviewing and debating his proposals. We will change the House of Commons Standing Orders to bring an end to this undemocratic practice.

As members know, the Standing Orders were changed slightly in June 2017. Standing Order 69.1 was supposed to be the Liberals' answer to the abuse of omnibus legislation. Unfortunately, since then, we have seen a number of new omnibus bills being tabled by the government. Bill C-63, the 2017 second budget implementation act, was divided for votes at second and third reading, because it contained many provisions that were not in the budget documents.

Then there was Bill C-74, the spring 2018 budget implementation bill. It was over 550 pages long and affected over 40 different acts. It dealt with matters as diverse as veterans' compensation, changes to the Parliament Act with respect to maternity and parental arrangements, and the establishment of the office of the chief information officer of Canada.

The second budget implementation act for 2018 is 850 pages long. It is without precedent, certainly in living memory. It has thousands of clauses to study. As I mentioned yesterday, no one is capable of telling us how many clauses and how many subclauses exist in this legislation. That indicates to all members of Parliament that there is a problem with legislation that might have been rushed.

We have an important job: to scrutinize, to examine and to review the legislation to make sure that it actually does what it purports to do. This massive bill, this clownishly sized bill, includes seven different stand-alone pieces of legislation inside the bill itself. Each one of them merits consideration. Each one of them merits review and examination. They have all been thrown together in a massive omnibus bill.

I would argue that we cannot simply qualify this bill as an omnibus bill. It is much more than that. The government tabled this monstrosity on Monday, and it expected the MPs in this House to be ready to start debating it and offering amendments only a few hours after it was tabled. It seems obvious to me that such measures are an obstruction to the performance of the parliamentary duties of all members of Parliament in this House.

Surely, Mr. Speaker, we have reached a point where you must intervene. We have reached the point where this is over the line of what is acceptable in any parliamentary democracy. We have to ask ourselves where this will end. If 850 pages and thousands of clauses are acceptable, could the government table a thousand-page bill or a two thousand-page bill, allocate a minimum amount of time for debate and then ram it through the House? If that would not be acceptable, then surely we can agree that there is a limit somewhere. I would argue that this limit has been reached with Bill C-86.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I hope that you will find a prima facie case of privilege here. If you do, I will be ready to move the appropriate motion.

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

In Bill C-74, division 20, you've made a change that includes a schedule in the Criminal Code that includes money laundering that gives, effectively, large corporations a “get out of jail” card. Do you not remember your own legislation?

Opposition Motion—Carbon Pricing

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

moved:

That, given the government’s failure to provide a clear explanation of the costs of its carbon tax policy, and given that the people of Ontario have rejected the carbon tax, the House call on the government to table, by June 22, 2018, how much the proposed federal carbon tax of $50 per tonne will cost a median Canadian family.

Mr. Speaker, though I speak here and now, and in the present, I want to reach back into our ancient history to discuss our ancient rights and liberties as parliamentary people.

We inherited this place from our British ancestors, who gathered in the fields of Runnymede to force King John to sign the Magna Carta. Among the demands made by what we today would call “citizens” but then were called “subjects” was that the crown could not levy funds for which there had not been provided general consent. In other words, King John and his predecessors had plundered the people in order to fund endless foreign wars and costly ventures, and had done so without the consent of the people actually paying the bills. From that grew a principle that would eventually be called in American terms “no taxation without representation”. In other words, the government cannot tax what legislatures do not approve. That principle remains here today.

As members know, governments are banned from levying any tax or in fact making any expenditures before it is approved by this here, a gathering of the commoners. It is not enough for the Senate, which historically represented the aristocracy, to make that approval. It does not represent the common people who pay those costs. We do. We are the representatives of the commoners, and that is why we are here in the House of Commons standing, as we are, on this green carpet representing the fields from which the original commoners came and for whose consent we are the ones delegated to provide.

Before the House of Commons at present is a budget bill that would levy a new tax, a carbon tax. That tax would apply to any good that uses fossil fuels in their production or transport to bring it to consumers. As a result, the tax will raise the cost of almost every consumer good people buy, not only those products that are directly made with fossil fuels but those that are transported or produced by those fuels. Not only will our gas prices, home heating prices, and other fuel costs rise, but our groceries, which come by truck and train, will also become expensive. Consumer goods like furniture and clothing, which also have to be transported to retail outlets, will become more expensive. The government will collect the revenues on those increased costs.

However, unlike other taxes, the costs were not itemized for everyday Canadians. If we pay income tax, we file and we find out what we pay. If we pay HST, we look at our bill and we see how much tax formed part of our purchase price. Therefore, Canadians can generally, if imprecisely, calculate what each tax is costing them. Carbon taxes are far more insidious. Their costs are embedded inside the products and services that people buy but they are not itemized on any receipt. Therefore, if grocers raise the costs of fresh fruits and vegetables to feed our kids, we might assume that they are to blame, when in fact they are not behind the cost increase; rather, it is the government and its carbon tax that is causing that price inflation.

The government is proposing to move forward with this tax to embed all of these price increases in the purchases that Canadians make without telling them what it would cost. One defence it might otherwise have made for this secrecy is that it does not know what it would cost. However, that is not true. I have obtained numerous documents, which I have attempted to table in this House, in which the government has calculated the costs. It says that it has tables in which the costs for the average household is calculated, yet it blacks out the numbers, denying Parliament the information it needs in order to vote on this budget bill.

I spoke earlier about the principle of no taxation without representation. Well, there can be no representation without information. The government cannot tax what Parliament does not approve, but Parliament cannot approve what it does not know. Therefore, there can be no taxation without information.

The government has that information but refuses to release it. Why? What is the motivation for keeping all of this secret? I think it is the same motivation that a high-priced retailer has when trying to sell an excessively expensive product. They do not put the price on a product, but ask that a person bring the item up to the front and make a psychological decision to buy it. Only after, when one has one's credit card out, does one find out what it costs.

My experience is that when I walk through a retail outlet and there is a product that does not have a price tag on it, it is because it is too expensive and I cannot afford it. That may well be why the government is trying to sell the carbon tax without telling people what it will cost them. Even worse, unlike the retailer who at some point prior to the transaction must reveal the cost, in this case, the Liberals do not even propose to reveal the cost after the purchase is made. In other words, people will be paying sums of money to the government without even knowing they are doing it, because those sums are buried in literally millions of products and services that Canadians buy every week and every day.

We, on this side of this House as Her Majesty’s loyal opposition, cannot countenance this violation of our ancient right to know what the government costs us. That is why I am announcing today that we have put forward over 200 motions to object to the spending bill the government has just tabled before the House. We will keep the government here voting for as long as 30 hours until it releases every single document it has since the last federal election indicating what this tax will cost the average Canadian family.

I notice that we have a very enthusiastic group of Conservatives here who are prepared to stand and do their duty, to stand and defend taxpayers, to stay here all night if they have to, and stay as long as necessary to defend the people they represent. However, there is no enthusiasm on that side of the House of Commons. I hear nothing but deafening silence, and I see nothing but glum faces. Many of the backbenchers on that side are actually decent and conscientious people, but I am sure members will forgive me for saying that they feel no comfort in watching their privileged front bench cover up the facts from their constituents. I know that they will find it miserable to sit there and vote time after time to protect the secrecy of the front bench as it moves forward with this new, insidious, secretive tax. We know that the Liberals have a majority, but we will use our numbers, such as they are, the strong mandate of the official opposition that we have been given, to make it as difficult as possible for the government to pull off this rip-off.

If members want any proof that this is anything but a tax grab, look at how the Liberals are taxing the tax. They propose to impose the GST not just on products people buy but on the carbon tax cost of those products. Let us say that a Canadian buys some furniture at a furniture store, just like any other middle-class suburban family would do to furnish their home. Of course, the furniture would be subject to a goods and services tax, but there is also another tax hidden within the cost of that furniture, and that is the cost of the carbon tax that has been borne by those who produced the furniture and then transported the furniture.

All of those costs get transferred to the customer. The customer always gets the cost passed down. The government not only proposes that the GST should apply to the furniture but also to the carbon tax cost on that furniture. In other words, it is a tax on a tax.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer says that in the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia alone the federal government will collect a quarter billion dollars in GST on the carbon tax. Imagine what those costs would be right across the country in the form of GST on the carbon tax. Canadians are being forced to pay a tax for the privilege of paying another tax. I asked the government about this and it said this is how the GST works. According to the government, it applies to all the goods and services Canadians buy.

Is the carbon tax a good or a service? I am not sure it is any good except in being of service to the government's plan to take more money from everyday taxpayers. As my friend to the left of me said, it is a disservice to everybody else.

We are calling on the government to release all the documents in its possession. I know the government will try to get out of this voting session tonight by coming up with some phony number that it will invent at the eleventh hour in order to let all of its MPs go home. I want to be very specific about this. We want every single document produced by every single department that calculates the cost of the carbon tax to every single Canadian that has been produced since the last election.

There is no reason why the government cannot do this. We are not looking for commercially sensitive information. What commercial sensitivity could possibly exist in telling people what they are going to have to pay? There is no national security reason the government should not do this, although ironically, the government might go so far as to make an argument for such exemptions. It did use an exemption under an access to information request, that it says in the act that revealing to Canadians the cost of the carbon tax would imperil the government's ability to manage the economy. That was the exemption the government used in the existing Access to Information Act in order to justify withholding information.

Not only will the carbon tax that the Liberals have designed damage the economy, mere knowledge of its cost could be damaging to the government's ability to administer the economy, according to the government. Let us be realistic here. If the carbon tax is going to damage the economy, keeping its cost secret is not going to mitigate those damages. That excuse does not work.

The Liberals say the carbon tax is a provincial policy, that it has nothing to do with them, so they cannot possibly release any information on it. Bill C-74 is a federal government bill introduced in the House of Commons to impose a carbon tax at a national level. If it were simply a provincial issue, we would not need federal legislation, so therefore it is a federal issue.

Then the Liberals say some of these numbers are outdated, that they go back two years. They claim the whole world has changed in two years, so members do not need that crazy old data; they will keep it to themselves. Well, if it is so old, just release it and explain to Canadians why it is not applicable anymore. They should just say the numbers are very high and that they will damage the middle-class Canadian household. They should just tell us that there is no reason to worry because it is old information and it is no longer relevant, that they have new information with which to replace it, and that they will let Canadians look at all those facts and in their wisdom decide who to believe. That objection does not work.

I am very curious to hear throughout the day specific justifications from members of the government for keeping these costs secret. Even those who support a carbon tax should be in favour of telling people what it costs. If it is worth what it costs, then why not provide those costs and justify them in making the case? However, the government will not do that. It wants to keep those costs secret because if the costs become known, then one of the claims the government has made will be disproven. It has claimed that the carbon tax is going to be revenue neutral. To be revenue neutral the government would have to tell people what it is collecting and what people are paying in the first place.

How can we believe the Liberals are going to neutralize a cost if we do not know what that cost is? If they were really going to neutralize the effect on middle- and working-class households of this new tax, they would first need to say, “Here's what it costs and here's what you're getting back in some other tax reduction”. However, they will not do that because this is not revenue neutral. The reason we know that is because I specifically asked officials with Environment Canada and Finance Canada at the committee whether the government would use the proceeds of the tax to lower other taxes, in other words to let people keep more through income tax savings in order to compensate them for what extra they pay in carbon taxes. The officials in both those departments confirmed that the government intends to do no such thing. It will not use the revenues to reduce any other tax. In fact, it will use these revenues in order to spend more money. That is the Liberals' definition of revenue neutral. If Canadians send it, they will spend it. Saying they are going to raise a tax, but not to worry, they will spend every penny, is not revenue neutral. It is a tax grab.

We know we cannot trust the government on money. Just yesterday, I stood up in the House of Commons and quoted a Fraser Institute study showing that 81% of middle-class Canadians are paying more income tax today than when the Prime Minister took office. The Prime Minister stood up and said, “That's not what the report said at all. Come on”. It turns out he had similar denials on the floor of the House of Commons, and he had so offended the report's authors that they actually took what is perhaps the unprecedented step of asking newspapers to run a guest column where they could correct the Prime Minister and point out that indeed Canadian middle-class taxpayers are paying more because of the policies of the Prime Minister, which is exactly the opposite of what he promised in the last election.

After I disproved his claim about the report, he stood up and said, “Okay, Liberals have raised taxes, but they've just taken away boutique tax credits from rich people”. By rich people he means anyone who used the public transit tax credit to take the bus. If someone takes the bus they are too rich for the Prime Minister. He takes a limousine; they take the bus. Taxpayers who used the children's fitness tax credit to put their kids in soccer and hockey are too rich, according to the Prime Minister, and they deserve a tax increase. Students who used the textbook tax credit to buy their expensive books in order to learn are too rich according to the Prime Minister, and according to him they deserve a tax increase. All of this is just a bit rich coming from our trust fund millionaire Prime Minister, who has never once raised taxes on himself.

On this side of the House, we will continue to stand up for working-class taxpayers to give them the chance to earn a better life and keep more of what they earn. We believe in putting people before government, a principle that is 800 years old, a principle that helped inspire the very creation of the parliamentary system in which we operate and debate today, and in which we will stand and vote hour after hour for the rights of taxpayers tonight.

Opposition Motion—Leadership on Climate Change and Clean Energy

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, a lot of the environmental programs we see do not have to be a windmill or solar power panels we see outside buildings. In fact, they can actually be about energy efficiency and the things we do on a day-to-day level to ensure that we actually save energy and use the good types of energy.

For instance, our government is ensuring that we are a model for sustainability by greening our government. We are on track to reduce the government's own greenhouse gas emissions by 40% by 2030 and by 80% by 2050. Even when I was in the Canadian Armed Forces, there were many times, 20 years ago, when someone would leave the door open. We would be heating the outdoors, because someone thought it was too hot, and we were not able to actually turn down the heat. The government today is actually reviewing a lot of the policies on how we conduct ourselves in our day-to-day operations to see if there are energy savings. It is listening to people on the ground, asking civil servants, and even our military personnel, what we can do to ensure that we can meet that target. That takes a lot of effort, because it is going to be an effort by all Canadians to ensure that we actually get there.

I am proud of our government. Not only are we committed to those agreements but we are intent on actually trying to achieve those targets. It is not simply empty rhetoric. It is actually something we hold in our hearts to be true that we will get there if we work day in and day out, and we are doing that.

We are passing a number of bills that are repairing the damage from the decade of darkness. We are engaging with our international counterparts to ensure that we are going to be meeting those targets. For instance, we are changing legislation through Bill C-69 and Bill C-68. We have also introduced Bill C-74, and the list goes on.

Opposition Motion—Global Climate Change and Clean Energy Leadership

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Edmonton Mill Woods.

I am very pleased to stand in the House today to discuss the motion of my colleague, the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

I appreciate the call for Canada to be a global climate change leader. I agree, and Canada is. However, this motion fails in a number of areas, including its failure to recognize the actions the government has taken in ensuring that the environment and the economy go together as we build a clean energy economy. Our government has been steadfast in its belief that a strong economy and a clean environment go hand in hand. The NDP motion completely ignores the historic investments that the government has made through successive federal budgets that specifically address Canada's environment, coastlines, waterways, and wildlife, as well as the introduction of government legislation such as Bill C-69, Bill C-68, Bill C-57, and Bill C-74, which would further strengthen our ability to protect the environment and grow the economy in sustainable ways.

Today, I will highlight the global market for clean technologies and the enormous opportunity Canadians are already taking advantage of that is estimated to be in the trillions of dollars, with demand only increasing, and at an incredibly rapid pace.

This is an area I personally know very well, having spent the past almost 20 years as a chief executive officer and senior executive in the clean technology and renewable sector. The clean technology industry presents significant opportunities for Canadian businesses from all sectors of the economy. That is why investing in clean technology is a key component of our government's approach to promoting sustainable growth and to addressing key environmental challenges.

Our government also recognizes that clean technology is a source of good, well-paying jobs for Canadians. Therefore, when it comes to clean technology, Canada has the opportunity to be a true global leader, creating good, well-paying jobs for Canadians, while helping to meet our climate change and other important environmental goals.

Clean technologies are central to Canada’s low-carbon, globally competitive economy that provides high-quality jobs and opportunities for our middle class and those working hard to join it.

Clean technologies are by definition innovative technologies. Our government understands that innovation is a key driver of economic success. That is why we developed an innovation skills plan that will assist in making Canada a world-leading centre for innovation.

Today, clean technology already employs over 170,000 Canadians, and we sell about $26 billion annually in goods and services. Of that $26 billion, about $8 billion is exported.

Clearly, there is a strong appetite for Canadian innovation, but we have only just scratched the surface and there is so much more room to grow. That is why our government set aside more than $2.3 billion for clean technology in budget 2017. For the record, that is Canada's largest-ever public investment in this field. Prior to making this historic investment, we worked closely with industry to develop a comprehensive strategy that will successfully accelerate the development of the sector.

This $2.3 billion will support clean technology research, development, demonstration, and adoption and the scaling up of our businesses.

We know that access to financing fuels the growth of companies and provides the capital needed to hire new staff, develop products, and support sales at home and abroad, which is why we have set aside $1.4 billion in new financing for clean-tech providers. This is in addition to the $21.9 billion investment in green infrastructure, which will create jobs and position Canada for the low-carbon economy of the future.

We have also allocated $400 million to recapitalize Sustainable Development Technology Canada. This fund is helping our Canadian businesses develop world-class expertise in clean technology engineering, design, marketing, and management. To date, the fund has invested $989 million in 381 Canadian companies, supporting projects across the entire country. The funding has helped these companies develop and demonstrate new clean technologies that promote sustainable development, including those that address environmental issues, such as climate change, air quality, clean water, and clean soil.

There is also the Business Development Bank of Canada with its $700 million commitment to help clean technology producers scale up and expand globally. Since mid-January, I am pleased to say that four investments worth $40 million have been made. Through our participation in mission innovation, the Government of Canada will work with the international community to double federal investment in clean energy research and development over five years.

These are very significant and substantive investments, and we will drive for strong results. The government will carefully monitor the results of its investments both in terms of economic growth and jobs, as well as the environment.

Through a new clean-tech growth hub within Innovation Canada, the government will streamline client services, improve federal program coordination, enable tracking and reporting of clean technology results across government, and connect stakeholders to international markets. The clean growth hub is the government's focal point for all federal government supporting clean technology. Since launching in mid-January, the hub has served over 450 companies. This one-stop shop is a major innovative win for government that industry is already recognizing as a key step forward.

The 2017 Global Cleantech Innovation Index, which investigates where entrepreneurial companies are most likely to emerge over the next 10 years, ranked Canada fourth, up from seventh in 2014. Further, in January of this year, the Cleantech Group released a Global Cleantech 100 list. The list recognizes the clean-tech companies that are most likely to have significant market impact over the next five to 10 years.

Under the Harper government, Canada's share of the global clean-tech market shrunk by half. In partnership with the clean-tech industry, we have successfully turned this around. This year, a record 13 Canadian clean technology firms comprised the top 100. All the winning companies are clients of the Canadian trade commissioner service, and seven of the 13 companies are Export Development Canada customers.

We know that is only a small sampling of the innovative clean technology companies that are doing amazing work every day across the country to create economic growth, and solve our most pressing environmental challenges.

For example, in Montreal, GHGSat has developed the technology to monitor industrial greenhouse gas emissions using satellite technology. They launched their first satellite in 2016. In my own province of British Columbia, Carbon Engineering is developing a process to turn carbon dioxide in the air into a clean fuel. I could go on and on, speaking about all of the fantastic and innovative clean technology companies working across the country in so many industries and sectors of the Canadian economy.

In order to ensure their continued success, we will continue to collaborate with all stakeholders and jurisdictions across Canada to meet our climate change commitments and bring innovative and competitive clean technologies to market.

We have developed strong international linkages that promote Canadian technology as solutions to global challenges and attract private sector investment. This government is focused on scaling our great Canadian clean technology success stories, and in the process, helping to solve the world's most pressing environmental challenges.

As we move forward, the Government of Canada will continue to be a strong partner for clean technology producers. Our government is incredibly proud and impressed by the innovative work being done by the entrepreneurial women and men working in this sphere and we will continue to support them and their work, and with their success, generate future wealth for Canadians, while safeguarding the environment for future generations.

Main Estimates 2018-19—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I am now prepared to rule on the points of order raised on May 29, 2018 and May 30, 2018 by the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona regarding vote 40 under Treasury Board Secretariat in the main estimates 2018-19, also known as the budget implementation vote.

On May 29, I ruled on an earlier point of order of his regarding the same vote. In that ruling, I indicated that speakers have generally been reluctant to rule that an item in the estimates was out of order except in clear cases where the supply item had a legislative dimension and was not pure supply.

The hon. member, in his intervention of May 29, argued that the funds sought under vote 40 do not appear to be for a purpose under Treasury Board's legal mandate, as defined in the Financial Administration Act. Instead, it is a central fund from which Treasury Board will allocate money to other departments and agencies for them to carry out their mandates. He felt this circumvented the usual practices for supply. He also contended that this vote cannot reasonably be compared to other central funds under Treasury Board, which are all either consistent with its legal mandate or otherwise justifiable.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader responded to this point by arguing that the hon. member's reading of the Treasury Board's mandate was too narrow. In his view, there was no question that these matters fall within the legal mandate of the Treasury Board. He also cited my earlier ruling indicating there is ample precedent for monies to be granted to a central fund.

On May 30, the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona argued that some of the specific initiatives in vote 40 lack proper legislative authority. In particular, he noted that initiatives relating to employment insurance and cybersecurity seem dependent on measures contained in Bill C-74, Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1. As this bill is not yet law, he felt it was not proper for the government to seek appropriations for its implementation.

Finally, given that vote 40 will fund a variety of initiatives in various departments and agencies, the member felt it problematic that the vote had been referred to a single committee, the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. In his view, it would be more appropriate for the initiatives in vote 40 to have been studied by the committees directly responsible for those departments and agencies.

I will deal with this last point first. When the estimates are tabled, they are automatically referred to committee in accordance with Standing Order 81(4). As is the case with documents tabled under Standing Order 32, it is the government that determines to which committee each vote will be referred. While this used to be done by motion, the Standing Orders were amended in 2001 to make the referral automatic. The minister now provides the Table with the list of committees to which separate votes are sent for study. In the case of vote 40, it was referred to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, a committee with a fairly wide-ranging mandate on matters relating to estimates. In its study of vote 40, the committee is free to invite whomever it feels appropriate. I do not believe there is any role for the Speaker to become involved in the matching of votes and committees.

On the matter of the legal authority for the spending, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 873, indicates:

The Chair has maintained that estimates with a direct and specific legislative intent (those clearly intended to amend existing legislation) should come to the House by way of an amending bill.

My predecessors have addressed this issue in a number of different rulings. Speaker Jerome, in a ruling found on page 607 of the Journals of March 22, 1977, explained:

...the government receives from Parliament the authority to act through the passage of legislation and receives the money to finance such authorized action through the passage by Parliament of an appropriation act. A supply item in my opinion ought not, therefore, to be used to obtain authority which is the proper subject of legislation.

Nothing in the wording of vote 40, as I read it, seeks to amend existing legislation. The hon. member acknowledged as much in his intervention. He questioned whether the Treasury Board has the legal authority to spend for the purposes of the initiatives contained in vote 40. It is clear, however, from the vote wording that the funds are to be granted to the Treasury Board so that it can transfer them to other departments and agencies. As the hon. member himself concedes, the vote wording specifically says that expenditures of the funds must be for purposes “within the legal mandates of the departments or other organizations for which they are made.”

The hon. member's objection, really, is a matter about which department is seeking the funds. He does not feel it appropriate that Treasury Board requests money for a central fund on behalf of other departments or agencies. As I stated in my ruling on May 29, 2018, there is ample precedent for central funds. The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona cited many of these in his intervention. While he argues that vote 40 is of a different nature than other central funds, I am not convinced that Treasury Board lacks the legal authority to manage it. As the hon. parliamentary secretary argued, this would require a rather narrow reading of the Financial Administration Act. I do not believe the vote can be ruled out of order on that basis.

Again, as I indicated in my earlier ruling, it is up to the government to determine the form its request for funds will take. It is for members to decide, in studying and voting on the estimates, whether or not the money should be granted. In the case of vote 40, some members may wish that the request had been in a different form. In the end, they are left to make a decision on the request as the government has presented it. The Chair's role is limited to determining if the request for funds is in a form that does not require any separate legislative authorization and if it respects the limits of the supply process.

This brings me to the final point raised by the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona. He argued that certain initiatives do not appear to have existing legislative authority, but instead appear to be dependent on legislation currently before Parliament or yet to be introduced. Speaker Sauvé, in a ruling found at page 10546 of the Debates of June 12, 1981, indicated, “the Appropriation Act should only seek authority to spend the money for a program that has been previously authorized by a statute” and that, by seeking funds for programs where the legislation had not yet been introduced, the government was putting the cart before the horse.

On March 21, 1983, she addressed a similar matter. Vote 10c under Industry, Trade and Commerce in that year’s supplementary estimates provided for payments under the Small Business Investment Grant Act, which was still before the House in the form of Bill C-136. In ruling the vote out of order, she stated at page 23968 of the Debates:

Vote 10c clearly anticipates legislation and, in that sense, seeks to establish a new program in the absence of other legislative authority and seeks the funds to put it into operation.

The matter to be established, then, is whether existing legislative authority is lacking for the initiatives identified by the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona. Absent this authority, it would be premature for the government to be seeking funds. Previous Speakers have noted that it is not always easy to identify the legislative authority for particular initiatives in the estimates. Unfortunately, the parliamentary secretary, in his response, did not directly address this point. This information would have been helpful for the Chair in determining whether such authority is lacking.

The hon. member asserted that, as the budget indicated that certain initiatives would be the subject of legislation, it follows that such initiatives should not receive funding through the estimates until that legislation is passed. It is not entirely clear to the Chair, however, that these activities have been shown to lack existing legislative authority. To take, for example, the matters relating to cybersecurity, according to annex 1 of the main estimates, the funds are to be transferred to the Communications Security Establishment, CSE, which has an existing legislative mandate under the National Defence Act. While Bill C-74 does indeed provide for the transfer of certain employees from other departments to the CSE, I believe that the CSE does have a mandate under existing legislation to spend for such purposes. Were the government proposing to grant funds to an organization not yet created or for an entirely new purpose, I believe there would be a valid objection, but that does not appear to be the case in the examples enumerated by the hon. member.

I must admit that, at the outset, the matters regarding Employment Insurance caused me some concern. The main estimates themselves explain, at page I-9 and I-10:

Costs related to Employment Insurance benefits and Children’s benefits are the largest components of the items excluded from the estimates. Most Employment Insurance costs are paid directly out of the Employment Insurance Operating Account, rather than a departmental appropriation, and are therefore not specifically included in estimates.

The authority to spend funds for the purposes of paying employment insurance benefits is statutory, pursuant to the Employment Insurance Act. It is not entirely clear why this request has been included in vote 40, whether it is truly additional funds or whether the amount has been included for information purposes. Regardless, the question to determine is whether legislative authority for the request is lacking. The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona indicated that the funds were to make permanent an existing pilot project for people working while on claim. While the provisions in Bill C-74 make this change to the Employment Insurance Act, it is clear to me that there was legislative authority under the existing act for the pilot project.

While the hon. member raised important questions, Speakers have generally ruled items in the estimates to be irregular only when they clearly lacked a legislative basis or when the items themselves sought to amend existing legislation. I do not believe that to be the case with vote 40, and therefore I rule that it is indeed in order.

I appreciate the hon. member’s vigilance in ensuring that proper practices are followed regarding the estimates. As this is the first time the House has been presented with a budget implementation vote of this nature, it is important to ensure that the limits of the supply process are respected. That said, I also want to remind the hon. member of my ruling of June 4, 2018, when I underscored the importance of being concise when presenting a point of order. Even on a matter as complex as the estimates, it should not require multiple lengthy interventions to make one’s point. I am certain all hon. members will keep this in mind in preparing their arguments.

I thank hon. members for their attention.

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise on the serious matter of judicial appointments. Since elected, our government has taken significant steps to ensure that the process for appointing judges is transparent and accountable to Canadians and promotes greater diversity on the bench. At the same time, we recognize the challenges courts face with respect to court delays, which have come under heightened scrutiny since the Supreme Court of Canada's Jordan decision.

We have demonstrated that we are committed to responding to these challenges by introducing Bill C-75. This bill promises substantive reform that will fundamentally address delays, and modernize our justice system.

Let me assure the member opposite that the minister is very mindful of the effect judicial vacancies can have on the effective operation of a court. The minister is absolutely committed to ensuring that the most meritorious candidates are appointed to the bench to meet the needs of all Canadians.

Since elected, our government has appointed or elevated 183 judges to superior courts across the country, including five in Saskatchewan, and today, the diversity of our appointments is unprecedented. Under our government, 57% of appointed or elevated judges are women, compared to just 32% under the previous government.

Our government is committed to continuing to strengthen our judiciary. Budget 2017 created funding for 28 new federally appointed judges. Using this funding, the minister has appointed judges to new judicial positions in Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, and Newfoundland and Labrador, with more such appointments to come.

Through budget 2018, we are creating 46 new judicial positions, including a judge for the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal. This new position would respond directly and positively to a request from Saskatchewan. This additional judge would assist that court, the highest court in the province, to address a growing number of civil and criminal appeals as well as increasingly complex matters. The amendment to add this position to the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal is currently before Parliament in Bill C-74.

Fundamental to the judicial appointments process are the judicial advisory committees. They evaluate the applications of those who have put their names forward for judicial appointment and provide lists of highly recommended candidates to the Minister of Justice. As a result of the changes we introduced, the JACs are now more balanced and inclusive. We also made changes to help achieve a more representative bench, with a broader diversity of backgrounds and experience, allowing candidates to speak to their own understanding and experience of Canada's diverse makeup. We also increased our ability to validate candidates' bilingual capacity.

Impact Assessment Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my Liberal colleague across the way that we need to put a price on pollution. That is why, when we were debating Bill C-74, we were very much in support of separating the new carbon tax act out of that bill so it could be properly studied at its own committee. That way, the government could have done the House a service in bringing forward the appropriate witnesses who could have laid clearly on the table the evidence that this approach works.

My Conservative colleagues also have concerns that need to be addressed. I very much acknowledge that there are farmers and certain low-income individuals and industries that are still very fossil fuel dependent, so we need to construct the tax in a way that acknowledges the current fossil fuel users and helps them transition out of that situation. We need to structure the tax in a way that provides some benefit to low-income people while in the overall picture we try to transition our country to a fossil fuel-free future.

Standing Committee on Finance—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Carleton on May 31, 2018, concerning the alleged intimidation of a potential witness by the office of the Minister of Finance.

I would like to thank the member for raising the matter, as well as the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader for his comments.

According to the member for Carleton, the Canadian Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, CAMIC, received two phone calls from the office of the Minister of Finance, which he claimed were intended to stop them from raising their objections to Bill C-74, either by meeting with parliamentarians or by appearing before committee. He surmised that these comments, which he characterized as threatening, might be why this association did not even express an interest in appearing as a committee witness.

In addition to questioning the timeliness of this question of privilege, the parliamentary secretary framed the matter as one of debate and contended that actions of a civil servant have not historically qualified as breaches of privilege.

The issue of timeliness is one that the Chair has raised on several occasions recently since it is a requisite condition that members must heed. In this instance, it is a valid issue to be raised again. This question could have, and should have, been brought to the attention of the House much earlier. The article from The Globe and Mail, dated May 15, 2018, in which the member for Carleton is quoted, suggests that he was aware of this matter as early as May 15. Additionally, it could have been raised at any point since May 22, when the House returned from a break week. The fact that the member for Carleton gave notice of his question of privilege a full week prior to actually rising in the House to make his case also suggests that he could have done so earlier.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, explains at page 145 what is expected of members in this respect, when it states:

The matter of privilege to be raised in the House must have recently occurred and must call for the immediate action of the House. Therefore, the member must satisfy the Speaker that he or she is bringing the matter to the attention of the House as soon as practicable after becoming aware of the situation.

In the past, Speakers have chosen not to pursue further on a matter when it is not apparent that it is being raised at the earliest practicable time.

In fact, Speaker Sauvé determined, on March 1, 1982, in a ruling found at pages 15473 and 15474 of Debates, that a question raised by a member was not a breach of privilege, as it had not been raised at the earliest opportunity. She stated:

The first problem I have with this question of privilege is that it does not appear to have been raised at the earliest opportunity....

I must therefore decline to accord this matter precedence over the regular business of the House, particularly in view of the fact that it does not appear to have been raised at the earliest opportunity. This requirement is not a mere technicality, but indeed in some respects a test of the validity of the complaint.

Today the Chair can only come to the same conclusion. This matter was clearly not raised at the first opportunity; the member did not meet this requisite condition, and therefore the Chair will not comment further on it.

I thank all hon. members for their attention.

Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Pursuant to order made on Tuesday, May 29 the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment to the amendment to the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-74.

The question is as follows. Shall I dispense?

The House resumed from June 5 consideration of the motion that Bill C-74, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures, be read the third time and passed, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Québec debout, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons for sharing his time with me and giving me this opportunity to speak on behalf of the Groupe parlementaire québécois.

Unfortunatley, Bill C-74 is another mammoth bill that is being debated under another time allocation motion.

The government is blaming the opposition for opposing this bill, claiming that that is what forced it to use time allocation. However, blaming the opposition for doing its job as the opposition is like blaming the Canada Revenue Agency for collecting taxes from people or blaming meteorologists for forecasting rain.

Of course we oppose bad policies. Would the government have me believe that it did not expect us to ask questions and that it did not fully expect us to oppose certain aspects of this bill?

This is ridiculous. Here we are with only 10 minutes to discuss an immense omnibus bill that is 560 pages long.

I will therefore try to be as brief as possible and get right to the point: this budget does not address the needs of Quebeckers; it is as simple as that.

As I said at second reading, there is not much for Quebeckers in this budget, apart from a handful of minor measures that will give the minister a chance to strut all over Canada just before the election. Targeted announcements pay off in swing ridings during elections, as we know. We are seeing that right now in the Chicoutimi byelection. Journalist David Akin said that in his entire career, he had never seen so much money and so many announcements being lavished on a single riding.

They are desperate to win this byelection at any cost. They have some nerve. Our Liberal colleagues are lucky that they do not have to pay for their own gas. Otherwise, they would think twice before taking a limousine hundreds of kilometres to make a $10,000 announcement.

In Bill C-74, we see a $75-million gift to the Irvings to fight the spruce budworm. This is a perfect example. The spruce budworm is also a problem in Quebec. In fact, the infested area in Quebec is bigger than the entire province of New Brunswick, yet Quebec is not getting a single cent. Every penny is going to help the Irvings. That sums this budget up perfectly. This is not a budget for Quebec. It is, first and foremost, a budget for the Liberal Party. It is clear that this old party will never change.

Do not get me wrong, it is not all negative. For example, the Canada workers benefit is interesting. It will help out low-income workers. The small business tax cut from 10.5% to 9% is another good measure.

As hon. members know, Quebec's economy relies heavily on small business owners. Quebec is known for its creativity. With our good ideas we are able to develop businesses that can penetrate markets all around the world. Lowering the small business tax rate will give our businesses the boost they need to create our flagships of tomorrow.

However, the context in which this was announced raised some eyebrows. The Minister of Finance was criticized from all sides for the tax reform he announced last summer. Then out of nowhere he announced the tax cut in order to save face for the government, but at the end of the day it is still a good measure and the tax reform was largely abandoned.

The government kept the proposal to restrict the use of passive income, but it diluted the proposal so much that the reform will not do much. Instead of going after our farmers and small businesses, the government could have gone after the massive problems with its tax reform. I should also mention that there is nothing in the budget to address tax havens.

According to the Conference Board of Canada, we lose at least $9 billion a year in revenue to tax havens.

It is not complicated. If we recovered just a fraction of this amount, we would have some serious breathing room to balance our budget. Bay Street would obviously be angry, which would not fly with the current government, but it would be fair to the people and businesses here that pay their taxes.

The government should be closing loopholes instead of creating more tax havens by signing information sharing agreements with countries that do not have tax return obligations.

Once again, Quebec is demanding that it be able to collect all taxes, but the Prime Minister thumbed his nose at Quebec's unanimous motion, showing his arrogance yet again.

I do not think that any party in power in Quebec would turn its nose up at billions of dollars hidden in tax havens, unlike the Liberals, who are creating more loopholes. The same goes for Netflix, an American multinational corporation.

Quebec and Canadian companies that provide a similar service must charge sales tax, but the government is doing everything it can to exempt Netflix and other U.S. giants from this requirement. That is completely unfair. It is offering a competitive advantage to foreign businesses to the detriment of our own. That must change.

Speaking of handouts to foreign businesses, let us talk about the environment and Trans Mountain. The government just gave a $4.5 billion gift to a U.S. company to develop a pipeline that British Columbia opposes.

The 2015 Liberal platform had this to say about environmental projects:

Canadians must be able to trust that government...will respect the rights of those most affected [by these resource-based projects]...While governments grant permits for resource development, only communities can grant permission.

The government just reversed its position. This budget is more of the same on the environment: a lot of talk and not too many concrete measures. It is simply disappointing.

Quebec is asking for help with the electrification of transportation, but there is nothing for that in the budget. This corner of the House has asked for this funding several times.

Time is running out so I will start to wrap up. This budget is above all for Liberals. It sprinkles around some tax breaks in order to win elections. The government still has not resolved the problem of health transfers that are below the acceptable minimum threshold. While the Liberal Party is playing Monopoly with our money, Quebec is confronted with real problems every year because of a significant increase in health care costs.

I would like the government to start listening instead of always being so arrogant, as we saw with the single tax return and the migrant crisis. On our side, we are going to continue tirelessly defending the interests of our people, Quebeckers.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte.

I am grateful to have this opportunity to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-74, the budget implementation act. This piece of legislation is concerning for a number of reasons, including the fact that it is an omnibus bill that is not being given proper consideration, as the Liberals continually shut down debate.

The Liberals promised not to use time allocation or omnibus bills in this way, but we have unfortunately learned that keeping promises to Canadians is not the government's forte. To name a few, do electoral reform and an end to first past the post, an end to omnibus bills, or balanced budgets sound familiar?

During his campaign, the Prime Minister committed to running a deficit of up to $10 billion during his time in government, with a promise to balance the budget by 2019. We now know that this was patently false. This year's budget is $18 billion and climbing, and the Liberals have added $60 billion-plus to the national debt in just three years. Figures show that the budget will not return to balance until 2045, and now we have nationalized a pipeline with public money, when private money would have done it. We cannot forget the fact that in this budget, there are no plans if NAFTA fails.

The Liberals keep adding to their reckless spending. In football, they would call a penalty for piling on.

In Saskatchewan, we have a tradition at the Kinsmen Kinettes Telemiracle fundraiser, when throughout the event, the show host puts up the totals board and chants, “Where are we going to go?”, and the audience replies, “Higher”. I would point out, however, that this is with private money, not public money, unlike for the Liberals, who throw taxpayer dollars around like it is nothing.

This means that our children and grandchildren will have to foot the bill for the government's reckless spending. The Liberals fail to see that their spending is actually being done at the expense of the very people they claim they are trying to help: the middle class and those who wish to join it.

This omnibus bill contains many provisions, but the most important one for my constituents, and indeed for all people in Saskatchewan, is the carbon tax, yet while the government has the numbers, it will not tell Canadians what it will cost them.

As many members in the House know, the oil and gas industry has suffered greatly in recent years. In my hometown of Estevan, I witnessed the exodus first-hand. Many companies were forced to shut down, and not just those directly in the energy industry. The trickle-down effect killed services too, and restaurants and hotels were forced to close, because the business just was not there anymore. It was and still is a hard time, and we have not bounced back anywhere close to where we were in the past, though the Liberals seem to think that the hard times are over.

Canadians who bought houses now have no jobs or have jobs that pay significantly less, and they cannot afford to pay for the houses they have. Innovation jobs and infrastructure jobs do not exist, and there is nothing for them to grasp onto, not to mention that everyone in the community is in the same boat, and there is no confidence to buy a house or in the housing market generally.

Now, here comes the carbon tax.

I am proud to be from Saskatchewan, the province that thus far has refused to bend to the federal government on its forced carbon tax. The provincial government understands what the federal Liberals do not, that the people of Saskatchewan simply cannot afford another tax, especially since Canadians across our country are already paying more tax under this Liberal government.

This budget gives $1.4 billion to provinces that have signed on to the government's climate agenda. Of the four maritime provinces that have signed on, not one has a carbon scheme or plan. One has a tax that it will rename.

Saskatchewan has a plan and is denied access to these funds. We have learned time and time again that if one does not conform to Liberal values and ideals, there will be a penalty to pay.

When the Government of Saskatchewan put forward its plan to reduce emissions, it was immediately rejected by the federal Minister of Environment. It is her way or the highway.

Saskatchewan's climate change strategy was well thought out, taking into account all aspects of the province. However, it was not deemed good enough by the Liberals here in Ottawa. There was seemingly no consideration given for the work that is already being done in my province to reduce emissions.

I would argue that farmers in my riding have a far better grasp of climate change than the majority of Canadians. These men and women have been stewards of their land for generations. They have spent time, money, and energy in trying to figure out the best, lowest-impact methods to farm, such as zero tillage, air seeding, and crop rotation, which put in and take out nitrogen and carbon from the soil. However, the budget had no mention of farmers at all. Not one word.

Farmers are the epitome of innovation. They have done it through centuries, through droughts, floods, and grasshopper infestations, all of which come regularly and are dealt with using the skill sets these people have developed over generations. They respect the land, because it is their livelihood, and it is only reasonable to assume that these individuals would do whatever possible to ensure they are farming in the most sustainable and responsible way.

Instead of helping out these farmers and ranchers, the Liberals are making their lives significantly more expensive and difficult with a carbon tax. They will now need to pay more for fuel, a huge expense in any farming operation; more for supplies, because transportation of these pieces will go up, and it is not like there is a manufacturer around the corner in rural Saskatchewan; and more for labour. I would be lax if I did not mention that the Liberal government implied that farmers and small business owners were tax cheats.

I have not spoken to a single agriculture producer in my riding who is in favour of a carbon tax, despite what the Liberals claim. Again, the federal government is absolutely failing when it comes to helping the middle class. Perhaps those in the middle class only matter when they are willing to donate to the Liberal Party of Canada, because my constituents do not feel valued by their Prime Minister and his members of Parliament.

One thing that frustrates me in this discussion on the carbon tax in relation to Bill C-74 is that there is almost no consideration given to the work already being done in Saskatchewan to reduce emissions. The coal-fired power plant in Estevan at Boundary Dam utilizes a world-first technology in one of its generators, which has been proven not only to reduce emissions but also to utilize the by-products of this technology, like sulphur, sulphuric acid, and fly ash for cement to the benefit of other industries.

I would be remiss if I did not mention that the carbon is sequestered in the ground. It is called carbon capture and sequestration, CCS, although members may not have heard of it since the minister does not champion it beyond saying, “I've been there”. The public safety minister has stood up and said that he started a study on CCS 25 years ago, yet where is he today, and where is the promotion of CCS at Boundary Dam? It was the Conservative government of Stephen Harper that gave $250 million dollars towards it and actually championed this new technology.

CCS is a technology that allows emissions from coal-fired power plants to be captured and sequestered kilometres underground. Since it has been in operation, the CCS facility at Boundary Dam has already captured and removed over two million tonnes of the CO₂ emissions from the environment. This is the equivalent to roughly 500,000 cars being taken off our roads.

As I said, this is a world-first technology. Governments across the world regularly send envoys to Boundary Dam so they can take a look at using this technology to reduce their emissions as well. It is green, it is innovative, yet it gets barely any recognition from the government.

The western states in the U.S. have signed a memorandum of understanding for further investigation of CCS. The country of Taiwan is interested in the technology, as they are shutting down their five nuclear power plants. With all that said, the budget will give $500 million to a foreign infrastructure bank to build pipelines and coal energy plants in China without this technology. Here is where the Public Safety Minister could say, “Let's keep the money at home in Canada.”

It is absolutely frustrating that the Minister of Environment fails time and again to give Saskatchewan and the CCS technology in Estevan its due. The Minister of Public Safety, the lone minister for Saskatchewan, does not champion his own province's initiatives to reduce emissions. It is shameful, and even more so since it is the good people of Saskatchewan who must ultimately pay the price.

Bill C-74 would mean that costs will go up across the board because of this carbon tax. I will repeat that while the Liberals know the cost, they will not tell Canadians. Canadians are sick and tired of being told they need to pay more money when their federal government keeps spending recklessly and adding more and more to our national debt.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am really pleased to be here to speak to Bill C-74, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures.

I want to begin by making some general remarks about what we have been doing as a government since our arrival almost two and a half years ago. The key message I want to leave with Canadians and members of the House this evening is this: that we have a plan and that our plan is working, that we chose to invest in our people, that we chose to invest in our country, that we did not choose to cut, that we did not choose austerity, that we left those choices to other political persuasions in this House.

Our plan is undoubtedly, objectively, and factually working. 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, chiefly in infrastructure, such as light rail here in the great region of the national capital region of Ottawa-Carleton, has helped to create more good jobs—almost 600,000 since November 2015—while more help for those who need it most has meant more money for people to save, invest, and spend in their communities.

At the same time, and it is important for Canadians to know this, with respect to unemployment at the national level, the jobless rate stayed at 5.8% in March for a second consecutive month, and for the third time since December, to match its lowest mark since Statistics Canada started measuring the indicator in 1976. The only other time the rate slipped to this level was in 2007. That is the lowest unemployment level in Canada in 42 years.

At the local level, right here in our national capital region, which I have the privilege of representing, we added 2,500 net new jobs in February, helping to push down the local unemployment rate to 5.1% in February from 5.2% in January. However, in March it dropped to 4.9%, and in April it dropped again to 4.2%, the region's unemployment rate remaining well below that of the country as a whole. That is a 30-year low in the national capital region, so the economy is on fire and unemployment is way down. It is dropping.

Canada has the best balance sheet in the G7, with the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7, which we are convening and hosting here next week in Canada. Our debt as a function of our economy is steadily shrinking. It is projected to soon reach its lowest point in almost 40 years. That means that Canada has the confidence to make investments in our future that will strengthen and grow the middle class. It will lay a more solid foundation for the next generations of Canadians to come. It means we can retrofit our core infrastructure—housing, transit, post-secondary institutions, and research and development—and we can partner with our provincial and municipal partners to leverage additional billions of dollars of investment in those four critical areas of our future by co-operating. It has been a central tenet of the government's approach since it arrived two and a half years ago to leverage as much support as we can from other orders of government for priority investments.

Budget 2018, entitled “Equality + Growth: A Strong Middle Class”, supports the government's people-centred approach. It is guided by a new “gender results framework” and proposes to ensure that every Canadian has a real and fair chance at success. This is about taking the next steps to build an equal, competitive, sustainable, and fair Canada where science, curiosity, and innovation spur economic growth.

Here are some of the key budget 2018 measures that the bill aims to implement, which I want to spend a bit of time sharing with Canadians.

First, I want to remind Canadians of this. The budget introduces a new Canada workers benefit. We know that Canadians are working very hard to join the middle class and they deserve to have their hard work rewarded with greater opportunities for success. That is why we are introducing the new Canada workers benefit. It is a more generous and more accessible benefit, which will put more money in the pockets of low-income workers than the working income tax benefit, the so-called WITB that it replaces.

The CWB will replace both maximum benefits and the income level at which the benefit is phased out. As a result, low-income workers, earning $15,000 for example, could receive up to almost $500 more in 2019 to invest in things that are important to them. By allowing more low-income workers to keep more of their paycheques, this will deliver real help to more than two million Canadians who are working hard to join the middle class, raising about 70,000 Canadians out of poverty.

Why is that important? It is important because the economic consensus is clear. Only a foolish country, only a foolish jurisdiction would let its people slide behind. Only a foolish country would not want to avail itself of all the talent in its talent pool by giving effect to it, by helping to shape it, to educate it, and to give it an opportunity to move forward, and prosper. Therefore, the first big announcement in the budget is the Canada workers benefit of which we are more than proud.

The second thing I want to remind Canadians about is what we are doing with the Canada child benefit. The Canada child benefit was introduced in 2016. We are strengthening that very benefit in this budget. We know from our last year and a half of experience that nine out of 10 Canadian families have extra help each and every month to pay for things like nutritious food, sports programs, music lessons, school supplies, and the basics. Families receiving this Canada child benefit are getting about $6,800 on average in payments this year. Millions of dollars, for example, are being shared with families in my riding of Ottawa South every month to provide that very help.

To ensure that the almost six million children who currently benefit from the CCB continue to benefit from it in the long term, here is a big change. We are indexing the Canada child benefit, starting this July, so it continues to increase in value every year going forward. For a single parent of two children making $35,000 a year, a strengthened CCB will mean $560 more next year, tax free, for books, skating lessons or warm clothes for winter.

To help more families access the Canada child benefit and other benefits, budget 2018 will also provide funding to reach out to more indigenous Canadian communities that face distinct barriers when it comes to accessing federal benefits.

As Canada's economy continues to grow and creates good, well-paying jobs, the government will ensure that all Canadians share in and benefit from the success.

Just recently I received a phone call from a single mom in my riding. She makes $14 an hour, soon $15 an hour with the Ontario minimum wage increase. She was in tears of gratefulness. As a single mom of three children, she receives almost $9,000 a year, tax free, of additional support. She told me she could not make ends meet without that support and would have to look for new housing. She would have to move her three kids into a one bedroom apartment, as opposed to a two bedroom apartment. I think that makes a difference in that mother's life. I think it makes a difference in those three children's lives.

Turning more specifically to the economy itself, I want to talk about lower taxes for small businesses in Canada and some of the opportunities for all Canadians that flow from those lower taxes.

Despite what people may say otherwise, the fact is that our government is lowering taxes on small businesses, from 11% in 2015 to 9% by 2019. This will leave more money for small business owners to reinvest in their business and create jobs, up to $7,500 more per year. We know that 99.8% of all Canadian businesses are 100 employees or less. That is the lion's share of the economy. We are targeting those very businesses with those small business tax drops.

As we move ahead with the small business tax rate reduction, we are taking action to ensure the small business rate is not used to gain unfair tax advantages. We are proposing to take further steps to limit the ability of very high-income earners to use private corporations to hold millions of dollars in passive investment portfolios and receive significant tax benefits. We consulted widely about his, and we listened. The design of these proposals is based directly on the feedback we received during those consultations.

With these proposals, less than 3% of private corporations would be affected. Ninety per cent of the tax impact would be borne by households in the top 1%; that is the very wealthiest of hard-working Canadians.

Why is it important to focus on small businesses? Because eight out of 10 jobs are being created today by small businesses. Therefore, we will continue to support our entrepreneurs and owners of SMEs as we move forward.

Another theme, which I believe is indispensable for the future of our economy, and for that matter our well-being and survival, is the question of addressing carbon pollution, climate change, and supporting clean growth. As has been said in the House many times, a clean environment and a strong economy go hand in hand.

We have decided to make further investments toward a healthy and sustainable low carbon economy going forward, one that creates growth and middle-class jobs, while preserving our natural heritage for future generations. In fact, globally, this is the trend. We are embroiled in a race. It is a competitive race that involves the United States, China, Indonesia, and the Congo. Pretty much every country is involved now in the global race to retool their economies. They are in a global race targeting efficiency. It is about becoming more efficient with energy, with water, with material inputs, more efficient when it comes to transportation of goods, and more efficient in minimizing waste. All of these efficiency races that we are running are global races, so we have no choice. From an economic perspective alone, we have no choice but to get on that track and run that race.

Some would have us not even lace up our running shoes. We believe that would be a mistake. Jurisdictions all over the world understand that is the competitive edge, which is why we have decided, like every European Union country, like so many other jurisdictions in the world, to put a price on carbon pollution. It is central to Canada's plan to fight climate change and grow the economy. Economists everywhere have told us this. They recognize that this is one of the most effective, transparent, and efficient ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

It is the use of a market mechanism to achieve an environmental outcome. That is why Ronald Reagan and the Republicans in the United States negotiated a deal with then prime minister Brian Mulroney to use the cap and trade system to eliminate NOx and SOx, nitrogen oxides and sulphur dioxides, from American power plants burning coal to generate electricity. That is how we eliminated acid rain in North America. That is how we were able to protect so much of our freshwater systems in the American and North American northeast. It is in fact an idea that comes from the right. It comes from the Conservative or Republican-leaning thinkers in most economic schools of thought.

That is why Preston Manning supports the use of pricing carbon. That was why Stephen Harper went to London, England, and gave a major energy superpower speech to the world's energy top executives, saying he was moving to price carbon. He even gave them a planned price by 2018 for a tonne of carbon dioxide.

In December 2016, the Government of Canada, along with most provinces and territories, worked with our indigenous partners and adopted a pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change. The framework includes an approach to pricing carbon pollution, with the aim of having carbon pricing in place across Canada by 2018. However, the kicker is that provinces and territories will have the flexibility to choose between two systems: an explicit price-based system, or a carbon tax; and a cap and trade system, which is in place, for example, in Ontario, whereas B.C. has chosen a carbon tax. We know that 80% of Canadians already live in jurisdictions where a price on carbon exists. Therefore, Canada will move forward and build on those provincial successes to make the progress we need to make.

This is not only about doing good; this is about doing well economically. There are vast markets to conquer. There are huge energy efficiency opportunities and technological opportunities all over the planet, for which Canadian entrepreneurs can conquer and compete. That is why it is so important for us to marry both carbon pricing and support for our clean tech sector, which is why one of our primary investments, when it comes to supercluster innovation hubs, is in the area of supporting clean growth technologies going forward.

I will now speak on an issue which is fundamental to many of my constituents and tens of thousands of seniors in Canada, and that is the Canada pension plan. As an MP for 14 years, I have been fighting for this both in and out of government. For over a decade, I have been trying to see progress made on the CPP. I am extremely proud of the fact that our government made a commitment to Canadians to help them realize their goal of a strong, secure, and stable retirement. It was, after all, Paul Martin, as minister of finance, and I think we can objectively agree in the House on all sides, who ensured that our CPP was actuarially sound for at least 85 years going forward.

We can compare and contrast that with the American social security system. The last time I looked at it, I was informed its shelf life was about 18 months. The distinction is that the Americans have not retrofitted, they have not reformed, they have not worked to ensure a safe and stable retirement fund for their people the way we have here in Canada.

Every three years, finance ministers review the Canada pension plan together to ensure we continue to respond to the needs of Canadian retirees, workers, and employees.

In this budget, we want to build on the strong partnership on the historic agreement signed in 2016, a major breakthrough to enhance the Canada pension plan for everyday working Canadians. The 2016 agreement will increase the maximum CPP retirement pension by about 50% over time. That is an incredible step forward. At their recent meeting, finance ministers agreed to strengthen the Canada pension plan to provide greater benefits, for example, to parents whose incomes dropped after the birth or adoption of their children, or to persons with disabilities, or to spouses who were widowed at a young age, and to the estates of lower-income contributors.

It is important not to allow our retirees to slip into poverty. Poverty costs. It costs much more at the back end than it does at the front end, which is why we are addressing this issue of poverty as best we can going forward. Is it perfect? Not nearly. Are we making progress? Absolutely, we are. Canadians are counting on us to continue to work in this regard.

All of these changes to the CPP will be done in this budget without any increase to the Canada pension plan contribution rates paid by workers and employers. Ministers agreed to move forward with regulations to ensure the CPP enhancement would remain appropriately funded over time.

Finally, I want to talk about support for Canada's veterans. Our government is committed to the well-being of veterans and their families. We have delivered in this bill on a pension-for-life option. We are looking forward to making progress in that regard. It is a monthly payment for life, tax-free—

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech to the House on Bill C-74.

This is a gargantuan bill. I think this is the biggest omnibus bill ever seen in the House of Commons. It is about 556 pages long, but it makes virtually no mention of agriculture and agrifood. The federal government needs to make it a priority to invest more in the agriculture sector. We on this side of the House were extremely disappointed to see virtually no mention of agricultural businesses and no support for them.

Could my colleague tell us about the importance of investing in agriculture and agrifood, especially with measures that support young farmers?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[For continuation of proceedings see Part B]

[Continuation of proceedings from Part A]

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-74, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures, be read the third time and passed, and of the amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Selena Beattie, Director of Operations, Cabinet Affairs, Legislation and House Planning, Privy Council Office]

I think that three questions were asked. I will first answer the one about the measures to make Parliament more family-friendly. Then I will ask my colleagues from the Office of the Coordinator, Status of Women, to answer the question about expenses.

Very early in its mandate, the government established a priority to make parliamentarians' family lives easier. The Leader of the Government in the House asked your colleagues from the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to consider the issue. They produced a report last fall that focused on five important themes. The first two themes were related to the travel points system.

In that respect, they suggested, first, that flexibility be shown towards members with more than two children under the age of two and that members be told that, in this case, another adult could accompany the children.

The second recommendation related to the travel points system was to look into the possibility of allowing members to have a child travelling with them without that counting against their points. In that respect, the Board of Internal Economy only looked at the issue on May 24. Its members adopted a few amendments that, I believe, have been shared with all members. In fact, the minutes are available on Parliament's website. The amendments they made, unless I am mistaken, were that no points would be deducted for children under the age of six and that members with more than one child aged between six and 20 would have additional points to ensure that the points would be provided for the children's travel.

The third theme covered by the committee focused on maternity and parental leave. As you know, right now, members do not have access to maternity or parental leave. However, the Parliament of Canada Act requires that, for each day of missed meetings beyond 21 days, a penalty be applied and members be unable to pay into employment insurance. So the board recommended that this be changed.

The government introduced an amendment to Bill C-74, the Budget Implementation Act, No.1 which is currently being considered by parliamentarians. That amendment aims to allow Parliament to create a regime for maternity and parental leave. That would enable the House of Commons and the Senate to establish that kind of a regime. Of course, it will be up to parliamentarians to decide what specific measures will be involved.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am 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.

Before I go into some of the measures introduced in Bill C-74, it is always a good thing to step aside and take a holistic approach to what is going on in the Canadian economy. For example, if we look at the first quarter gross domestic product, we see some continuing good signs. As an economist, I love these terms. We had real final domestic demand rise by 2.1%, driven by a 10.9% increase in business investment.

Recently, off those numbers, the Bank of Canada governor, Stephen Poloz, commented on the signs of the economy of exports and business investment continuing to pick up. Despite the uncertainties in the global economy and the continuing NAFTA negotiations, business investments remain strong.

Those are great signs for our economy, but what does that really translate to? Quite simply, it translates to 600,000 new jobs, 600,000 people working today who were not working two and a half years ago. Those Canadians are our neighbours, our friends, our family. Also, 300,000 kids have been lifted out of poverty because of the Canada child benefit, which we introduced and which is arriving monthly, tax-free, to Canadian families, such as the families in my riding, Vaughan—Woodbridge. Those are great things that we are doing.

The A.T. Kearney foreign direct investment confidence index came out two weeks ago, making comments on what our plan for the economy is doing for Canada. Canada was ranked number two. I would like to read what the A.T. Kearney index said:

Canada moves up three spots to its highest ranking in the history of the Index. An update to the Investment Canada Act, a newly established Invest Canada agency, and new trade agreements [CETA, CPTPP, entering into negotiations with Mercosur] could be boosting investor optimism.

What does a boost in investment translate to? Very simply, it means jobs for middle-class Canadians in my riding, and coast to coast to coast. I am very proud of the measures introduced in Bill C-74.

One of them is the Canada child benefit. We have spoken about it quite a bit, and we should continue to do so. In my riding, Vaughan—Woodbridge, over $59 million was sent via the Canada child benefit to families in a one-year period. It assisted approximately 19,400 children. The number of payments was 10,900, with an average payment of $5,400.

We can throw lots of numbers out there, but behind them are Canadian families like the ones that reside in Vaughan—Woodbridge. These funds are being sent tax-free, not to millionaires but to real Canadian families, families that are working hard to pay their bills every day, assisting them to pay for their kids' sports, lunches, new clothes, and so forth, and maybe save for an RESP for when their children go to university.

I am so proud of the fact that our government indexed the Canada child benefit. What does that mean? Let me simply tell members.

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 2017-18 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.

This means that, for a family making $35,000, once the Canada child benefit is indexed, it would add up to almost $560 more per year. For families in Canada, $500 more a year is a lot of money, to pay for their kids' lunches and school clothes, to bring their son or daughter to a soccer game in the evening or to a soccer practice, and so forth. I am proud that our government has looked at this initiative. I am proud that our government has lifted 300,000 kids out of poverty because of this. I am proud that our government has indexed this. These are real, tangible measures that are assisting families from coast to coast to coast on an everyday basis, and our party should be proud of that.

I am proud to represent a riding, Vaughan—Woodbridge, within the city of Vaughan, that is one of the most entrepreneurial areas of the country. We have approximately 13,000 small and medium-sized enterprises in the city, and I meet with these folks regularly. We are also blessed to have many large organizations. We have Canadian Pacific's busiest intermodal facility in the country, a key barometer of trade and investment. We have Home Depot's eastern Canada distribution centre. We have the FedEx distribution centre for eastern Canada. We have UPS's distribution centre for all of eastern Canada. Again, UPS made that wonderful announcement of investing $500 million in the Canadian economy, creating thousands of additional jobs. We have a furniture maker, Decor-Rest, which employs 700 Canadians, competing globally against furniture makers both here in Canada and in the United States and Mexico, and winning in competing.

I am blessed to have all these entrepreneurs. I am also blessed to have a number of bakeries and great pastry shops, which I have talked about before, especially during Italian Heritage Month. I visit them and we talk about what makes these companies successful.

One big thing we have done, which is contained in Bill C-74, is the reduction in the small-business tax rate from 11% in 2015, which will eventually fall to 9%. We should be proud of that. For small businesses making $500,000 a year in active income, the savings would be $7,500. That can offset other increased input costs they may face. They can use those savings to invest in their businesses, or whatever they choose. That is something we need to applaud.

Looking at our corporate tax system in Canada, the combined federal corporate tax rate in the province of Ontario, roughly 12.9%, is one of the lowest small-business tax rates globally. We have seen that turn up in the job numbers, with 600,000 new jobs, most of them private sector jobs. That is a good barometer for the economy. That is why we have larger companies like CN or CP hiring. However, we also have small companies, because we know that small and medium-sized enterprises and businesses are the backbone of our economy.

That measure, introduced in Bill C-74, is something we should be very proud of. Cumulatively, that measure would result in approximately $3 billion in tax savings due to lower taxes for small and medium-sized enterprises in Canada through the 2022-23 period. This is a substantial reduction in taxes. When we brought in the tax cut for middle-class Canadians, people said, “Whom does it affect?” It affected nine million taxpayers. We brought in a multi-billion dollar tax cut that benefited millions of Canadians from coast to coast to coast, and here we are doing the same thing for small businesses.

We also undertook extensive consultations with small businesses on how we could best work with them to grow their business, because we want to increase jobs and investment and achieve better productivity and a better standard of living for Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

We also want to ensure that the businesses that benefit from that low small-business tax rate are the appropriate ones. We undertook a consultation and arrived at a point where we introduced measures where 97% of businesses remain unaffected. If people have an active business, they can continue to invest in it and continue to grow. That is wonderful. These are measures contained in Bill C-74. However, we also have what I think is a very prudent measure. If they have actually accumulated $3 million, $4 million, or $5 million in what is called passive income, which is a little technical to describe, something they can save for retirement or set aside and invest in a separate business, which may not be connected to their own business, that is great. They can continue to do that, and we are not going to change the tax structure within their passive investments. However, at a certain point they will no longer benefit from the small-business tax rate of 12.9%, and we will move them up to the 24% tax rate. It is a fair measure.

Canadians expect fairness and progressivity in their tax system. Canadians expect us to do a thoughtful job. When others take a risk, they should be rewarded, but at the same time they should understand that when they have done very well and have been able to set aside some monies within passive investments, they are also going to move up to the corporate tax rate, which is very competitive globally. Even with the United States' adoption of its recent tax reform, our corporate tax rate is very competitive with the U.S. tax rate, and we need to point that out.

There are a lot of good measures contained in Bill C-74, and I am very proud of them. Another one I would like to talk about is the Canada workers benefit. This is something a lot of low-income working Canadians are going to benefit from. There are a couple of measures that I think are very good and long-lasting, and they will proceed beyond this Parliament and many others.

One is working with CRA and undertaking automatic enrolment. Automatic enrolment means that those in society who do not have the means or access that many of us here enjoy are automatically enrolled to receive these benefits. According to the estimates, just this measure alone is going to lift 70,000 people out of poverty and provide additional benefits. Someone making $15,000, a student or a retiree, can receive up to nearly $500 more with the new Canada workers benefit. It is something I am very proud of. My progressive roots cheer this on. It is something that all Canadians can be very proud of.

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 the government is proposing a new benefit in budget 2018 and in Bill C-74: the Canada workers benefit. This benefit builds on the former working income tax benefit and would put more money into the pockets of low-income workers. It 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 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 more 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 is also proposing changes to improve access to the Canada workers benefit to allow the Canada Revenue Agency to calculate the CWB for anyone who has not claimed it starting in 2019.

Again, having the CRA automatically register people who are eligible for these programs and others is a large step forward for our tax system.

One thing I would like to comment on is the framework we have introduced for the pricing of carbon. We have done this in a very thoughtful and prudent manner. It is a backstop, and 85% of Canadians are covered by a form of carbon pricing system. The provinces are permitted to do what they wish with the revenues.

However, I agree with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. It was very disappointing that the NDP government in B.C. would move away from a revenue-neutral price on carbon. I am very disappointed. It speaks to fiscal foolishness. We need to allow provinces to do what they wish, but we need the provinces to be transparent. Our carbon pricing system is transparent. The funds flow back to the provinces and the provinces then decide how to allocate those funds, but they should also be transparent about it.

We have an opportunity in this world that we are moving into. Many countries have already adopted this pricing system, and many industries in the private sector, which I am a big champion of, have looked at this. We have companies all over the world, such as Daimler in Germany, FCA, Ford, or any automotive company, looking at adopting electric vehicles, at technology on clean tech, and at renewable energy. We have the system going on. We have this shift going on. We need to be a part of it.

However, this is not, as my Conservative colleagues are saying, scaring away investment. It is not. We saw it in the first quarter GDP numbers. Business investment in Canada is rising. We see that every day, whether it is Samsung announcing its AI facility in downtown Toronto, or Montreal being the gaming sector of North America when it comes to enterprise arts. We see it in Vancouver, with the clustering that is going on, and in the Kitchener—Waterloo area. We see it with many auto parts suppliers in Ontario, and then there is Toyota's announcement. Foreign direct investment in Canada is creating jobs. It created jobs yesterday, it is creating jobs today, and it will create jobs in the future, because we are making those conditions very strong.

Finally, when we talk about Canada's fiscal position, we maintain a AAA credit rating, which we have had for so long. It has been affirmed recently. Our debt-to-GDP ratio is declining. I would argue that we have the best fiscal position of any G7 country on any fiscal measure, and that is something we need to be proud of. It is something our government is proud of.

Therefore, when I hear the banter from the other side, I would love to sit down and chat with them and show them a couple of measures on the economy. These measures that show how well we are doing include the 600,000 new jobs we have created, the 40-year low in the unemployment rate, the increase in wages that Canadians are seeing from coast to coast to coast, and the infrastructure we are building in this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to dive a bit into the carbon debate, because in his comments, the member said that they did not know if there would be a rebate. The way the backstop has been designed by the federal government for Bill C-74 is that there will be a carbon price across the country if provinces do not set up their own plans. I actually think the architecture of this is quite good, and it puts a lie to the constant claim by the Liberals that they needed to give Rachel Notley a pipeline or they could never get a carbon price. A co-operative Alberta is certainly better than a resistant Alberta, but we have a resistant Saskatchewan, and we are plowing ahead. The carbon price will be across the country. It will backstop. It is up to every province if it is revenue neutral or not.

I want to get on the record that I regret that the new government in B.C. has moved away from revenue neutrality. For the first time since our carbon tax was put in place in B.C., it will be entering into the general revenues of the province.

I want to give the hon. member a chance to reflect on that. We need a carbon price. We need a much more vigorous, real carbon plan, which we do not have. However, there is a backstop, and it is up to each province if there is a rebate.

[Riri Shen, Director of Operations, Democratic Institutions, Privy Council Office]

Madam Chair, I'd like to start my opening remarks by thanking the chair and the committee for inviting us to come before you today on the important topic of barriers facing women in politics in Canada.

My name is Riri Shen. I'm the director of operations for the democratic institutions secretariat at the Privy Council Office. I'm here today with Selena Beattie, director of operations, cabinet affairs, legislation and House planning, and Joshua Bath, an analyst at democratic institutions.

I would like to focus my remarks today on the current state of representation of women in Canada's democratic institutions, including in the Senate, and outline some of the recent actions brought forth by the government to increase accessibility to our democratic institutions. I will focus my remarks on the federal level.

As I am sure this committee is aware, the 2015 election set new records for women's participation and in terms of the number of women elected to the House of Commons. Roughly 30% of candidates in the 2015 election identified as women, and 26% of members elected to the House were women. Following a number of by-elections, which have occurred since the 42^nd general election, the proportion of women in the House has risen to 27.1%.

While these are historic highs in terms of women's representation in the House of Commons, the fact remains that women's representation continues to sit at rates far below parity and at rates below those in a number of like-minded democracies.

Academic research has identified a number of barriers to the participation of women in Canadian federal politics. In terms of Canada's electoral system, academics have noted barriers ranging from access to funds and financing to networking, as well as internal party policies, such as nomination contests, lack of party support to women candidates, and placing women candidates in unwinnable ridings. Additionally, academics have found that factors outside of our electoral system play a role in women's representation, including but not limited to the tone in the House of Commons, family-friendly policies for members, the harassment of women representatives online, family commitments, and other broad social phenomena. Increasing women's participation and representation is a complex issue. With that said, the government is continuing to take action to remove or alleviate some of the barriers women face when running for office.

The government announced in Budget 2018, tabled on February 27, that it is supportive of, and will work with Parliament on, the recommendations put forward in the report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs entitled “Support for Members of Parliament With Young Children”.

This includes working with Parliamentarians to ensure that the House of Commons is flexible, compassionate and reasonable in making accommodations for members with needs for young children that are related to their parliamentary functions—which we would be happy to detail further if you have questions.

The government has also followed through on its commitment to amend the Parliament of Canada Act to provide for the creation of maternity and parental leave for parliamentarians. That amendment is part of Bill C-74, the Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1.

Bill C-76, the elections modernization act, which was introduced by the Minister of Democratic Institutions on April 30, 2018, proposes a number of updates to the Canada Elections Act that are aimed at making our electoral system more accessible to Canadians.

I wish to highlight provisions contained in Bill C-76 which are meant to reduce barriers to candidates in the treatment of regulated expenses to increase equity and accessibility in seeking election.

The bill would amend the Canada Elections Act to indicate that candidates may opt to pay expenses related to child care, to a candidate's own disability, or to the provision of care of a dependant's disability out of their personal funds in addition to campaign funds. This means that candidates would not be disadvantaged by requiring such expenses to count toward their expense limits during an election.

I would add that these expenses would be eligible for reimbursement following an election at an increased level of 90% rather than the current reimbursement rate of 60%. While these amendments would benefit both women and men, evidence suggests this would be more likely to benefit women candidates. In ensuring that women and men, in all their diversity, are able to participate in our elections, Bill C-76 would additionally make numerous amendments to reduce barriers to participation by persons with disabilities.

These include increased support and assistance at polls for persons with disabilities, increased accommodation to participate in the political debate, and broadening the application of existing provisions in the act so they do not apply only to individuals with physical disabilities.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech.

It will come as no surprise that I am going to talk about an aspect of the budget implementation bill that bothers me.

I know that my colleague is concerned about the situation of persons with limitations, challenges, or those who are ill.

For years, doctors have been prescribing medical cannabis. For some people, it is the only way to deal with chronic pain or very intense pain. Medical cannabis was not taxed by the federal government. Now, for no reason, under Bill C-74, this product will be taxed, compromising some people's ability to receive care and not live in pain.

I would like the hon. member's thoughts on that.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Madam Minister, allow me to join my colleagues in welcoming you to this committee once again and also in thanking all your officials for being here.

I'd like to follow up on the approach taken by Mr. Fraser, just to ask about some of the changes we're seeing.

My first question is in relation to Bill C-74, which has to do with having new positions appointed for Ontario, Saskatchewan, and the Federal Court. Bill C-74 is still before the House, but as I understand it, under this bill there will be an additional complement of six positions for the Ontario Superior Court, one addition to the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, and one addition to the Federal Court. I can tell you that this has been received very positively in the legal community.

I would ask you two quick questions. First of all, how did you arrive at these new numbers? Second, as a follow-up, how do you suspect that this will improve the efficiency of our judicial system?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure and an honour for me to speak to Bill C-74, the budget implementation act, which is important for us and will implement measures that we believe will have a positive impact on Canadians.

This bill continues our government's efforts to reduce inequality and stimulate growth, in particular through the Canada workers benefit, which was revised in budget 2018. This benefit will give more money to those who need it most, that is, low-income workers. We will ultimately increase the benefit by 175%. We are investing $1.75 billion in the Canada workers benefit.

This measure is consistent with the Canada child benefit, which was introduced in budget 2016. As many MPs know, nine out of 10 Canadian families have benefited and received an additional tax-free $2,300. This deserves to be known. We are indexing this benefit two years earlier than planned to keep pace with higher family expenses and needs, and to help as many families as possible. We know the impact of such a measure and I can tell you about it.

All I have to do is visit the food banks in my riding, talk to volunteers at the Society of Saint Vincent de Paul, or stand outside of grocery stores, as I often do on weekends to meet my constituents. They often tell me about how this measure has had a positive impact on their lives.

Here is how this benefit came to be. We looked at how the former government administrated family assistance. We implemented a more progressive system that provides assistance based on families' incomes. We stopped sending Canada child benefit cheques to families with over $150,000 in annual income, so that we can give more to those who need it most.

The Canada workers benefit follows the same logic. We believe that Canada's prosperity must be inclusive and help as many people as possible.

This is one thing I think is important in the budget implementation bill, but it is not the only thing. There is also the price on carbon pollution, a commitment we made during the election campaign. Climate change is having a serious impact on all Canadians and on future generations. Climate change also has an impact on our economy.

Take, for example, the claims submitted to insurance companies for damage caused by natural disasters. A few years ago, such claims totalled a few million dollars. Now, that number has increased to over $1 billion per year, and we expect it to continue to rise. For us, climate change is very real, and we have to deal with it.

By putting a price on carbon pollution, as proposed in the budget implementation bill, we are giving Canada a real opportunity to meet its climate change targets and be a responsible global citizen. The carbon tax will also allow us to mitigate and reverse the effects of climate change as much as possible. Those are two very important aspects of the budget implementation bill.

We also ultimately lowered the small business tax rate to 9%. We know how crucial Canada's SMEs are. They help drive our economy and create a large number of jobs in Canada. It goes without saying that we need to support our job creators and SMEs, which day after day, week after week, contribute to Canada's prosperity. We are taking that important step by lowering taxes for SMEs.

I would like to come back to something that I mentioned earlier, and that is the importance of having measures to reduce inequality. We also need to review certain measures that benefit the wealthiest members of society in order to have better targeted measures, such as the Canada workers benefit, and help those who need it most.

This could mean up to $170 a year for an unattached low-income worker. That is more money every paycheque. For a couple, the amount is even higher, of course.

Providing access to this benefit and increasing it is one thing, but we also want to make it automatic. In budget 2018, we announced that we will be implementing automatic enrolment so that every eligible worker receives the benefit without needing to file a claim. This issue is important to us, and I believe it is a positive aspect of Bill C-74, the budget implementation bill we are studying today.

Our government's goal is really to ensure that our growth benefits as many Canadians as possible and that our prosperity is inclusive. We have observed that the countries that have experienced significant economic growth in the decades since the Second World War are often those where inequality is lower and gaps have not been allowed to widen. In particular, I am thinking of Scandinavian countries, which have fascinating models. We have seen that reducing inequality boosts economic performance.

This is where initiatives like the middle-class tax cut for the $45,000 to $90,000 income bracket come in. This is where the Canada child benefit comes in, by giving more money to those who need it the most. We know that this money stays in the Canadian economy and is reinvested very locally, and we know that this has an impact on growth. I can confirm that under the leadership of the Minister of Finance, we fight for every decimal point of growth. That is why I strongly support initiatives to index the Canada child benefit sooner than expected, to make the Canada workers benefit automatic, and to enhance it.

This is where I see broader initiatives putting more money in people's pockets. While these initiatives are perhaps less direct, they are still very useful to people and are helping reduce inequalities. One example that comes to mind is the national housing strategy, where we are investing $40 billion over 10 years, I believe. This really confirms the federal government's commitments regarding community and social housing. Since the 1990s, the federal government has been backing away from its responsibilities with regard to community housing, and this is true of both Conservative and Liberal governments. One only needs to talk to organizations working on the ground to get a sense of how thrilled they are that the federal government is finally re-engaging and investing in community housing and social housing though our ambitious plan. The goal of our plan is to reduce chronic homelessness by 50%, renovate 300,000 housing units and build another 100,000 for those in need. That is one example.

Another area is public transit. We want high-quality, reliable, and efficient public transit systems at the lowest possible cost, systems that are so efficient that some some families can do without a car, or at least reduce their reliance on cars. These savings add up at the end of the day, but good public transit also improves quality of life and is good for the environment. These are all very positive initiatives.

Housing is an issue that is close to my heart. When I was young, I lived in a subsidized housing unit. I know how much of a burden it took off my mother's shoulders. I will never forget the day we got the call from the municipal housing bureau telling us that our application had been accepted. We were on a waiting list, and I know that it was a major change for my mother because she did not have to be afraid to get evicted at the end of the month anymore.

I am heartened to see the housing initiatives taken by our government. I am sure that they will have a similar effect on hundreds of thousands of Canadian families. In a way, it makes me glad that I am paying taxes, because I know that they are put to good use to increase social mobility, strengthen the social safety net and make sure people have access to basic necessities. Housing is a right. The most vulnerable in our society must have that right too, and the federal government needs to be active on that front.

Our government's focus is reflected in the measures we announced in budget 2018, but also since budget 2016. We are striving for a society that is more fair, more compassionate and more efficient, but we also want to create wealth. Indeed, to redistribute wealth, we have to create it first.

We also need to innovate and create a business-friendly climate, which will help fill federal coffers and create jobs. I would remind the House that 600,000 jobs have been created over the past two years. We recorded the strongest GDP growth in the G7 by far during that same period. That is what we need for inclusive prosperity. If we want to invest in useful and generous social programs, we need that prosperity. That is a crucial factor in the creation of a just society. It is important to have both, and we think the two go hand in hand.

When I examined budget 2018, what stood out for me and, I suspect, for many of my constituents, was the historic investments we made in science, especially basic science. Funding bodies across the country were pleased and applauded our initiative. For a decade, their budgets were frozen or slashed. Scientists were even muzzled. Canada fell behind. Anyone who stands still while the world moves forward falls behind.

Canada fell behind in terms of investment in basic research, which is crucial to future innovation, that is, in 5, 10, or 15 years. This is about more than just drugs in the future; it also has to do with innovation and businesses that could emerge as a result of ideas developed in university laboratories.

The Quebec City region is home to many, many businesses that emerged from basic research conducted at Laval University. It is always done by the brilliant researchers I am lucky to represent in my riding who eventually manage to commercialize this research and turn it into businesses that benefit our economy and the other businesses in our region. This helps them innovate and offer technological benefits in health, pharmaceuticals, and technology. This has an impact on people's day-to-day lives and also creates jobs.

There is a reason why the Quebec City region is doing so well. If we consider the research being done and how that is translating into jobs, businesses, and innovation, it is no surprise that the unemployment rate in Quebec City is 3.8%. That is practically full employment and, in practical terms, it is.

This creates another challenge that our region is currently facing, namely, recruiting and attracting a labour force. I hear about this everywhere I go in the riding when I meet with entrepreneurs.

The budget 2018 investments in basic research are historic because they are higher than any previous federal investments in research. We must provide for long-term prosperity. We do not want to stifle innovation in Canada; we want to promote and encourage it, and this is why we are making these investments.

We want to make sure that Canada stays at the forefront of technological advances and science. It goes without saying that investing in science is a long-term investment in our economy and our collective prosperity.

Similarly, putting a price on carbon pollution is a long-term investment in a healthier environment. We will be creating a liveable country and planet, where we have drinking water and as little pollution as possible, and therefore without all the health problems this pollution would cause, like respiratory problems.

The price on carbon pollution clearly shows that we want to develop the economy, which is very important, but at the same time we want to protect the environment, which is just as important. This leaves us with the third option, which is a fair, balanced, and responsible approach. You sometimes hear people say that it must be one or the other. We chose to adopt a more balanced approach.

I want to add that, if you look at the jurisdictions that have put a price on carbon pollution, this measure encourages innovation and reduces the greenhouse gas emissions that the most innovative companies will produce. This is also the objective.

Let us not forget that certain jurisdictions have already put a price on carbon pollution. British Columbia, for example, did so a number of years ago and its economic record is one of the most impressive in Canada. It is the same thing with Quebec and Ontario, two provinces with remarkable economic performances who have put a price on carbon. We think that both can definitely go hand in hand. It leads to a more innovative, responsible and green economy. That is how the transition has to occur.

We know that the transition will not happen overnight, but we know that it can happen gradually. It will need incentives to succeed. For example, putting a price on carbon pollution is an incentive for innovation. Investments in public transit are incentives for people to change the way they commute because they have better options. I am also thinking of tax breaks and support for green energy. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been invested in green and renewable energy. A broad range of measures that ensure both our economic prosperity and the protection of our environment and allow for a gradual and thoughtful transition have been implemented. That is where people expect the Liberal government to be responsible.

I know that my colleague from Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs likes the idea that environmental protection and economic growth can and must go hand in hand. That is our approach. In Bill C-74, pricing carbon pollution fosters innovation and better choices, makes our economy more innovative and responsible, and protects the environment. I think that that idea is what is driving my colleague from Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs and most members on this side of the House.

We believe that economic development and prosperity are important, but that protecting our environment is equally important. We believe that both go hand in hand and that the resulting prosperity should be inclusive.

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec, QC]

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 third time and passed.

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

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 concurred in at report stage.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

It being 3:07 p.m., pursuant to order made on Tuesday, May 29, 2018, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions on the motions at report stage of Bill C-74.

Call in the members.

The House resumed from May 31 consideration of Bill C-74, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures, as reported (with amendments) from the committee; and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Standing Committee on Finance

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

Madam Speaker, there are actually three points of order or references I am going to have to respond to today, so I will start with the first one.

First, I rise in response to a question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Carleton on May 31, 2018, with respect to alleged ministerial interference with regards to Bill C-74. My hon. colleague, in his statement, argued that his and the members of the finance committee's freedom from obstruction and interference had been breached.

I would argue that the matter before us today does not meet the requirements to be considered a prima facie breach of privilege, but is rather a debate as to the facts. First of all, as you have mentioned on many occasions in recent rulings, matters must be raised at the earliest opportunity. This is not the case here.

In an article dated May 14, 2018, from The Globe and Mail, the member is reported as saying that he would be asking the Speaker of the House of Commons to rule on the issue when the House of Commons resumes next week. This clearly did not happen, as it was a whole 17 days later that the hon. member raised his question of privilege. Secondly, the actions alleged here are related to the actions of a civil servant. These matters have historically not been qualified as a breach of privilege.

In a ruling dated May 15, 1985, Speaker Bosley stated:

I think it has been recognized many times in the House that a complaint about the actions or inactions of government Departments cannot constitute a question of parliamentary privilege.

At no point is there an indication that members of the committee were forbidden from inviting the group as witnesses or that the minister's office had any role in the selection of witnesses. As such, Parliament has acted independently from the minister's office, and there is no ground to qualify these actions as interference.

At the core of the current debate lies the concept of parliamentary privilege. Matters of privilege and contempt can be broadly defined as, one, anything improperly interfering with the parliamentary work of a Member of Parliament, or two, an offence against the authority of the House. The situation brought forward by the hon. member for Carleton does not fit any of these categories, as no individual MP has been impeded and there has not been any offence against the authority of the House.

Failing to see how anyone's rights have been compromised or infringed, I would respectfully submit that this matter does not constitute a prima facie question of privilege.

Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1

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

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Barrie—Innisfil at report stage of Bill C-74.

As I rise in the House, it is not lost on me that I am in the people's House, the people who elected all 338 of us to come here.

Imagine if the Liberals ran their household the way they are running the government, with debt and deficits piling up. I will go through some statistics later on to show just how dire the situation is for the future of the economy and the future of our children, who will have to pay for Liberal debt and deficits. Today's debt and deficits are certainly tomorrow's tax increases and service cuts.

As somebody who has lived through that in Ontario, fortunately we have an election coming up and I believe strongly that we are going to see a change in government. I am actually fearful for whoever forms the Government of Ontario, whether the Conservatives or the NDP, because often when governments are elected, they go in and say that the cupboards are bare. However, I believe there are no cupboards left in Ontario, to be quite frank.

Certainly, the federal government is utilizing the same strategy and playbook, which I have spoken about many times in the House, as the current Liberal government in Ontario. I believe that our cupboards will soon be bare at the federal level. I have said many times before that the current government has access to a bigger piggy bank of Canadians, but it is on the same path as that Ontario Liberal government.

Of course, we found out yesterday that we will be $4.5 billion further in the hole because, all of a sudden, the Prime Minister who painted himself into a corner with the Trans Mountain pipeline and is spending $4.5 billion of Canadian tax dollars to buy his way out of a political problem he created.

As we debate the budget and look into it, there are signs that Canada's economy is slowing down, and the government has and is doing little to improve it. There was a growth in the economy in 2017, but it was not really due to Liberal policy. It was in spite of Liberal policy.

I learned long ago that government does not create jobs. Government creates the environment for jobs and job growth. When we look at what is happening, particularly down in the United States with its regulatory process and a tax regime that are completely contrary to where we are here in Canada, there are some significant fears for our future prospects from an economic standpoint.

The growth that we have seen has largely been due to the oil and gas sector, as well as a very strong housing market right across the country. That housing market had record-high price increases in 2016, followed by another 9% in 2017. Oil and gas for that matter soared 40% in 2017 because of higher prices in the oil sands. Therefore, our exports grew. However, the Liberals did not create this economic growth. It was caused in large part by our natural resource sector, the same natural resource sector that the Prime Minister and operatives within his office have so much disdain for, and certainly the housing market contributed to it as well. Unfortunately, the government has neglected what lies beneath our feet and has opted to rely only upon what is between the Prime Minister's ears.

The Prime Minister promised that GDP in 2016-17 would increase by 0.5% and in 2017-18 by 1%. The government believes its reckless, out-of-control spending has actually helped the GDP figures. In fact, we just heard the on the other side from Edmonton stand up and espouse the greatness of the GDP. However, in reality, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has estimated that for all of the spending in the last few years, GDP has only increased by 0.1% in those two years, which is next to nothing. All that money has been spent for what?

The Liberals, with their reckless spending, claim to help, but the government has spent $60 billion in the past three years. Spending has increased by 20%. Taxes have increased for over 80% of Canadians, and the GDP has actually only gone up by 0.1%. Let that sink in for a second.

Why is this such an issue? With an underperforming Canadian economy, budget 2018 needed to be better. It has negatively impacted Canadians. I believe there is a serious impact on young Canadians, especially young Canadians who are living with disabilities. Since the Liberals have come to power, 81% of middle-income families are seeing higher taxes. So much for helping the middle class and those working hard to join it.

The fact and the reality is that life is much harder under the government. I will stand here and look into that lens and ask people to think about this. In the past two and a half years, has their life become better? I think the overwhelming answer to that would be “no”. I am certainly hearing it in my riding of Barrie—Innisfil. The average family is paying $840 more in taxes than they used to. The carbon tax is another way for the Liberals to make life harder for Canadians.

According to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, the carbon tax is going to cost the average Canadian family approximately $2,500 or more a year. We would love to find out what the government is charging on this carbon tax and what Canadian families are going to make, but that number that we have asked for has been redacted. The government knows how much it is going to cost the average Canadian family, but it refuses to give us the answer. Yet, here it is asking Canadians to buy into a carbon tax, but buy into what? That is legitimate question. More money will be needed for higher gas prices because everything cascades down in the economy to food and just about everything else, and that is unacceptable. Certainly life will become harder as the carbon tax kicks in.

What is that money used for? What can the average Canadian family use it for? It can be used for putting kids into hockey. It can make things more accessible for day programs, camps, etc., but unfortunately the Liberals just do not get it. Budget 2018 is hard evidence that the Liberal government does not understand that everyday people, the average Canadian family, is not rich enough to afford $2,500 dollars a year in additional carbon taxes. That may be easy for the Prime Minister and the environment minister and the finance minister to afford, but the reality is that the average Canadian family cannot afford that.

Look at the debt. As I mentioned, the Prime Minister has added $60 billion in debt in just three years. In total, each family in this country owes the government $47,612. Budget 2018 has no plan to return to a balanced budget, yet the Prime Minister stood in the last election with his hand over his heart and said that the budget would be balanced by 2019. We know that is not the case because this year it is $19 billion.

The Department of Finance has said and predicted that we will not return to a balanced budget until the year 2045. Think about that for our kids. My 14-year-old will be 41 years old by the time we return to a balanced budget in this country. He is the one who will be paying for the irresponsible spending of the government. During that time frame it is expected that $450 billion will be added to the debt for a total of $1.1 trillion. It is our youth who will pay this debt. Every time I have a school tour, and I have had many of them this week, they asked me about issues. I talk about that debt and deficit because, again, the deficits and debt of today are the tax increases and spending cuts of tomorrow.

Look at the tax credits that have been cut. Budget 2018 takes them right away from families and, I would argue, disproportionately from the people who can least afford it, namely, lower-income and vulnerable Canadians. The budget is a failure of epic proportions for the future of our kids, the future of this country, and there is no way I can support it.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-74, the budget implementation bill. It is a hulking 556-page piece of legislation that promises nothing at all to Canadians except higher taxes and lower economic opportunities for hard-working Canadians across this great country.

There are many significant flaws in this bill, which are far from the sunny ways promised to Canadians during the last election, in 2015. From a carbon tax to great debt and broken promises, this bill inflicts severe costs upon Canadians without giving them anywhere near the equivalent benefits in return. Day in and day out, Canadians work hard for the money they earn, and they expect the government to support them, rather than work against them, when they pay for things like groceries, electricity, and even heating for their homes.

The Liberals are planning to implement a carbon tax, which will raise the cost of all these essential amenities and, in doing so, make life more expensive and thus more unaffordable for Canadians across the country. Rather than supporting the middle class, as they claim, the Liberals are putting the government before people.

How much more will Canadian families pay in taxes each year as a result of this carbon tax? Like all Canadians, we would like to know, but the government does not want to share what the cost is, because it wants to hide it from Canadians. It is hiding this information, and it is demonstrating that it does not trust Canadians to have a say in what they do with their own money. This is simply not fair to Canadian taxpayers.

The Liberals have shown, through their broken promises and complete lack of interest in reducing the federal deficit, that they never cared much about the taxpayer anyway. While Canadians expect members of Parliament to debate bills on their behalf, members are negatively impacted in their ability to do so when the Liberals simply cover up critical information that is relevant in our conversation here tonight.

There is no question that the carbon tax would hit Canadians hard. The Parliamentary Budget Officer reports that the carbon tax would cause $10 billion to vanish from the Canadian economy by 2022. That means fewer jobs and fewer economic opportunities for people here at home. We are already seeing that. Unfortunately, we do not know how much this carbon tax will cost everyday Canadian families. The Liberals have this information, but they have decided that they know best and will not release it.

These actions severely harm the quality of debate in this chamber on behalf of all Canadians, and therefore one of the key mechanisms by which the government is held to account. These actions do nothing to improve transparency, which, by the way, is what the Liberals ran on during the election cycle in 2015.

The Liberal government has repeatedly demonstrated that when it comes to strategies to combat climate change, the only plan it will accept is a carbon tax. It is a narrow view. No alternatives exist, other than those that punish taxpayers and raise costs for people across this fine country.

Of course, the government cannot even tell us what benefits this carbon tax will bring Canadians. The Ecofiscal Commission estimates that carbon taxes will need to be as high as $200 a tonne or more in order to reach the Liberal government's goal of reducing carbon emissions to 30% of 2005 levels by 2030. As the policy currently stands, the carbon tax will not come anywhere close to reaching that goal. What the carbon tax will do, though, is increase the financial burden on Canadian families from coast to coast. They will have to bear the brunt of this tax through high consumer costs; reduced competitiveness, which we saw today in the aluminum and steel industry; and falling foreign direct investment in Canada's economy. We do not have to talk about that, when the government just recently bought an existing pipeline for $4.5 billion.

These are families whom the Liberal government promised the world to. These are the same families who were told by the Liberal government that their taxes would be lower and that the federal deficit would be erased by 2019. That is only next year. Instead of receiving the results they were promised, these families got something else. They got large government deficits, in fact vague government deficits. We do not even know when the budget will ever be balanced again. They got extra federal debt, a Liberal government with no plans to balance the books at any time in the foreseeable future, and now a carbon tax that would raise their daily living costs and do little to reduce carbon emissions.

Let us look at my province, Saskatchewan. The provincial environment minister estimates that the implementation of the Liberal carbon tax would cost the Saskatchewan economy $4 billion over just five years. No wonder the Government of Saskatchewan is determined to challenge this carbon tax all the way to the Supreme Court. I am proud to stand here and represent the people of Saskatchewan, and in particular Saskatoon—Grasswood, because right now we are the only jurisdiction, provincial or territorial, that has not signed on to this massive Liberal carbon tax.

Communities in Saskatchewan recognize that the carbon tax is nothing but high costs for little or no benefit. There is no Houdini in the province of Saskatchewan. We know the Liberal government is up to no good. It just cannot fool prairie people, and tonight I am proud to say that Saskatchewan is the only jurisdiction in this country that has not signed and will not sign on to the Liberal carbon tax. It is a debt now. We have talked about this debt being passed on to future generations of Canadians, who have no say whatsoever but nonetheless will be born into a situation where they inherit the costs incurred by the Liberals.

During the election of 2015, I was fortunate that my daughter gave birth to my first granddaughter. I was very happy. However, today, when I look at the debt of the current government, which has no plans at all of balancing the budget, I really feel for Avery Thornhill, my two-and-a-half-year-old granddaughter. She will be paying for this for the rest of her life. She is only two and a half years old, and we hope that she lives many years, into her eighties or nineties.

Liberals have reckless spending, and they continue to have reckless spending with the carbon tax. Avery Thornhill will never get a chance to have the budget everyone wants, which is an equal budget. Assuming that no external events occur, such as another recession, Canadians will be living with federal deficits at least until 2051. Is that fair to all our grandchildren, when we tell them in 2018 that we have no hope at all of balancing the budget? Maybe it will be balanced by 2051, but as the current government continues to spend recklessly, it could be 2060 or 2070. What a burden we are putting, not only on our own children but on our grandchildren. We are very disappointed.

Canadians deserve many things from the Liberal government. They deserve respect, transparency, fairness, and prosperity, which we all know we have not seen and will not see in the future from the Liberal government.

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to stand in the House today and debate Bill C-74, the budget implementation act. We see yet again that the government really cannot help itself.

I am concerned, like many other Canadians, about the direction the government is taking our country. Another year goes by of mismanagement of taxpayer money. The Liberals' fiscal policy is complete disregard for the businesses and hard-working families across the country. This budget represents big government and little incentive for businessmen and women to set up a shop or continue operating in Canada. I cannot believe how the Liberals expect our economy to grow when they are creating less competition and scaring businesses out of our country.

I would like to focus on a few key points.

The first is that the economy is slowing down. This is a result of the cost of doing business in the country continuing to rise. There is no plan for Canada to become competitive again. Never has the government spent so much and achieved so little.

Second, the government does not, by any stretch of the imagination, have a revenue problem; it has a a spending problem. The Liberals just cannot seem to put the taxpayer credit card away, and it is getting out of control.

Third, there is no focus on the debt. The government continues to run a massive deficit and we are stuck in the same cycle of growing debt and deficit. Canadians know this is irresponsible.

The government is failing Canadians. Let us look at the facts.

Canada started the new fiscal year on April 1 with a trillion dollars of market debt. This is the total debt upon which the Government of Canada pays interest. The net debt is $669 billion. This debt continues to grow by the hour, leaving future generations to foot the bill. Canada is hurting right now. Each Canadian's share in the national debt is over $17,000 and growing by the minute. This is not sustainable. We need to get Canada back on track. The Liberals have broken their deficit promise. The Prime Minister now claims the debt will keep growing but more slowly than the economy. The Prime Minister says the debt to GDP ratio will fall, but the record shows otherwise. In his first three years in power, the Prime Minister will add $60 billion to the national debt.

We cannot believe the government. To meet its new fiscal promise, the 2018 budget claimed that direct program spending would only grow by 1.6% per year for the next five years, when the record so far has been showing 5.6% per year, which is three times higher than the Prime Minister now promises. It seems like every week the Liberals have new spending ideas. I cannot stress this enough. This cycle is not sustainable.

On top of that, the government's current fiscal promise requires that there be no additional spending in next year's pre-election budget. However, dollar signs are already dancing in the Liberals' heads. They have set up a panel to design a new national pharmacare program, which the PBO costed out at $19 billion per year, enough to double the deficit.

The same taxpayers, who will pay these costs on their regular taxes, have their own bills to pay, their own financial needs and stresses. In 2017, Canadian households had a record $1.74 of debt for every dollar of disposable income.

As interest rates rise over the next three years, debt payments will consume a larger share of household income. This will be a higher rate than at any time in the last three decades, costing a family with a net income $100,000 about $2,000 more than they were paying last year.

The PBO report on the subject last year said, “we are projecting that the household sector will become increasingly vulnerable to negative shocks.” The government is deepening the problem. As households are shocked with higher interest on their credits cards and mortgages, their taxes will need to rise to pay a one-third or $8 billion increase in federal government debt interest. Canadians need a government that can provide them with tax cuts, not hikes, that feed their out-of-control spending.

Canadians know how to spend their own hard-earned money better than the Liberal government does. Last year, Canada's net debt reached an all-time high of $670 billion or $47,612 per Canadian family. Where will the Liberals draw the line?

We have seen increases in taxes on businesses, the ending of income sprinkling, the ending of incoming splitting, and young professionals leaving our country to operate their businesses anywhere else but in Canada. The natural resources industry is facing major regulations and discouragement. Businesses are really feeling the pinch, and that is just the tip of the iceberg.

The higher taxes that hit the middle class since the Liberals came to power affect 81% of middle-income Canadians. The average income tax increase for middle-income families is $840 since the liberal government came into power.

We have seen higher Canada pension plan premiums, up to $2,200 per household, as well as a national carbon price, up to $2,500 per household. The Liberal government cancelled the family tax cut, up to $2,000 per household. On top of that, it cancelled the arts and fitness tax credit, up to $225 per child. It also cancelled the education and textbook tax credit, which was up to $560 per student. It has also created higher employment Insurance premiums, up to $85 per worker.

According to the Statistics Canada, the government's spending has been increasing at an annual rate of about 6.5% to 7% per year. This is three times the combined rate of inflation and population growth. This has to stop. The Canadian government is supported by taxpayers. The Liberals need to respect the taxpayers and think about putting the credit card away.

The long and the short of the issue is simple. The government has failed on the economy and the massive debt with nothing to show for it. We continue to see plummeting investment, with businesses and jobs leaving Canada. There is a continuation of higher taxes and rising cost of living for Canadian middle class. Canadians are uncertain about what these changes mean for them. Businesses are struggling to compete. The United States wants to take our jobs and the Prime Minister is allowing it.

The government needs to get its spending under control and do what is right for the taxpayers who foot the bill.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to speak today to Bill C-74. Once again, as with many speeches I have given in this place, I rise with a bit of a sense of irony.

Budget implementation bills are often complex because they implement the budget and execute measures in a number of areas of law and regulatory action, so they tend to number in the hundreds of pages. My friends in the Liberal Party used to decry the use of omnibus legislation, but here we are with Bill C-74, once again an omnibus bill subject to time allocation. These are “assaults on democracy” in the words of my Liberal friends when they were in opposition, and now they are statecraft for getting things done in the chamber. They are becoming very adept at it, setting records in the use of time allocation per day.

Nonetheless, at this report stage debate I am going to reiterate some of the concerns I have with the budget. They are fundamental economic concerns that all Canadians should share.

I am going to highlight one quote from the Minister of Finance, taken from near the end of his budget speech, which we all listened to here. In many ways it typifies the problems with the Liberal Party and its approach to governing and its reckless abuse of the public purse. Near the end of his speech the finance minister said, “With this budget, we are doubling down on our plan to invest in the middle class and in people working hard to join it.”

Most Canadians, even those who do not follow politics that much, have heard that trope many times, that platitude that “we're here for the middle class and those working hard to join it”. Today in debate the Minister of Environment almost accidentally kept spouting that phrase. It is something rote in their learning.

The Fraser Institute has confirmed that most Canadians have seen less under the Liberal government. They have seen tax increases despite some of the changes made to the child care benefit. If we look at the total tax burden on Canadians, the elimination of tax credits for young people in sports and music, the elimination of the transit tax credit, higher income taxes, changes to the tax treatment of dividends, the carbon tax, EI and payroll taxes, we see that the Liberals have raised taxes dozens of times indirectly or directly. We even joke that they tax our Saturday night, because there is now an automatic tax on wine, spirits, and beer, and they are taxing Uber rides home. The Liberals are running out of things to tax. That is why most Canadians are actually not better off under the Liberals. They are far worse off.

What is troubling about the minister's quote is his use of the word “invest”. That is his euphemism for spending. The word “invest” appeared 456 times in the minister's budget speech and document. Why should that concern Canadians? It should because it means there are 456 areas within the scope of government where the Liberals are increasing spending.

The rate of increased government spending is absolutely reckless, a 20% increase in spending in just over two years, accounting for $58 billion in new money. As the Auditor General has shown through his reports and from reports by Finance Canada, very little of that actually went to infrastructure. Are Canadians 20% better off?

When the government is running huge deficits in the midst of a recession, do we see logic to any of this increased spending? That number does not even reflect this week. This week we bought a pipeline. That is another $4.5 billion.

We are approaching a level where the Liberal government, which is just past half of its mandate, has put a more than 20% increase in spending by the public purse.

In my last speech I turned around the minister's phrase, “We're going to double down on investing.” Double down on spending is what he was saying. I joked about the Liberal double-double. Most Canadians love their double-double, cream and sugar, but the Liberal double-double is doubling the tax burden and doubling deficits.

We remember the Prime Minister assuring Canadians that he was going to run a deficit as prime minister, but never more than $10 billion. It was a Liberal double-double: two years of $20-billion deficits while raising taxes. Therefore, Liberals are bringing in more revenue by taking more from Canadians, small businesses, entrepreneurs, households, and seniors, and yet they are even outstripping what they are bringing in. It is truly astounding.

Now we can factor in their decisions with respect to the resource economy and being forced to buy an asset because they cannot find private sector buyers. Confidence in the Canadian economy and the ability to get projects done here is shrinking, so the government now feels that it should replace the private sector. That has put another $4.5-billion burden on taxpayers.

What was not in the budget, despite all the purported investments—remember I said that he used the term “invest” more than 400 times—was investment, or spending, or provision made for NAFTA or U.S. trade changes. There was zero money allocated for that. Most Canadians, when they look at budgets, forecasting, or spending, have a rainy-day fund in case something goes bad or there is an unexpected problem. The government knew there were risks related to NAFTA, it knew there were risks related to steel and aluminum tariffs, and yet it allocated zero for that risk.

We have already seen the impact of the Prime Minister's inability to get a deal on softwood and the tariffs applied there now. Tonight, in a few hours, we are going to see tariffs applied on steel and aluminum. It does not have to be that way. NAFTA and provision for the NAFTA negotiations were mentioned on a couple of pages in the budget document, but there is no actual plan for a contingency. For a government that spends the money of Canadians so cavalierly, to have allocated zero to risks associated with trade is troubling. We are seeing that play out today.

The Conservatives have tried to work very closely with the government on NAFTA. In 10 months or so, I have asked maybe six or seven questions on the most fundamental economic agreement for Canada. In fact, I have praised the minister, particularly his efforts in January with respect to auto parts, but the Team Canada approach means that the Liberals have to listen to the team that actually negotiated the NAFTA trade agreement and was able to secure deals that respected supply managed farms and small businesses that kept us competitive. The very team that wants to help is being ignored, particularly when it comes to linking trade and security, which both Democrats and Republicans want to do. In this budget, there is zero provided for a response to the tariffs that will be setting in on our steel and aluminum industries. It was terrible that the Prime Minister went to these communities and insinuated that he had dealt with it. He went on a victory tour, and here we are with no deal.

I also raise the fact that Liberals are rushing through this budget implementation bill when the very things they are doing in it are not complete yet. Of course, the bill is full of tax increases, and one of the special ones the Prime Minister is looking at is in part 3 of this bill, the excise tax provisions for cannabis. That really seems to be the only legislative agenda the Liberals want to keep on track: the legalization of marijuana. In this bill, they are already planning the excise tax regime. The only problem is that marijuana is not yet legal. In fact, the Senate has been proposing changes with respect to home-grown cannabis. In this omnibus bill that the Liberals are rushing through with time allocation, there are provisions on other related legislation that has not even passed yet.

Why the rush, particularly when the Senate is dealing with it and we have heard concerns from chiefs of police and pediatricians with the Canadian Medical Association? With the current government, it is a matter of damn the torpedoes: use time allocation and omnibus bills to get it done. The key thing is that when they say they are going to invest, Canadians had better get a hold of their wallets.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, during question period today, my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot asked a question about the spring gap. The story she told us was so sad. In the Maritimes, people are going to church to pray for a miracle because they have no more money to feed their families. There is nothing about employment insurance in this budget, nor is there anything about it in Bill C-74.

Does my colleague think that, instead of waiting and cutting taxes for the rich, the federal government should have done something about the employment insurance spring gap?

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I was saying earlier, the thing that really disappoints me about Bill C-74 is that it leaves out the people from the rural regions, where I am from. In its 2015 election platform, the Liberal government said it wanted to do things differently and that it did not want to use omnibus bills. Bill C-74 is an omnibus bill. The election platform states, “We will not resort to legislative tricks to avoid scrutiny”.

Since the Liberal government came to power, it has been promising heaven and earth to Canadians. However, we do not always get heaven and earth. I will explain. Every time the Liberals said that they were transparent, we realized that they were pulling a fast one on us. Without really knowing it, we all became millionaires yesterday with the purchase of Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain pipeline.

I am very disappointed that, after conducting so many consultations across the country, the Liberals did not listen to ordinary Canadians who live in remote areas. This budget contains nothing for them. It is too bad, because we have to remember that it is people in rural areas who feed our cities, and not the other way around. It is people who live in those small communities who could really use a bit of help.

As for employment insurance, the Liberals invested $10 million to provide training to the unemployed, but only 26 people in my riding were eligible. Furthermore, the training offered is not appropriate for the rural community I represent. What we need in our rural communities is manual labour, like farmers and seasonal workers, in other words, people who have to deal with the EI spring gap. These people need training that reflects their reality, not the reality of a few people who draft legislation and who have never set foot in our ridings.

Every region is different. In my riding alone, we have six different realities. There is an urban reality, a semi-urban reality, a rural reality, agriculture, tourism, and many other different things. This budget, however, does not correspond to the reality of ordinary Canadians. It is more suited to the reality of people who work in an office in the Liberal universe.

In closing, I am very disappointed and I will not be supporting this bill.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-74, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motion in Group No. 1.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-74, the budget implementation act.

The Prime Minister has introduced this omnibus budget bill that spends money we do not have on things we do not need and piles debt upon debt and taxes us to pay for it. The Liberal government continues to spend and spend while Canadian taxpayers foot the bill and Canadian businesses flee to the United States.

The government has increased spending by 20%, or $60 billion, in its first three years, and there is no evidence that it created any growth in the Canadian economy. Despite this record spending, Canada is headed for a slowdown. Private sector forecasts show growth of 2% in 2018 and 1.6% in 2019.

Budget 2016 promised that spending would raise the level of GDP by 0.5% in 2016-17 and by 1.0% in 2017-18. However, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has estimated that infrastructure spending actually contributed a tiny 0.1% to GDP growth in both years.

At a time when the government has to buy a pipeline no one wanted to sell and no one wanted to buy in order to cover its own failed energy policy; at a time when we cannot seem to get agreements with our largest trading partner on softwood lumber, steel, and aluminum on the North American Free Trade Agreement; at a time when investor confidence in Canada has hit rock bottom; at a time when our country has one trillion dollars of market debt, a debt upon which the Government of Canada pays interest—the Liberal government plans on installing a job-killing carbon tax. Nearly 200 pages of Bill C-74 are dedicated to this complicated and costly new carbon tax. If Canadians have not had enough already, this new tax will raise the cost of heat, groceries, and pretty much everything.

Finance officials have said that the Liberals' carbon tax will raise the price of gasoline by 11¢ per litre, or about $8 on an average fill-up. It will cost Canadians families an extra $264 in natural gas home heating per year. Oil heating costs will rise even more.

We know this carbon tax is going to cost Canadians much more and we know the Liberals know it, but they refuse to come clean, and that is the issue we have on this side of the House. They refuse to tell us exactly how much the carbon tax will cost the average Canadian family.

Mr. Trevor Tombe, at the University of Calgary, estimates $1,100 for a family per year. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation estimates that the carbon tax will cost as much as $2,500 per family per year.

Environment Canada has told the minister 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 its 2030 GHG targets. Carbon taxes are not effective in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. According to the Conference Board and the Canadian Academy of Engineering, even if carbon taxes were to reach $200 per tonne by 2025, it would only result in a 1.5% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

After direct questioning by the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, the environment minister at committee refused to give a number when asked. The government knows if and how much the carbon tax will reduce greenhouse gas emissions; however, it just will not make that number public. Perhaps the government has learned its lesson after so many failed promises in its 2015 platform: I am guessing it is better to say nothing than to continue to break promises. Unfortunately, we cannot run a government that way, and Canadians are demanding answers.

The government, through Natural Resources Canada, wants to spend $280,000 to try to find out why investor confidence in Canada is so low. Before Canadians from coast to coast to coast pick up the phone to call the minister in hopes of landing that $280,000 contract, the closing date was April 19.

It does not really take many people to figure out why Canadian competitiveness is so weak, why investor confidence is so low, and why Canadian businesses are fleeing south. Canadian competitiveness is weak because of rising costs as Canadian businesses face these increases. We are seeing new carbon taxes and increased CPP and EI premiums. Personal income taxes for entrepreneurs are now over 53% at the top marginal rate. Thousands of local businesses will no longer qualify for the small business tax rate or will see it reduced. Tough new rules will raise taxes on compensation paid in the family business.

According to Jack Mintz, Canadian businesses are facing a competitive tsunami that could wallop jobs and investment, as U.S. tax reform and the reduction in the corporate rate from 35% to 21% will make Canada less competitive and increase the appeal of moving to the United States.

Budget 2018 offered nothing to Canadian businesses. The U.K., the U.S, and France have all embarked on major tax reforms, simplifying the tax code and lowering overall tax rates. Canada is moving in the complete opposite direction, with more taxes and more regulation. Investor confidence has fallen by 5%, or $12.7 billion, since 2015.

During the same period, business investments in the United States increased by 9%, amounting to an additional $198 billion of investment spending. Foreign direct investment into Canada plummeted by 42% in 2016 and then a further 27% in 2017. The natural resources sector is being hit particularly hard, as regulation is discouraging investment. The pipeline shortage means that Canada's oil and gas companies receive lower prices for oil, approximately $24 less per barrel, because they are forced to ship to a part of the United States glutted with oil and gas. This is costing the Canadian economy approximately $50 million per day. In the last two years, $84 billion of investment in the energy sector has been cancelled.

Economist Germain Belzile, a senior researcher at the Montreal Economic Institute, stated:

People are giving up on Canada as a safe place to invest in natural resources.

It's seen as a very hostile environment now.

Doug Porter, chief economist and managing director of BMO Financial Group, stated:

I think Canada has a very weak competitive position. I think we're going to get crushed in the next recession....

The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, a leading industry association in the oil and gas sector, advises that the sector is seeing companies, including Canadian firms, looking at allocating more capital dollars in the U.S., while investment in Canada is decreasing.

RBC president and CEO Dave McKay, the head of one of Canada's largest banks, is urging the federal government to stem the flow of investment capital from this country to the United States because, he warns, it is already leaving in real time. Canadian businesses are fleeing south because the entrepreneurial climate in Canada has soured.

Canadians have lost faith in their government. In his first three years in power, the Prime Minister added $60 billion to the national debt. Last year, Canada's national debt reached an all-time high of $670 billion, or $47,612 per Canadian family, and the budget will not return to balance until 2045, when my son will be 33 years of age and quite possibly raising my grandchildren.

The finance minister's attack on small business last fall demonstrated just how out of touch the government is with what is going on in the economy, although the finance minister did climb down significantly on taxing passive investment income. Instead of the proposed 73% tax rate, the government will gradually withdraw eligibility for the small business tax rate for those companies with investment income greater than $50,000.

I could go on and on and I am sure members would enjoy that a lot, but I understand my time is running out, so I will wrap it up before I am cut off. I look forward to questions and to speaking more about how this Liberal budget is failing Canadian families.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals had an opportunity with this implementation act to build an economy that would lift everyone up, people who counted on them, instead of just the wealthy few at a top with their tax havens. Unfortunately, the Liberals decided instead to defend the interests of their corporate and privileged, consigning the rest of Canada to the back seat.

Budget 2018 and Bill C-74 reveal once again the Liberals' true nature.

I remember in 2004 the damage done to our country after 13 years of Liberal rule, most of those years in majority governments that accomplished little to nothing in the way of fairness and equity for working Canadians. Those Liberals made the most drastic cuts to our public broadcaster, did little to nothing in the way of implementing a universal child care program, nothing to reverse the devastating effects of colonialism on indigenous peoples, except as a last ditch effort to stay in power, and undermined the health care system with cuts to transfer payments to the provinces.

We hoped for more progress than setting the bar at red book promises unfulfilled. For close to three years now, the NDP caucus has been calling on the Liberals to actually be the progressive, positive government they promised us in 2015.

This bill betrays all women who believed the so-called “gender budget” would include much anticipated pay equity legislation, because it does not. The Liberals promised pay equity 40 years ago, again in 2016, and again a month ago in the budget speech. Canadians want to know when the Liberals will finally deliver pay equity.

Despite the smearing of its image by right-wing ideologues, the fact is that the public service has done more than the private sector in achieving gender equity in Canada. While there is still work to do on the equity front, women and men from historically disadvantaged groups, such as disabled persons, indigenous peoples, single parents, seniors, young people, and people of colour, are all represented in the public service workforce in greater percentages than they occur in Canada's population. They are employed at all levels of management and labour in the workforce more proportionately than in the private sector.

Labour researchers and academics have pointed out that this advantage is at least in part the result of the fact workers in the Canadian public service have union representation guaranteed under our Constitution. However, recent reports indicate that the equity and fairness established in the public service is eroding as a result of austerity measures, privatization, and contracting out. The effect of this offloading, besides being inefficient, is that public sector workers are beginning to experience greater levels of workplace precarity. We know too that this precarity impacts diverse members of the workforce who can least afford it.

We need to consider the legacy we are leaving to future generations, those who leave post-secondary and graduate schools with a burden of debt that is insurmountable only to face a world where jobs are scarce. When work can be found, it is more often than not part-time, underpaid, without benefits, and short-term. We need to give future generations more than the finance minister's statement, telling them to suck it up and get used to a lifetime of precarious work.

Future generations will need a robust economy because they will incur the burden of supporting us in our dotage with their tax dollars. We need to seriously consider the legacy we leave. However, we also know it is bigger than that.

We need to take care of each other for everyone to thrive. We need to create a Canada where no one experiences the isolation and degrading health consequences of homelessness, poverty, or mental illness, a Canada with free and equal access to education, health care, child care, pharmacare, housing, clean air, and clean water.

We know what works and what does not. If what we want is to create a healthy sustainable equitable economy where every citizen has equal access to opportunity and is able to thrive and prosper, the Canada we know is possible, the Canada that can be, the work begins now, with federal budgets. Sadly, the Liberals' budget implementation act is even more timid than the budget. It offers no real plan to reduce inequities or build an economy that would benefit all Canadians.

I would like to take this opportunity today to speak about the ways in which Bill C-74 could have addressed inequalities and build an economy that would benefit all Canadians.

This legislation could have contained provisions to assist rural communities. It does not. The Liberals had an opportunity in their 2018 budget to help rural communities, but instead chose to focus on the interests of their rich friends and their own ridings. In the meantime, they tell people in rural communities to wait for improved employment insurance, cellular infrastructure, and broadband Internet access.

In just the past few days, we have seen announcements from big banks about closing branches in Burford, Blyth, and Clifford in Ontario, and Kipling and Preeceville in Saskatchewan. These closures will leave Blyth and Kipling with no local banking options. In Saskatchewan, the nearest TD branch to Preeceville is an hour to an hour and 45 minutes away.

All of these communities have post offices. A postal banking system would allow members of this community access to banking services that are affordable and competitive, not to mention profitable for Canada Post. In the U.K., corporate banks have actually reversed their opposition to postal banking, because they know it absolves them from the community ire they would experience when they close branches in rural and remote communities, which these banks say do not reap enough profit.

When will the government see the postal banking light? We will have an opportunity in that regard later this session when my motion M-166 comes to the floor of the House for a vote. I urge every member here to support it. We have the opportunity to make effective and progressive change, even if the government avoids it in budget implementation acts. We will have that opportunity very shortly.

A postal banking system would address inequality in this country, something Bill C-74 does not do, even though that should be the goal of government in a social democracy such as ours. Instead we see Canadians who live in rural and remote communities, Canadians with low income, and first nations peoples living on reserve forced to use predatory lenders or to rely on the whim of a local business person or local variety store to access their own money.

A universal pharmacare program would create equal access to life-saving and life-enhancing medications for all Canadians as well. I see nothing in this legislation that addresses that need. In fact, we continue with a patchwork system of access to abortion and birth control that creates inequality and forces Canadians who require those services to either pay exorbitant out-of-pocket costs or travel unreasonable hours to access these services. Monday was International Birth Control Day. It is the federal government's responsibility to ensure equal access for all Canadians needing birth control, but the government has failed. Access is neither universal, equal, nor affordable across this country.

I give the the following by way of example: the NuvaRing is available on public formularies in five provinces and one territory, but not the others; IUDs are available in 3 provinces, but not everywhere; emergency contraceptives are covered only in Alberta; and Quebec covers the patch, but no other province or territory does.

Canada has a human rights obligation to ensure that everyone in every province or territory has the same access to the highest quality medications. Why then does a woman in Manitoba and Quebec have access to more birth control methods than a woman in Saskatchewan? Making all birth control and all sexual and reproductive medications free for all of us is about fairness and gender equality. That is the reason I introduced M-65 to continue the push for equal access to birth control for all Canadians.

My constituents in London-Fanshawe do not believe the economy is working for them. What they see instead is an uneven playing field, where only the few at the top can benefit, at the expense of everyone else. They struggle to pay their bills and care for their parents and children in a community gutted by the loss of well-paid jobs moving offshore as a result of globalization, with no protection from either Liberal or Conservative governments.

Finally, this 556 page-long bill amends 44 pieces of legislation. During the last election campaign, the Liberals promised to abolish omnibus bills because they are undemocratic, yet they chose to restrict the length of debate on this substantial bill at the finance committee. This is not democracy and it is a far cry from the sunny ways promised to Canadians in 2015.

We can do better. We are here to do better. Canadians demand better. Do not let the Liberals tell us it cannot be done.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-74, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-74, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Business of the House

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I would encourage the opposition House leader to speak to the government House leader on the questions that she has just raised.

In the meantime, this afternoon we will continue with report stage of Bill C-74, the Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1.

Following this debate, we will turn to Bill C-47, the arms trade treaty, also at report stage.

Tomorrow morning, we will begin third reading of Bill C-57, an act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act. Monday and Wednesday shall be allotted days. Next week, priority will be given to the following bills: Bill-C-74, budget implementation act, 2018, No. 1; Bill C-69 on environmental assessments; Bill C-75 on modernizing the justice system; and Bill C-47 on the Arms Trade Treaty.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions relating to the business that we are going to be dealing with next week. In the last couple of days the government has used time allocation a number of times for bills that it is moving ahead—not that we agree with it, but it is within the government's purview to do it.

Standing Order 78 says “A Minister of the Crown who from his or her place in the House, at a previous sitting, has stated that an agreement could not be reached...” and then it goes on to the provision. We know that the government did not speak to us in the opposition at all, not to me or the NDP, about bill C-74, but it has moved time allocation on that bill even though the Liberals have not talked to us.

My first question is this: are they planning on moving time allocation on bills that they have not even talked with us about?

My second question is also related to that matter. Regarding the business of the House, I would like to know why the government House leader is not following the custom of sitting down with the opposition to discuss priority bills that the government wants to pass or advance before the June adjournment. It is very normal practice that the government House leader would sit down and talk with us and let us know.

Other bills have been discussed previously, but because she has not done that here, there is a vacuum in the House that has led to some unnecessary chaos and unintended consequences. In fact, we have not had a House leadership meeting in nine days.

I have those two questions, and I also would like to ask the government if it could tell us what business we will be looking at this next week.

Report Stage

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's speech was admirable. I am appalled by the government's response to limit today's debate.

We have just five hours to analyze a bill with a massive scope. The bill is 550 pages long and amends 44 acts, including Bill C-47, which would impose a tax on people who use prescription medical marijuana. We are talking about children with cancer or children who suffer excruciating pain. This could have a negative impact on their quality of life.

The Prime Minister responded that this was for people who abuse marijuana and use it recreationally and who go see their doctors. He is indirectly accusing doctors of not doing due diligence and accusing people of abusing the system to avoid paying their fair share. Meanwhile, he is making patients suffer.

How could a government think this is responsible?

In terms of our democracy, if no members raise these issues, as my colleague from Vancouver Kingsway did, and if the government limits debate, we will lose this information since we do not have enough time to raise these issues in the House of Commons.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on my comments and I would particularly like him to tell us whether Bill C-47 should be withdrawn from the list of 44 acts being amended by Bill C-74.

Does he think that the government should withdraw Bill C-47 from the 44 acts amended by this bill?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as the health critic for the New Democratic Party, it is a pleasure to rise in the House and speak to Bill C-74, the budget implementation bill, on behalf of our party. I am going to focus my remarks on a particular part of the budget bill that I believe is very much misconceived and in fact would do a lot of harm to Canadians across the country. I hope that the government will listen to these remarks and take them seriously, and be willing to make changes to the bill that is before us.

The issue on which I want to focus the attention of my colleagues in the House today is the proposal in this budget for the federal government to levy an excise tax on medical cannabis. Currently, the situation in Canada is that we do not tax medicine. Pharmaceuticals go through a process and get something called a “drug identification number”, or DIN. When that happens, the drugs are sold and purchased by Canadians tax-free, as they should be.

On the other hand, medical cannabis, which has been recognized as a medicine by the Supreme Court of Canada, and the medical cannabis industry is currently operating in every province of this country, does not currently enjoy that status. The result is that patients across the country who rely on medical cannabis for a variety of conditions and ailments are forced to pay sales tax on that medicine, whether that is the federal GST or an HST in the province, which is anywhere from 5% upward. In addition to that, most health insurance plans in this country do not reimburse patients for the cost of cannabis, so it is a double-edged sword for patients who rely on cannabis for relief of their conditions.

On top of that, in this budget the government is proposing to add an additional tax on medical cannabis, an excise tax, which would further increase the costs of this medicine for patients.

I want to speak for a few moments about the patients in this country: what patient groups think and why medical cannabis is such an important part of health treatment for so many Canadians.

CBD and THC are two of the prime operative molecules in cannabis, and it is now well known and established in the literature and in Canadians' anecdotal experience that these two substances have incredible medicinal properties. Among them, interchangeably, are the following: they are anti-inflammatories; they are antispasmodics; they help control nausea and provide nausea relief; they are ocular pressure reducers; they are very effective in helping to treat post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD; they are proving to be very effective in helping people who are addicted to opioids to get off opioids and replace that with cannabis therapy; and they are very important in seizure control.

That is just a sample of the documented, experienced attributes of cannabis, when used medicinally and under the care of physicians and other medical practitioners. It is a medicine. Again, we do not tax medicine in this country.

I want to talk about what an excise tax is. The Liberals want to add an excise tax on medical cannabis, and this is particularly inappropriate. An excise tax is colloquially known as a “sin tax”. That is, it is a tax specifically designed to discourage the use of something or to encourage the more responsible use of something. Typically, we see excise tax levied on things like tobacco, alcohol, and gasoline. This tax, though, would actually work to discourage the use of a medicine.

I want to talk for a moment about my exchange with the Prime Minister when I raised this issue directly with him last Wednesday and asked him to reconsider the excise tax on medical cannabis. After refusing to commit to withdrawing the excise tax, the Prime Minister, somewhat shockingly, went on to impugn the entire motive of the medical community by saying that he thought that medical cannabis was being misdirected and misused as a recreational substance. That is a shocking thing for any prime minister to say. He impugned the motives of every single physician in this country by suggesting that doctors are mis-prescribing cannabis to their patients, who are then misusing it for recreational purposes.

He impugned the motives of the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who use cannabis on a daily basis in a variety of forms: tinctures, creams, sublingual tablets, concentrates in edible form, and tea. He suggested that those people are not using cannabis to relieve the conditions of their illnesses but rather to get high.

What does that say to the thousands of veterans in this country who are using cannabis to help them deal with their PTSD? Is the Prime Minister saying that they are simply misusing that substance to get high? If that is the case, why is Veterans Affairs paying for it? That was shocking.

I cannot get any better than to quote from something a doctor said after this was posted online. Dr. Michael Verbora, who is on the faculty of McMaster University and is a physician who also holds an MBA, said:

Not sure why @JustinTrudeau thinks my children patients are faking seizures (to use CBD oil which has no recreational value) and my adult patients are faking their cancers, MS, and chronic pain! Completely clueless and uneducated. Spend a day in my clinic so you can see & learn.

That is what a physician said to the Prime Minister when he suggested that medical cannabis is actually some sort of front, some sort of excuse, for people to access recreational cannabis.

New Democrats have done what New Democrats do in the House. We do our homework. We work hard to make good policy. We listen to witnesses. We do evidence-based policy-making.

Every single patient group that appeared before the committee that studied the bill, every single patient group in this country that knows anything about cannabis, has stated that this excise tax is wrong and should be withdrawn.

My colleague moved nine amendments at committee, four of which dealt with withdrawing the damaging provisions of this excise tax on cannabis, and all four of those amendments were opposed and shot down by Liberal members on that committee.

Instead of listening to Canadians, listening to patients, listening to the opposition, and listening to the evidence, the Liberals are doubling down on a bad policy that is going to damage public health and patient health in this country.

The very first concept in medicine physicians learn in medical school is do no harm. That is the first principle of care. What the government is doing by taxing cannabis, by taxing a medicine and making it harder for people to access their medicine, is actually harming the health of patients in this country, and it is doing it deliberately and in full knowledge of the evidence that it is wrong.

I want to talk for a moment about children. There are children in this country who are using medicinal cannabis now, particularly for things like epilepsy control. Why would any government want to put a damaging excise tax on top of a sales tax on a substance that probably is not covered by that family's health care insurance plan, making it more difficult for children in this country to get medicine they need to control their seizures? That is what the Liberal government is doing. That is bad policy. It is bad health care. It is bad tax policy.

I urge the government to listen carefully to the evidence it is hearing from everyone who is knowledgeable about this issue and withdraw this ill-conceived, poorly-conceived, damaging, and harmful tax on medicine.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am really glad to be able to take part in the debate on Bill C-74, because I am getting an opportunity that unfortunately many of my colleagues will not get, because as all my colleagues know, we are now debating a bill under time allocation yet again.

Notice was given last night in the late hours of the night, when a few of us were still here maintaining our presence until midnight. Then, of course, the government moved the motion on time allocation earlier today. This is, I think, the 40th time the government has done this, in spite of its election promises to work with parliamentarians and to show more respect for this place. Promising something and then doing the complete opposite is the kind of action that breeds a lot of cynicism for politics. I would dare say that a lot of people who voted for the Liberals in the last election were expecting a lot better than they are currently getting. However, we will revisit that issue in 2019. I will be very happy to talk to my constituents about it.

Bill C-74 is the government's budget implementation bill for 2018. It clocks in at a hefty 556 pages. I do not have a copy of the bill before me, but members can be assured that it also serves well as a giant doorstop. It amends 44 separate acts. One of them includes a measure to establish a new greenhouse gas pricing act. We in the NDP believe that because of how big the bill is and how much debate there is over carbon pricing right now, that particular aspect of the bill could have existed as a standalone bill to give it the comprehensive debate it deserves.

There is a problem with introducing bills of this size and trying to ram them through the legislative process in a quick manner. The reason is that one can sometimes lose the fine little details. For example, it was discovered a couple of weeks ago that there is a measure buried in Bill C-74 under part 6, division 20, that appears to allow prosecutors to suspend criminal charges against companies in certain cases of corporate wrongdoing. We might legitimately ask in the House why a criminal justice matter is appearing in a budget bill.

I asked that question. I had the honour of serving as the NDP's justice critic last year, and I would expect such a measure to be in a criminal justice bill and to be studied at the appropriate committee, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Members need not take my word for it. We have quotes from the Liberal MP for Hull—Aylmer, who was a member of the finance committee. He said that the government seems to be “letting those with means have an easier time of it than those who don't have the means.”

The Liberal MP for Malpeque, who is the finance committee chair, also said that “...there is a huge question of whether this should be in a budget bill.”

Two Liberal MPs having discovered this and raised legitimate questions, but what did the Liberal-dominated finance committee do? It left that provision in and sent the bill right to the House, and here is where it is at.

That is one of the big problems with omnibus bills when they start throwing in all these different acts. Someone who thinks they are pretty clever in the PMO says,“We can just slip this in and I don't think it will get noticed.” They got caught this time. I do not know the merits of this particular part, but it deserved to go to the justice committee so that the justice committee, in its expertise, could call for the appropriate witnesses to deliberate as to whether this is really a good provision. It is not a measure that the finance committee is equipped to deal with, not when we are dealing with a 556-page bill.

I want to turn in the next part of my speech to the greenhouse gas pollution pricing. We believe this measure should have been put into a separate bill. I am among the people who believe we do need to have a price on carbon, since the evidence of climate change is there for all to see and we need to take some leadership. However, there is still a big debate going on in the country.

I believe it would have been to the government's advantage to split this off into a separate bill and to study it on its own merits. That way we could have called forth witnesses with expertise in this area who could have offered the appropriate testimony as to why carbon pricing schemes work and to deal with my Conservative colleagues' concerns about carbon pricing. They could have maybe offered some suggestions on how the government could mitigate the costs to low-income families and the costs to industries that are very fossil fuel reliant.

Speaking as the NDP's critic for agriculture, one of those sectors is agriculture. The Canadian Produce Marketing Association and the Canadian Horticultural Society have a problem with one aspect of Bill C-74 under part 5. They would like to see the definitions in the bill relating to farming encompass all primary agricultural activities and ensure that qualifying farming fuel would include natural gas and propane, which are increasingly common in the agricultural sector. They believe that after their consultations and research, the definitions in that part of the bill are incomplete and do not capture all of the primary agricultural activity. Agriculture is one of those sectors where farmers have to drive their tractors. They have to use natural gas to heat their greenhouses and it is a sector that, under current models, is very reliant on fossil fuels. We know there is a lot of innovation, research, and effort being made to transition off that, but the case as it stands now is that it is still heavily reliant on those fuels.

Given that so many farmers live so close to the margins and that the government has an ambitious agenda of reaching $75 billion worth of exports by 2025, I believe this is part of the bill that could have been studied as a stand-alone bill. I know as the agriculture critic that I would loved to have given some notice on behalf of my party and interested stakeholders.

I also want to talk about a few of the missed opportunities. I covered this in an exchange earlier today about the fact that there are no real measures in the bill to deal with tax evasion and avoidance. This is an issue that we have seen time and time again in Canada, where the wealthy and well connected are able to use tools at their disposal that ordinary Canadians just do not have, and are not paying their fair share. The Liberals failed to live up to a promise to get rid of tax loopholes associated with the stock options of rich CEOs.

Again, we see a failure to effectively deal with the corporate tax rate. As I mentioned before, corporations benefit from tax dollars being spent here. Our tax dollars build infrastructure like bridges, like roadways, and the railways that help corporations move their products. Our tax dollars pay for the administration of a legal system that ensures that corporations live under the rule of law and that if they ever have a conflict with a customer or a regulatory agency, the rule of law is there for them.

Our tax dollars also pay for social services that many workers require because they are not being paid a living wage. That is another issue that needs to be addressed. I know many of my colleagues in the House have constituents who are working full-time jobs, but still struggling to get by. They are having to make those hard choices between paying the rent and putting good quality food on the table.

I will end by talking about the government's recent purchase of the Kinder Morgan pipeline for $4.5 billion. That was certainly not a part of its election platform and was not mentioned in the 2018 budget, so the government is going to have to explain to the House and to Canadians where that money is coming from. Are the Liberals going to raise it from the Canada pension plan? Are they going to raise it from tax dollars? We would like to see where that money is coming from.

When we look at gaping holes in our infrastructure, especially rural broadband, the situation with drinking water quality on first nation reserves, the fact that the government can pony up $4.5 billion for a piece of infrastructure that belongs in the twentieth century, but ignore all of these other problems that are so prevalent in the rest of the country really goes to the heart of where the Liberal government's priorities are.

In conclusion, I appreciate this opportunity to speak to Bill C-74.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by quoting Mark Hancock, national president of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, on budget 2018:

Canadian women have waited long enough for pay equity. If the prime minister is serious about this commitment, we hope he’ll be encouraging the remaining provinces to follow suit with their own legislation so that women working in all sectors of the economy don’t have to wait any longer.

There is nothing in the budget for pay equity. I am talking about pay equity, not the other programs. In Quebec, we have legislation on that. There is nothing about pay equity in Bill C-74, the budget implementation bill, either. The Liberals claim to want to improve life for the middle class.

Does my colleague think that the Liberals take women seriously?

Does this mean that the Liberals think that women are not part of the middle class or should not be part of it?

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today in this House to speak to the budget implementation bill, 2018, Bill C-74. I do so with great pride, as this budget would have a tremendously positive impact on the lives of the constituents I represent in Saint-Boniface—Saint-Vital and all Canadians across this great nation.

I have risen in this House previously and repeated the words I frequently heard at the door leading to the election, sentiments that are repeated today when I meet with constituents. Several weeks ago, we were in the constituency. I knocked on hundreds of doors. I had good conversations with constituents, and I spoke to hundreds of people about the benefits in budget 2018.

Canadians elected our government to improve the quality of life of the middle class and those working hard to join it.

This budget builds on the work undertaken by our government in the previous two budgets in order to make life easier for Canadians, to ensure that Canadians who need it have more money in their pockets, and to continue investing in communities to ensure a high standard of living.

Many conversations I have had with constituents were about the benefits of the Canada child benefit. It has had a very positive impact on their lives and has lessened their financial burdens. Nine out of 10 Canadian families receive the CCB, and they receive, on average, $6,800 per year. This money directly improves the quality of life of Canadians, whether by ensuring that families can afford nutritious food or by helping them pay for extracurricular activities, such as music lessons or hockey programs.

This program will be indexed as of July, which means that the program will continue to grow and increase in value each and every year. I know that in my own constituency of Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, the CCB goes to over 8,800 families, directly benefiting 15,150 children. If we add the total benefits for those 15,150 children, we are looking at $4,938,000 in benefits going to the children of Saint Boniface—Saint Vital.

Unlike the previous program, the Canada child benefit is tax-free. That almost $5 million that is going to the children of Saint Boniface—Saint Vital is not taxed back at the end of the year. It stays with those families.

Budget 2018 would also introduce the new Canada workers benefit, which would give more money directly to low-income workers than the previous program did. The Canada workers benefit would increase the maximum benefit and the income level at which the benefit is phased out. This would allow low-income workers to keep more of their paycheques and would lift approximately 70,000 Canadians out of poverty. In Manitoba alone, 86,000 workers would be eligible for the new program, an increase of 13,000.

I was also very pleased to be present for the announcement of the official languages action plan for which over $400 million was allocated in budget 2018. As a representative of an official language minority community and a member of the Standing Committee on Official Languages for the past two years, I know that these funds are essential for communities across the country. The action plan will provide support for local official languages media, help increase francophone immigration, and support early childhood education in official language minority communities.

All of these issues were carefully examined in committee, and I want to thank the Minister of Canadian Heritage for the careful consideration she gave them and for making sure that they are a priority for our government in this budget.

Budget 2018 will also see an increase in federal transfer payments to Manitoba, up $290 million from last year to $4 billion in 2018-19. This transfer includes $1.4 billion from the Canada health transfer, which is an increase of $56.5 million, and $518 million from the Canada social transfer.

I hear daily from constituents that their number one priority is health care. With this increase in transfer payments, it is clear that the health and well-being of Manitobans is a priority for this federal government. We are doing our part. We are providing provinces with the resources to provide efficient and reliable health care to all Canadians. In my province, while the Province of Manitoba continues to play partisan political games with the health of Manitobans, this federal government will continue to meet its obligations under the Canada health accord.

To change topics, the western economic diversification and the innovation and skills plans are files that are extremely important because of the direct impact they have not only on Manitoba but on all prairie provinces. Budget 2018 will see an increase of $148 million for western diversification over five years. This will allow us to continue to grow the individual economies of the western provinces and invest in our communities. Out of this new commitment, $35 million will be allocated to the new women entrepreneurship strategy. This new strategy is part of the government's commitment to increasing the opportunities for women in the workforce. It will be coordinated nationally but tailored regionally to the west.

It would be remiss of me if I did not speak of the historic investments that this budget makes to the Métis Nation. David Chartrand, vice-president of the Métis National Council, said “After 148 years of waiting to enter the federation, this budget finally brings us home.” I agree wholeheartedly with his sentiment, and I am proud to be in a government that is committed to renewing the relationship with the Métis Nation.

Budget 2018 invests over $500 million over 10 years for various programming, including support for the Métis Nation housing strategy, post-secondary education, and the creation of a health strategy. This level and distinctions-based funding for the Métis Nation is historic. Never has a federal budget provided direct funding on such a large scale to the Métis Nation.

The emphasis on distinctions-based funding that was outlined in the government's principles respecting the Government of Canada's relationship with indigenous people is vital to this process of reconciliation. Reading directly from the principle, it says that “...a distinctions-based approach is needed to ensure that the unique rights, interests and circumstances of the First Nations, the Métis Nation and Inuit are acknowledged, affirmed, and implemented.” This budget reflects this priority and re-emphasizes our government's commitment to reconciliation and to building a relationship with all indigenous people.

The specific words used in the budget commitment to the Métis Nation should also be highlighted. The new funding is given to support the Métis Nation and to drive Métis-led initiatives. They support the Métis Nation's vision of self-determination. For too long, Ottawa has dictated to indigenous communities what the solution should be. To achieve reconciliation, we must move away from that model. There are problems in the communities, but the solutions to these problems must come from within the communities themselves.

For example, this budget provides for $6 million over five years to help the Métis nation collect health data and develop a health strategy. The Government of Canada will support the Métis nation, but the strategy will be developed by the nation itself since it has the knowledge and expertise needed to solve its own problems.

Finally, it is important to note that the commitments in the budget reflect the commitments made in the Canada-Métis Nation Accord and reflect the priorities of the Métis Nation.

It would be impossible to outline in 10 minutes the full extent of the benefits that this budget provides for Canadians. However, since the tabling of the budget, I have been out and about in Saint Boniface—Saint Vital talking to constituents about our commitments, and I look forward to returning to Saint Boniface—Saint Vital to continue those conversations.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-74, the Liberal government's budget implementation bill. When we consider the contents of the bill and the Liberal government's track record, it reveals a troubling path ahead for Canadians.

We have before us a budget bill that spends borrowed money recklessly. The result of that is a growing debt and higher taxes. Borrowed money always has to be paid back and it is paid back at a premium.

The Liberal government came into power touting modest deficits. The Prime Minister repeatedly promised Canadians that his government would borrow a modest $10 billion a year to grow the economy. He also promised Canadians that the budget would return to balance in 2019. That promise went out the window very quickly.

The Prime Minister has added $60 billion to the national debt in just three short years. Canada's net debt has reached an all-time high of $670 billion. To put that into context, that breaks down to a debt of over $47,000 per Canadian family. What about the plan to return to balance? The budget is not predicted to return to balance until 2045, a far cry from 2019.

The Liberals will wrongly try to take credit for the economic growth that Canada experienced in 2017. A growth rate of 3% in 2017 was largely a result of the oil and gas sector recovering and an unusually strong housing market. The responsible response to that growth should have been for the government to pay down the debt that it borrowed, so in the case of a fiscal downturn, we would be better positioned. However, now, despite all the Liberal spending, private sector forecasts show that Canada is heading for a slow down.

We have legislation before us to help us spend more money and add more debt. Ultimately, it is legislation that would make life more unaffordable for Canadians.

Canadians are already paying higher taxes under the Liberals. It seems that the Liberal government is always finding new ways to dip into the pockets of Canadians. For one, this budget bill would create a costly new carbon tax, which the Liberals are forcing on all provinces that do not have their own. Despite promises of a new era of co-operative federalism, the Liberal government is ramming ahead with its massive carbon tax grab.

My province of Saskatchewan has rejected the Liberal government's carbon tax, and rightly so. The carbon tax will come at a significant cost to the people of Saskatchewan, and the Liberal government is ignoring the basic economic reality that its carbon tax unfairly punishes farmers and rural communities.

My province of Saskatchewan has developed its own climate change strategy, a made-in-Saskatchewan plan that tackles climate change without imposing the unfair carbon tax on Saskatchewan families. However, the Liberal government refused to accept it. The Liberals are forcing it on Saskatchewan against its will.

Well then, what does this carbon tax achieve? We cannot tax our way to a cleaner environment and the carbon tax will not lead to a major emission reduction in Canada.

We can look to British Columbia as an example. British Columbia was the first province to implement a carbon tax. It also has the highest carbon tax in the country. Despite this, carbon emissions have continued to rise there. The real impact of its carbon tax is that British Columbians are now paying more for gas than anyone else in the North American continent.

I will reiterate that point, because it is an important point that needs to sink in. The carbon tax in British Columbia is not reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but it is making life less affordable for British Columbians, yet the Liberals continue to strong-arm the province of Saskatchewan.

One would think that given their passion for a carbon tax, the Liberals would be forthcoming with information about its impact. It is fair for Canadians to want to know just how much the federal price on carbon will cost them, but again and again the Liberal government refuses to release those details.

Finance officials have said that the Liberal carbon tax will cost an extra 11¢ per litre of gas and $264 in extra costs for natural gas home heating annually. That alone is already a significant cost. However, there are additional costs and impacts of a $50 per tonne carbon tax.

Repeated requests for information have been issued from this side of the House. We have asked the government over and over again to provide details on the cost of its carbon tax and the results it expects to achieve. However, any response received has been blacked out. What does the Liberal government have to hide? What is it covering up? If the government cannot answer a basic question on what its carbon tax will cost and achieve, it is absurd for it to force it on the province of Saskatchewan.

The Liberals are not only raising taxes on individual Canadians, they are making it more expensive to do business in Canada. Businesses are also being hit with increased costs due to the carbon tax. This is in addition to the increased CPP and EI premiums, higher income taxes for entrepreneurs, and punitive changes to the small business tax rate. While we consider these higher costs, we cannot forget that the United States is lowering its corporate tax rate. Business investment in Canada has dropped since 2015. Meanwhile, business investment in the United States has increased.

The natural resource sector has been particularly hit hard. The energy sector and the jobs it creates are very important to my riding of Battlefords—Lloydminster. The fact that over $80 billion of investment in the energy sector has been lost in the last two years is very troubling for my constituents. They certainly are not comforted by the Prime Minister's repeated confession that he wants to phase out the oil sands.

The loss of business investment in Canada is a troubling trend, and the Liberals have offered nothing to Canadian businesses in this budget implementation act. The higher cost of doing business will hurt the bottom line for businesses. When it drives away business, results in job loss, and injects less money into our economy, everyone pays, and we all lose.

Bill C-74 offers Canadians a plan we cannot afford and does not move us ahead. Spending money we do not have on things we do not need is reckless and irresponsible. I would not run my personal household in that manner, and I would not teach my children to manage their finances in that way. Most of all, I cannot imagine that the members opposite would manage their personal finances that way and teach their children that as well. It begs the question: why is it that when the stakes are even higher, when the fiscal security of the country hangs in the balance, the Liberals would choose this route?

The House resumed from May 30 consideration of Bill C-74, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Bill C-74—Time Allocation Motion

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we show up every day to do what Canadians expect, which is to deliver on our agenda.

Yes, it is unfortunate that we have to use time allocation. Why do we have to do it? It is because the opposition is deliberately delaying Bill C-74. They are delaying measures that would help Canadians. They are delaying the indexing of the Canada child benefit. They are delaying the new Canada workers benefit, which would give Canadians more money. They are delaying putting a price on carbon pollution and supporting clean growth. They are delaying maternity and parental leave for parliamentarians.

We are here to get things done for Canadians, and we are going to continue to do that.

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we take consultation very seriously. That is why we conduct so much consultation with Canadians, civil society, indigenous communities and national indigenous organizations, business, and all Canadians and communities from coast to coast to coast.

In terms of Bill C-74, as I said, we have seen four days of second reading debate, during which more than 45 members have spoken. At committee stage we had 13 meetings during at which there were 106 witnesses.

We have made a commitment as a government to work collaboratively with all parties. However, we also need to make sure that when the opposition is deliberately delaying the government's agenda, we fulfill our a duty to Canadians to bring legislation to a vote.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed, not just because we are reaching the 40th time the government has used time allocation, but also in the minister who continues to rely on platitudes, such as “the middle class and those working hard to join it”, “the economy and the environment go together”, and “better is always possible”. Is better possible? This is omnibus bill before Parliament that does not even have portions of other legislation it refers to approved by our legislature yet.

I would refer the minister to part 3, excise taxes for cannabis. We know that legalization of marijuana is the one promise the Prime Minister really wants to keep this summer. These excise tax provisions in Bill C-74 are being rushed through before the cannabis legalization has even passed. The Senate is still looking at removing home use, and that sort of thing.

How can the minister suggest to this House that this bill should be rushed through when its component parts are not even passed yet?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to rise in this House. I am a member of cabinet, I am a member of this government, and I am very proud to defend what we are doing to grow the economy, to support the middle class, and to deliver on our agenda, and that is exactly what Bill C-74 would do.

We have an ambitious agenda. It is to grow the economy and help the middle class and those working hard to join it, but let me be clear that it is also delivering over 600,000 jobs for Canadians and that hundreds of thousands of children are no longer living in poverty.

This bill has been debated extensively in the House and at committee, and I know the member opposite has had a chance to speak at second reading debate. It is important that we figure out how to move forward, but it is also important to deliver the agenda that Canadians expect.

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians elected us to carry out an ambitious agenda. The budget implementation act, 2018, No. 1, provides the legislative framework to fulfill some key campaign commitments, which were reiterated in the 2018 budget.

Bill C-57 has been extensively debated in the House of Commons and in committee. We had four days of debate at second reading. More than 45 members spoke at that stage, including 13 Conservative Party members, six NDP members, and one Green Party member. There were 13 committee meetings, and no fewer than 106 witnesses testified.

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-74 is an important step in our plan to grow our economy by focusing on the middle class and helping those who are working hard to join it.

This bill has been debated extensively in the House and at committee. As I said, there have been four days of second reading debate, during which more than 45 members spoke at committee stage. We have seen 13 meetings, during which more than 106 witnesses have spoken.

We want to work collaboratively with all parties to ensure that Parliament works more efficiently. It is important to make every effort to reach a consensus about how much time is required by all parties to debate legislation in the House of Commons.

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

Mr. Speaker, this debate is supposed to be about the government justifying the use of time allocation on Bill C-74. Instead we have a minister of the crown who is actually engaging in debate when we are supposed to be hearing the government justify time allocation.

She said that this bill received debate at committee; we did not hear one single witness on division 20, on the deferred prosecution agreement, which is a departure from the way we handle the Criminal Code. I would like to hear a justification from the minister as to why she is making it difficult for her own members to be able to discuss the bill, because there were concerns at that committee about this bill. Why is she pushing this bill forward and denying the ability to speak to it not only to us but to her own members?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians elected us to deliver an ambitious agenda, and Bill C-74 is an important step in our plan to grow the economy by focusing on the middle class and helping those working hard to join it. This bill has been debated extensively in the House and in the committee. We have seen four days of second reading debate, during which more than 45 members have spoken. This includes 13 Conservative members, six NDP members, and one member from the Green Party. At committee stage, we saw 13 meetings, during which more than 106 witnesses spoke.

We have made a commitment as a government to work collaboratively with all parties to ensure that Parliament works more efficiently. It is important for us to make every effort to reach a consensus about how much time is required by all parties to debate legislation in the House of Commons.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, sadly, the minister obviously did not hear the question from the House leader of the official opposition. There has been absolutely no consultation on allocating time on Bill C-74. This is the fifth time that the Liberals are imposing closure in three days. This is unbelievable.

I have been here for seven years, and we were used to time allocation because we had a lot under the previous government, but we have never seen a government limit debate to the point where it is doing the bare minimum. It is an insult to democracy.

The Liberals promised they would do things differently, yet they are going ahead and shutting down debate. We are 338 MPs in this House and we are here to represent our constituents. How can the Liberals justify doing time allocation on an important bill like Bill C-74?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians elected us to deliver an ambitious agenda, and Bill C-74 is an important step in our plan to help grow our economy by focusing on the middle class and helping those working hard to join it. The budget implementation act provides the legislative framework to implement key campaign commitments that were reiterated in budget 2018.

Through this bill, we are taking the next step in our ambitious plan to grow our economy by focusing on the middle class and helping those working hard to join it. 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 in communities, helped to create more good jobs, almost 600,000 of them since November 2015, with more help for those who need it most, which has meant more money for people to save, invest, and spend in their communities.

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

Mr. Speaker, in three days debate has been shut down in this House on five major bills. It is unbelievable—well, it is actually not unbelievable, because everything the Liberals said they would do while they were campaigning has been an absolute fabrication. Coming here self-righteously and saying, “We are not going to shut down debate” was just another big, phony act. It seems like everything the Liberals do is a big, phony act.

I saw the height of it last night when the minister gave notice of this time allocation. He said there had been consultations with the opposition on Bill C-74. That is outright misleading of the House and misleading Canadians. There has not been one iota, not one syllable, of consultation. Nobody has asked anybody on this side about how much time was needed for Bill C-74.

Not only are the Liberals breaking their word; now they are misleading the House on incredibly important issues. This is the carbon tax that is going to be implemented. We do not know how much it is going to cost because they will not tell Canadians, and now they are saying they have consulted with us on Bill C-74. That is not true. Why are the Liberals misleading this House?

Bill C-74—Notice of time allocation motion

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

Madam Speaker, it is indeed an honour to rise again and join the debate on Bill C-74.

Before I wrote my speech, I wanted to do a bit of research to remind myself exactly what the Prime Minister had promised regarding the use of omnibus bills. An interesting thing occurred.

When I googled the name of the Prime Minister and then used the word “promise”, the search screen auto-filled with a massive number of different promises from the Prime Minister. Guess what? They were all broken promises, every single one of them, because that is what the Prime Minister seems to do. He promises things he clearly has no intention of delivering on, and this is no different. Allow me to repeat this one. He said, “Stephen Harper has also used omnibus bills to prevent Parliament from properly reviewing and debating his proposals.” The Prime Minister promised his Liberal government would “bring an end to this undemocratic practice”, yet here we are. The Prime Minister is doing the complete opposite of what he promised he would do.

A constituent of mine recently suggested that the Prime Minister was basically a real-life Pinocchio. That comment troubles me. When we look Canadians sincerely in the eyes and we promise something that we have zero intention of delivering on, how do we let that go? How do we say “That's okay”?

Here is a case in point. Over in the finance committee, we were reviewing this omnibus bill as best we could. Lo and behold, what did we find buried in it? We found legislation that proposed to modify the Criminal Code so white-collar crime might more easily go unpunished. Seriously, why is that in there?

I have defended governments because of the complex state and wanting to do things. Sometimes they have to be able to change multiple pieces of legislation so an omnibus bill may be okay. For example, paying the remuneration for justices probably can be added in as a measure because I do not believe there would be time, respectful of the House, to table that. I have defended the previous government and I have given the current government a lot on that as well. However, here is the thing. The Liberal members of the finance committee had absolutely no idea this corporate crime get out of jail for free clause was in the budget implementation act.

I have a great amount of respect for my fellow members of the finance committee on the government side. We have a productive and good relationship. I am proud of that fact even though we found this questionable clause. At the same time, it concerns me greatly that the Liberal government is proposing serious changes like this. Not only do the Liberals try to hide it in a budget implementation bill, they do not even tell their own caucus about it.

Who is really calling the shots and running the government? Why would it keep its own caucus in the dark? To be fair, I am not going to say that the Liberals are soft on corporate crime or that the secret payoff is intended to help Liberal corporate insider friends, but others are saying these exact things. In the absence of information there is misinformation. When something is intentionally hidden from view, people will speculate there must be a reason it is hidden. These things undermine the integrity of our justice system when it comes to prosecuting white-collar corporate crime.

I will give the benefit of the doubt to the government here. I do not believe the intent of this proposed legislative change is to help out white-collar criminals. In fact, I am certain there are arguments to be made why some believe this measure is a good thing in helping crack down on white-collar crime. However, we will not be having that debate because this clause is not before the justice committee where it belongs. That, of course, is because someone in the Prime Minister's Office thought it was a good idea to bury this proposal in the budget implementation act instead of in a justice bill where it belongs.

Bill C-74 is a budget implementation act omnibus bill. Bill C-75 is a criminal justice reform omnibus bill of 300 pages. It makes no sense that the Liberals would put this provision in Bill C-74 unless they wanted to evade scrutiny. Not one single witness came to committee to talk about this. That is a failure, either of us as parliamentarians or because someone on the government side thought the Liberals could pull a fast one.

Before moving on, I would like to thank the members of the finance committee for the collective work we have done exposing this questionable piece of legislation. We do what we can, and we try to do a good job.

Another troubling aspect of the budget implementation bill is the fact that it does not place Canada on a path to a balanced budget by 2019. That is another broken promise by the Prime Minister, which begs the question why the Prime Minister made that promise in the first place. Is it because he believes that a balanced budget is a good thing, or because he believes that others think it is a good thing and he will basically say anything that would help him win votes? We do not know the answer to that question. However, it is not unlike the promise “While governments grant permits for resource development, only communities can grant permission.” We all know how that broken promise is turning out, which leads to my next question.

Out of the blue, the Prime Minister promised to borrow another $4.5 billion so he can politically control the timeline of the Kinder Morgan pipeline. Where exactly is this money coming from? It is a massive amount of money, yet it is not anywhere in the budget. Further assuming that the Prime Minister actually intends to build the Trans Mountain pipeline, it will surely cost another $7 billion or more. Combined, that is over $11 billion. That is more than the modest $10-billion deficit the Prime Minister promised.

Nowhere in this budget document is that out-of-the-blue spending referred to. This is all so that the Prime Minister can buy himself out of another broken promise, while at the same time breaking other promises. It gets complicated. With so many broken promises, one begins to lose track. This is not unlike his $7-billion slush fund, which the Parliamentary Budget Officer has said contains “incomplete information and weaker spending controls”. That is $7 billion of borrowed money, with zero information on how that money will be spent, and we are going into an election next year.

Meanwhile, the Liberal government is busy ramming through changes to the Elections Act that would limit what everyone else can spend pre-writ, except of course the Liberal government itself. How does anyone support that? Basically, we have a Prime Minister who has a well-documented history of being willing to promise anything to anyone to win votes, who will be armed with the equivalent of a $7-billion Visa card going into an election.

I have sympathy for the members opposite, because we all know that when anyone dares to vote against the Prime Minister on the Liberal side, there are serious consequences, despite those promises for free votes and sunny ways.

In closing, there is no possible way I can support the budget implementation bill. To be candid, I would have a hard time supporting it even if I sat on the government side of the House, because it breaks so many of the promises the Prime Minister made to Canadians, the same Prime Minister who, once upon a time, claimed he was worried about cynicism in Canadian politics.

I can think of no previous prime minister in the past few decades, since I started closely following federal politics, who has broken more promises to Canadians than the current Prime Minister. The most troubling part is that, more often than not, it is a “do as I say, not as I do” approach, much like this omnibus bill I will be voting against. It was bad when Stephen Harper did it as prime minister, but despite the fact that the current Prime Minister said he would bring an end to what he called an “undemocratic practice”, in reality he has taken it to a whole new level. From my perspective, that is not right. I look forward to hearing the comments from all members in this place.

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise in this House today to discuss Bill C-74, Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1.

It is no secret that with our 2018 budget, our government has committed to putting people first and ensuring equal opportunity and fairness for all Canadians. Part of that commitment means taking steps forward to advancing equality, especially for women. This is not only the right thing to do but also the smart thing to do, because we know that equality between Canadian women and men will lead to greater prosperity for all Canadians.

We are doing this through a number of initiatives, including introducing a new employment insurance parental sharing benefit to support more equal parenting roles, as well as other initiatives to support greater participation of women in the workforce. We will also be putting forward proactive pay equity legislation to ensure that women and men in the federally regulated public and private sectors receive equal pay for work of equal value. These are just some of the budget 2018 measures aimed at promoting greater gender equality in Canada.

It should also be noted that in the spirit of putting people first, we are also taking steps to improve how our government delivers its services to all Canadians. We understand that Canadians expect services to be high quality, accessible, secure, and digitally enabled.

When it comes to the services provided by Employment and Social Development Canada, more commonly known as ESDC, we strive to meet and exceed those expectations. Since taking office, our government has listened to Canadians and worked hard to ensure that they get the best services possible. These efforts are reflected in the investments made in each of our budgets, and this budget is no different.

Budget 2018 will enable ESDC to explore modern approaches to service delivery, beginning with employment insurance. This budget committed to providing stable and predictable funding of up to $90 million over three years, starting in 2018-19, for employment insurance claims processing and service delivery for all Canadians.

Building on earlier investments, we have proposed an additional $127.7 million over three years to sustain service capacity and improve accessibility to call centre agents so that Canadians can receive timely and accurate information and assistance with their El benefits. These services and channels are vital to Canadians, and it is of the utmost importance that we support a modern service delivery system that functions smoothly and works for all.

In budget 2018, we promised to make significant new investments to bolster federal government operations. We made this promise because want to ensure that all Canadians receive the services they need and deserve, especially people from more vulnerable populations. This includes doing more to better serve indigenous peoples in Canada. That is why we committed to providing funding to help more indigenous peoples access the full range of federal social benefits, including the Canada child benefit, the Canada pension plan, and old age security. We will be accomplish this by expanding outreach efforts to indigenous communities, and by conducting pilot outreach activities for urban indigenous communities.

We also know that Canadians rely on a broad range of supports in their communities. To make sure that people get the help they need, the Government of Canada provides funding to organizations across the country that deliver social services to Canadians. We are talking about services provided to vulnerable populations such as indigenous peoples, low-income Canadians, LGBTQ2 Canadians, newcomers, seniors, and persons with disabilities.

As announced in our latest budget, we will reallocate $7.8 million over five years to increase awareness and understanding of available funding, and help organizations that serve vulnerable populations build much needed capacity.

With Bill C-74, we are also making important amendments to the Department of Employment and Social Development Act that will improve how Service Canada serves Canadians. Each year, ESDC spends more than $122 billion on programs and services for Canadians. That includes employment insurance payments, the Canada pension plan, old age security, the guaranteed income supplement, and an additional $1.9 billion dollars in grants and contributions.

Service Canada is an important partner in this work. Currently, the Department of Employment and Social Development Act provides Service Canada with the authority to deliver only ESDC programs and services. It does not provide for Service Canada to deliver other federal government programs and services or for delivery partnerships. Simply put, it just does not make sense.

We want to make sure that Canadians can benefit from a service delivery model that is better integrated so that they can more easily access the full range of federal services available to them. We can accomplish this by allowing other departments to use the Service Canada network.

Right now, for this to happen, the government must provide authority on a case-by-case basis. This approach hinders ESDC's ability to carry out its current service delivery responsibilities and to respond to evolving partnership opportunities. The changes we are proposing in Bill C-74 will fix this. The bill proposes to give Service Canada the authority to provide services to the public on behalf of partners, including federal government institutions and other levels of government. Specifically, Bill C-74 proposes to clarify accountability between ESDC and service partners related to the management of Canadians' personal information.

The bill would also allow ESDC and service partners to recognize and use the Canada Revenue Agency's business number to manage business identity and allow ESDC to recover costs from and spend revenues on behalf of service delivery partners. For Canadians and Canadian businesses, this will mean better and more convenient access to the services they need.

The proposed amendments we are seeking through Bill C-74 would broaden the minister's mandate to provide service delivery for partners and help deliver better services to Canadians, including online services. With these changes, ESDC will be able to partner with federal institutions, provinces, territories, municipalities, and specified indigenous organizations without holding up the services that Canadians need and deserve.

I encourage all members of the House to support Bill C-74 and the much-needed amendments to the Department of Employment and Social Development Act. Let us continue to ensure that Canadians receive the kind of services they deserve: high-quality, accessible, secure, and digitally enabled.

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, I regret to inform the House that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) concerning the proceedings at the report stage and the third 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.

Pursuant to 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 stages.

Motions in Amendment

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak this evening. I would like to acknowledge those watching and following the debate on the budget at such a late hour. I am sure that they will be pleased to hear me speak to Bill C-74, budget implementation act, 2018, No. 1. This bill implements certain measures from budget 2018.

I will be talking about the EI system. I want to focus on a measure that I think is very important for Canadians, the modernization of the rules around working while on claim.

We want to improve the working while on claim pilot project. The provisions of working while on claim help claimants stay connected to the labour market by encouraging them to accept available work and earn extra income, while receiving employment insurance benefits. Under the rules of the current pilot project, claimants can keep half of their benefits for every dollar earned up to a maximum of 90% of the weekly insurable earnings. This pilot project is ending at the end of August 2018.

We intend to make amendments to the Employment Insurance Act in order to make the rules for the current pilot project permanent by default. To implement this measure, we plan to spend almost $352 million over five years, beginning in 2018-19, and $80 million every year after that.

We will also put in place transitional provisions for those claimants who have chosen, under the current pilot project, to revert back to the rules of the former pilot project launched in 2005. The claimants will continue to benefit from these optional rules until August 2021, which will give them three years to adapt to the new permanent rules.

We want to include maternity and sickness benefits. These provisions already apply to parental and caregiving benefits, but they do not currently apply to maternity and sickness benefits.

Canadians who wish to stage their return to work after an illness or the birth of a child have limited flexibility to do so without jeopardizing their EI benefits. Extending the new working while on claim benefits to maternity and sickness benefits will give affected Canadians greater flexibility. They will be able to keep a good part of their EI benefits if they wish to prepare to return to work.

The measures I just mentioned benefit all employment insurance claimants, including seasonal workers.

I will now talk about support for seasonal workers. Our government is aware of seasonal workers' concerns and the difficulties that some of them are having. That is why we announced a series of measures in budget 2018 to help ensure that unemployed workers in seasonal industries have access to the supports they need when they need them most.

First, we are allocating $10 billion from existing departmental resources to provide immediate income support and training to affected workers. In that regard, we are developing agreements with key provinces, such as Quebec—where I proudly represent Rivière-des-Milles-Îles—New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island, to provide that money. Funding will be available as soon as an agreement is signed so that seasonal workers have access to programs and support as quickly as possible.

We have already signed a $2.5-million agreement with the Government of New Brunswick. That additional funding will allow the province to offer seasonal workers seven weeks of work experience, workplace essential skills training, or general essential skills training with income support. Support will be offered to workers in the fishery, the agricultural industry, the forestry industry, and the tourism industry in the most affected areas of New Brunswick. I hope that there are people from New Brunswick listening to us this evening.

Other agreements will be announced soon.

Our government is also proposing to invest $80 million in 2018-19 and $150 million in 2019-20 and to work with the provinces in order to come up with local solutions to help seasonal workers.

We will be using the tools available to us, such as labour market development agreements. Together, we will find solutions that will help better adapt the employment insurance system to regional market conditions. Canada is vast and its regions differ from one another. It is important to be able to adjust to the different regions.

In closing, since being elected, we have set out to improve the employment insurance system to bring it more into line with the realities of today's workforce, since we want it to serve workers and employers. The legislative changes I just talked about are part of that commitment, and passing Bill C-74 is the next step toward achieving our objective.

I strongly recommend that all my colleagues in the House support this bill so that we can continue to support Canadian workers and families and, by extension, the middle class and those working hard to join it.

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

Madam Speaker, I thought we were talking about Bill C-74. I realize that the indexation of the Canada child benefit is included in this bill. The NDP has not moved any amendments to remove that indexation, unlike the Conservatives, who want to delete every clause in the bill.

That being said, I have not been approached by a single constituent praising the merits of the Canada child benefit. What the committee heard about on a regular basis was the lack of universal affordable child care in Canada. Although Quebec has an excellent system, Canadians in the rest of the country struggle to find affordable child care. That is a recurring theme at the Standing Committee on Finance.

I just want my colleague to know that the lack of universal, affordable, high-quality child care is hindering our country's economic development and limiting women's participation in the workforce. That is a recurring theme, but the government is still doing nothing to address the issue.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Speaker's Ruling

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

There are 409 motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-74. Motions Nos. 1 to 409 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 409 to the House.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-74, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Main Estimates 2018-19

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, thank you, and I thank my colleagues who have called for order in the chamber.

How do we know this is what the government has done? We know because on the one hand, the item “Making Employment Insurance more Responsive and Effective” appears in the main estimates annex for the budget implementation vote, seeking a little over $130 million in spending authority to implement the changes the budget tells us require legislative changes to implement.

However, we do not just glean this from the budget document. More important, the legislative changes contemplated in the budget document are currently in Bill C-74, the budget implementation act, 2018, No. 1, and that bill is currently before the House.

In the Department of Finance's briefing binder for the clause by clause review of that bill, we read, “Amendments are proposed to the Employment Insurance Act (EI Act) to make permanent the default rules of the current Working While on Claim pilot project.” This is essentially exactly what we are told the money is for in the proposed appropriation act. It then goes on to say, “Transitional provisions are proposed to allow claimants to revert to the rules of a previous pilot project on an optional basis.” Again this is the same language for which we are being told the money is being appropriated. Again, for the sake of time, Mr. Speaker, you can check out those documents on your own, but I think I have quoted enough to give you an idea.

These changes in the budget implementation act are clearly meant to authorize the program changes for which the government is seeking appropriations under the item “Making Employment Insurance more Responsive and Effective”. The budget implementation act is still before the House and has yet to go to the Senate. In other words, it is some ways away from being passed, even if the government acts on its propensity for time allocation in order to pass the budget implementation act through the House once it returns from committee, which it now has. Forgive me for the notes, having prepared them a little in advance. It will nevertheless have to pass through the other place.

We cannot prejudge how quickly the bill will pass in the other place. Nor do I think the possible use of time allocation would be a basis on which to say that the proposed allocation for this item would be in order. The cart is clearly before the horse in this case, and the vote ought therefore be ruled out of order.

It is likewise with the item “Ensuring Security and Prosperity in the Digital Age”. Under the rubric of Treasury Board vote 40, the government is seeking to appropriate a little over $100 million across eight different departments, including $43 million for the Communications Security Establishment. From the budget document, on page 203, we learn:

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, the Government proposes to commit $155.2 million over five years, and $44.5 million per year ongoing. to the Communications Security Establishment to create a new Canadian Centre for Cyber Security.

In order to establish the Canadian Centre for Cyber Security, the Government will introduce legislation to allow various Government cyber security functions to consolidate into the new Centre. Federal responsibility to investigate potential criminal activities will remain with the RCMP.

It is clear legislative changes to establish the new Canadian centre for cybersecurity are integral to the purpose for which the government is seeking to appropriate funds under the Treasury Board vote 40 item, “Ensuring Security and Prosperity in the Digital Age”.

It is also clear that the government has chosen to seek spending authority for this initiative without first obtaining the requisite legislative authority. The evidence that it has is undisputable, as the legislative measures required to establish the Canadian centre for cybersecurity are also in the budget implementation act, 2018 No. 1 currently before the House.

The Department of Finance's briefing binder for the clause by clause review of the bill reiterates verbatim the passages from the budget I just quoted, so I will spare you, Mr. Speaker, quoting from that document because the two are in fact exactly the same.

Once again, the budget implementation bill is currently before the House. It has not passed. It may not even be close to passing, though the timeline here is irrelevant.

To quote Speaker Jerome from March 21, 1977, the matters touch:

... very fundamentally upon the right of parliament to function, the right to examine the spending program and to control the spending program through parliamentary votes, which is perhaps the most fundamental aspect of the work of parliament.

In conjunction with that is the legislative role. It is clear that some statement ought to be attempted to separate those powers which the House possesses by way of supply and those powers which the House possesses by way of legislation. That is not a task that I look forward to with particular relish. It is an important task..

Clearly, the government is seeking to appropriate funds without first having established the legislative authority for the appropriation. It cannot assign funds to an entity that does not yet exist. This is a principle that at least some government departments seem to understand.

The government's pension for life initiative for veterans is announced in the budget, including an estimate of the cost. However, no request to appropriate funds was made in the estimates, and the departmental plan clearly states that legislative changes must be made before the department can include the expenditure in its financial plan. Presumably, the request for funding will come through a supplementary estimates after Parliament has passed the appropriate legislation.

There are other examples that are more vague. I was prepared to offer some detail, but I will try to go through it in a more rapid fashion. I will simply mention these examples.

The first one is the new intellectual property strategy. That is an item under vote 40. The language in the budget document very clearly contemplates the possibility of legislation as part of the program. The item “Modernizing Canada’s Regulatory Frameworks” also contemplates the possibility of legislation in order to realize the program for which it is requesting an appropriation of funds. The item “A New Process for Federal Election Leaders’ Debate” also very clearly contemplates the possibility of legislation in order to achieve the program purposes for which the government is seeking an appropriation of funds. The item “Stabilizing and Future Transformation of the Federal Government’s Pay Administration (Phoenix)” also contemplates legislative changes for the purpose for which it is requesting those funds.

What do all of these examples have in common? In all of these cases, the government is seeking an appropriation of funds under the main estimates. In all of these cases, the information we have, which is not always presented in the estimates but in the budget document instead, the government explicitly contemplates changes to legislation as an integral part of fulfilling the purpose for which it is seeking spending authority. In some cases, it seems more likely than in others that legislation would, strictly speaking, be required in order to spend the money toward accomplishing the program goal.

However, I humbly submit that while this level of uncertainty with respect to required legislative authority is perfectly acceptable in the budget, it is not acceptable in the estimates. Had these programs gone through the Treasury Board process, as items usually do before their inclusion in the estimates, we would have the necessary level of detail with respect to the programs contemplated in order to assess their legislative requirements. It is because of the novel mechanism of vote 40 that Parliament cannot make this assessment, a situation that undermines its ability to provide proper oversight of government spending and subverts the established supply processes of this place.

Some members may want to interject at this point and say, “But wait, vote 40 is structured in such a way as to prevent expenditures for which an appropriate legal mandate does not exist.” The problem with that defence is the question of who decides whether the appropriate legal mandate for certain expenditures exist.

Under the normal process, parliamentarians would be able to review appropriations and match them up with existing authorities prior to approving the estimates. If there were a dispute about proper authorities, Parliament would simply be able to withhold the funding until the problem was rectified.

Under vote 40, the funding would already be approved. Therefore, if the government goes ahead and spends money on a new program and reports on that in a supplementary estimates, and note I say “report” and not “request approval”, and a member suspects that the program requires new statutory authority, what is the member to do? The spending has been pre-approved and the money has been spent. Parliament cannot simply take it back.

The point here is that Parliament should be the arbiter of whether expenditures are within the legal mandate of the departments or organizations doing the spending. That is what our oversight role for government spending requires, and it is our right as the ultimate guardian of the public purse.

There you have it, Mr. Speaker. There are at least two items under vote 40 that are clearly out of order because they put the cart before the horse by requesting appropriations for measures that do not currently have the appropriate legal mandate. We know that because the legislative changes are currently before the House. The point is perhaps most succinctly put in Beauchesne's fifth edition, citation 486, where is says:

If a Vote in the Estimates relates to a bill not yet passed by Parliament, then the authorizing bill must become law before the authorization of the relevant Vote in the Estimates by an Appropriation Act.

The point was also clearly stated by Speaker Sauvé on June 21, 1982, when she said:

As I said in my ruling of June 12, 1981, an item that seeks to establish a new program in the absence of other legislative authority and the funds to put it into operation runs counter to the rulings of the Chair since 1974, which hold that legislation is required to authorize new programs, particularly matters of major substance.

This point was made again by Speaker Fraser on March 20, 1991, when he said:

It appears common ground in the arguments that have been made, first, that statutes ought not to be amended by means of items in the estimates; second, that authority to act in cases where statutory provisions already exist should be sought by the passage of amending legislation and only then the money to finance that action should be sought through appropriation acts...In both instances authority is sought, first, to implement the Senate committee report which recommended the allowances and, second, to pay the allowances. The very wording of the votes confirms that there is no existing statutory authority under which the allowances could be paid. If the statutory authority existed there would be no need to seek approval for implementation in this fashion. The type of authority sought here is akin to approval in principle and, as was made clear in the ruling of both Speakers Lamoureux and Jerome, should be sought through legislation other than appropriation bills.

That vote 40 does permit the establishment of new programs is clear in its wording. It does authorize the creation of new grants, and it said so. I do not have that wording because I have been trying to be brief, but I have referred to that wording in the past in other arguments. The caveat that they must conform to existing legal mandates is cold comfort to a Parliament that will have already authorized the disbursement of funds and finds out only after the fact how it was actually spent. Effectively, Parliament will have lost the power to decide for itself whether the government has acted within its legal mandate or whether legislative changes are required to authorize the new initiatives.

Beyond those two items, there are a number of others where it is unclear whether legislative changes would be required to legitimize expenditures that vote 40 seeks to authorize. Once again, in these cases, Parliament should get to judge once the program is adequately developed. This is ordinarily the case through the supply process as we know it, but the mechanism of vote 40 subverts that process and Parliament's power of oversight along with it.

Canada's constitutional monarchy is largely based on the British model, which developed largely through Parliament's efforts to limit or appropriate royal prerogative power. The most significant way in which it achieved that goal was by gaining control over public expenditures and the power to raise revenue. The creep of power does not always come by way of conniving maniacs. Sometimes it comes a little more gently with the sense of entitlement typical of those accustomed to power. Parliament is—

Extension of Sitting Hours

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to contribute to the debate on government Motion No. 22, which is an important motion. It addresses the manner in which the House will continue to work between now and when we eventually reach the summer break. It is important because it will allow us to make additional progress in advancing the agenda that Canadians have elected us to do in this place.

Motion No. 22 will also position the House to build on the good work that has already been accomplished by the committees and the work that the committees have put forward. I want to highlight that this is not just work that government members on the committees are doing; this is work that all parties and individuals on committees have been contributing to in order to get the legislation back to this place so it can be voted on before the summer break. That is really important.

A lot of the debate today has focused around government legislation, that it is only about what the government wants. Through my participation at committees and the work I have been able to do, I have seen that quite often committees have the ability to work really well together, to collaborate together, to work on a less hyper-partisan level than we seem to experience in this place, and quite often do come to compromises. I know that happens for me and my colleagues at the defence committee. We should all take great pride in that.

The problem is that if we do not have this motion, if we do not extend the sitting hours, we will be put into a situation where all the work we have done basically gets put on the table until the fall. That is why it is so important to do this.

I would like to highlight some of that important work the committees have done. Before I get to that, it is important to stress the fact that during the 2015 election, the governing party now, the Liberal Party at the time, of which I am a part of, made a commitment to strengthen parliamentary committees. In doing so, we were committing a new government's respect for the fundamental roles that parliamentarians played on committees in order to hold government to account.

This commitment included in the mandate letter of the government House leader that under the government, the parliamentary committees would be be freer and better equipped with legislation. One of the things out of a whole host of things that committees do differently now is the chairs are elected freely by the members. They are not appointed by the government. It is done with a secret ballot that allows members to freely express who they are putting forward as their selection for chair.

One of the other changes to committee recently was with respect to the addition of putting parliamentary secretaries on committees, but not in a voting capacity, in a capacity that they could be there to contribute when necessary. On the defence committee, parliamentary secretaries do not play a very active role, but they are there so they can stay informed about what the committee is doing. By not having a vote, it removes any potential interference that one might see coming from the minister's office into the committee.

The Standing Orders that enabled all this were passed in June 2017. In my opinion, and I think in the opinion of the majority of the people in the House, they have given committees the ability to genuinely act in a more open, transparent, and free manner.

I would like to quickly highlight some of the important legislation that is currently before Parliament that runs the risk of not being voted on and to be completed and enacted before the end of this session.

The first one I would like to speak to is Bill C-59, which was before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. The bill, the national security act, 2017, began in November 2017 and extended to clause-by-clause review in April 2018. This committee literally spent five or six months working on this legislation.

For anybody to suggest that the government somehow does not want committees to have full participation and input is absolutely ridiculous, when we consider the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security spent up to six months on the legislation.

Bill C-59 fulfill's the government's commitment to keep Canadians safe, while safeguarding the rights and freedoms of Canadians.

Members might remember the bill that was introduced by the previous government, Bill C-51, which ended up with massive public outcry and complaints about its infringement upon the rights and freedoms of individuals. During the election, a commitment was made to ensure new legislation would come forward. Now we have seen upward of five to six months of committee deliberation on that work. It is important to note that the committee adopted over 40 amendments to bring greater clarity, transparency, and accountability to the bill.

Another bill before the same committee is Bill C-71, an act to amend certain acts and regulations in relation to firearms. We know this is another thing about which Canadians are extremely concerned. Bill C-71 would enhance background checks on those seeking to obtain firearms. It would make background checks in the existing licensing system more effective. It would also standardize best practices among retailers to maintain adequate inventory and sales records that would be accessible to police officers.

Bill C-71 would also ensure that a classification of firearms would be done in an impartial, professional, and accurate manner, consisting of resorting to a system in which Parliament would define the classes of authorities, but leave would it to experts within the RCMP to determine firearms classification specifically. The most important part of that would be leaving the political influence out of it.

As we can see, Bill C-71 is an important bill that would contribute to public safety. That is why it is so critical to ensure it has an opportunity to come back to the House to be voted on before we break for the summer.

The biggest bill, and in my opinion the most important bill that would do the most for Canadians, is Bill C-74, the budget implementation act. This bill would affect every Canadian from coast to coast. It would increase the opportunities for people to have a fair chance at success, in particular those who are struggling.

The budget implementation act would specifically introduce things like a Canada workers benefit to assist low-income workers. It would index the Canada child benefit to help nine out of 10 Canadian families. It would lower the taxes on small business. It would put in better supports for veterans. It is absolutely critical to have the bill work its way through the finance committee and the deliberations it has with Canadians throughout the country, so it can come back to the House and we can vote on it in a timely fashion.

I have so many more examples of other legislation before committee right now. However, for all of these reasons, it is so important we pass the motion now to allow us to sit later into the evenings so we can ensure we complete the work Canadians have put us here to do.

I want to take two more minutes to speak specifically to the amendments that have come forward today. I know there has been a lot of discussion about the proportion of time being spent on government business versus the proportion of time being spent on opposition motions and opposition days. This is not about proportioning of government versus opposition. This is about ensuring we can put more items on the agenda. That is why it is important to ensure we sit later into the evenings so we can do exactly that. The items I am speaking about are ones that have been collaborated on in committees by all members of all parties of the House.

That is why I personally cannot support the amendments. I do not think that they are particularly good amendments, because they are not going after what we need to do, which is to examine more pieces of legislation, as opposed to proportionally growing the amount of time that each political party gets, which is unfortunately the partisan nature that this debate has been put into.

With that, I see that we are approaching the end of the debate on this matter. I would like to leave an opportunity for people to ask questions. I am happy to entertain those at this time.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening with interest to the discussion and debate in the House on this particular motion, Motion No. 22, and I am rising to support the motion.

I have been in this place for a very long time and I have watched political gamesmanship come and go. I have watched, when we were in opposition, all these little games being played occasionally. However, I think what we are talking about right now is that there are still some important government bills that need to be finished. Let us just pick one.

Let us look at Bill C-74, the Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1. I understand and I heard very clearly the debate from the hon. member that this is not going to be fair, that the government had a long time, and that it could have done a lot of things. This may or may not be true; that is not the issue. The point is that there are some things in our budget implementation bill that must come to pass in a certain period of time.

Let us look, for instance, at the Canada child benefit, which is being indexed starting in July this summer, and what will happen if we do not finish the debate on it or if we do not get it passed. If we do not get that done, middle-class families will not get the benefit of the indexation.

There is the workers benefit plan. If we do not get this debate done, workers will not be able to take advantage of that extra $500 that they may get, especially if they are making $15,000 a year. That could help them out over the rest of the time.

One could argue about how many angels dance on the head of a pin, who said what, when they said it, and what this is all going to mean if it is or is not fair. At the end of the day, who is it supposed to be fair to? It is supposed to be fair to our constituents. It is supposed to be fair to Canadians. Canadians need to get the benefit of some of the things that are happening in these bills.

Let us look at the issue of pollution. In this House today, we are talking a lot about the environment and pollution, etc. The indexing of carbon needs to start. It needs to move forward. There are 67 nations in the world that have a carbon price, so let us get moving on this. Let us start getting money in and money out, and getting that money back into provinces so that they can start moving. Then we could get the greenhouse gas emissions down, and some other things could come about from the indexing of carbon.

Let us look at Norway. For me, this is the finest example of what a carbon tax could do. Norway started a carbon tax way back, with their former prime minister Gro Harlem Brundtland. All of the oil companies decided that they hated it, but they paid it, and that moved them forward to start doing technology and changing to clean technology in terms of oil and bringing down their greenhouse gases. I think they are the fifth-largest oil producer in the world, but they are number one in terms of environmental sustainability and they are no longer paying a tax.

I hear sometimes from across the way, especially from the hon. members of the official opposition, that this measure is going to kill the economy. Norway has the highest per capita income in the world. All of the Norwegians are enjoying the benefits. The money is going into social programs. It is going into making sure that Norway is a better place for quality of life. When we look at some of these things, we see that we have to get moving.

British Columbia has had a carbon tax, I think for about 10 or 12 or 15 years. Now British Columbia is the number one performing economy in Canada. British Columbia is actually creating more jobs, and we are seeing better employment in British Columbia than in anywhere else across the country. Let us get moving on some of these things.

The point is that we need to move forward with the initiatives that we need to finish before we rise. We all want to go back to our ridings and enjoy the summer, spending time with our families and our constituents. Our constituents need us to roll up our sleeves and get moving here. Let us forget whatever gamesmanship we want to play and who said what and where and when, and who is right or wrong, and let us just get this done for Canadians.

Let us just move forward and do it. I do not understand why this is so difficult to comprehend. When we look at all the people who are waiting for these bills to move forward, we see it is really time to start talking about how to do things to change it.

Let us talk about, for instance, Bill C-65, which addresses harassment and violence in the workplace. Let us get this done, get it moving, so that we can diminish the amount of harassment and violence in the workplace. We know that this is important. If we do not get this done before we rise, and we wait until we come back in the fall, what will happen is that it will continue for an extra three months.

We passed Bill C-66, on which all of us came together. That was a shining example, in my opinion, of how well we can work when we care and when we put Canadians first. Let us look at the expunging of the records of LGBTQ2+ Canadians who were convicted of offences involving consensual sexual activity. The bill was introduced on the same day the Prime Minister delivered his apology. Everyone in this House came together. We moved forward, and those affected are going to be able to get compensation. We can do things when we want to.

Sometimes I think the politics get in the way of getting the work done. Let us all agree that we need to get this done. Working later hours means that we can get to some of these important pieces of legislation that must be passed for the benefit of Canadians. This is what I am getting to. If we have these extended sittings, one can actually discuss and debate the bills and do what we need to do with these bills. The motion would give us time for that extra debate on those bills.

At least before we rise for the summer, we would be able to say to Canadians that we worked hard; some of us did not like it or think it was fair or the the right thing to do, but we were putting them first. I think we sometimes forget to do that in this place. We forget who we are serving and why we should be serving them in a very efficient and effective manner. Tricks and tactics are cute. Everyone gets a “gotcha” and “my strategy is better than yours”, but sometimes we have to put that aside for the benefit of the people who elected us.

Let us think of what we need to get going on and agree on in terms of British Columbia and New Brunswick, which are facing flooding. We know that in British Columbia, there are chances of fires over this very hot summer, which may be another thing we have to deal with. Therefore, let us put in place some kind of process so we can move forward and get help to them.

On Bill C-74, the budget implementation bill, we have seen amendments come from the standing committee. Let us deal with those amendments. Let us look at this and talk about how we get going. We are talking about the Canada child benefit, which is the biggest one I can think of for the middle class. I know that families are waiting for this to give them the extra money they need to help their children. Time is of the essence when we are looking at putting money in people's pockets. Not only that, but once we index it with this bill, it is going to assist indigenous communities. Many do not know that they are eligible or that they need to apply. They need to know how to apply for this money, and it is important for them.

As I said, the new workers benefit, the CWB, will allow Canadians to take home more money while they work, and it will encourage Canadians to enter the labour market. Some of the other pieces in the budget implementation bill will help to create a work-life balance for people in this House and women and men who are working and trying to bring up their children. They are worried that they do not have the time for anything, that they are neither fish nor fowl, they are neither workers nor parents.

Let us move forward and be generous with our time in terms of helping Canadians. We can look at some of the work to do in this House that will not only help middle-class Canadians but also move the economy forward, get people working, and get more jobs going in the summer. I am not being condescending, but we all know that sometimes, for our constituents, a month, two months, or a year is what they need to get moving to live the quality of life they want. Let us get moving on some of these things.

We can look at the Minister of Democratic Reform. I do not necessarily agree or disagree with any of the arguments that have been made, but at the end of the day, we need time to move forward, with the election coming up.

I know that some members have said that we did not do it, and so now what? Who are we punishing when we do not do it and say we could have done it and should have done it, and now we are running late? At the end of the day, getting work done is not about saying “woulda, coulda, shoulda” and that we have a timeline. Let us just put aside some of the scoring of points we try to do in this place. It would really help Canadians in feeling that they can trust their politicians, that politicians sometimes care about them more than about scoring points and creating tactics and “gotcha” moments in the House.

We can look at tax reform in Bill C-74, for instance. We are talking about the fact that small and medium-sized businesses can use the corporate tax savings to help themselves get about $7,500 a year so they can expand their businesses. In so doing, they can create more jobs. It would help people come summer and moving on into the fall. They can bring new capital investments. Those are some of the things we are talking about.

We also know there are loopholes for large private corporations and that they use the loopholes to avoid paying taxes. Let us fix that. Let us get some of these things moving. It may be the unintended tax advantage they are looking for. Let us fix it. Let us move on and get some of these things done.

I will go back to carbon pricing. Right now, everyone is debating carbon pricing and what is happening with carbon, greenhouse gas emissions, and the Paris agreement. Let us get it moving. Every time we delay things here in the House, we are making Canadians lag behind. We are putting things on hold, when we know that time is of the essence. Again, I am not necessarily disagreeing with people who say that we had an opportunity to do it but we did not and that we are not giving the opposition enough time to get their pieces on the table.

Right now we have legislation on the table that has to be passed for the benefit of Canadians. I will reiterate. Let us put aside all the tactics we are employing in the House, all the gamesmanship, and come together, as we have shown we can. We did it with the LGBTQ2+ issue. Let us show that we can come together for the benefit of Canadians, because that is what we were elected to do.

There will always be enough time for gamesmanship and pointing fingers. However, the environment, the economy, and jobs are very important things. Look at the changes we are proposing in terms of making Parliament more open and transparent. We have promised to give the Canadian public a bigger say when looking at projects and when planning, and so on. We can get better input from them. Let us get that going. The summer gives Canadians an opportunity to start thinking about these things and having input.

Let us talk about parliamentary committees. I remember being in opposition when the parliamentary committee system was run by the parliamentary secretary, and we had to do what the parliamentary secretary said. They got the agenda going and nobody listened to anyone. We said we were going to change it. We came in, and we did. Parliamentary secretaries sit on committees, because they need to hear what is going on so they can go back to the minister and say what people are debating. However, they have no vote. They cannot run the show anymore. It is now far more democratic in parliamentary committees.

Having chaired a committee myself, I can say that now everyone is busy debating the issues and people are agreeing on so many things. I look to my seatmate here, who is chair of the finance committee. The finance committee is doing yeoman's work. It is changing things and making amendments that are making a difference, and it is all because Parliament is working a whole lot better.

I could go on, but I am not going to. I just want to make a plea. We have made our points in the debate in the House that the government is dragging its feet or not dragging its feet. Members have made their points. Let us now get on with the work. Let us roll up our sleeves and work the extra hours. Let Canadians see that we are committed to them, to the work we need to do, and to the reason we were elected, and let us just get things done.

Finance

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 23rd report of the Standing Committee on Finance 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. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, if that is true, why did it not go to the justice committee? Why was it not included in Bill C-75 rather than Bill C-74?The Liberals have proposed dramatic changes to our criminal justice system that provide a “get out of jail” card for corporations charged with criminal activity. Not only have they snuck it into a budget bill, they rammed it through the finance committee without hearing from any witnesses, not one.

Can the Prime Minister tell Canadians why this radical change was not studied properly at the justice committee, where it belongs? Why is he intent on using a budget bill to continue to pass his soft-on-crime agenda?

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

moved:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, commencing upon the adoption of this Order and concluding on Friday, June 22, 2018:

(a) on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, the ordinary hour of daily adjournment shall be 12:00 a.m., except that it shall be 10:00 p.m. on a day when a debate, pursuant to Standing Order 52 or 53.1, is to take place;

(b) subject to paragraph (e), when a recorded division is requested in respect of a debatable motion, including any division arising as a consequence of the application of Standing Order 61(2) or Standing Order 78, but not including any division in relation to the Business of Supply or arising as a consequence of an order made pursuant to Standing Order 57, (i) before 2:00 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of Oral Questions at that day’s sitting, or (ii) after 2:00 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, or at any time on a Friday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of Oral Questions at the next sitting day that is not a Friday;

(c) notwithstanding Standing Order 45(6) and paragraph (b) of this Order, no recorded division requested after 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 21, 2018, or at any time on Friday, June 22, 2018, shall be deferred, except for any recorded division which, under the Standing Orders, would be deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on Wednesday, September 19, 2018;

(d) the time provided for Government Orders shall not be extended pursuant to Standing Order 45(7.1) or Standing Order 67.1(2);

(e) when a recorded division, which would have ordinarily been deemed deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on a Wednesday governed by this Order, is requested, the said division is deemed to have been deferred until the conclusion of Oral Questions on the same Wednesday;

(f) any recorded division which, at the time of the adoption of this Order, stands deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on the Wednesday immediately following the adoption of this Order shall be deemed to stand deferred to the conclusion of Oral Questions on the same Wednesday;

(g) a recorded division requested in respect of a motion to concur in a government bill at the report stage pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(9), where the bill has neither been amended nor debated at the report stage, shall be deferred in the manner prescribed by paragraph (b);

(h) for greater certainty, this Order shall not limit the application of Standing Order 45(7);

(i) no dilatory motion may be proposed after 6:30 p.m.;

(j) notwithstanding Standing Orders 81(16)(b) and (c) and 81(18)(c), proceedings on any opposition motion shall conclude no later than 5:30 p.m. on the sitting day that is designated for that purpose, except on a Monday when they shall conclude at 6:30 p.m. or on a Friday when they shall conclude at 1:30 p.m.; and

(k) when debate on a motion for the concurrence in a report from a standing, standing joint or special committee is adjourned or interrupted, the debate shall again be considered on a day designated by the government, after consultation with the House Leaders of the other parties, but in any case not later than the 20th sitting day after the interruption.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Motion No. 22. The motion would extend the sitting hours of the House until we rise for the summer adjournment.

We are now heading into the final weeks of this current session of Parliament. We have an important legislative agenda before us, and we are determined to work hard to make significant progress. This motion to extend the sitting hours of the House is timely and, clearly, it is necessary. Members opposite will have more time for debate. The motion would do exactly that.

So far in this Parliament, the House has passed 54 government bills, and 44 of those have been given royal assent. We have more work to do. We have many important bills to make progress on before we adjourn for the summer recess and we return to our ridings.

Here are some examples of the important legislation that we would like to see make progress in the House of Commons: Bill C-74, the budget implementation act, 2018, No. 1, which includes measures to ensure every Canadian has a real and fair chance at success, including a new Canada workers benefit to assist low-income workers; an indexed Canada child benefit that will help nine out of 10 Canadian families; a lower tax for small businesses, and I am sure we can agree that the backbone of the Canadian economy deserves lower taxes; and better support for Canada's veterans.

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we will begin debate on Bill C-75, the justice modernization act. This evening the House will consider, in committee of the whole, the votes in the main estimates for the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.

Tomorrow morning, we will debate the motion to extend the sitting hours. After question period, we will begin debate at report stage and third reading of Bill C-47 on the Arms Trade Treaty. We will resume that debate on Monday.

On Tuesday, we will resume debate at second reading of Bill C-75, the justice modernization act. On Wednesday, we will begin debate at report stage and third reading of Bill C-64, the abandoned vessels act.

Finally, should Bill C-74, the budget bill, or Bill C-69, the environmental assessment act, be reported back to the House, they shall take priority in the calendar.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thank you.

It reads that Bill C-74, in section 1 of the schedule to part XXII.1 in schedule 6 on page 556, be amended by adding the following after paragraph (z.3):

(z.4) section 462.31 (laundering proceeds of crime).

This is simply in the list of offences, including laundering of the proceeds of crime.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

It's that Bill C-74, in clause 186, be amended by adding after line 28 on page 365, the following:

Report to Canadians Starting in the year in which the first anniversary of the day on which this Section comes into force and each calendar year after that, the Minister of Finance must prepare a report to Canadians on the total cost of the provisions contained within this Act and make such report available on the Minister's website.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay, I'm clear and we got it on the record correctly. This is the amendment, that Bill C-74, clause 186, be amended by replacing lines 21 to 23—this is in English—on page 315— with the following:

Governor in Council shall take into account as the primary factor the stringency of provincial pricing mechanisms

Are we all clear on which one we're dealing with?

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

If I could ask everybody to turn to page 315, we're on clause 186, at proposed subsection 166(3).

It currently reads:

In making a regulation under subsection (2), the Governor in Council may take into account any factor that the Governor in Council considers appropriate, including the stringency of provincial pricing mechanisms for greenhouse gas emissions.

I would like to remove lines 21 to 23 in the English and lines 22 and 23 in the French, and to replace them with the text that members have before them.

The amendment modifies Bill C-74 in clause 186, lines 21 to23 on page 315. It is intended to replace the part that reads “the Governor in Council may take into account any factor that the Governor in Council considers appropriate, including the stringency of provincial pricing systems mechanisms” and to replace it with “the Governor in Council shall take into account, as the primary factor, the stringency of provincial pricing mechanisms”, and then it continues.

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

So there would be less revenue to the crown, as was envisioned in Bill C-74 in its original text. Is that correct?

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

Mr. Chair, my amendment is that Bill C-74, in clause 186, be amended (a) by adding after line 22 on page 162 the following:

eligible fishing activity means the operation of an eligible fishing vessel for the purposes of fishing or a prescribed activity. (activité de pêche admissible)

(b) by adding before line 23 on page 162 the following:

eligible fishing vessel means property that is primarily used for the purposes of fishing and that is a fishing vessel or prescribed property, but does not include prescribed property. (bateau de pêche admissible)

(c) by adding after line nine on page 163 the following:

fisher means a person that carries on a fishing business with a reasonable expectation of profit. (pêcheur) fishing includes fishing for or catching shellfish, crustaceans and marine animals, but does not include an office or employment under a person engaged in the business of fishing. (pêche)

(d) by adding after line 37 on page 167 the following:

qualifying fishing fuel means a type of fuel that is gasoline, light fuel oil or a prescribed type of fuel. (combustible de pêche admissible)

(e) by replacing line 17 on page 176 with the following:

(iii.1) a fisher, if the fuel is a qualifying fishing fuel and the listed province is prescribed, or

(f) by adding after line 24 on page 188 the following:

Charge—diversion by a fisher

24.1(1) Subject to this Part, if at any time fuel is delivered in a listed province by a registered distributor in respect of that type of fuel to a particular person that is a fisher and an exemption certificate applies in respect of the delivery in accordance with section 36, the particular person must pay to Her Majesty in right of Canada a charge in respect of the fuel in the listed province in the amount determined under section 40 to the extent that, at a later time, the fuel is

(a) used by the particular person in the listed province otherwise than in eligible fishing activities; or

(b) delivered by the particular person to another person unless the other person is a registered distributor in respect of that type of fuel and an exemption certificate applies in respect of the delivery in accordance with section 36.

When charge payable

(2) The charge under subsection (1) becomes payable at the later time referred to in that subsection.

Charge not payable

(3) The charge under subsection (1) is not payable if

(a) at the later time referred to in that subsection, the particular person is not a fisher;

(b) a charge is payable under section 37 in respect of the fuel; or

(c) prescribed circumstances exist or prescribed conditions are met.

Charge—ceasing to be a fisher

(4) Subject to this Part, if at any time fuel is delivered in a listed province by a registered distributor in respect of that type of fuel to a particular person that is a fisher, if an exemption certificate applies in respect of the delivery in accordance with section 36 and if that particular person ceases, at a later time, to be a fisher, the particular person must pay to Her Majesty in right of Canada a charge in respect of the fuel and the listed province in the amount determined under section 40 to the extent that, at the later time, the fuel is held by the particular person in the listed province. The charge becomes payable at the later time.

Charge not payable

(5) The charge under subsection (4) is not payable if

(a) at the later time referred to in that subsection, the particular person is registered as a distributor in respect of that type of fuel;

(b) at the later time referred to in that subsection, the particular person is a registered emitter, but only to the extent that, at the later time, the fuel is held at, or is in transit to, a covered facility of the person;

(c) a charge is payable under section 37 in respect of the fuel; or

(d) prescribed circumstances exist or prescribed conditions are met.

(g) by adding after line 35 on page 196 the following:

(vii.1) that the person is a fisher, that the fuel is for use exclusively in the operation of an eligible fishing vessel and that all or substantially all of the fuel is for use in the course of eligible fishing activities, or

(h) by adding after line 8 on page 197 the following:

Exception—fisher (1.1) Despite subsection (1), if fuel is delivered to a fisher in a listed province that is not prescribed for the purposes of subparagraph 17(2)(a)(iii.1), an exemption certificate does not apply in respect of the delivery.

(i) by adding after line 33 on page 198 the following:

(d) the person is a fisher, the fuel is a qualifying fishing fuel, and an exemption certificate applies in respect of the delivery in accordance with section 36.

(j) by adding after line 34 on page 211 the following:

(iii.1) to a fisher if the fuel is a qualifying fishing fuel,

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

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to explain amendment NDP-9.

This amendment is quite simple. Essentially, it proposes that Bill C-74 apply the same plan to fishers as it intends to apply to farmers. You may recall that we had a fairly extensive discussion here about issuing an exemption certificate to farmers so that they would not have to pay fuel charges, which will apply in some provinces after the bill is passed.

The government either forgot, or intended to grant this exemption only to farmers, not fishers. Yet fishing is another extremely important activity, particularly for small communities close to oceans.

The amendment proposes that the regime for farmers also apply to fishers. To this end, it adds some definitions. First, it seeks to define what an “eligible fishing activity” means, in the same way it has been defined for agriculture. It is also important to define an “eligible fishing vessel”, just as the bill defines what type of farm equipment is eligible. We also propose that the definitions for “fishing” and “fisherman” be added, in the same way that the bill defines “agriculture” and “farmer”. Clearly, the amendment defines “qualifying fishing fuel”. Finally, further on in our amendment, we are talking about issuing exemption certificates, such as those that the bill seeks to grant to farmers.

In my view, this is simply a matter of fairness for these two extremely important and key sectors in Canada. Both of them could be affected by this. If the government has seen fit to provide a system of this kind for farmers, I do not see why it should not be the same for fishers, who are just as important in some communities as farmers are in others.

I hope to have the support of all my colleagues for this amendment, which simply seeks to correct a form of inequity created by the bill. This inequity must be corrected, and that is what amendment NDP-9 is doing.

Thank you for your attention and I hope I can count on the support of all of you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We are reconvening our clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-74.

We are starting where we left off, at clause 186. We're starting to deal with part 5, which is the greenhouse gas pollution pricing act.

We have a number of officials from various departments. I'll go through the names. They are Adam Martin, sales tax division, tax policy branch, Department of Finance; David Turner, tax policy analyst, Department of Finance; Pierre Mercille, director general, sales tax division, tax policy, Department of Finance; Julien Landry, senior policy analyst, Department of the Environment; and John Moffet, who we have had before the committee many times, from the Department of the Environment.

Welcome, all.

Members, if you have any questions as we go through the clauses, the officials are here for that.

(On clause 186)

We're starting with NDP-9.

Mr. Dusseault.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Yes. This is a technical amendment. I think everybody has a copy from yesterday, but I'll read it.

I propose that Bill C-74, in section 1 of the schedule to part XXII.1 in schedule 6 on page 556, be amended by adding the following after proposed paragraph (z.3):

(z.4) section 462.31 (laundering proceeds of crime).

This is simply in the list of offences. It's my understanding that the—

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

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order, following new information circulated yesterday about clauses 316 and 317 of the bill. The Privacy Commissioner appeared before a Senate committee. He has expressed some major privacy concerns about the changes in Bill C-74 that deal with financial technology. He appeared before a Senate committee, and he was not at all satisfied with the way clauses 316 and 317 were written. He believes that they do not protect consumers from possible privacy breaches.

I would like to seek unanimous consent to go back to clauses 316 and 317 and vote on them separately.

Marijuana

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

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government deliberately chose to tax medical marijuana in its Bill C-74.

Canadians who have a prescription to purchase medical cannabis are already required to spend hundreds or even thousands of dollars a month to buy enough for their own needs. The liberals had a chance to address that yesterday in committee, but they outright rejected the NDP's amendments.

How does the Prime Minister explain to the 270,000 patients in Canada who use medical cannabis that his bill will make their cannabis even more expensive?

Department of Finance—Main Estimates, 2018-19

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

Madam Chair, we believe that the proposal put forward in Bill C-74, the budget implementation bill, is very good for the economy because it will stimulate innovation by putting a price on carbon pollution. At the same time, it will enable us to improve the fate of our environment by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It is just one of the many measures a government can take to manage the economy and the environment at the same time.

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Chair, I know the hon. member would agree Canadians understand the effects of pollution are not free, because I know she spent a significant of her career talking about that. She also knows that polluting the air we breathe and the earth and the oceans that feed us must come at a cost to those who do the polluting.

Pricing carbon pollution is simply one of the most effective ways to reduce emissions. It creates incentives for businesses and households to innovate more and pollute less. That is why putting a price on carbon pollution is central to the government's plans to fight climate change and to grow the economy.

Through Bill C-74, which is currently before Parliament, the government is taking action to reduce emissions by introducing the greenhouse gas pollution pricing act, which would put a legal framework in place for the proposed federal carbon pollution pricing system. The pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change I mentioned earlier includes a collaborative pan-Canadian approach to pricing carbon pollution, with the aim of having carbon pricing in place in all provinces and territories this calendar year.

Right now, a price on carbon pollution is in place in four provinces—Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia, and Alberta—covering over 80% of the Canadian population. These provinces are leading Canada in economic growth. Simply put, we are putting a price on what we do not want, which is carbon pollution, while encouraging more of what we do want: clean innovation and lower emissions.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I'm sorry that I missed some of my amendments due to clause-by-clause on Bill C-74.

This amendment is very straightforward. It's moving in....

I know there have been sympathetic amendments that are similar from Liberal members, but in order to incorporate UNDRIP properly, the agency's object “to engage in consultation with the Indigenous peoples”, this is added on page 77 between lines 35 and 36. It's to consult with the Indigenous peoples, not just with the reference to section 35 of the Constitution Act but specifically with a direct reference to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

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

Mr. Chair, I was required to be here due to a motion passed by this committee. Many members may have forgotten about that. Identical motions were passed in every committee. I had a moment to explain to the chair that, whereas in the normal parliamentary rules I would have the right to present amendments that were substantive at report stage, this committee passed a motion which says I can't do that because I have an opportunity to present the motions and amendments at clause-by-clause consideration in every committee.

While report stage can only happen once a day for any particular bill, clause-by-clause can happen simultaneously in many places. Today, I find myself called before the committees to deal with Bill C-68 in the fisheries committee, Bill C-69 in the environment committee, as well as Bill C-74 in the finance committee, all at the same time, all in the same day, so I have to apologize that I've been in and out.

I need to plead with individual members to consider that if you're asked to pass a similar motion—for those of us who are re-elected in the next election—this motion imposes an extremely arduous and unfair process on members of smaller parties. While I would have liked to speak to this to support the evidence of the Canadian Labour Congress that the way the bill is functioning will unfairly reduce the Canadian worker benefit entitlement, I accept the chair's ruling that it's out of order for the reasons the chair has stated.

I did want to put on the record that I may not be here for one of my subsequent amendments because of the pressures of clause-by-clause in a simultaneous committee.

I hope this process of putting members through this through the motions passed by every committee will be reconsidered, because it's extremely unfair.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay, amendment NDP-2 is withdrawn.

There are no amendments proposed on clauses 14 to 18.

(Clauses 14 to 18 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 19)

For amendment PV-1, the mover isn't here, but it is inadmissible in any event because it requires a royal recommendation, as I understand the English. I should perhaps read into the record why.

Bill C-74 introduces the Canada workers benefit. The amendment attempts to amend the definition of “adjusted net income” to remove some income that would otherwise be included in the adjusted net income. As a result, the income would be lower and therefore allow an individual to obtain more benefits.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 772:

Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.

Ms. May, this is in relation to your amendment PV-1. In the opinion of the chair, the amendment could impose a higher charge on the public treasury than the one envisioned in the bill. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

With that ruling, shall clause 19—

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We'll call the meeting to order. As I think all members certainly know, we're dealing with clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-74.

Before I start into the bill, would anyone have any problems if we stood part 4 and part 5 and started with them at 3:30 tomorrow? Are we okay with that? We'll deal today with parts 1, 2, and 3, and then part 6, divisions 1, 2, and 3, and so on. We'll hold part 4 and part 5 until 3:30 tomorrow. There are no officials on part 4 for today because they have to come from Charlottetown.

Are we okay with that? Okay. Then we'll start.

First of all, pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1, the short title, is postponed.

There are no amendments on clauses 2 to 12. Do you want to group those, with clauses 2 to 12 carried on division?

(Clauses 2 to 12 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 13)

The first amendment up is CPC-1, by Mr. Kmiec.

The floor is yours, Tom.

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

Madam Chair, if I may, I wanted to make a brief intervention. You all know that the motion that requires me to be in committees is difficult for me. Bill C-74 is going through clause-by-clause consideration right now. I have amendments there too. It's simultaneous. I'm going to be in and out. I hope I won't miss one of my amendments. In case, I'm out of the room, I would want you all to know that it's because the motion you passed is identical to the motion passed in the finance committee. I'm fortunate they're not in different buildings today; that has happened to me in the past. I'll do my best not to miss anything.

Thank you.

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

Madam Chair, as this is my last amendment, I just want to take a moment to commend the permanent members of this committee on the wonderful way in which you work together, and the expeditious and fair way you've approached clause-by-clause on Bill C-68.

I will apologize that due to the motions I mentioned earlier—the ones I don't like, and you'll remember them—today I have to be at clause-by-clause for Bill C-68, Bill C-69, and Bill C-74, and Bill C-69 and Bill C-74 are happening at the same time, so I'll be leaving very shortly.

I just want to say that my amendment, PV-17, is to provide a requirement. It's great that this bill has included a five-year review process. I think that's appropriate, but what my amendment would do—not to go through every detail of it—would be to ensure that when that five-year review comes up, whatever committee is mandated to review the Fisheries Act as it has been amended by Bill C-68 would have reports from the minister that cover really significant bits of information that would allow a committee to make a good assessment. The minister would give them the report on the assessment of the state of our fisheries and the state of the fisheries stock, a review of what's been done under provisions of this act relating to the undertakings for which there were exemptions, and a list of all fish habitat where there have been no net loss and other offset measures.

I won't give you all the details, but that's the intent of this amendment, to have the Minister of Fisheries have an affirmative duty to prepare a series of reports for the use of the committee that reviews this bill in five years' time.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Thank you.

My next question has to do with CSE, the Communications Security Establishment, whoever can answer that.

I see that in the budget there was a transfer for the cybersecurity authority to CSE, which is under Defence. Now, we all fully believe that there has to be a full investment in increasing our cybersecurity. In Bill C-74, in the budget estimates, you talk about employees from the Canadian Cyber Incident Response Centre also being transferred over to CSE, but there is still funding for cybersecurity within the Public Safety portfolio.

I'm curious to know whether that's a duplicate. If you're taking all that and moving it over to Defence, how are you able to justify both?

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

I think that's entirely inaccurate. I think if you look at Toyota's $1.4-billion investment in Canada, announced last week, I think it's a sign of what foreign participants and domestic participants are doing for our job growth—the 600,000 jobs created in the last two and a half years. I think that's pretty darn good. I think if you put that up against any economy in the world, it would do well.

I do want to go quickly to Angelina and the banks.

Part of the BIA, Bill C-74, deals with the banks and fintech and the ability to invest. Has that provided enough flexibility at this point in time for the banks? Fintechs aren't subject to OSFI, to a large extent. They don't have capital requirements. There's a ton of compliance measures they don't operate under. At this moment in time are you content with the way the regulatory structure is going?

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

Mr. Kingston, you said in your opening statement, if I understood correctly, that in the name of tax competitiveness, or general economic competitiveness, you supported a broad independent review of the tax system. Today we're studying today Bill C-74, which, among other things, will implement certain changes to the taxation of private corporations. You didn't comment much on that in your opening statement. I'm not sure you touched on it at all. Is there anything you'd like to say about that?

[Pierre Killeen, Vice-President, Government Relations, Hydropothecary]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My name is Pierre Killeen. I am Vice-President of Government Relations with Hydropothecary, an authorized medical use cannabis producer located in Gatineau, Quebec. We were the first authorized producer in Quebec and we are now the only authorized producer that can sell cannabis for medical purposes. On April 11, we announced that we would be the preferred supplier to the Quebec market following an agreement concluded with the Société des alcools du Québec.

It is an honour for our enterprise and for me to appear before the Standing Committee on Finance to discuss issues related to Bill C-74. We want to thank the members of the committee for this opportunity to introduce ourselves, and we would also like to thank the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who asked for the right to consume cannabis for medical purposes in Canada. Without their efforts, there would be no legal cannabis industry in Canada.

Today, I will limit my remarks to Part 3 of the bill concerning the excise tax on cannabis products for medical and recreational purposes, and on the economic impact of these measures on our industry.

The economic opportunities for the cannabis industry amount to close to $10 billion in Canada. As for economic opportunities worldwide, the forecasts often surpass $50 billion.

Our industry will create thousands of jobs in Canada and hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue for our governments. With that in mind, let's focus on the political signals sent by Part 3 of the bill regarding the excise tax on cannabis.

With the cannabis industry's economic opportunities in mind, let's turn our focus to the policy signals that are being sent by Bill C-74.

When it comes to adult-use recreational cannabis, the excise tax duty that will be imposed on cannabis will be the greater of a dollar per gram or 10% of the price of the product. This price should allow legal, adult recreational cannabis to compete with illicit black market cannabis, which operates a very sophisticated market that sells and delivers cannabis online to Canadians with the tap of a mobile phone.

Bill C-74's approach to recreational cannabis sends positive public policy signals to Canadians and to Canada's industry. It says that we are committed to ending the illicit black market. We commend the government for setting the initial excise tax at this rate.

When it comes to cannabis for medical purposes, Bill C-74's decision to impose an excise tax on cannabis consumed for therapeutic purposes sends the wrong policy signals. The committee has heard from patient groups and others about the real-life consequences of this decision on Canadians. Let's focus our comments on the consequences of this decision for Canada's cannabis industry.

Medical cannabis, as we've said before, is going to be a multi-billion dollar industry on a global level. Recent estimates have pegged this at $55 billion a year by 2025. The therapeutic benefits of medical cannabis for chronic pain relief, cancer, arthritis, and other conditions are really just starting to be understood. Interest in the therapeutic properties of cannabis is driving investment and research by cannabis companies, by the pharmaceutical industry, and by wellness industries in Canada and the world over.

At the present time, Canada's cannabis companies are at the forefront of this industry. The prohibitions facing cannabis companies in the United States provide us with a first-mover advantage opportunity to create leading companies on a global level. It should also be noted that Canada's approach to medical cannabis is far different from that in the U.S. and that many experts are of the opinion that our push to medical cannabis will be the one most likely to be emulated in other parts of the world.

The world is watching what we're doing. At this stage, the policy signals we need to send to medical cannabis companies, to investors, and to the world is that Canada supports medical cannabis. Building a world-leading medical cannabis industry means a number of things across a number of public policy domains. When it comes to the fiscal domain, it means incentivizing people to stay in the medical cannabis stream and not discouraging them from doing so.

A healthy domestic market is needed in order to drive a healthy export market. It's tough to find successful exporters and businesses with weak domestic demand. The challenges facing our clean tech sector are evidence of this challenge.

In conclusion, we would recommend that part 3 of Bill C-74 be amended to remove the excise tax on cannabis purchased for medical purposes.

We welcome the opportunity to respond to your questions.

[James O'Hara]

Thank you, Jonathan.

Hi, my name is James O'Hara, and I'm the President and CEO of Canadians for Fair Access to Medical Marijuana. I'm also a former bank vice-president who is now a medical cannabis patient. I have a number of conditions which I successfully treat using medical cannabis: focal seizures, osteoarthritis, and asthma.

The use of medical cannabis in my life has been utterly life changing, and I truly mean life changing. I've been able to reduce the number of seizures I have by about 80% to 90%, and my overall quality of life has increased dramatically. I'm far from alone in my experience. Today, over a quarter of a million Canadian medical cannabis patients get relief from symptoms from various conditions and illnesses, including chronic pain disorders, arthritis, insomnia, MS, Crohn's disease, and epilepsy, just to name a few.

However, fully 60% of these patients cannot afford their full dose; it's already out of reach for them. What we've heard from patients are some very important points about their making very difficult life choices. Many say they will source from the black market; they feel they have no choice. Even if there's an element of product safety risk, they will still do so. Some have dipped into their savings or used their credit lines to pay for medicine. Others say they will go without, or go back to using opiates which are covered by insurance to get some relief from their pain. Keep in mind that this is a medicine with cost that is already significantly burdened by HST, and it shouldn't be.

Other medicines in Canada are zero rated and not subject to any tax. These patients are already struggling to finance the cost of their medicine, or even putting themselves and their families in financial jeopardy. Frankly, in a country like Canada, this is completely unacceptable.

However today, the government is considering adding another tax for medical cannabis patients, an excise duty, or what is commonly described as a “sin tax”. Let's understand and just remind ourselves for a minute what a sin tax is designed to do. A sin tax is imposed on items whose use is deemed harmful to society, such as alcohol and tobacco. It's primarily designed to disincentivize use.

For medical cannabis patients, cannabis is harm reducing and symptom reducing, not harm creating, and it does not fall into these categories whatsoever. Moreover, sin taxes are designed and used to discourage consumption, something a medical cannabis patient has absolutely no choice over whatsoever.

Think about this for a minute. A sin tax on medical cannabis patients is imposed to deter use. That's effectively discouraging sick Canadians from using their medicine, and that makes no sense. To go back to what I said earlier, medical cannabis patients are already significantly burdened and are struggling to pay for their medicine, and that makes no sense. This proposal puts their medicine out of reach even further.

Struggling patients can't understand why, when they're doing their very best to take care of themselves, the government would propose to tax their medicine and treat it like alcohol, tobacco, or gasoline. To disincentivize the responsible management of someone's medical needs makes absolutely no sense, and applying a sin tax to medicine is completely out of line with our collective moral beliefs and principles as Canadians.

This is the reason why every jurisdiction in the United States that has both medical and recreational cannabis systems either partially or fully exempts medical cannabis from taxes. Germany takes it a step further and mandates that insurers cover the costs for patients.

It's also very important to highlight that the 269,000 patients utilizing Health Canada's ACMPR medical cannabis program today are people using health care provider authorized medical cannabis products, which are not considered to be prescription medicines and therefore would not be exempt from excise tax. This means that these Canadians will potentially face unfathomable and increased costs post-legalization due to the new taxes being placed on their medicine. Although the government has made one small step in exempting low THC products such as CBD oil, the government missed a key point, in that THC is proven to be an effective medicine for chronic pain, MS spasticity, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, as well as other conditions.

In response to the government's plan to apply a sin tax on medical cannabis, CFAMM launched a campaign called “Dont Tax Medicine”. To date, over 20,000 Canadians have written letters to their MPs calling for the elimination of tax on medical cannabis. A dozen leading national health charities joined our coalition calling for the same. We conducted a public opinion poll that found only two out of 10 Canadians support applying a sin tax on medical cannabis.

Needless to say, both the general public and the health care communities overwhelmingly support eliminating tax on medical cannabis. It's time for the Canadian government to step up and treat medical cannabis as a medicine. That means no tax, and especially no tax for medical cannabis patients.

We're asking the committee to amend Bill C-74 by exempting medical cannabis from the excise tax. By amending the bill in such a way, the government will help ensure medical cannabis patients are treated more fairly and won't have to pay an unjustified and misguided sin tax on the medicine they need.

The bottom line here is that this is a question of fair and equitable tax treatment when it comes to medical cannabis, and the only answer to that question is, “Don't tax medicine.”

I thank the committee for your time. I'm happy to take your questions.

[Jonathan Zaid, Founder and Advisor, Canadians for Fair Access to Medical Marijuana]

Thank you, Chair, and to the standing committee, for the invitation to appear here today.

My name is Jonathan Zaid. I'm the Founder of Canadians for Fair Access to Medical Marijuana, commonly known as CFAMM. I'm a medical cannabis patient myself.

I will introduce CFAMM briefly, and then pass it off to James, the president and CEO.

CFAMM is a national non-profit organization that has successfully represented medical cannabis patients since 2014. With a membership of over 20,000 Canadians, the organization has emerged as the thoughtful grassroots voice for medical cannabis in the non-profit advocacy space.

We are joined by a coalition of non-profit organizations, who are also recommending the elimination of tax on medical cannabis. The coalition includes the Arthritis Society, the Canadian AIDS Society, the Canadian Arthritis Patient Alliance, the Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association, the Canadian Nurses Association, the Canadian Pharmacists Association, the Canadian Spondylitis Association, the Cardiac Health Foundation of Canada, the GI Society, the Huntington Society of Canada, and the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada.

Affordability of medical cannabis remains an urgent crisis for the majority of patients. Insurers rarely cover the costs of medical cannabis, meaning the majority of expenses are paid out of pocket.

The reason we are before you today is to discuss Bill C-74's proposed application of sin taxes on medical cannabis, which, if passed, will be detrimental to the 269,000 Canadians using cannabis for medical purposes. We are calling on you to support the rights of sick Canadians and drop the proposed excise tax on medical cannabis.

Now I'll pass it off to James.

[Angelina Mason, General Counsel and Vice-President, Canadian Bankers Association]

I'd like to thank the committee for inviting us here today to discuss Bill C-74. The CBA always welcomes the opportunity to share our perspectives on legislation before Parliament.

The CBA is the voice of more than 60 domestic and foreign banks that helps drive Canada's economic growth and prosperity. The CBA advocates for public policies that contribute to a sound, thriving banking system to ensure Canadians can succeed in their financial goals.

This afternoon, we will focus our comments on part 6, division 16, which contains amendments to the Bank Act.

Given the dynamic nature of today's financial services market, updates to the legislative framework are critical to ensure that the framework is responsive to the evolving needs and expectations of consumers. The amendments in part 6, division 16, are a result of the consultation process that the government undertook as part of the regular review of the federal financial sector framework.

We are pleased to take your questions on the Bank Act amendments and other clauses of the legislation that pertain to the banking industry, including cybersecurity.

Over the last several years, consumer demand has produced a dramatic shift in the financial services landscape. Today, consumers expect safe and convenient access to banking services 24 hours a day, in real time, from anywhere in the world. In response, banks in Canada continue to innovate and develop new technologies to provide better products and services to their customers.

The Internet brought online banking into homes and offices, and mobile is now eclipsing that technology. Everyone with a smart phone has a bank in their pocket. Banks have mobile apps, which are constantly updated with new features. A thumb scan can now verify your identity. An e-transfer is a quick and simple way to send money to a friend, and a cheque can be deposited by snapping a photo. Over a few short years, the number of Canadians using mobile banking has grown dramatically, with 44% of Canadians using it in 2016, up from a mere 5% in 2010. In fact, more than two-thirds, 68% of Canadians, now do most of their banking digitally, using online and mobile banking.

Clearly, Canadians are embracing technology in banking, and we believe that the legislative framework that supports financial services must be modernized to reflect this reality.

Banks are strong proponents of an open, competitive, and innovative financial services sector. There is already an impressive number of fintech start-ups in Canada that have brought expanded competition and customer choice in areas such as payments, investing, and budgeting.

Currently, there are barriers in the Bank Act that restrict certain types of relationships among banks and fintech companies. These include lengthy regulatory approval processes and restrictions on the type of investments banks can make in fintech. For example, if a fintech company has a small line of business in something other than financial services—say, a food delivery service—bank investment is restricted because that company offers a non-banking service. The regulatory approval process can take months—an eternity for fintech companies. This can deny fintech companies access to brands, customer reach, and partnerships that banks can offer. It can also push innovative Canadian fintech companies to other countries.

Many of these current barriers to collaborations between banks and fintech companies were imposed at a time when fintechs were not even conceived of, and when technology was not as fundamental to banking products and services as it is today. These barriers are outdated in a world where technology is integral to financial services, and they inhibit innovation.

If passed, Bill C-74 will ease many of the existing barriers in the Bank Act, and will allow for greater collaboration between banks and fintech companies.

In addition, the Bank Act framework needs greater clarity regarding the nature of fintech activities in which banks may engage in-house. Even more fundamental is the need to update references to the types of relevant technology in the Bank Act, such as “sites”, “platforms”, and “portals”, since the current language in the statute is quite outdated.

Canadian consumers will benefit by having new channels of distribution as well as new applications, products, and services. Fintech companies will have access to banks for capital, funding, distribution, and advisory needs.

These provisions will also bring Canada more in line with other jurisdictions around the world that are actively encouraging growth of their fintech sectors.

In conclusion, the proposed amendments in division 16 will encourage greater collaboration between fintechs and banks. If passed, Bill C-74 will foster innovation in financial services, promote competition, and ensure consumers have access to better products and services.

We look forward to your questions.

[Brian Kingston, Vice-President, Policy, International and Fiscal Issues, Business Council of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Committee members, thank you for the invitation to take part in your consultations on Bill C-74.

The Business Council represents chief executives and entrepreneurs of 150 leading Canadian companies in all sectors and regions of the country.

In the council's pre-budget submission we asked the government to introduce a strategy to promote economic growth, encourage private investment, and strengthen competitiveness. Among other recommendations we called on the government to undertake a comprehensive review of Canada's tax system with the goal of strengthening the incentives for both investment and growth. Since we submitted that to the government, the need for a comprehensive review has only been intensified by the controversy over the government's passive investment proposals, and then more recently by the U.S. Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

While we do welcome the changes made to the passive investment proposals in budget 2018, we believe the government could have done more to address the root of the problem. Rather than lowering the small business tax rate even further and restricting access to the deduction, the government should have eliminated the small business deduction altogether as part of a broader tax reform simplification effort.

Regarding U.S. tax reform, we're disappointed that budget 2018 did not address Canada's serious competitiveness challenges. The U.S. now enjoys a marginal effective tax rate on new investment of 18.8%. That's down from 34.6% and below Canada's existing METR of 20.3%. The relative tax advantage that Canada has enjoyed over the United States for more than a decade was eliminated overnight.

In a recent survey of 90 business council members, nearly two-thirds indicated the U.S. tax reform will either definitely or probably influence their company's future investment plans. Three-quarters of those surveyed are concerned or very concerned about the competitiveness of Canada's business environment. We find this to be a very alarming finding at a time when direct investment in Canada has fallen to an eight-year low.

Now is the time to act on the advice of the federal Advisory Council on Economic Growth, which in its final report called for a review of the tax system by an independent panel of experts. In the advisory council's own words, such a panel should “consider changes to corporate and personal tax rates, the balance between types of taxes, and the use of tax instruments designed to support investment.”

Before I conclude, I would like to make one comment on the fiscal outlook. We remain very concerned about the government's failure to set a clear path to balance over the medium term. Between 2017 and 2023 the government expects to add nearly $100 billion to the federal debt, bringing it to almost three-quarters of a trillion dollars. Over the same period the interest on public debt is expected to grow by 36%. That's more than double the growth rate of direct program spending.

While we share the government's view that targeted investments in infrastructure and innovation create the foundation for long-term economic growth, we also know from experience that rising public deficits and debt only serve to undermine consumer and business confidence with negative consequences for business growth and job creation.

I look forward to questions. Thank you.

[Luke Harford, President, Beer Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, for the opportunity to appear here today.

My name is Luke Harford. I am the President of Beer Canada, the national voice for beer. I appreciate being able to come here to explain the beer industry's concerns about part 3 of Bill C-74.

Beer Canada has 50-plus Canadian beer companies as members. Some are large. Some are medium in size. Many are small. Together, they account for 90% of the beer manufactured in Canada and cover all 10 provinces and one territory.

Part 3 of Bill C-74, the budget implementation act, proposes to amend the Excise Act of 2001 to introduce an excise duty framework on cannabis products. The federal government has structured the excise duty framework on cannabis to coordinate with the provinces and keep taxes on cannabis products low. The government aims to keep the tax on cannabis low to keep prices low and encourage sales through legal market channels.

Bill C-74 proposes a flat 25¢ excise duty per gram of cannabis product as the federal portion, with plans to later introduce a 75¢ per gram portion that will go to the province or territory.

Beer Canada views this tax proposal as low, in the context of current taxation policy and given the evidence in the United States. Evidence from the U.S. indicates that the price of cannabis will fall as larger volume cannabis producers come on stream and get up to capacity, while industry analysis of the recreational market in Canada also shows that cannabis prices will drop by half with legalization.

In Colorado, recreational marijuana excise tax revenues have grown by 540% since 2014, with the state having increased its marijuana sales tax from 10% to 15% in July 2017. In Washington state, where recreational marijuana is subject to a 37% state excise tax, sales grew by over $1 billion in the last two years, with state excise revenues increasing from $65 million in 2015 to $314 million in 2017.

Canadian marijuana taxation levels should not be driven solely by an exaggerated concern about pricing too it high to cannibalize the illegal marijuana market. Convenience, product knowledge, quality assurance, and personal safety will drive sales through the legal channel, even at higher tax loads.

What is especially noteworthy for us about the U.S. experience is that their marijuana taxes are much higher than their beer taxes. Colorado, Washington, and Oregon have all implemented marijuana tax rates that are double and triple the rates they apply to beer.

In Canada, the potential for legal marijuana to cannibalize beer is much more significant compared to the U.S. because of our higher beer taxes and higher prices. The tax on a case of beer in Canada is five times higher than it is in the U.S.. Marijuana taxation rates need to be informed by basic principles of fairness and potential economic impacts, in addition to black market activity.

Since 2010, there have been 45 tax increases on beer in Canada. The taxes on a case of beer now make up, on average, 47% of the price a Canadian pays for a case of beer. Last year, the federal government increased the excise duty on beer by 2%. It was increased by another 1.5% this past April, and it's set to increase every year because of the federal government's new automatic beer escalator tax.

Canadians are upset over high beer taxes. Fifty thousand Canadians have signed on to our Axe the Beer Tax campaign. They have demonstrated a desire to be engaged in the issue. The frustration with high beer taxes also came through in sentiments Canadians expressed on social media over the recent April 19 Supreme Court ruling in the Comeau case.

Domestic brewers are concerned about legal recreational marijuana. It is going to have a negative impact on beer sales, which have already declined by 10% in the last 10 years on a per capita basis.

The implication is clear. Low cannabis taxes will increase cannabis sales, while high beer taxes will decrease beer sales, leaving the government with less revenue, on balance. We are left asking ourselves, is it worth investing in the Canadian brewing industry today?

In the United States, not only are taxes on cannabis higher than beer taxes, but the U.S. government recently rolled back federal excise taxes on beer to help American brewers grow and compete. The 2017 U.S. Tax Cuts and Jobs Act lowers beer taxes, while Canada is moving in the exact opposite direction. From the beginning of 2017 to the end of 2019, Canada will add $63 million in higher excise duty costs on beer while the U.S. lowers its federal excise burden by $280 million. At the beginning of 2017, a brewer producing one million hectolitres of beer in Canada paid an excise duty rate 60% higher than an American brewer with the same production volume. By April 2019, the difference will be 93% at today's exchange rates.

Canadians know that they pay more for beer compared to their neighbours to the south. They know that because they visit the U.S. and come back talking about how expensive beer is here. Beer Canada aims to explain that this is because Canadians pay $20 in tax for a case of beer, on average, while Americans pay just $4 in tax, and to explain how the federal and provincial governments are layering one beer tax on top of another, hoping that Canadians don't notice.

Beer Canada believes that the low-tax approach to cannabis proposed in Bill C-74 is unreasonable in the context of the higher beer taxes paid by Canadian consumers. It is not fair to Canadian beer drinkers. It is not reasonable for the government to set marijuana taxation at such a low level while increasing one of the world's highest beer tax rates year after year.

Beer Canada urges the finance committee to consider the implication of low marijuana taxes on beer sales and government revenues. Higher taxes on beer are not going to help domestic brewers invest in their facilities and their people, or reverse declining beer sales. Canada needs a more balanced approach to tax policy that is fair for beer drinkers and brewers alike. We request that future increases to the federal beer excise tax be eliminated and that the government consider a higher tax rate for marijuana products that is more consistent with its approach to competitive products.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I will call the meeting to order.

As everyone knows by now, per the order of reference of Monday, April 23, we are dealing with Bill C-74, the budget implementation bill for the February 27 budget of this year.

We have quite a number of witnesses this afternoon. We're starting a little late and have a hard stop tonight at 5:30. Sometimes we can go a little beyond the time, but we can't tonight. We will ask the witnesses to try to hold their remarks to five minutes, and we'll shorten the question times for members as well so we can get as much done as possible.

We'll start with Ms. Annie MacEachern, as an individual, a colleague of mine from Prince Edward Island. Welcome, Annie.

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

Was this measure included in Bill C-74 because of specific cases? Without going into details, there has been a case in Sherbrooke that you may be familiar with. Are they specific cases? If yes, how many cases led you to propose such an amendment?

[Grahame Johnson, Managing Director, Funds Management and Banking Department, Bank of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for the invitation to discuss the proposed legislative changes in Bill C-74 to the Bank of Canada Act.

Under section 18(d) of the act, the Bank of Canada has the authority to buy or sell securities issued or guaranteed by the government of the country in the European Union. The Bank of Canada is proposing amendments to the act in anticipation of the United Kingdom's exit from the European Union. These amendments would ensure that the Bank of Canada can continue to buy and sell securities that are issued or guaranteed by the United Kingdom.

That's really it. I'd be happy to take questions if there are any. It's a technical amendment reflecting the Brexit vote.

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

Thank you.

I'm going to put a brief question to Mr. Braid. I am happy to see you here again as a witness.

Something in Bill C-74 concerned me when I read it. It says:

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

I was wondering if you had anything to say on this particular clause of the bill.

[Peter Braid]

As many of you will know, IBAC is the national voice of property and casualty insurance brokers, advocating for the interests of both insurance brokers and consumers to the Government of Canada.

Brokers have a long history of providing customer service, non-biased insurance advice, while consistently demonstrating their strong commitment to consumer protection. Operating small businesses in virtually every city and town across Canada, brokers create employment and support the local economy. They are also community leaders who make a difference in their respective communities.

Let me begin by saying that IBAC welcomes the continuation of consumer protections in the budget bill. As members of the committee will know, Bill C-74 includes proposed amendments to the Bank Act that give greater flexibility for financial institutions to undertake fintech activities. IBAC is pleased that these changes specifically maintain the banks' existing restrictions on business powers, meaning that banks cannot carry on the business of insurance at the point of granting credit. As the government develops regulations for fintech it will be important to ensure that the historical separation between banking and insurance is preserved.

We must ensure that banks are not allowed to do through the back door what they are prohibited from doing through the front door with regard to retailing or making referrals in the insurance marketplace. We believe this will be accomplished by making it clear in the regulations that new fintech entities are subject to the same restrictions as banks. For the record, IBAC supports measures to modernize the federal financial sector framework through technology and innovation. Being from Waterloo, I know how important that is for the economy.

At the same time, the principle of protecting consumers is paramount for insurance brokers. That is why insurance ought not to be sold to consumers at the point of granting credit. This fundamental position has been upheld by successive governments with all-party support, and further expanded to include the online environment.

Bill C-74 explicitly states that new provisions in the area of fintech will continue to be subject to the banks' traditional restrictions on business powers and insurance. As you continue your deliberations it is critically important that these consumer protections are maintained. They serve the best interests of your constituents.

I would also like to take this opportunity to note that this committee has studied the issue of bank practices brought to light by the media, involving questionable sales activities. I followed these hearings closely and commend the committee for this important work. Your study noted the ever-expanding role banks play in consumers' lives, and underscored the important need to protect financial consumers and ensure they are not taken advantage of.

As you know, Canada's financial system is the envy of the world. The fact that our banks and insurance companies remained so solid during the financial crisis in 2008 demonstrates the importance of well-regulated and separated business powers. Now as financial sector players continue to innovate and bring new products to consumers, it will become more important than ever to ensure that our regulations continue to be effectively applied and enforced.

We look forward to this bill's eventual passage into law, and to continuing to work with the government to create a consumer-focused regulatory regime.

Thank you very much.

[Peter Braid, Chief Executive Officer, Insurance Brokers Association of Canada]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, honourable members. I'm very pleased to be here today on behalf of the Insurance Brokers Association of Canada, or IBAC, to contribute to the public discussion on Bill C-74.

As a former member of the House of Commons, I appreciate the opportunity to attend committee from the new perspective this side of the table provides. I recall as well that only the best and the brightest from the House of Commons serve on the finance committee, and I note that I was never a member of this committee.

[Amanda Wilson, National Director, Canadian Health Coalition]

Good afternoon, and thank you for inviting the Canadian Health Coalition to speak today.

Founded in 1979, the Canadian Health Coalition is a public advocacy organization dedicated to the preservation and improvement of public health care. Our membership is comprised of national organizations representing health care workers, seniors, churches, anti-poverty groups, trade unions, as well as affiliated coalitions in 10 provinces and one territory.

We would like to share our perspective specifically on part 6 of Bill C-74, which proposes amendments “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.”

The Canadian Health Coalition welcomes this amendment, but we also believe it is imperative that this action be taken alongside other activities to curb the increasing threat of private, for-profit health care in Canada.

At a time when private clinics and user fees are springing up across the country, the federal government needs to make use of all the tools at its disposal to protect the ethos of equitable care for all. This includes withholding health transfer payments to provinces and territories who fail to uphold the core principles of the Canada Health Act that health care should be publicly administered, comprehensive, universal, portable, and accessible. In addition to violating these fundamental principles, unlawful extra billing comes at the expense of patients in need and the public purse.

In research led by our provincial affiliate, the Ontario Health Coalition, 136 private surgery, diagnostic, and boutique physician clinics were surveyed across Canada, finding evidence that at least 65% are charging extra user fees. These put patients at impossible decisions to choose between their health and basic living costs, and patients at these clinics often feel they have no choice but to pay for medically unnecessary add-ons and upgrades.

Recent research by the Parkland Institute highlights the rise of private membership clinics in Alberta. Individuals pay a yearly fee to access both insured medical services alongside non-insured medical services such as dieticians and massage therapists. This has the effect of limiting access to those needed medical professionals to those who can pay rather than those who are in need.

While some of these activities operate within a grey area, others are explicitly allowed by provincial governments. Saskatchewan allows private MRls to operate under a one-for-one scheme where private clinics are supposed to provide a free MRI to someone on the public waiting list for every paid MRI they perform. The Manitoba government has also expressed an interest in private MRls, and two are currently under development.

Quebec has had longstanding issues with user fees. Following threats of a lawsuit by patient groups and health advocates, they recently passed legislation to curb these fees, but there are reports that some patients are still being charged illegal fees.

Finally, right now in British Columbia, there is a potentially precedent-setting case at the B.C. Supreme Court to determine whether a for-profit surgery clinic, which was found to engage in double billing, should be allowed to operate.

Despite all of these examples and others, the federal government has been reluctant to impose punitive action against provinces that are enabling the proliferation of extra billing. In the past 15 years, there have only been a few instances of payments being withheld for non-compliance. In at least one case, those payments were reimbursed following the introduction of new legislation.

The overwhelming majority of Canadians want the federal government to act in defence of public health care. A recent poll commissioned by the CHC found that 89% of respondents want the federal government to intervene in unlawful billing from private practices. While the federal government should penalize provinces that fail to comply, we also do not want Canadians and the health care system to bear the financial burden of these penalties.

This amendment provides a way to reward provinces and territories for taking positive action. However, this change is meaningless if the Minister of Health does not enforce the Canada Health Act in the first place or if the federal government is not making sufficient investments in our public health care system.

In closing, we urge the federal government to take a more proactive stance in protecting the ethos of equitable care for all through broader investments in public universal health care along with increased data collection and reporting.

If this amendment will encourage such action, then we most definitely welcome it.

Thank you.

[Athana Mentzelopoulos, Vice-President, Government Relations, Canadian Credit Union Association]

Thank you for the invitation to be here today.

Our association represents almost 260 credit unions and caisses populaires outside of Quebec. We serve over 5.6 million Canadians, contributing $6.5 billion to the country's GDP.

I think most of you are familiar with our sector. I do want to underline that credit unions are the only brick-and-mortar financial institutions in about 370 communities across Canada, providing an important alternative to big banks.

The regulatory burden remains an acute concern for credit unions. We have recent studies that show that small credit unions in Canada devote about five times more resources to regulatory compliance compared to their larger cousins.

In general, I'd like to make a statement about the fintech changes in Bill C-74. Our sector supports them, although we are reserving some judgment around the competitive impact.

However, I want to focus today on the proposed changes regarding banking terminology.

Our members were pleased with the commitment in budget 2018 to changes that allow credit unions to use generic banking terms, subject to disclosure. The commitment is, obviously, now reflected in the legislation.

The proposal would allow our members to continue to speak to Canadians about financial services in the language of financial services. We're grateful to members around this table and to the all-party parliamentary credit union caucus, amongst others, for the support in the campaign that we had earlier this year and last.

The caveat “subject to disclosure” is, we think, a signal that federal policy-makers have concerns about consumers' awareness of the regulatory structures surrounding all financial institutions, particularly due to the emergence and growth of unregulated financial institutions and the fintech sector in Canada.

We understand that federal policy-makers are looking for standardize practices about what information is shared with members and potential members regarding who regulates credit unions and who provides deposit insurance.

We are regulated, deposit-taking financial institutions. Our members remain concerned about the impact of extensive regulation on their ability to compete when such regulation doesn't contribute to the safety and soundness of the sector.

Provincial credit unions are incorporated, regulated, and insured at the provincial level. Regulatory authorities at the provincial level set credential standards and conduct reviews that are appropriate to co-operatively owned, deposit-taking institutions that have little exposure to international or foreign exchange markets.

We outperform other institutions in making high-quality loans. In fact, credit union losses have averaged less than half a per cent of total loans over the last two decades compared to our competitors. Provincial deposit insurance provides credit union members with protections equal to or greater than those available to bank depositors. Credit unions take extra steps to ensure that every dollar is protected.

The credit union system is committed to providing leadership in the area of consumer protection, and to ensuring that we continue to provide outstanding service. Our system puts the interests of its members first and foremost.

To this end, we are developing a national market code, or consumer code, that will support, advocate, and help to advance best practices. Our voluntary market code will ensure that Canadians understand the credit union difference, and they can be reassured of our commitment to transparency, integrity, and customer service. Among its many benefits, a voluntary code is the most effective way to ensure that consumers understand the regulatory and deposit-insurance framework of their credit union. In other words, it is our goal to meet the disclosure requirements through voluntary means.

There's ample evidence that voluntary codes are expedient, effective tools for ensuring consistent outcomes while also reducing jurisdictional challenges and cost. The Office of Consumer Affairs at Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada has suggested that voluntary codes offer a number of benefits to consumers, as well as to government and business.

In closing, I would like to underline that I'm here to represent credit unions across the country that are asking for flexible use of generic banking terminology and for a reasonable approach to disclosure requirements.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I believe we have all of our witnesses in place, so I'll call the meeting to order.

By video conference, we have John Callaghan and Aaron Denhartog; Nicholas Bala and Pierre Fogal. Thank you, gentlemen, and thank you to all the witnesses.

We are continuing our hearings on Bill C-74, the budget implementation act, based on the budget tabled on February 27, 2018, and other measures. We will also be hearing from witnesses at a session this afternoon.

We'll start with you, Professor Bala, from the faculty of law at Queen's University.

Opposition Motion—Carbon Pricing

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis.

It has been suggested that an effective response to climate change needs to be scientifically sound, environmentally sustainable, financially realistic, as well as global, comprehensive, and holistic. That may be a little optimistic in that we would not get all of the components in a planned approach in response to climate change, but I would suggest that the Liberals are failing on probably each and every one of these measures as they approach their climate change plan. They are really failing to meet most of these criteria.

As people in the House are aware, the government has introduced Bill C-74, which includes the greenhouse gas pollution pricing act, and talks about it being designed to impact behavioural change. My remarks are going to focus not only on how the specific issues I mentioned earlier would be ineffective but also how many people with the least options are going to be unduly penalized.

First, all Canadians should be very concerned and offended by the lack of transparency on this particular initiative. The Conservative shadow minister for finance has regularly pointed out the carbon tax cover-up. The finance department knows the numbers. The finance department has calculated the numbers in terms of the cost for individuals and families. When it was asked for that information, the government released it, but blacked out all of the information. It really is quite offensive that a government would impose a tax on Canadians and not be transparent about what that tax will actually cost.

I harken back to the election commitments the Liberals made, saying they would be a transparent government by default. On this and many other issues, whether it be the deficit or democratic reform, they are absolutely failing to live up to the commitments they made to Canadians in 2015. I suggest that for any credibility, they should be releasing those numbers and not waiting until months down the road, after they have imposed the tax. This, quite frankly, is wrong.

At the start of my speech, I talked about something that was scientifically sound. What have the Liberals done? They have set a pricing level that would start at $30 and move its way up to $50. The minimum calculation that any scientist makes in terms of being effective is $100, and I have seen some that go as high as $300, as what needs to be the price on carbon to create the behavioural changes the Liberals want to create. They are creating a cost for consumers, but it is not going to have the impact this tax needs to have.

It is important to note that it is being done in isolation from our continental partners. If we recall, China, India, and the U.S. are the major emitters and Canada is less than 2%. We need to be global in our approach. That is in the definition, “global approach”. Here we are, going down a path in which, quite frankly, the Liberals are pricing in a way that would hurt Canadians and not create the desired effect, and they are essentially doing it in isolation from the global major emitters.

The government and the Minister of Environment and Climate Change love to talk about British Columbia, so I will as well. That is the province I am from. They hold it up as a really great model. They have consistently said that. It was introduced in 2008 as a revenue neutral carbon tax, but let me explain what has been happening over the years. In actual fact, I was not upset or concerned when the British Columbia government introduced this revenue neutral carbon tax. It explained it appropriately. I was fortunate that it was not going to create a huge affordability issue for me and my family. The B.C. government was trying its best to offset impacts on those who could not afford it.

The Liberals hold it up as great example because, they say, it brought emissions down. Well, emissions went down across the world in 2008. They went down because we had a global recession. The analysis was that the carbon tax brought emissions down and then the economy recovered, absolutely. If we take a baseline from before, when the economy was ticking along quite nicely in 2007 and 2008, and then we had a global recession, we would have a significant drop in emissions. Ultimately Canada had a good recovery.

The Liberals also like to say that emissions dropped and the GDP did well. They love to compare it to Ontario, but Ontario was suffering the highest electricity prices and manufacturing was fleeing. They never actually compare it to provinces that had a similar type of economy, such as Saskatchewan and Alberta, and if we look at the economic growth in those two provinces, it was significantly more than British Columbia's economic growth. We cannot take gross measures and hope to be precise in what the impact of the actual carbon tax was, because there were so many things that were happening throughout that time period.

What was a revenue-neutral carbon tax started to drift. There was a solid commitment to the citizens of British Columbia that every penny the government took in carbon taxes would be returned to them. What happened in 2013-14 was that the Auditor General started to review and saw that what was initially revenue neutral was turning into other things. The B.C. government started to include many things that really were inappropriately included to suggest it was revenue neutral, but in actual fact it was drifting quite significantly from revenue neutrality.

I have to talk about the NDP in British Columbia, because it campaigned on “axe the tax”. It said it would axe the tax, that it would be gone. The NDP finally became government in 2017, and the first thing it did was to take away the revenue neutrality from the carbon tax. It actually legislated away revenue neutrality and then increased the tax. What was a well-designed, reasonable approach quickly became a cash grab under the control of the NDP government. It was general revenue for the government to use for whatever it wanted.

As a result, members will forgive me for being a little cynical about anyone who lauds the British Columbia tax as a great revenue-neutral model. I know the same thing could happen across the country in all the other provinces as they implement this imposed federal tax. It demonstrates how a commitment to revenue neutrality can quickly be reneged on, and there is nothing that will stop the federal government from doing the same thing.

The north is going to be the area most impacted by these changes. It has very limited density. In many cases, people rely on diesel fuel, and the north has extra costs associated with its mining. It is going to be significantly impacted.

The northern premiers signed on in good faith, with the understanding that the government would look at their particular and unique circumstances. What has happened? What does the bill the government has introduced do for the north? It has done nothing. The Liberals looked at a baseline for mining emissions and actually based it on a southern model, so what is going to happen is that mines in the north will be more significantly impacted than any others.

What we see here is that the government has introduced a measure that is going to be ineffective in meeting its goal. It has provided no accommodation for people who live in the north and in rural communities. It is really important that the Liberal government gets into its own areas of jurisdiction. It has policy levers it can use to meet reduction targets and meet its Paris targets. However, quite simply, what the government is doing is going to be a failure on way too many measures.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I look at Bill C-74 and its implications for something like mining initiatives in Nunavut, the way they have calculated things, there will be an extraordinary impact. It is estimated that will be $20 million a year. There has been no accommodation for mining projects in the north. I think people in the north are very concerned about the Liberal government moving forward. Quite frankly, capital will simply flow as they cannot be competitive with that $20-million increase and will go where their money is welcome.

What does the member have to say to those people in Nunavut when an employer, who is employing probably half of that population's workforce, is very concerned, and the Liberal government has done nothing to even consider the unique circumstances of the north?

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

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to Canada's economy and the environment, our government has been clear. We believe that the two go hand in hand. Canadians understand that pollution is not free, and they understand, as we do, that the most effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is to put a price on carbon pollution. That is why we introduced the greenhouse gas pollution pricing act, part of the budget implementation act, otherwise known as Bill C-74, currently before the House.

By giving businesses and households an incentive to innovate more and pollute less, we are fulfilling our commitment to invest in growth while respecting and helping to protect our shared environment. This approach, investing in growth that strengthens and grows the middle class and helps people who are working hard to join it, is already paying off.

Let me take a moment to list the economic achievements we have reached in just two years in government. Since this government was elected, more than 600,000 new jobs have been created, most of them full time. Canada's unemployment rate is at the lowest level we have seen in more than 40 years. Since 2016, Canada has led the G7 in economic growth. The federal debt-to-GDP ratio, which is our debt relative to our economy, is not only on a downward track but is nearly at its lowest level in 40 years.

We know that investing in our communities and in our people is the best way to grow a modern economy. We have also taken steps to ensure a good business climate so that our businesses can succeed, grow, and hire. Canada is the best place in the world to invest and to do business, and we want to make sure that it stays as such.

This past week, A.T. Kearney came out with its best places to invest, or foreign direct investment index, as we economists like to call it. Canada ranked number two in the world and has moved up three places, just slightly behind the United States of America. This is important to note, because this report, which was put out by a non-partisan institute, incorporated the fact that 85% of the population of Canada is covered by a carbon-pricing mechanism.

We know that low and competitive tax rates allow Canada's entrepreneurs to invest in their businesses and create even more good, well-paying middle-class jobs. That is why we cut the small business tax rate to 10% this past January. It will fall even further next January to 9%. By this time next year, the combined federal, provincial, territorial average income tax rate for small business will be 12.2%, the lowest in the G7 and the third lowest among members of the OECD. This means that enterprises in my riding will see up to $7,500 in lower federal corporate income tax per year. This will help Canadian entrepreneurs and innovators do what they do best, which is create jobs. I note that 600,000 of them have been created over the last two and a half years. That is good news for Canadian businesses and great news for the hard-working people in my riding of Vaughan--Woodbridge and across this country.

There is more work to be done. That is why in budget 2018, we proposed the Canada workers benefit, a strengthened version of the working income tax benefit, something I long advocated for before I became a candidate for the Liberal Party and a member of Parliament in this government.

The new CWB will allow low-income workers to take home more money while they work. It is important to note that it will also encourage more folks to enter the labour force. To someone nearing retirement or who is retired and wants to go back to work and make some extra money, this will be a top-up. To students going to university who want to make some extra money on the side to help pay for their studies, this will be a little bit of a top-up. That is so important in the face of the demographic challenges Canada and many of the western countries are facing these days. For example, low-income workers earning $15,000 could receive up to $500 more from the CWB in 2019 than they would have received this year under the current system.

With automatic enrolment, literally hundreds of thousands of individuals across Canada, low-income, hard-working Canadians, will receive the benefit. It is estimated that 70,000 more Canadians will be lifted out of poverty by 2020.

Since 2016, the government has also been providing additional support to Canadian families through the Canada child benefit. Compared to the old system of child benefits which sent cheques to millionaires, the CCB gives low- and middle-income parents more money each month, tax-free, to help with the high costs of raising kids. I know this for a fact. I have two very precocious young daughters, who are the loves of my life, but it takes a few bucks to put them into some of their activities.

The CCB is simpler, more generous, and better targeted to give more help to people who need it most. Since its introduction in 2016, the CCB has lifted literally hundreds of thousands of kids out of poverty. That is something we need to applaud. It is a proud achievement of our government. In my riding, $59 million of Canada child benefit was distributed to residents. This helped out literally 15,000 or 16,000 young children. I know that every single one of those residents is grateful for this program and for the opportunity to receive something that helps them so much at home.

These investments and others our government is making in infrastructure, science, innovation, and skills and training, are all designed to achieve one goal: to ensure the benefits of a growing economy are felt by more and more people with good well-paying middle-class jobs, and people working very hard to join the “classe moyenne”.

We want Canadians to feel confident about the future, and be better prepared for what lies ahead. Part of achieving this entails making investments, and taking action to protect Canada's air, water, and natural areas for our children and grandchildren, while creating a world-leading clean economy. That is not just aspirational; it is happening today. There are literally hundreds of companies all over the world that are utilizing and testing technology for producing a cleaner environment.

Yesterday at the finance committee, I referenced how companies in Germany, for example, Daimler, are already turning trucks away from diesel and putting electric vehicles on the road. That is something that is very important. We must grasp these opportunities. That is why our government has put a focus on innovation, and research and development, so that the “supergrappes”, as they are called in French, the five clusters that we have identified, can ensure that Canadian companies are able to utilize or incentivize to create those world-leading technologies right here in Canada. That is something we need to do, and we are doing it.

Climate change is one of the most pressing challenges of our time. Unlike the party opposite, which in 10 years did not do anything, we have known from the beginning that inaction is not an option. That is why our government has worked for over two years to implement smart, practical measures to reduce emissions and protect the environment, while taking important steps to support literally tens of thousands of middle-class Canadians, 108,000 of whom live in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge, grow the economy and create good jobs.

Canadians know that addressing climate change and protecting the environment are important parts of ensuring a more prosperous and competitive economy for Canadians. This is exactly what the plan of “notre gouvernement” is delivering. We will put a price on what we do not want, pollution, in order to support things we need, including emissions reductions, clean innovations, and clean jobs, which are good middle-class jobs, for Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Through investments in greener infrastructure, cleaner transportation, energy efficiency, and emerging technologies, we will continue to help make our communities stronger, healthier, and more resilient. We believe this is the best way to support strong economic growth and secure a clean environment today and for many generations to come. That is what Canadians sent us here to do, and we are proud to do it.

We are doing the work that we spoke about during the election campaign. To use a hockey analogy, we are not ragging the puck; we are going to where the puck is, and we are going to make sure we score for Canadians. Whether it is through clean technologies producing those great jobs or leading innovations that will be adopted throughout the world, we will make sure our exporters and businesses stay competitive throughout this whole process. Frankly, 600,000 new jobs over the last two and a half years is not too bad at all.

Let me repeat that a clean environment and a strong economy go firmly hand in hand. We can have it no other way. This benefits all Canadians aujourd'hui, demain, and for all future generations.

[Gervais Coulombe]

I am not aware of any political decisions made in this sense. Carbon pricing mechanisms, like the federal system you have before you, ensure that the direct revenue generated by the instrument are returned to the provinces or to designated persons in the province, as my colleagues mentioned earlier.

The carbon pricing systems currently in place, be it in Quebec, Ontario, Alberta or British Columbia, generally end up as part of the price of a litre of gasoline, for example. The GST is applied on that amount and the provincial part of the HST, if any, of course, is returned to the provinces. The GST is outside the current debate on Bill C-74.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We shall call the meeting to order.

As everyone knows, we're dealing with the budget implementation bill, Bill C-74, and we are continuing from where we left off with our previous discussion on part 5.

The officials are here first to deal with the proposed greenhouse gas pollution pricing act. I think we're about to continue further questions.

Are there any?

Mr. Albas.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

moved:

That, given the government's carbon tax will impose higher gas prices, and making “better choices”, as the Prime Minister suggested, will not help most Canadians heat their homes and buy groceries, the House call on the government to cancel plans for new taxes that would further raise prices on consumers.

Mr. Speaker, when prices rise, the effective salary of average Canadians drops; the distance their dollar will go shortens; and it becomes harder and harder for people to pay the bills. In recent months, we have seen this problem worsen. Inflation has reached its highest level in a very long time, well over the 2% target rate that is set by the Bank of Canada. This means that the goods and services on which people rely actually become more expensive and more difficult for people to afford at their current salary rates.

The hon. member for Calgary Shepard will be commenting on this, as I will be splitting my time with him today.

Furthermore, the cost of servicing the very large debt levels that Canadians shoulder is also on the rise. Just last week, RBC and TD significantly raised their posted rates for five-year fixed mortgages. In the case of RBC, they went up by 45 basis points or almost 10% of the total interest rate charged to the average mortgage borrower, from 5% to roughly 5.69%. This is on top of record gas prices that are afflicting motorists, particularly in British Columbia but starting to affect people right across the country.

One of the root causes of increased costs for consumers is most often forgotten, and that is the cost of government. Government represents over 40% of our entire economy. Thus, when the cost of government rises, the cost of everything else rises with it, and that is the focus of my remarks today. Let me dissect how growing government costs cascade down to consumers at all levels.

Let me start with the proposed Liberal carbon tax. The government has said it will impose a tax on anything that requires fossil fuels to produce or deliver. What does this mean to the average Canadian consumer? The government admits that the carbon tax would increase the cost of gasoline by at least 11¢ a litre at the pump. The Liberals admit that the average households would pay roughly $200 more per year to heat their homes. That is all they are prepared to admit.

They have not calculated how much this tax would increase the cost of groceries, which of course are transported by truck and rail. Therefore, when the transportation costs go up, the costs are passed on to consumers at the end of the day. The Liberals have not revealed how much costs will increase for other household expenses, such as electricity. In many, if not most, provinces, electricity is produced by some form of fossil fuel, whether natural gas, coal fire, or some other source that would be affected by this carbon tax. Even people taking transit might end up paying more for their transit passes because so many of our buses continue to run on gas, diesel, or natural gas, all of which will become more expensive once this carbon tax is fully imposed.

Finance Canada has released documents conceding that the cost of the carbon tax would cascade down to consumers through higher prices. I have obtained documents from Finance Canada estimating how much those costs would be for households, depending on their income. The only problem is that the government blacked out all the numbers on those documents. We know from the evidence I have obtained that there will be higher prices for Canadian households; we just do not know how much, because the government is concealing that information.

Before the House now is Bill C-74, the budget bill, which would impose a federal carbon tax of $50 per tonne of greenhouse gases.

The government is asking our permission, as the House of Commons, which has the exclusive power of the purse, to give the finance minister permission to impose this tax, without telling us what the tax will cost.

The basic principle of the power of the purse is that the government cannot tax what Parliament has not approved. However, Parliament cannot approve what it does know. Right now, we do not know how much this tax will cost average Canadians.

There is a whole series of estimates. Some estimate it will be $1,000 a household. Some estimate more, some slightly less, but the government will not say, even though it has performed all of the calculations. It knows; it just does not want Canadians to know.

This is a particularly insidious tax because all of its costs are embedded in other products. For example, the price of fresh fruit might become more expensive for a single mother, but she will not know what share of the extra cost of that fruit is the tax. She might assume that it is just that her local grocer has raised prices. In this way, the government is attempting to blame local shopkeepers, grocers, and other small businesses for rising prices that are really imposed by government.

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

I want to appreciate what Ms. Turcotte said specifically within Canada, because Bill C-74, in essence, is taking away the ability of a province. Let's give the example of Saskatchewan, which has built itself on being competitive with its neighbours. You also have northern territories, like Mr. McLeod's, where the cost of living and the cost of doing business are so much higher, so to be imposing a centralized framework upon them basically may seal up Canada inter-jurisdictionally between provinces and territories. Now actually—with the United States being at a different rate—I think we need to have more discussion now.

Here is what the B.C. NDP provincial government describes as carbon leakage in its 2018 budget:

...industries that compete with industry in countries that may have low or no carbon price. If...industry loses market share to more polluting competitors, known as carbon leakage, it affects our economy and does not reduce global greenhouse gas emissions.

This, of course, is in B.C. with a carbon tax already. I should say that my end quote here is on gas emissions, so this is coming from British Columbia, with a carbon tax already.

We've already seen a lower price that was first installed by former premier Campbell and his government, where the cement industry was hard hit and has continued to receive subsidies and has struggled to maintain its market share.

I believe that the B.C. NDP are also quite worried about one of their favourite industries, which is pulp and paper, and you know we all have our favourite industries. I think the rising cost in the carbon tax, as set out in Bill C-74—as of April 1, we saw gas prices go up in British Columbia because they are moving $5 per year—will only get worse.

What obligation do we have as parliamentarians to ensure that, for those industries where many families are impacted, and those small and medium-sized businesses will be impacted, we are able to stem this issue of carbon leakage? I would open that to anyone.

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

Thank you to our witnesses.

I hope MP Grewal can count on the support of his own father in his own riding.

Politics aside, I think, Mr. Elgie, you had pointed out that in the United States they have created the equivalent of a CCA, capital cost allowance, where within one year it can be used toward any kind of equipment including, as you said, a coal-fired facility. I think that illustrates the example that if we were to do something similar here, only for clean technology, many people would say that many of those clean technologies are much more intermittent than a coal-fired generation facility. I'm not arguing for coal, but I am saying that it's a competitive challenge because coal can be done quite cheaply in comparison to intermittent energy sources.

I think this raises the bigger question of competitiveness, and I do also think we need to discuss carbon leakage.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to ask a question of each of the witnesses. Mr. Elgie talked a little bit in his presentation, and so did Mr. Cross.... What is your definition of carbon leakage, and in regard to Bill C-74? I just would like to hear what you have to say about those two things—your definition of carbon leakage.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Colleagues, we'll reconvene. As I think everyone knows, we're dealing with Bill C-74, the budget implementation act on the February 27, 2018 budget.

Welcome to the witnesses here this afternoon. We'll start with Green Budget Coalition. Mr. Van Iterson, welcome.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My thanks to all our witnesses for joining us today.

My first question goes to the Hon. Mr. Kenney. A number of people, mostly Conservatives, if truth be told, will tell us that an economic apocalypse awaits us if we decide to adopt a carbon tax. We have been asked to express an opinion on that issue as we study Bill C-74.

Can you share with us any data at all on the issue, or tell us a country where it has had a negative effect on the economy? Can you give me an example to support the argument you are putting forward?

[Graham Saul, Executive Director, Nature Canada]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, members of the finance committee, my name is Graham Saul. I am the executive director of Nature Canada.

First, I'd like to acknowledge that budget 2018 represents a historic federal investment in nature conservation. Nature Canada is truly excited about the promise of expending the $1.3 billion prudently over five years to reverse the decline in biodiversity in Canada and to establish managing protected areas and recovering species at risk. Thank you to everyone who played a role in supporting those provisions.

On the subject of the greenhouse gas pollution pricing act, I think it's worth remembering that it was 26 years ago, in May of 1992, that Canada signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. It has been more than 25 years since Canada first promised to reduce its greenhouse gas pollution, and we've barely begun to follow through on that promise.

And it was about 14 years ago that former Liberal prime minister Paul Martin first announced plans to put a price on greenhouse gas pollution by creating a market for emission reductions in all sectors of the economy, and it never happened. Then, in May of 2008, almost exactly 10 years ago today, Conservative federal environment minister John Baird called carbon trading “a key part” of the government's new Turning the Corner plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Later on that year, also in 2008, the Conservative government of Stephen Harper won a minority mandate with a campaign that clearly pledged to develop and implement a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gases and air pollution, and it never happened. Then, in 2015, Canadians supported a Liberal election platform that made a clear commitment to put a price on greenhouse gas pollution, and here we are today.

What are just a few of the things that have been happening in the meantime? The city of Calgary had two 100-year floods in only eight years, the most recent of which, in 2013, resulted in $6 billion in financial losses and property damage. In 2016, two years ago this May, almost 90,000 people were evacuated from wildfires across Fort McMurray, and thousands of homes were reduced to ashes. According to the Insurance Bureau of Canada, the Fort McMurray wildfire became the costliest insured natural disaster in Canadian history, with an estimated $3.77 billion in claims filed by mid-November, 2016.

On this day last year, I watched as the military was called in to help deal with the fact that my hometown of Ottawa-Gatineau was flooding. The flooding caused more than $220 million in insurable damages. A couple of months later, I spent a few weeks in British Columbia as the worst recorded fire season in the history of the province unfolded. More than 1,300 fires burned more than 1.2 million hectares, displacing 65,000 people from their homes and costing B.C. over $500 million. The wildfire season included the longest state of emergency in the history of British Columbia, lasting a total of 10 weeks.

Now, all we have to do is look east to the tragic situation unfolding in New Brunswick. As Premier Brian Gallant put it:

We are seeing weather events like we have never seen before. This is most likely going to end up being the largest, most impactful flood that we have ever recorded here in New Brunswick....

I've been asked to comment on what I think about part 5 of Bill C-74, which enacts the greenhouse gas pollution pricing act and makes the fuel charge regulations. I think this is a policy that we should have adopted at least 10 years ago. I think we need to use all the tools in the tool box, including carbon pricing, to finally move this country in the right direction. We need to stop fiddling while places like New Brunswick drown. We need to stop fiddling while places like British Columbia burn.

Canadians have consistently voted for leaders who have promised to take action to fight climate change, and now we need to stop playing politics with what is quickly becoming a life-and-death issue for communities and species across Canada and around the world. We need to position Canada to be a leader in the economy of the 21st century, and putting a price on greenhouse gas pollution is part of that process.

We need to position Canada to be a leader in the economy of the 21st century, and putting a price on greenhouse gas pollution is part of that process.

More importantly, we need to finally send a signal to our children and grandchildren that we are prepared to invest in solutions instead of turning our back on the problems and letting them deal with the resulting damage.

Thank you.

[Dale Beugin, Executive Director, Canada's Ecofiscal Commission]

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak today.

I represent Canada's Ecofiscal Commission. We are a panel of senior economists from across the country supported by a cross-partisan advisory board with representatives from industry, civil society, and perspectives across the political spectrum. The commission's mandate is to identify and support policies that make sense for both the environment and for the economy. In other words, it is to identify policies that achieve environmental objectives at the lowest economic cost. Our research and analysis clearly indicate that carbon pricing is such a policy.

Today, I look to unpack three key aspects of carbon pricing as they relate to BillC-74. First, carbon pricing is effective in reducing GHG emissions. It creates incentives for businesses and households to choose lower carbon activities and technologies, it creates demand for low-carbon technologies, and it drives low-carbon innovation. We know that prices affect choice all through the economy, but there is also, as Mr. Leach alluded to, ample and empirical evidence that carbon pricing works.

In B.C., according to academic research, GHG emissions would be 5% to 15% higher had B.C. not implemented its carbon tax. More specifically, for example, in the absence of the tax, vehicles would be 4% less efficient per capita, gasoline demand would be 7% to 17% higher.

Ecofiscal's own modelling analysis from 2016 found that a carbon price rising to $50 per tonne in 2021 and $100 per tonne by 2027 could reduce emissions by about 170 megatonnes in 2030 and 80 megatonnes in 2022.

Second, economists agree that carbon pricing is the lowest-cost approach to reducing GHG emissions. Our same analysis finds that the cost of carbon pricing, even when rising to $100 per tonne by 2027, would only slightly affect economic growth. How does revenue recycled affect these estimates? At worst, carbon pricing would reduce growth rates by about one-tenth of a percentage point, but if revenues were used to cut income taxes, as provinces have discretion to do under the pan-Canadian framework, the impacts on growth would be negligible. Economic growth would remain positive and strong.

Alongside these small costs, we must also consider benefits. Carbon pricing can reduce GHG emissions, helping Canada to achieve its 2030 target. Doing so will also contribute to global efforts to fight climate change, and avoiding the costly impacts of a changing climate. These reductions will also have benefits in terms of reducing local air pollution, and thus improving local air quality and health.

Canada has ambitious targets for emission reductions in 2030. Achieving these targets will have costs, but carbon pricing can achieve those emissions reductions at the lowest possible cost. Other policies, including subsidies or prescriptive regulations, will cost more. Regulations that require specific outcomes or technologies in specific sectors are less flexible, and thus have higher costs. Carbon pricing does not require a preconception as to where in the economy or the country the lowest-cost opportunities for emissions reductions might exist.

The flexibility of carbon pricing also creates powerful incentives for clean innovation. Subsidies for clean technologies require picking specific technologies. Furthermore, they're often paid to businesses or individuals that would have adopted the clean technology even in the absence of the subsidy or with a smaller subsidy, thus raising costs.

Finally, well-designed carbon pricing can reduce emissions while also protecting the competitiveness of Canadian businesses, even while some of our trading partners do not price carbon. In particular, Ecofiscal's analysis of output-based pricing suggested that this approach, as included in BillC-74, can provide transitional steps forward to vulnerable industries. It creates incentives for industry to reduce GHG emissions by improving emissions performance, not by reducing production or investment in Canada. This is the approach that Alberta pioneered under the specified gas emitters regulation in 2007, and subsequently improved under the carbon competitiveness incentive regulation.

Canadian businesses, especially those in emissions-intensive and trade-exposed sectors, have expressed clear support for output-based pricing as a way to cost-effectively encourage emissions reductions without undermining economic competitiveness.

To conclude, a climate plan based on carbon pricing is the lowest-cost approach to achieving Canada's GHG emissions targets. The legislation here ensures carbon pricing applies across Canada, addresses concerns around competitiveness, but also gives provinces flexibility in designing provincial carbon pricing and recycling revenue.

Thank you very much.

[Jason Kenney, P.C., MLA, Leader of the Official Opposition of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I've been on both sides of the table, and at this end too, so it's wonderful to be back.

Mr. Chairman, I am leader of the United Conservative Party in Alberta. We just had our founding annual general meeting, which wrapped up yesterday. Since 98% of our members voted in favour of a policy to repeal the carbon tax imposed by the incumbent NDP government in Alberta, I am here in opposition to part 5 of Bill C-74 and its proposed federal carbon tax.

The NDP government in Alberta imposed its carbon tax five months after the last election. Hilariously, they forgot to mention their carbon tax in that election. It was the largest hidden agenda in our province's political history, and the largest tax increase in our history. They raised it by 50% on January 1 of this year. They are now committed to raising it by a further 67%, and they're blaming Bill C-74, the federal carbon tax.

I can report that there have been over a dozen public opinion polls taken on the carbon tax in Alberta in the past two years, showing consistently that two-thirds of Albertans oppose this tax. They oppose it not because they are indifferent to the environmental questions or the challenges of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions, but because they understand, with their good common sense, that punishing consumers for living normal lives in a cold northern climate and an advanced economy is not a responsible environmental policy. They understand that making it more expensive for seniors to heat their homes when it's 30 below outside, as it was just a couple of weeks ago in Alberta, or making people pay more in order to drive to work, is punishing people for simply living their lives and doesn't make sense.

The theorists who support carbon tax will generally admit that it is a so-called Pigouvian tax, by which they mean there should be a taxation on negative behaviours, like sin taxes on booze and cigarettes.

Most Albertans don't think that heating their homes and driving to work and running their small businesses are something that should be punished.

I recently visited the Sundre Seniors Centre. It's a wonderful organization that keeps seniors active in their community. They do that for only $18,000 a year. It's a completely volunteer organization. They're now spending 7% of their annual budget on a carbon tax they can't afford, which is about to go up by another 67%. They don't get a rebate and they don't get any prospective offsetting tax cut, so they're looking at possibly having to close down their seniors centre.

There are real human impacts that the advocates don't talk about. That is why I am pleased to report to you that if Albertans elect a United Conservative government in next year's provincial election, the first bill that we will introduce in the legislature will be the carbon tax repeal act. We will completely repeal the NDP carbon tax.

If the federal government then seeks to impose the powers proposed in this bill on Albertans through a federal carbon tax, we will see the federal government in court. Our official opposition is making an application to the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal to seek intervenor status to join the Saskatchewan government's constitutional challenge of Bill C-74. Should we be in office, we will ensure that Alberta does everything it can to get Alberta before the courts on the same issue.

We believe this is an unconstitutional intrusion into the exclusive provincial power to tax for provincial purposes. It's also an unequal application of a federal power on different provinces, which are being treated differently.

I close by pointing out that the advocates of carbon taxes know that the $50 tax is just the beginning. Environment Canada has said that in order to hit the Paris targets, it has to go to $300 a tonne. This is the “frog in the pot” syndrome. All of the carbon tax advocates here are simply trying to get people used to paying more to heat their homes and to drive to work, so that they can continually raise this to give more revenue to politicians and more control to government. A future Conservative government in Alberta will do everything it can to fight that.

[Dr. Andrew Leach, Associate Professor, Alberta School of Business, University of Alberta, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentleman, it's a pleasure for me to speak to you today to express my support, and to provide context for the greenhouse gas pollution pricing act, part 5 of Bill C-74.

This legislation, the backbone for the federal government's approach to climate change, will complement the measures already taken by Canada's provinces. It will allow provinces without carbon pricing systems to benefit from the federal architecture to impose a carbon price, and will allow them to receive revenue collected from it. This combination of federal policy with provincial-level flexibility recognizes the diversity of provincial economies, yet allows for federal leadership on climate change, which is so important.

This bill guarantees that carbon prices will apply on nearly all emissions from energy used in Canada, from the cars on the 401 and the 417, to the largest industrial facilities in Canada. The bill provides for the federal price to be applied in provinces without sufficiently stringent carbon pricing policy.

Assuming no changes in provincial policy, implementation of this bill would likely exempt the provinces of B.C., Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, and most likely Manitoba. These provinces, home to 90% of Canada's population and responsible for 83% of Canada's emissions, would be potentially subject to this legislation were their domestic climate change policies to be significantly weakened.

Why have a carbon a price? Simply put, carbon price leverages the power of the market to enable emission reductions at the lowest possible cost. It does not rely on governments to determine who should emit, or what technology they should use to do so. It relies on individuals to make decisions where they are best suited to do so.

The carbon pricing plan proposed in this bill, just like current policies in B.C., Alberta, Ontario, and Quebec, puts the price on carbon emissions from most sources, not just large industrial facilities. The broader the price is on carbon, the lower the price will be to meet any given target, or the greater the emission reductions will be from any given carbon price.

Of course, as we know, carbon emissions in Canada are not just a big industry issue and certainly not just an oil and gas issue.

Do carbon prices work? That's probably a question you're hearing a lot on this committee, and the answer is simply, yes. We have plenty of evidence from B.C.'s carbon tax, which has been in place since 2008, that carbon prices do reduce emissions below where they would otherwise be. If you want to look up some work on this, work by Nic Rivers at the University of Ottawa, among others, has shown this conclusively.

This doesn't mean they're magic. They will not always lead to emissions being lower than they have historically been, especially when macroeconomic growth is rapid, something we've seen in Alberta for years, or when technological change is slow. However, let me assure you, and put on the record, that demand curves slope downwards despite frequent claims to the contrary.

When emissions have a price, we'll use fewer of them.

If you think of innovation and technological change as the solution to climate change, a carbon price is your best policy choice. When asked how governments can spur innovation and green tech, Syracuse University's David Popp provided five rules for government in a report published by the C.D. Howe Institute. The first of these is carbon price, carbon price, carbon price, because in his words, "Supporting technology development means not only investing in new technologies but also creating demand for clean technologies throughout the economy.” That happens organically with a carbon price. A carbon price is also a useful alternative to governments picking winners with regulations and subsidies.

Therefore, why not just have a big federal policy? Why not just have a one-size-fits-all federal plan in this regard? I think that would be a poor decision because our provincial economies are very different—I've done a lot of work in Alberta, Ontario, and Quebec—as our emissions profiles are very different, as are the means to reduce emissions. I have a couple of examples. If you look at some of our provinces, we still generate a lot of our electricity from fossil fuel sources, whereas in other provinces, electricity is already zero carbon. That in and of itself provides different opportunities.

If you look at my home province of Alberta, about a quarter of our GDP comes from sectors which are described as emissions intensive and trade exposed. It means they're vulnerable to possible emissions leakage, so Alberta designed a program to mitigate that. If you tried to pick the same policy to work for Ontario that worked in Alberta, you'd find that the policy didn't fit very well.

Finally, of course, is the use of revenues. You can see different choices made across the country to meet provincial goals.

Therefore, I think the federal government has chosen wisely here, not only providing the provinces with the means to select their own policies but also to determine the uses of revenue from these federally imposed carbon prices.

Here again, I think this is an area where provinces are going to have different priorities and different ideal uses of revenues. Trevor Tombe recently put forward a proposal for Ontario that would see, without altering the income distribution, a carbon tax used to expand the sales tax credit by 80% and to eliminate the health care premium.

Obviously in Alberta and B.C., we've chosen more progressive policies, which have made the bottom 40% to 50% of households better off with the carbon tax than they were without.

I think these choices are better made provincially than federally.

Just to wrap up, I do have a couple of concerns with this legislation. I am concerned a little bit with the discretion provided to the Governor in Council to apply measures to provinces.

Clause 189 indicates that the cabinet may take into account any factor it considers appropriate, including the stringency of carbon pricing mechanisms, to determine whether a province should be covered. Here I'd like to see a cleaner definition of “stringency”; and conveniently, a price on carbon gives you that. A test judged by that standard would prevent an outcome where cabinet sees fit to apply to one province a price on carbon far higher than it would allow to be applied in others.

I am also concerned a bit with clause 188, which determines the distribution of revenues from the carbon tax to specified provinces. I think what we want to make sure of here is that the implications are clear that the revenues collected in these bills will be distributed to the provinces independent of other transfer decisions of the federal government.

Overall, though, it's my pleasure to be here with you today to express my support for this bill.

Thank you for your attention and for setting time aside for me. I will be happy to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay, we'll call the meeting to order. I'd just like to remind people that once the gavel is down, no more pictures are allowed in the committee room. I see a few of them out.

Today, we'll be furthering our study on the budget implementation act, Bill C-74, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures.

With us this afternoon we have six witnesses. We'll start with you, Mr. Leach, the associate professor of the Alberta School of Business, University of Alberta. The floor is yours, and we try to keep opening comments to about five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Minister, thank you and your team for being here.

My first question is about expectations. In your budget statement and in a speech in the House, you announced pay equity legislation. Even today, you referred to wage gap between men and women in Canada.

Furthermore, everyone expects to see in C-74, which the committee is studying today, pay equity measures. However, this 500-page bill makes no mention of pay equity.

Can you explain why you again decided to delay implementation of pay equity legislation ?

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Before I address passage of Bill C-74, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures, I would like to thank the members of the Standing Committee on Finance for their hard work and diligence.

I’m pleased to be here today to talk about our government’s most recent budget and to answer any questions committee members may have.

When I introduced budget 2018 in the House of Commons back at the end of February, it reflected a record of achievement for Canadians. Since November 2015, more than 600,000 new jobs have been created for Canadians, most of them full time. The unemployment rate is at the lowest level we've seen in more than 40 years in this country.

If you compare Canada with its economic peers, the other G7 nations, we're leading the pack when it comes to economic growth since 2016. With budget 2018, we're building on a plan that respects the choice that Canadians made a little over two years ago—a confident and ambitious approach to growing our economy.

Right now, the strength of our economy’s fundamentals allows us to invest in what will help keep our economy strong and growing now and in the long term. I’m talking about areas like infrastructure, science and research, as well as skills and training.

However, we have an obligation to take a serious look at the deeper problems that continue to slow down our people and our economy.

That's where this year's budget comes in.

The measures in budget 2018 reflect our government's continuing commitment to strengthening and growing the middle class, and doing so in a fiscally responsible way. There are important measures from budget 2018 contained in the BIA, and I'd like to take a few minutes to describe a few of them.

The first is the new Canada workers benefit. We know that the future success of Canadians and, indeed, the future success of our economy as a whole rests on giving more people more opportunities to work and to earn a good living from that work. As a strengthened, more accessible, and more generous replacement for the working income tax benefit, the Canada workers benefit will allow low-income workers to take home more money while they work, encouraging more people to join and stay in the workforce, and offering real help to more than two million Canadians who are working hard to join the middle class.

I'll give you a sense of what this will mean for Canadians. A low-income worker earning $15,000 could receive nearly $500 more from the Canada workers benefit in 2019 than he or she would have under the previous working income tax benefit.

Our government will also make it easier for workers to get the allowance to which they are entitled. We are proposing amendments to allow the Canada Revenue Agency to automatically determine whether these tax filers are eligible for the new allowance.

By making this benefit more generous and automatically paying it to all eligible individuals, we will be helping about 70,000 Canadians lift themselves out of poverty by 2020.

In total, our government will be investing almost $1 billion in new annual funding, starting in 2019, to help low-income workers get ahead and stay ahead.

Also included in the budget implementation act are changes to better support Canada's seniors because we believe, as we know Canadians do, that every Canadian deserves a secure and dignified retirement. In June 2016, the government reached an historic agreement with provinces to enhance the Canada pension plan, the CPP enhancement. It will begin to be phased in next January, and it will mean more money for Canadians when they retire so that they can worry less about their financial situation and focus more on enjoying their retirement.

With the action taken by Quebec to enhance the Quebec pension plan in a similar fashion, all Canadian workers can now look forward to a safer and more secure retirement.

The budget implementation act includes the additional CPP benefit increases that were agreed to with the provinces last December. A unanimous consensus was reached to further strengthen the CPP in order to provide greater benefits to parents whose income drops after the birth or adoption of their child, to persons with disabilities, to spouses who are widowed at a young age, and to the estates of low-income contributors. These changes we have put in place without raising CPP contribution rates.

This year's budget, and consequently the current BIA, is also heavily focused on helping Canadian women and Canadian families succeed.

As you may know, women's participation in the workforce in Canada is the highest among G7 countries, but it's still nearly 10 percentage points below the rate for Canadian men, even though Canadian women are among the best educated in the world. The gender wage gap is also an issue in Canada, as it is in many other places. In 2017, for every dollar per hour a male worker in Canada earned, a female worker earned 88¢.

Canadians are under-represented in leadership positions and in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. We also know that unpaid work requirements, such as child care or caring for sick or elderly family members, are disproportionately handled by women, making it difficult for them to take advantage of other opportunities, including work opportunities.

Therefore, in Budget 2018, we announced a new shared EI parental benefit, use it or lose it, to encourage both partners in a two-parent family to share child-related work equally.

The employment insurance parental sharing benefit isn't part of the budget implementation bill, but I'd be happy to answer any questions about it that you may have.

We're also taking steps to further help Canadian families through a strengthened Canada child benefit. Compared to the old system of child benefits, the CCB gives low- and middle-income parents more money each month, tax free, to help with the high cost of raising their children. It's simpler, more generous, and better targeted to help more families who need it most. Thanks to the CCB, nine out of 10 Canadian families now have extra help each and every month to pay for things like healthy food, music lessons, kids' activities, or whatever their family wants. In dollar terms, families that receive the CCB will get on average about $6,800 this year. Across the country I've heard, and I'm sure many other people in this room have heard, this income is making a real difference for families. It's making a real difference for children, too.

Since its introduction in 2016, the CCB has helped to lift 300,000 Canadian children out of poverty. The budget implementation bill strengthens the Canada child benefit by indexing its benefits to the cost of living, starting this July. I should note this is fully two years ahead of the previous schedule. It's because our economy is strong and growing, and because of our government's stronger fiscal position that we're able to offer this extra help to families now.

Finally, Mr. Chair, I’d like to say a few words about our government’s commitment to providing greater support to small businesses that create the jobs Canadians depend on.

Small businesses create good jobs and help support communities and families across this country. Small businesses account for about seven out of 10 jobs in the private sector. We know that low and competitive tax rates allow Canada's entrepreneurs to invest in their businesses and create even more good, well-paying jobs. That's why we cut the small business tax rate to 10%, effective this past January, with a plan to lower it again to 9%, effective January 1, 2019. By this time next year the combined federal-provincial-territorial average income tax rate for small business will be 12.2%, the lowest in the G7 countries and the third-lowest among members of the OECD. For the average small business this will mean an extra $1,600 per year to reinvest in new equipment, new products, new jobs.

There is one last thing I'd like to mention because I know it's of great interest to this committee, and that's the terminology used by credit unions. The budget implementation bill would 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.

Mr. Chair, the measures contained in the budget implementation bill represent the next step in the government's plan to put people first, to deliver the help they need now, while investing in the things that will deliver growth for the long term.

Thank you again for having me here with all of you today. I'll be happy to answer questions from members of the committee either on budget 2018 or on other measures, as you wish.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

The second item that you have before you is the request for the budget dealing with Bill C-74, which is the budget implementation act before Parliament. It relates to witnesses' expenses in Toronto, Victoria, and Montreal; video conferences; and working meals. The total requested is $39,800. Is there any discussion?

It is moved by Mr. Dusseault.

(Motion agreed to)

Thank you, Minister. The floor is yours and welcome.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank all of you for being with us today.

My first question is for Mr. Macdonald from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

In February, the Minister of Finance made a budget statement, which dealt with pay equity. When you read Bill C-74, were you disappointed that there was no pay equity legislation.

[Jennifer Kim Drever, Regional Tax Leader, MNP LLP]

Chair and members of the committee, I would like to thank you for inviting us to speak with you today.

MNP believes that we need comprehensive tax reform. Without it, we will have an increasingly complex and costly tax system. We need simplification and modernization of the current system.

At MNP, we represent over 150,000 private businesses in Canada, including 16,000 farms. We are the country's tax experts on small business. No one in Canada works with more small businesses day in and day out than MNP.

First, I would like to commend the government for listening to the concerns raised by the community relating to the private company tax proposals. The draft legislation released on December 13 relating to the tax on split income—or, as we call it, TOSI—and the passive income proposals in the budget of 2018 have addressed many of the concerns that we had last summer and fall. However, we believe that there still needs to be further clarity.

Given the amount of time we have today, I would like to focus on TOSI.

First, it unfairly targets service businesses. They account for 78% of Canadian small businesses, and they are being specifically excluded from some of the rules.

There is a new 20-hour test, which would exclude people from having TOSI apply to them. Most family-run businesses have never kept time sheets. They have never really kept track of the hours that are being put in by the owners of the business. We question how CRA will ever be able to have the evidence they need for these audits. It will all be personal testimony. This legislation could be retroactive in nature, because Canadians will be penalized for not keeping records that they did not have to keep at the time the work was being performed.

Next is the test of reasonability. These TOSI rules introduce several new factors to the reasonability tests. Labour is one of the factors that we see elsewhere in the Income Tax Act with a reasonability concept, but this new reasonability test blurs the line between investment, the return on investment, and the labour. This is new ground. We are asking for a balanced approach whereby the Department of Finance and the CRA provide a comprehensive framework to help determine what is reasonable and what is not. This will allow Canadians and the CRA to apply the framework consistently.

I would like to introduce you to a sample client.

Bob and Karen have a company: BK Transport. This is a very typical client that you would see across Canada. Over the last 30 years, they have grown from a small trucking business to one with significant capital. They have over 250 employees and operate in three different provinces. Karen is ill. She has reduced her regular duties in the business and is rarely able to come into work. Like many entrepreneurs, Bob and Karen declared dividends instead of paying themselves wages throughout the last 30 years. No one needed time sheets; no one prepared time sheets. Now, due to the TOSI changes, when we are paying out dividends, we will need to determine the relative value of Bob's work in the business to Karen's work in the business.

The first thing we need to look at is whether TOSI even applies. Because they are both involved in the business and both are shareholders in the business, TOSI will apply unless we meet one of the specific exclusions. For Bob, he'll have to start tracking his hours. He's going to need to meet that test of 20 hours a week on average. He'll have to start tracking it and keeping time sheets. Karen won't meet this test, and the other thing is that Karen has never had time sheets in the past.

Next, BK Transport is a service business. It is in trucking, which is a service. This will not meet the specific carve-outs. When we explain this to Bob and Karen, they can't understand why their trucking business is impacted, but a business that is in retail or in construction, with the same number of employees and the same amount of capital, is fine. Their service business is not.

Under this draft legislation, the final way out is that of meeting the reasonability test. This is very subjective. Do we think her dividends would be reasonable? We would think so. Do we have certainty that the CRA would agree? There is no certainty here.

What they would benefit from would be more administrative guidance on what would be considered reasonable as well as clarity on the intended businesses to be caught. We believe catching businesses like BK Transport is an unintended consequence in the drafting of the legislation.

As far as passive income is concerned, the draft legislation is greatly improved from what was in the July paper. We recognize the government's commitment to finding an acceptable balance on this issue. In our written submission, we have three comments on these proposals for your consideration.

In closing, Bill C-74 is a considerable improvement over what we saw in July. That said, we still need more simplification of TOSI so that it's something that business owners can understand and actually comply with.

Please consider our three recommendations. First, we believe strongly in comprehensive tax reform. This should be for all taxes, not just income taxes. Second, because the new TOSI rules unfairly target service businesses, we think we should look at this again and see whether service businesses should be excluded. Last, we are very encouraged by the continued collaboration with all stakeholders and also the experts.

As we move forward to ensure that we have a fair tax system for all Canadians, we will have to keep doing this. I look forward to the committee's questions on the tax on split income, on the passive income proposals, and on the new RDTOH regime.

Thank you.

[Randall Bartlett, Chief Economist, Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy, University of Ottawa]

Good afternoon Chair, Vice-Chair, and committee members. Thank you for inviting me to speak today as part of the study of Bill C-74.

As requested, I will focus my remarks on part 1 of Bill C-74, more particularly on the section pertaining to the small business tax rate and dividend tax credit, as well as the small business deduction based on passive income and on preventing income sprinkling.

While discussing the specific tax measures included in the budget, I would like to touch on some commonly cited concepts used when evaluating tax policy. These include the principles of fairness, efficiency, and administrability.

According to Kevin Page, former Parliamentary Budget Officer and president of the Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy at the University of Ottawa, in a recent article in Policy entitled “Cutting Taxes is Easy, Tax Reform is Hard”:

Tax theorists typically talk about two fairness concepts. One is vertical equity, usually taken to mean the more you earn, the more you pay. Two is horizontal equity, meaning those in similar circumstances pay a similar amount. The Liberals were effectively making the case that potential base-broadening reforms to small business taxation were 'two birds with one stone'.

Indeed, the proposed small business tax changes, while unpopular among those who will see their tax bills rise, increase the fairness of the tax system from a tax theory perspective. The efficiency of a tax system speaks to the ability to generate tax revenue in a manner that is least distortive to incentives and behaviours, thereby having the least impact on economic activity.

Looking to the small business tax regime specifically, a 2015 study from the C.D. Howe Institute by Benjamin Dachis and John Lester, entitled “Small Business Preferences as a Barrier to Growth: Not so Tall After All”, looked at two federal programs intended to provide special support to small business: the small business deduction, and the scientific research and experimental development investment tax credit. To quote the authors:

The purpose of these programs is to improve overall economic performance by mitigating inefficiencies in the market. However, since receiving benefits is conditional on staying small, these programs could act as a barrier to growth.

Further, the authors found that neither of these programs have a meaningful impact on boosting investment. Meanwhile:

...supports for small business have a social cost. The largest cost arises from the fact that the government must recoup forgone tax revenue by cutting spending or imposing higher taxes elsewhere. ...A more effective way of spurring economic growth is to reduce corporate income tax rates for all firms rather than providing preferential tax rates for small businesses.

The inefficiency of the tax system created by the small business tax regime goes further. Specifically, the rules governing private corporations as they currently exist allow for income to be moved between personal and business income, thereby creating an opportunity for tax avoidance. Indeed, the current rules incent taxpayers to structure their businesses to report income in a manner that is advantageous to them, but isn't the intent of the tax policy per se, with lower tax revenue being collected as a result.

This brings us to the ability of the federal government to administer its tax system in the spirit in which the tax legislation is written. This is difficult at times, as the letter and spirit of tax legislation are not always one and the same. Closing this gap requires, at times, changes to tax law.

In the context of changes to small business tax rules, these changes were first telegraphed by the federal Liberal Party in its 2015 election platform. Then, in July 2017, the Minister of Finance began his consultations on tax planning using private corporations. While the federal government should be commended for engaging in public consultations, I'm sure no one in this room has any illusions about how this rolled out. It didn't go well.

Just because people get mad about the fact that tax preferences will no longer be available to them doesn't mean the baby should be thrown out with the bathwater. While there were definitely areas for improvement in the proposed changes to small business tax rules, there was also a great deal of misinformation. In the end, from the fall economic statement 2017 through to budget 2018, the federal government rolled out the tax changes with adjustments having been made to address some of the concerns raised in the consultation process. While some stakeholders remain unhappy, tax practitioners I've spoken with seem to be of the opinion that a lot of the most glaring concerns have been addressed.

In closing, the tax rules governing private corporations were known to have been unfair and inefficient, as defined by economists, while making administration challenging. The changes that have been implemented are intended to correct this. Only time will tell if this was actually the case and if business investment is impacted as a result. That said, a better approach would have been to include these changes as part of a broader tax reform package, which could have broadened the tax base while, at the same time, lowering the average tax bill for Canadian households and businesses.

Thank you.

[Don Giesbrecht, Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Child Care Federation]

Good afternoon, and thank you very much.

I want to thank you on behalf of the Canadian Child Care Federation and Canada's child care and early learning sector for the opportunity to present today to all of you on part 1 of Bill C-74, specific to the measures noted with regard to the Canada child benefit.

Bill C-74, among its many items, calls specifically for new measures to be taken by the Government of Canada to index the Canada child benefit, or CCB, as of July 2018 to ensure it keeps up with the rising cost of living. This income supplement initiative, much like the CCB itself, is a progressive policy to lighten the financial burden on Canadian families, especially middle-class and low-income families, helping to support the costs of raising children. Like other federal income programs, such as the Canada pension plan, indexing CCB payments makes good sense and would be welcomed by eligible families.

Additionally, we support measures that ensure that appropriate taxpayers are eligible for the CCB and that information related to it can be shared with provinces and territories for certain purposes. As with indexing the CCB, this makes good sense and will help to ensure that those who are eligible will receive their benefit and any others that they may be provided by provinces, municipalities, or territories.

As an income supplement, the CCB is a welcome and important support for eligible families. The other integral federal support for Canada's families, which the CCB is not, is the federal government's multilateral framework agreement on early learning and child care, along with the companion bilateral agreements with the provinces and territories. Related to this, we are still waiting for the multilateral agreement on early learning and child care with indigenous communities to be formally signed, which will add another historic agreement, this one directly supporting Canada's indigenous children and families.

These agreements and frameworks are critically important, as they directly support the other part of Canadian family life, that being the need for high-quality, affordable, inclusive, and accessible child care, and just as importantly, start to address the national child care crisis in Canada. The Government of Canada has committed $7.5 billion over 10 years, starting in the last fiscal year, to fund these agreements, but significantly more investment is needed to bring Canada to the OECD benchmark of 1% of GDP annually.

Quality child care is the key element for economic security for the vast majority of Canadian families and for Canada's economy as a whole. While the CCB directly and financially supports families, it does not replace the need for progressive and significant investment in policy in child care systems and does not directly address child care affordability and accessibility.

A recent report by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives on the rising cost of child care across Canada found that the typical family with young children spends about a third of its income on fees. To put this into perspective, child care fees can cost up to $15,000 a year in Ontario and even more in the GTA, more than triple the average tuition cost to put another child through university for one year, a system that is more significantly supply-side funded.

Supply-side funding, therefore, is how Canada—its provinces, territories, and indigenous communities—should be approaching child care affordability, policy, and funding, and exactly how we are seeing the provinces of Ontario and B.C. moving forward with their significant and historic child care announcements made this year, addressing head-on the crippling cost of child care in their respective provinces. They will join Quebec and P.E.I. in moving past tinkering on the edges of policy into a holistic and comprehensive solution for children and families.

In his ministerial e-newsletter sent out on April 24, 2018, the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, the Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos, stated:

For many parents, accessing quality child care is a major challenge. In fact, only one in four Canadian children has access to a regulated child care space. The development of Canada's early learning and child care systems is one of the best investments our government can make to help strengthen Canada's society and economy, and give children the best possible start in life.

We agree with the minister, and it is through direct funding from the federal government, along with policy, leadership, and partnership with provinces, territories, and indigenous communities, that Canada's child care crisis will be addressed. These things taken together with income support initiatives like the CCB will mean that Canada can join other OECD nations as a leader rather than a laggard with regard to investing in children and families.

I thank you for your time.

[Ian Russell, President and Chief Executive Officer, Investment Industry Association of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and members of the committee. It's a pleasure to be before you this afternoon.

I am grateful for the invitation to come before this standing committee to present the views of the Investment Industry Association of Canada, the IIAC, on Bill C-74, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures.

I will focus my remarks on part 1 of the bill and, more particularly, on the sections that pertain to passive investment income, the refundability of taxes on investment income, and income sprinkling.

The principle focus of our remarks is on the impact of the private corporation tax proposals on the capital formation process for new and emerging small businesses. Recent budget changes to the tax proposals have given small businesses qualifying for the small business deduction greater flexibility and scope in managing financial investments.

On the other hand, private corporations are still discouraged from building financial assets and engaging in small company financing and merchant banking activities.

Under the first feature of the tax proposals, the availability of the small business tax deduction—namely, the eligibility for a preferred corporate tax rate of 10% on the first $500,000 of qualifying active income—will be phased out for CCPCs and their associated corporations that exceed the $50,000 threshold for passive investment income in the taxation year. This will be achieved by a sliding scale that will reduce the small business deduction by $1 for every $5 in active income.

This phase-out mechanism limits the availability of the small business tax rate completely once the passive income threshold reaches $150,000 a year. While this is a simpler approach than previously, the inability for many companies to qualify for the preferred corporate tax rate, unless the passive income is below the $50,000 level, unfairly penalizes small business owners by limiting holdings of passive investments to meet unforeseen contingencies, to purchase corporate assets or property, and to expand business operations.

The second feature limits the refundable taxes that private corporations receive on the amount of certain dividends. Under the current policy, private corporations qualifying for the preferred corporate tax rate, or businesses taxed at the general corporate tax rate, are entitled to a refund of taxes paid on dividends from passive investment income. However, the budget provisions effectively limit the tax refund to non-eligible dividends from passive income. While the new proposals are an improvement, this approach will increase the administrative burden for small firms that will now be required to establish separate accounts for eligible and non-eligible dividends.

We urge the government not to proceed with the passive investment income tax proposals. The government estimates that the proposals will affect less than 3% of private corporations, or about 50,000 companies. However, we have little idea of how important these companies are to the Canadian economy. They may be among the largest and more dynamic in the country. In our view, if the government does proceed, the passive income holdings should be grandfathered in determining eligibility for the small business deduction, and the sliding scale should be indexed to inflation.

Our third feature relates to the income-splitting rules. We believe, here, that the government should consider further amendments to the rules, or at a minimum delay the implementation to give greater clarity on the rules and give time for small businesses to comply with the rules.

There are some complicated aspects of these particular income-splitting rules.

The substantive adjustments to the tax proposals for private corporations illustrate the new rules were introduced too quickly and with insufficient analysis. If the government proceeds with its modified new tax rules, we recommend it closely monitor the impact on expansion of existing, growing private corporations, and migration of these businesses to the United States. Canada can ill-afford the loss of available capital for small and mid-sized businesses.

Thank you very much for your attention.

[David Macdonald, Senior Economist, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives]

Thank you, Mr. Easter, and thank you to the committee for the invitation to speak today on Bill C-74.

Overall, I believe that this was a positive budget, and this implementation bill of that budget reflects items that the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives has been advocating for through its alternative federal budget for several years.

The gender analysis in particular was a strong and important addition to the budget process, but in my limited time here today, I'd like to focus on two items: the new Canada workers benefit, and the closure of tax loopholes used by a small number of private corporations.

With respect to the working income tax benefit and its transformation into the Canada workers benefit, I commend the budget for the decrease in those living in poverty by about 70,000 due to this measure. I believe this builds on other measures, including the Canada child benefit and the guaranteed income supplement, which, when fully implemented, will lift roughly 500,000 Canadians out of poverty, although three million to five million Canadians live in poverty, depending on the year and the measure, so there is plenty of work to be done.

Eliminating poverty in Canada remains an important and worthy goal. Tracking how measures impact it should be part of budget reporting, as it was in the case with the Canada workers benefit, but it's not always the case.

I believe the automatic enrolment feature of the Canada workers benefit is a crucial if underrated change in this program. It's a seemingly small change, but a very important principle, and far from universal in federal benefits. I hope the committee agrees that automatic enrolment should be extended across all federal transfer programs, not just in the Canada workers benefit.

Transfers should not have to be applied for, given that for many the only requirement is inadequate income, which is often already known by the CRA. I encourage the committee to conduct an investigation of any federal transfers or benefits where take-up rates are not 100% and determine how we could get there. One place to start is the Canada child benefit, which is not universally received by low-income families in first nation communities due to low filing rates on reserves.

With respect to the Canada workers benefit, the one item I am concerned with is the potentially dangerous distinction between “deserving” versus “undeserving” poor. At present, support for low-income families is not universal. Only those families who work, or who have children, or who are seniors “deserve” support. If you can't work, federal support is almost non-existent. The only support that a family would receive through the tax system is the GST credit, which is worth at most just under $300 a person.

One of the particular groups that falls between the cracks is that of those aged 50 to 65 who no longer have children and live alone, either in a couple or not. They don't receive the Canada child benefit, as the children have moved out, and they don't yet receive seniors' supports because they're not old enough. Poverty in this group is driven by high disability rates that skyrocket in this age group, either because those folks have worked hard, have been injured, and can no longer work, or because they are caring for spouses who can no longer work. Often, these families see big improvements as they turn 65 and gain access to important programs, such as old age security and the guaranteed income supplement, but in the interim, those Canadians often end up on social assistance, and in most provinces, at rates that are often inadequate.

In our alternative federal budget, we have examined the possibility of extending the GST credit and creating a top-up to the GST credit to support the lowest-income Canadians and also to capture this key group that currently falls through the cracks. This top-up would be worth up to $1,800 a person, but would be reduced more quickly than the GST credit to focus the benefit on the lowest-income families. I encourage members to read a more detailed analysis in our alternative federal budget.

In terms of the closure of the income sprinkling and passive income tax loopholes for private corporations this year, I would express my support, as I have in the past. I think there are clear equity implications, in that wealthy individuals who are paid in particular ways could reduce their tax bill while regular wage earners could not, and those regular wage earners would end up picking up the tab through taxation for the government services that we all enjoy.

It is clear that these abuses were restricted to a small group of private corporations, with a few small businesses actually affected, although I see little economic reason for lowering the small business tax rate as some form of compensation. The small business tax rate is built for one reason—to encourage the reinvestment of profits into the business instead of them being withdrawn by owners.

Neither income sprinkling nor the use of private corporations as a store of passive income have anything to do with reinvestment in the business and are merely ways of reducing personal taxes. As such, their closure would have little impact on business decisions to reinvest profits. If anything, the now larger disparity between the small business tax rate and the general corporate rate will likely further encourage other forms of aggressive tax planning, such as the ones that were just closed.

More broadly, I hope that this committee will focus on tax loopholes, not just with respect to private corporations but in a more wholesome examination of tax expenditures. I hope the committee will continue its examination of who benefits from tax expenditures, and continue to evaluate tax expenditures as if they were program expenditures that should undergo the same type of analysis. Not only that, but also examine the distribution analysis of tax expenditures with the goal of closing those tax expenditures and raising more money for other programs and other public services.

I thank the members for their time and I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I will call the meeting to order.

We have witnesses this afternoon as we're looking at Bill C-74, the budget implementation act—to keep it simple—based on the budget of February 27, 2018.

We'll begin with the witnesses who are before us, starting with you, Mr. Macdonald, for the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

Opposition Motion—Production of Documents on the Carbon Tax

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss this important element of Bill C-74 today. Our government has made it very clear that it believes the economy and the environment go hand in hand. Bill C-74 is proof of that.

We now have abundant and consistent evidence that our commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and fighting pollution by fairly taxing carbon is helping grow our economy and Canada's middle class. Our commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions will also reduce pollution in the air we breathe.

Protecting the environment is everyone's responsibility, and our government is stepping up. With Bill C-74, the government will reduce emissions by enacting the greenhouse gas pollution pricing act. Pricing carbon pollution is the most effective way to reduce emissions. Pricing gives Canadian businesses and households an incentive to innovate more and make day-to-day choices that pollute less. Our government made that promise when it came to power over two years ago. We need to invest in growth while respecting the environment we share and helping to protect it.

The government's plan is to grow the economy in a way that strengthens the middle class and helps all Canadians succeed. What have we achieved in this regard?

From the time we took office, over 600,000 jobs have been created, most of them full-time. The youth unemployment rate is near its lowest on record. Since 2016, Canada has led the G7 in economic growth, and the federal debt-to-GDP ratio, which is our debt relative to our economy, is not only on a downward track but is projected to be near its lowest level in nearly 40 years.

We have energized the economy by investing in our communities and in our people. Small businesses are a key driver of our economy, accounting for more than 70% of all private sector jobs. That is why our government is supporting and investing in small businesses and helping hard-working business owners grow their businesses. Growth means more jobs, healthier families, and more vibrant communities.

We lowered the small business tax rate to 10% as of January 1, 2018, because we understand how much small businesses contribute to Canada's economy. As of January 1, 2019, the rate will be lowered to 9%. Canadian business owners and innovators will now save up to $7,500 a year in federal corporate taxes to help them do what they do best: create jobs.

By 2019, the combined federal, provincial, and territorial corporate tax rate for small businesses will be 12.2%. This is the lowest rate in the G7 and the third-lowest rate among OECD countries. Canadians deserve to be confident that their hard work will result in better opportunities, that they will have equal opportunities to grow professionally, and that they will be successful. We want Canadian business owners and Canadians as a whole to be confident in these things, and a lower small business tax rate will only support this goal.

I am talking about economic measures because I believe that it is possible to work on the economy and the environment at the same time, as the government has shown. I remind members of the Canada workers benefit, which is an improved version of the working income tax benefit. With this benefit, low-income workers will have more money in their pockets and people will get more support to find work. For example, a low-income worker who earns $15,000 could receive up to $500 more in 2019 than the amount he or she would have received in 2018 with the old benefit. Our government also wants to encourage more people to join the workforce. The workers benefit provides real support for more than 2 million Canadians who are working hard to join the middle class. The improved benefits in 2019 will bring about 70,000 Canadians out of poverty.

The investments we have made in Canadians, in our communities, in our economy, and in our environment are making Canada stronger and creating meaningful opportunities for all Canadians, and that is our objective. That should be our focus every day here in Ottawa. We have created prime economic conditions to help our businesses grow, do well in Canada, and be competitive in foreign markets.

We have done this by providing support through such organizations as the Canadian Trade Commissioner Service, the Business Development Bank of Canada, Export Development Canada, and Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada.

The Business Development Bank of Canada serves 49,000 Canadian entrepreneurs and has committed $29 billion to small and medium-sized businesses. We are redoubling our efforts on the international front to make it clear to our international partners that Canada is the best place in the world to invest.

Why? It is because we have a workforce that is diverse, highly skilled, innovative, well educated, and hard-working. We have a wealth of natural resources. We have a modern, efficient infrastructure, because we have invested in that infrastructure and will continue to do so. We have a sound financial system, recognized across the world as a beacon of stability and efficiency because it is built on a foundation of sound regulation. Finally, of course, in budget 2018 it has been quite clear from the get-go that we in Canada believe in gender equality. We believe it strengthens the economy. When we say all working Canadians deserve the opportunity to earn a good living, we include Canada's talented, hard-working women.

All of us fortunate enough to live in this wonderful country could easily add to that list, but the essential message I want to convey is that Canada's fiscal house is in order, and that means we are resilient to shocks and uncertainty.

We want Canadians to feel confident about the future and to be better prepared for what the future holds. Yes, the government is doing that in part by making investments and taking action to protect Canada's water, air, and natural areas for our children, our grandchildren, and future generations while also creating a clean world-class economy, as I just mentioned.

Everyone knows that climate change is one of the most pressing challenges of our time, although to judge from some of the speeches from the opposition side today, it sounds like some people still need to be convinced.

In Canada and abroad, the impacts of climate change can be seen in 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.

I would like to underline that our approach to putting a price on carbon pollution has been collaborative from the start. The government worked with its provincial, territorial, and indigenous partners to adopt the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change in December 2016. The framework provides provinces and territories with the flexibility to choose between two systems: an explicit price-based system or a cap-and-trade system. Carbon pollution pricing is in place in four provinces, namely Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, and Alberta, covering more than 80% of Canada's population. These provinces are also leading Canada in job creation and growth. All other provinces have committed to adopting some form of carbon pollution pricing. Under Bill C-74, the direct revenue from the carbon charges on pollution under the federal system would go back to the province or territory of origin.

In closing, I would like to reiterate that a clean environment and a strong economy go hand in hand and benefit all Canadians now and for future generations.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

moved:

That, given the Liberal government made a specific campaign promise to Canadians that "government data and information should be open by default, in formats that are modern and easy to use", the House hereby order that all documents be produced in their original and uncensored form indicating how much the federal carbon tax proposed in Budget 2018 will cost Canadian families in order to put an end to the carbon tax cover-up.

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Barrie—Innisfil.

As members know, the saga of the carbon tax cover-up has been ongoing now for several years, but today there are new developments. Just moments ago in the finance committee, we were studying Bill C-74, the government's budget implementation act, 200 pages of which are dedicated to the creation of a national carbon tax. Before the committee were officials from the environment and finance departments. I asked specifically whether or not either of those departments had modelled how much that tax would cost the average Canadian family. The assistant deputy minister of finance confirmed that in fact the government has modelled that information. In other words, the government knows the price tag but it is covering it up, and that, in essence, is the carbon tax cover-up.

Now that I have given today's news, I will lay out the chronology of events.

In late 2015, the Liberal government was elected. It had promised to institute a new carbon tax. Soon after that, I filed what is called an access to information request asking the government what such a tax would cost families in varying income groups. What would it cost middle-class people? What would it cost people below the poverty line?

The government came back with a big pile of documents, which the member for Barrie—Innisfil will be mentioning in his speech. One of these documents indicates, “This memo focuses on the potential impact of a carbon price on households' consumption expenditures across the income distribution.” The key findings are blacked out.

I will translate this government-speak into plain English. The memo focused on the potential impact of a carbon price on households' consumption. This means that the memo calculates what the tax will cost people when they buy things. It mentions “across the income distribution”, which means that the table which is blacked out tells us what people would pay based on the incomes they earn.

We know that the share of a family's budget is largely determined by how much the family makes. For example, Statistics Canada has shown that poor families spend about a third more on the goods that the carbon tax will apply to than do rich households, because if one is extremely wealthy, then heat, electricity, groceries, while they still cost the same or even a little more than they do for a low-income household, they are a smaller share of the family's budget. This is why it is important to know how much people in various income levels will pay with this new tax.

We know that taxes of this nature are regressive, because they take a larger share of household income from people who have less money. Those with the least disproportionately pay the most. As a result, such taxes can have the effect of actually widening the gap between rich and poor. The government has claimed that it wants to reduce that gap, but it is imposing a tax which is known to do precisely the opposite.

Then we come to the use of the revenues. What is the government going to use the money for when it collects it?

In Ontario, the Wynne government has given the blueprint. For example, Ontario has used the money to provide $15,000 in rebates to millionaires who buy electric Mercedes and Teslas. This is an example of a tax applied to working-class and low-income people which is then fed to the wealthiest 1% who can afford to drive the most elite vehicles. In that same province, the government has used the revenues to subsidize companies that would otherwise be money losing. They have, for example, increased hydroelectricity rates by paying these companies that offer so-called solar and wind power onto the grid at 90¢ per kilowatt hour when that kilowatt hour is worth about 2.5¢.

The effect of that is to drive up the electricity costs of everyday Ontarians, while bolstering the profits of well-connected Bay Street insiders, who successfully conclude those inflated contracts with the Government of Ontario. In Ontario the inflation of electricity prices is going to constitute a cost of about $170 billion over 25 years, according to the province's auditor general, which will make it the biggest wealth transfer from the working poor to the super rich in Canadian history. That is a form of redistribution that is common among regimes that impose schemes like the one the government has embedded in its budget implementation legislation, all of which reminds us that we should as Canadian parliamentarians know how much this tax will cost every household.

The government says that it cannot reveal that information for two reasons. First, it says that, for example, the table that I referred to earlier, is not relevant because it is a couple of years old and so much has changed.

While the fundamental structure of the Canadian economy has changed, the amount and share that people spend on heating their homes, driving their cars, and feeding their families has not fundamentally changed in two years. That being said, if the government thinks it is so irrelevant, why not just release it? Why not just show the numbers to Canadians and then convince them that those numbers are completely irrelevant? Does the government not trust Canadians to distinguish between relevant and irrelevant information? If it is obviously just a bunch of old numbers that have collected cobwebs over many months and years, then surely Canadians will just disregard it.

However, if the information in this table is based on a model of taxation that is in the current budget, then Canadians might, by contrast, say, “Wait a second. This is relevant. It is going to cost me a lot of money.” Then they may judge the government negatively for those costs. Maybe that is the real reason the government does not want to release the numbers.

The second reason the government is giving is it claims that this tax will be revenue neutral, that Canadians will get back the money somehow. It is the old trickle-down economics of socialist governments that it will take the money away from the working class and give it to the politicians. It will trickle down to the bureaucracy, and then it will trickle further down to the companies and interest groups that get the grants funded by those taxes, and eventually a few drops will trickle back down to the people who earned the money in the first place. This is the trickle-down government that we always see when parties of the far left take office.

If this is true, let us pretend for a moment that the government is telling the truth and that it plans to give all the money right back to the people who paid the tax in the first place. How can it prove that is the case if it will not tell us how much those same people will pay? We cannot judge whether the cost has been neutralized for an average family unless we know what that cost is, but the government will not tell us, which suggests that the government has a trick up its sleeve, that it wants this to be a money raiser, a cash grab, an issue of cold, hard cash for politicians to spend.

Canadians have seen this before in every province where this scheme has been implemented. In every single one, the governments have won and the taxpayers have lost. The politicians have had more money to spend and the individual households have had less money left in their pockets. That is the reality we have seen so far.

As Conservatives, we are the voice of the taxpayer, and we will fight every day to ensure that the government is not allowed to bring in another sneaky tax grab targeted at the middle class, and those working hard to join it. Rather, we will fight for transparency to end the carbon tax cover-up, and to leave money in the pockets of the people who earned it.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Again, I'm asking about the federal price. We are here today to discuss Bill C-74, which is federal legislation to impose a federal carbon tax in provinces that don't have their own.

You claim that the impact will depend on how the revenues are used. We as parliamentarians cannot judge whether average Canadian families are made whole by any expenditure of those revenues unless we know the original cost those households must pay.

It's a simple question. Have any departmental officials calculated how much Canadian families of various income levels will pay as a result of the original carbon tax, if imposed at a federal level, as this bill prescribes? Yes or no?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you all. Before I go to Mr. Grewal, this question might be for you, Joël, or you can take it back to the various witnesses we've had from Finance and Veterans Affairs.

We had the officials from Finance, and I know the committee asked for some comparisons between the old benefit scheme and the new one. Could somebody ask the officials respond to this issue of different payouts based on gender?

I looked through my material and I can't quite understand it, but I think Mr. Cousineau's question is a valid one. Could officials from Veterans Affairs look at Bill C-74 and what's proposed in it, and give us a response to that question as to whether there is a difference based on gender? If there are ways to fix it in this bill, we should do it.

Mr. Grewal.

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

Thank you for highlighting the issue around veterans and the gender-based payment disparities.

Mr. Janson, I would like to ask you a question about pay equity.

We were all disappointed that an important part of Bill C-74 was missing, namely, pay equity legislation. Everyone was expecting this legislation. It had been promised, but doesn't appear anywhere. We hope that we'll get it one day, but my hopes for the Liberal government are slim.

Another question has also elicited a reaction from the MPs on our side of the table. Pay equity is being promised, but the budget contains no financial commitment in this regard. Yet that is what would achieve equity.

Can you comment on that? Can you tell us how much this could be if the federal government decided to move toward pay equity?

[Mark Janson, Research, Canadian Union of Public Employees]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the committee for having the Canadian Union of Public Employees here today. We're the largest trade union in Canada, with 650,000 members across the country in virtually all sectors of public work.

Obviously, Bill C-74 is a very large bill. We're not going to comment on every section of this bill, but focus on a few gendered aspects of the bill that we find particularly concerning.

The first one would be the lack of pay equity legislation. I know you talked about this in the earlier session today. This is something that we've been advocating for a long time. This government has been making very public commitments to a goal of gender wage equality. This is the simplest way for the government to take a step in the right direction. Your budget committed to doing this. It's been now two years since the Liberal-led committee studied this and recommended moving forward. The report was called “It's Time to Act”. They said we'd go forward within 18 months. We're now 24 months past that point. Your budget said this was going to be in the budget implementation legislation. It's not there. We hope that it will be there very soon.

I'd like to focus the rest of my time on the Canada pension plan drop-out issue. I know this was also mentioned at an earlier session. I was before this committee about a year and a half ago talking about Bill C-26, the legislation that implemented the federal-provincial deal reached in the summer of 2016 for a modest expansion of the Canada pension plan.

When we looked at this legislation, we were shocked to find that there were no drop-out provisions in the new CPP benefits for periods of child-rearing or disability. These have long existed in the CPP that we all know. Essentially, these CPP benefits are a function of how much you've earned through your working career, so if you have a period of zero or low earnings, that's going to pull your CPP benefits down.

Governments over the decades have recognized that it's appropriate to put in place what they call “drop-out provisions” for periods of child-rearing or disability in order to exclude those periods from the calculation of CPP benefits, so that you don't see a pension penalty for raising a child or for being disabled and unable to work. That's worked well for the 50 years of the CPP's existence, so we were shocked to find that it wasn't going to be part of the new tier of CPP benefits.

CUPE and the labour movement brought this to the attention of the government. The bill was passed as written, which we were quite opposed to. We thought the government should have done something at that point. We were happy to see in December of this past year, 2017, that the finance ministers of the federal and provincial governments said they were going to do something about this. They said they were going to add what's called a “drop-in provision” to the new level of CPP to deal with this child-rearing and disability issue.

The problem with the drop-in provisions is that they're clearly structured to deliver a significantly lower benefit than the traditional drop-out replacement would have done. When the government brought in these drop-in provisions, it said they were an improvement that would strengthen benefits. In our view, however, a large inappropriate cut was instituted that, to a certain degree, walks the benefits back. We don't see that as an improvement. We still see that as an unjustified cut.

We've asked the government for numbers on this. We wanted to find out what this was going to mean for individuals down the line, and what it would mean for the plan. We haven't seen any of those numbers, but these drop-in provisions are included in Bill C-74.

To me, to CUPE, this is an issue of major importance. Our position is that workers taking time out of the workforce to raise a child at home or because of a disability should not face any CPP penalty. I know that at earlier meetings finance officials were asked to get those data to you, and I certainly hope that you see those numbers and reflect upon them before passing this legislation.

Thank you, and I'll be here for questions afterwards.

[Pierre Cléroux, Vice-President and Chief Economist, Research, Business Development Bank of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair and distinguished members of the committee, I am pleased to be here today. My name is Pierre Cléroux, and I am the chief economist of the Business Development Bank of Canada. With me today is Karen Kastner, vice-president of Government Relations.

In the context of your study of Bill C-74, I would like to talk to you briefly about who we are, and then give you an overview of the current environment in which Canadian SMEs operate and what the BDC does.

BDC is the only bank dedicated exclusively to entrepreneurs. We are a financially sustainable crown corporation that does not rely on Canadian taxpayers.

We work with nearly 50,000 entrepreneurs in all parts of the country and all sectors of the economy. We provide support in the form of loans, investments, and advice to help them grow their business. We do not provide grants or subsidies. Rather, we operate on commercial terms as a complimentary lender, and support creditworthy businesses with viable projects.

With our network of clients across the country, we can really put our finger on the pulse of Canadian entrepreneurs and the challenges they face.

From an economic perspective, global growth brings good news for Canadian entrepreneurs. Last year's expansion was broad-based, with all sectors of the economy contributing. In 2018, all sectors are expected to continue to grow, though there were contractions in real estate and oil and gas during January.

In terms of general sentiment among Canadian SMEs, the mood is optimistic. At the same time, SMEs are facing some challenges, including the changing and increasing digital economy, aging entrepreneurs and workforce, difficulty attracting and retaining talent, the direction of the U.S. administration, etc.

For SMEs, there's general liquidity in the market. Access to capital is easy for well-established businesses and traditional business models. However, when it comes to asset-light companies and innovative business models, they have more difficulty accessing capital. Financial institutions have not fully adapted to the reality of financing or investing in technology companies. However, we are seeing consistent improvements in this area.

At BDC, these trends are hugely important for us. We are continually innovating to meet the needs of entrepreneurs by expanding our offerings, changing the ways in which we interact with entrepreneurs and improving our delivery model.

Despite the uncertainty in their landscape, we are constantly encouraging SMEs to invest in their business. By doing so, they can improve their resilience. Simply put, businesses that invest more, experience stronger growth. That, in turn, means a stronger Canadian economy. We want to see more business investment across the board.

That's where BDC can play a role, by both investing and providing advice to help SMEs grow. At the end of this fiscal year 2018—and please note that these numbers are unaudited and might change slightly—our total financing commitments to Canadian SMEs hit $28.8 billion. On the venture capital side, our investments in high potential innovative companies and funds reached a total commitment of $1.26 billion.

We are also investing in key areas of the economy to help unleash the potential of women entrepreneurs, for example. As indicated in the budget, building on the success of our previous women entrepreneur initiative, we have set a new bold and ambitious target to lend $1.4 billion to women entrepreneurs over the next three years. That's double our previous target.

The budget also announced the expansion of our women in technology venture capital fund, from $70 million to $200 million. This is now the largest VC fund dedicated to supporting and scaling women-led technology businesses in the world.

We are also investing in a number of other key areas, such as clean tech and later stage venture capital, through the new venture capital catalyst initiative. Given the time constraints, Karen and I would be delighted to receive your questions on any of these issues, or the state of small and medium-sized businesses in Canada more broadly.

Thank you.

[Medric Cousineau]

The media contacted me after budget day and asked what this meant in financial terms. My response was that it would be approximately $37.50 a month. Their incredulous response was, “You fought a five-and-a-half year war over a $1.23 a day?” No, I fought a war for equality and human rights. The $1.23 is just a consequence or byproduct.

What started the war that I've waged for years for efficacy studies and tax credits? Three-plus decades ago I was injured doing my job in the military. The mental health injuries have been and will always be an ongoing battle, 24-7 365 days a year. When I was paired up with Thai, almost six years ago, I applied to VAC for their service dog allowance. If I was blind and Thai was a guide dog, I would be receiving an allowance for her care and upkeep. Buried deep within VAC's own benefit grids you're going to find benefit 625995, which provides $1,200 for 12 calendar months for the care and upkeep of a guide dog. Trying to differentiate between a guide dog and a service dog is a moot point. In each case a highly specialized dog is task trained to mitigate their handler's disability. Yet I was denied. When I asked why, they said that Thai does not meet the standard. When I asked what standard she did not meet, I was informed they did not have one. Yes, you have heard that right. I was denied a benefit for a standard I could not meet that they could not define.

I then checked the Income Tax Act, and found out that all service dogs were covered under the medical expense tax credit, with one singular, notable exception. When I repeatedly queried this, I was told there were no studies proving the efficacy of the use of service dogs for PTSD, this despite the fact that other service dogs were never subjected to efficacy studies. It's interesting to note that in 2012, six years ago, diabetic alert dogs were not subjected to the requirement of an efficacy study when they were included in the METC.

The difference between that and how I was treated was discriminatory by definition, treated differently on the basis of my disability. Yes, you heard that one right. I was being discriminated against based on the nature of my disability, in direct contravention of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Ladies and gentlemen, this war was fought for human rights and equality, and any attempt to justify or rationalize human rights based on dollars and cents is so distasteful I cannot quantify it. It actually makes me physically ill. I should probably be testifying at the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs to discuss the implications of VAC's complacency and apathy surrounding the demise of the national service dog standard. This failure by VAC will only further delay financial assistance to disabled veterans with service dogs.

All Canadians who were severely disabled by the debilitating injuries surrounding PTSD need help. The horrific impact 24/7 and 365 days a year on their lives and the lives of their families should not be minimized in any way. The latest is that CRA is denying those with severe mental health injuries their disability tax credit certificate because of a bureaucratic policy, and that, too, is unconscionable. At every turn we've had to fight hammer and tongs for every inch.

You see $1.23 a day, or $37.50 a month, may not sound like much, but the $450-a-year medical expense tax credit, based on $3,000-per year care and upkeep for your service dog, does make a difference to those living with serious mental health injuries. The lash of discrimination only further traumatizes and stigmatizes. A huge step is taken when equality is finally ratified. It should never have come to this.

Why I waged a war for equality and had to have it go on for so long escapes me. However, this is only the first step on a very long journey that those battling the ugly stigma of mental health injuries face. I strongly encourage all parliamentarians to take the next step in helping our disabled veterans by ensuring that VAC end their clearly discriminatory policy, and ensure that I and other disabled veterans receive their allowances under benefit code 625995.

VAC's policy is that they will not provide a benefit further back than when you applied for it. VAC is steadfast in this rule. In my personal case, I'm entitled to almost six years of this benefit back to the date of my application.

In the other matter I was asked to address, the new pension for life, I was extremely hesitant to talk about that because I realized there are others who may have greater expertise. However, I feel, upon considered reflection, I must comment.

The government is about to create a problem of epic proportions for itself. Having just waged human rights battles based on disability, it is about to create another equally loathsome, yet avoidable, human rights battle, based on gender discrimination. Let me explain.

Two soldiers deploy, trained to do the same job and are in the same vehicle, and they sustain exactly the same injuries. They are both covered under the new pension for life, as presented to our veterans, yet astonishingly, the two soldiers receive different monthly payouts. The people who elected you will not stand for that. Imagine what happens when folks comprehend that the difference in payouts is based on gender, and that this government wilfully and knowingly implemented a human rights violation.

There is no other pension at the federal and provincial levels that has gender-based payout differentials, so why the one, solitary exception? The answer is gender-based actuarial assumptions. Should our two veterans choose a lump sum, their benefits are exactly the same. Should they choose a monthly payout, they receive different payouts based on gender. That is not a pension; that is an annuity.

This may seem similar, but there are key differences. Hearken back to my comments earlier that attempt to justify human rights violations based on financial considerations is wrong on all levels. You cannot do that. To knowingly adopt such a plan is unfathomable.

This is not yet law, and the government has the chance to rectify it and save itself immense problems in the future. With the passage of Bill C-74, a critical step forward in helping all Canadians who live with disabilities will transpire with the inclusion of the medical expense tax credit for the use of service dogs by those with mental health injuries. But do not violate Canadians' human rights. To adopt the new pension for life with embedded gender-based discrimination would be unconscionable.

I spent the last five and a half years embroiled in a battle for equality, no more, no less. Equal is equal. How the Prime Minister, who wants to be seen as the champion of gender equality, can participate in enacting legislation embedding gender disparity escapes me. We fought for freedom, and we fought for equality. We should never have to fight our government for human rights and benefits. That was what my fight was for. It was for equality. It was never about $1.23.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Medric Cousineau, Co-Founder, Paws Fur Thought]

Thank you, honourable Chair.

Honourable parliamentarians, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by thanking you for the opportunity to speak to you today about the section of Bill C-74 concerning the medical expense tax credit for service dogs. I'm sure there are parliamentarians of various parties who are glad we are addressing the METC, because I don't have to contact them anymore.

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

Thank you for those clarifications. We are going to try to obtain this model or this calculation before we make a decision and vote on the provisions of Bill C-74. I don't know if the Department of Finance would be able to help us with this.

My next question is for Ms. Gibson from Canadians for Tax Fairness.

You talked about passive income. You made it clear that in order to get $50,000 of passive income, you had to have investments of about $1 million. You have given us some figures, but I would like to know if you have a little more detail on this issue. For example, how many companies in Canada have an annual passive income greater than $50,000 and would be affected by this measure? I don't know if you have those numbers, but it would be interesting to know how much of an impact this measure would have and how many companies would be affected.

[Bruce Ball, Vice-President, Taxation, Chartered Professional Accountants of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and members of the committee. As mentioned, my name is Bruce Ball. I'm vice-president of tax for the Chartered Professional Accountants of Canada, known as CPA Canada.

CPA Canada is one of the largest national accounting organizations in the world, representing more than 210,000 members. Created through unification of the three legacy designations, CPA Canada is celebrating five years of serving the profession, advocating in the public interest, and supporting the setting of accounting, auditing and assurance standards.

I'll focus my comments today on the amendments to the Income Tax Act in part 1 of Bill C-74. In particular, I wanted to address three important points, the first being the outstanding issues that remain with the private company tax measures; the impact of the recent U.S. tax changes on Canada's competitiveness; and the need to review Canada's tax system to address these matters and other matters related to competitiveness, simplicity, fairness, and efficiency.

Starting with the private company measures, as you're well aware, the finance minister's initial proposals to change the tax provisions for Canadian-controlled private corporations were met with considerable criticism. The minister and his department have listened and acted. The provisions laid out in budget 2018 and the bill are much improved. However, there are still aspects in need of further improvement. In particular, the new legislation around the tax on split income is still complex, difficult to read and interpret, and challenging for business owners and practitioners to apply.

A general exemption for spouses would go a long way to simplifying the measures, and is highly recommended. The joint committee on taxation of the Canadian Bar Association and CPA Canada also made some suggestions to further clarify the rules, which we think should be considered. The joint committee's suggestions are rather technical, so I won't go into the details here, but if there are particular questions, I'd be happy to address them.

Though not yet legislated, the changes to the tax on split income are set to take effect on January 1, 2018. We're still suggesting that the government consider deferring the changes to January 2019 to allow more time for consultation and further refinements, because we still think the rules can be improved.

On competitiveness and the matter of the U.S. tax reforms, no matter what we think about them, they are a game-changer for Canada. Budget 2018 announced that Finance Canada would conduct a detailed analysis of the U.S. federal tax reforms. This is good news, but this process must have a sense of urgency to it. Canada's competitiveness depends on it.

In the most recent CPA “Canada Business Monitor” survey, two-thirds of Canadian business leaders report that Canada is now a less competitive place to invest and do business versus the United States, compared to one year ago. The minister says he does not believe that the corporate tax rate is the problem, and we agree. The issue is competitiveness, and competitiveness can be affected by a number of different factors. The tax system as a whole, not just tax rates, is a fundamental part of creating a competitive business environment.

This brings me to my third point, a comprehensive tax review. To ensure that Canada has the most competitive, fair, simple, and efficient tax system possible, it's time for a review of the tax system. You've heard me make this argument before, but each time I appear before this committee the rationale becomes stronger and more urgent. Tax reform will involve broad consultation, and it will involve looking at the tax system more holistically, not just from the perspective of business competitiveness. The process will be worth it. It will lead to a better, more long-term approach to fixing Canada's tax problems.

While the U.S. tax changes demonstrate the need to address Canada's tax system, the controversy around the proposed CCPC tax changes also illustrates why a holistic approach is preferable to incremental changes. The Advisory Council on Economic Growth also recommended addressing the competitiveness challenges in Canada's tax system.

It we want a tax system that fosters our long-term competitiveness, that supports inclusive growth, and that benefits all Canadians, then a review of the entire tax system is the first crucial step.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before the committee, and I'll be happy to answer questions.

[Hassan Yussuff]

Thank you, sir.

Chair and honourable members, good afternoon.

First, on behalf of the three million members of the Canadian Labour Congress, I want to thank the committee for the opportunity to present our views on Bill C-74.

We want to commend the government for two recent improvements to the working income tax benefit, WITB, now renamed the Canada workers benefit, CWB. The first of these improvements expanded WITB as part of the Canada pension plan enhancement. The second improvement is proposed in Bill C-74. In total, there will be nearly $1 billion of annual investment coming into effect in 2019 that will increase the maximum benefit and expand the number of workers who will receive these benefits. The government estimated that these enhancements will lift about 70,000 people out of poverty, and will encourage a greater labour market participation.

We're also pleased that the Canada Revenue Agency will automatically enrol low-income tax filers who are eligible for the benefit. This will improve access for low-paid workers. The government estimates that an additional 300,000 low-income workers will receive the CWB in the 2019 tax year.

We also have several recommendations to further improve the benefits.

First, receiving EI benefits should not cause the CWB to be reduced. Currently, the CWB is gradually phased out based on net income instead of on earnings. This means that EI beneficiaries can be eligible for the Canada workers benefit. Workers have earned these benefits by paying EI premiums, and their EI benefits should not reduce their CWB.

Second, low-income workers should be able to get the CWB more frequently through the year. Low-paid workers need the CWB in periods of low or no earnings. However, only half of the anticipated benefit can be paid in advance. In our view, the CWB should be changed so that 100% of the expected benefit can be paid quarterly, instead of having to wait for tax time. This would be similar to other transfers like the GST tax credit.

Third, it is important to keep in mind that this is still a very modest benefit. In 2015, 1.2 million working-age Canadians received the WITB, with an average annual benefit of only $807 per household. Many recipients of the benefit will continue to fall below the poverty line. More money should, therefore, be allocated to the Canada workers benefit to provide higher benefits and to phase it out more slowly. We believe that no worker in Canada should live in poverty. In particular—shamefully—full-time, full-year workers earning minimum wage in Canada could be earning at or near the poverty line. This leads to my final point.

The CWB alone is simply not enough. It must be part of a broader tool kit to eliminate working poverty in Canada.

As the 2018 budget noted, over the past four years, lower and middle-income workers have had their wage prospects stall while the CWB remains essential. Therefore, we must strike new wage and workplace standards and combat precarious work. This should take a three-prong approach.

First, we need to strengthen the labour standards of the Canada Labour Code, which we hope we will do this year. This will include the creation of a new federal minimum wage. A $15 federal minimum wage is long overdue. The federal government also should enact measures to ensure equal pay protection for part-time, temporary, and contract workers within the federal jurisdiction.

Second, there is still a gap between the number of Canadians who want to join a union and the number of Canadians who are actually represented by a union. The best and the most effective way to raise wages and fight precarity is by giving these workers a voice in the workplace. This means strengthening the labour laws to enable workers to join a union.

The third prong is simple. Attack the joblessness and unemployment by creating decent jobs. The CLC urges the government to invest in the bold economic transition to a low-carbon economy. We have an historic opportunity to respond to the climate crisis and generate decent jobs—green jobs—through the ambitious program of energy investment, public transit, and home and building retrofits. There are many job options here waiting to be tapped. If we reduce the labour market slack and address underemployment, wages will begin to rise.

Finally, I want to say something about the improvement to the Canada pension plan in part 6 of this bill. The CLC welcomes these enhancements to the survivors pension and other benefits. With respect to the child rearing and disability dropout, we believe the government hasn't properly researched the impact on women and workers with a disability. We therefore recommend the committee ask the Department of Finance to provide detailed modelling of the drop-in provision that's in the bill in regard to the CPP enhancement, for the committee members.

I want to thank the committee members for the opportunity to be here today. I will answer on behalf of the congress any questions the committee wishes to pose.

Thank you so much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We will call the meeting to order to hear from witnesses on the budget implementation act, Bill C-74.

In this round between 3:30 and 5:00, we have four witnesses here, and one from Vancouver by video.

We'll start with Mr. Robert Blakely from Canada's Building Trade Unions.

The floor is yours.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I call the meeting to order. I understand that we'll be interrupted by bells. We're here continuing our study on the budget implementation act, Bill C-74.

With us to give their comments on part 3 of the act, amendments to the Excise Act, cannabis taxation, is Mr. Coulombe, who is Director, Sales Tax Division; Mr. Mercille, who is the Director General, Sales Tax Division; and Mr. Baddeley, Policy Analyst.

The floor is yours, Mr. Coulombe.

[Gervais Coulombe, Director, Sales Tax Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Government of Canada applies an excise duty to all tobacco products sold in the Canadian market. The tobacco excise duty rates are currently set to automatically increase every five years to account for inflation. Under this approach, tobacco excise duty rates would be adjusted on December 1, 2019. Budget 2018 proposed to advance the existing inflationary adjustments for tobacco excise duty rates to occur on an annual basis rather than every five years. To ensure consistency in the excise framework, inflationary adjustments will take effect on April 1 of every year, starting in 2019.

Effective February 28, 2018, the day after the budget, tobacco excise duty rates were adjusted to account for inflation since the last inflationary adjustment that was made in 2014. That first adjustment was equivalent to an increase of about $1.29 per carton of 200 cigarettes.

The budget also proposed to increase excise duty rate by an additional $1 per carton of 200 cigarettes, along with corresponding increases to the excise duty rates on other tobacco products like chewing tobacco or cigars.

Overall, as of February 28, 2018, the excise duty rate on 200 cigarettes increased by $2.29, rising from $21.56 per carton to $23.85 per carton. That translates into an increase of about 29 cents per pack of 25 cigarettes.

An inventory tax was also applied to inventories of more than 30,000 cigarettes, which is equivalent to 150 cartons of 200 cigarettes, held by manufacturers, importers, wholesalers, and retailers as of the end of February 27, 2018. This measure generally applies as of the day after the budget, and details of the measure are found on pages 39 and 40 of the budget supplementary information booklet. The clauses implementing these measures are all under part 2, covering clauses 47 to 67 of Bill C-74.

This completes the introductory remarks for part 2.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Pierre Poilievre]

I call to order the meeting. We're dealing with Bill C-74, the budget implementation bill. It was referred yesterday to committee.

We have with us today a number of Finance Canada officials and an official from the Department of Veterans Affairs. They will be making short presentations on parts 1, 2, and 4 of the bill, and then we'll go to questioning. If time allows, we may move on to parts 3 and 5 of the bill. If not, we'll be dealing with those, plus part 6, at our meeting tomorrow.

I trust the committee is satisfied with that approach.

Hearing no objections, we'll start with part 4. We have Madam Norrie, Acting Senior Director at the Policy Directorate of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Ms. Norrie, the floor is yours, on part 4, “Canadian Forces Members and Veterans”.

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.

Applicability of Standing Order 69.1 — Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised earlier today by the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby concerning the applicability of Standing Order 69.1 to Bill C-74, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures.

I would like to thank the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby for raising this matter, as well as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons for his comments.

The hon. member argued that Bill C-74 is an omnibus bill, as defined under Standing Order 69.1, as it amends more than 40 acts and contains several different initiatives. He is concerned, in particular, by a new act contained in the bill, namely the greenhouse gas pollution pricing act. The hon. member acknowledged that this measure has been mentioned in the budget documents. However, he found it disproportionate that these few paragraphs, providing a brief overview of the government's intentions in relation to carbon pricing, represent 215 pages in the bill. He is of the view that this goes against the spirit of the Standing Order. For this reason, he feels the exemption provided for budget implementation bills by Standing Order 69.1(2) should not apply and that the measure should be voted on separately.

In his intervention, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader expressed his disagreement. He noted that page 151 of the budget document contains a section called “Pricing Carbon Pollution and Supporting Clean Growth”. In his view, this passage contained in the budget satisfies the requirement contained in Standing Order 69.1(2), thereby excluding Bill C-74 from the application of Standing Order 69.1(1).

The Speaker has the power to divide the questions, for the purposes of voting, on any motion for second and third reading of a bill in circumstances where the bill contains a number of unrelated provisions. The matter before us today concerns paragraph (2) of that Standing Order, which makes an exception for budget implementation bills. Standing Order 69.1(2) reads as follows:

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.

The provisions identified by the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby were indeed announced in the budget, as he himself acknowledged. The Chair has reviewed the relevant sections of the budget document cited by both the hon. member and the hon. parliamentary secretary, as well as the relevant portion of the bill. I believe there is a direct link between what was announced and what is contained in Bill C-74. I do not, however, believe it is for the Chair to determine if the proportions of a measure correspond sufficiently to the amount of the reference to it in the budget documents. If the measures are contained in the budget documents, the exemption of Standing Order 69.1(2) applies. Therefore, I do not believe it would be appropriate to have a separate vote on the provisions relating to the greenhouse gas pollution pricing act.

Finally, I would like to point out that Bill C-74 was introduced almost four weeks ago and debated on several days since then. As I mentioned in my ruling of November 7, 2017, for everyone's benefit I would encourage hon. members to raise their arguments as early as possible after a bill is introduced.

I thank all hon. members for their attention.

Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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.

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.

[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.”

[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.

[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 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.

Bill C-74—Time Allocation Motion

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

Bill C-74—Proposal to Apply Standing Order 69.1

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

Mr. Speaker, I would indeed like to raise a point of order.

I am rising today to ask you, Mr. Speaker, to apply Standing Order 69.1 to Bill C-74, the budget implementation act, 2018, no. 1.

In this corner of the House, we believe that this bill is an omnibus bill, as defined under Standing Order 69.1. As you know, Mr. Speaker, and have ruled in the past, Standing Order 69.1 was added to the Standing Orders last June and was supposed to be the government's answer to the abuse of omnibus legislation.

I will remind you, Mr. Speaker, though I know you are well versed in this, that Standing Order 69.1(1) says the following:

In the case where a government bill seeks to repeal, amend or enact more than one act, and where there is not a common element connecting the various provisions or where unrelated matters are linked, the Speaker shall have the power to divide the questions, for the purposes of voting, on the motion for second reading and reference to a committee and the motion for third reading and passage of the bill. The Speaker shall have the power to combine clauses of the bill thematically and to put the aforementioned questions on each of these groups of clauses separately, provided that there will be a single debate at each stage.

Since the adoption of the Standing Order, we have seen a number of new omnibus bills tabled by the government. Bill C-63, the previous budget implementation bill, was divided for votes at second and third reading, because it contained so many different provisions. Mr. Speaker, you ruled on that.

We also had a huge environmental bill, Bill C-69, that was split for the purposes of voting. Mr. Speaker, you will recall that you ruled that the section on the Navigable Waters Protection Act was distinct enough from the rest of that environment bill to split it.

We have serious concerns, and all parliamentarians should have serious concerns, about the use of omnibus bills in this place. It becomes increasingly difficult for members of Parliament to represent their constituents when governments table these massive bills, in which so many different things are lumped together.

Bill C-74 poses a particularly problematic situation. This massive bill is over 555 pages long and affects over 40 different acts. It is clearly an omnibus bill because it deals with matters as diverse as veterans' compensation, changes to the Parliament Act with respect to maternity and parental arrangements, and the establishment of the office of the chief information officer of Canada. This is, in fact, the most massive budget bill ever.

What worries us most, however, is that this budget implementation bill enacts the greenhouse gas pollution pricing act.

Mr. Speaker, you are aware, of course, that the second paragraph, Standing Order 69.1(2), stipulates:

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.

We looked through the budget speech, the budget documentation, the tax tables, and everything else that was tabled with the budget in February. The only reference to carbon pricing in the budget documents is a few short paragraphs, including the following:

The Government recently released draft legislative proposals on the federal carbon pollution pricing system, as well as a regulatory framework outlining the approach to carbon pollution pricing for large industrial facilities, and intends to introduce legislation to establish that system.

In that short paragraph, there is an acknowledgement that the government actually was working on separate legislation that should properly be put to the House separately. Of course, in terms of the spirit of Standing Order 69.1, the fact that this draft legislation was developed separately, and that the government even seemed to indicate a propensity to introduce that legislation separately, should give cause for consideration in terms of Standing Order 69.1, because it has an impact on all of us as members of Parliament being able to adequately represent our constituents.

Because of those few paragraphs, the Liberals—the government—felt justified in including the brand-new greenhouse gas pollution pricing act, a bill that takes up 215 pages of the budget bill, 215 of 556 pages.

The issue is that the government intended to introduce legislation to establish this system. This indicates that the intention was to have separate legislation on the subject. A federal carbon pollution pricing system is a big step that deserves to be properly studied, looked at, and voted on by parliamentarians.

Mr. Speaker, I will remind you of your ruling of March 1, 2018, on Bill C-69, when you said the following:

the question the Chair must ask itself is whether the purpose of the standing order was to deal only with matters that were obviously unrelated or whether it was to provide members with the opportunity to pronounce themselves on specific initiatives when a bill contains a variety of different measures.

At that time, you answered very appropriately and courageously, establishing the precedent for separating that bill out so that members of Parliament could have the opportunity to adequately represent their constituents through that separate vote.

I also want to quote the Minister of Public Safety, who said the following with respect to the issue of omnibus legislation, and I could not agree with him more:

The Liberals did in fact condemn the Conservatives' repeated use of omnibus bills as undemocratic. Now that they are in power, they are using some of the very tactics they criticized. Here is what the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness said about the Conservatives' 2012 budget implementation bill when he was in the opposition:

He further stated:

On the procedural point, so-called omnibus bills obviously bundle several different measures together. Within reasonable limits, such legislation can be managed through Parliament if the bill is coherent, meaning that all the different topics are interrelated and interdependent and if the overall volume of the bill is not overwhelming. That was the case before the government came to power in 2006.

That was the Minister of Public Safety, speaking in 2012, commenting on the previous Conservative government. He went on:

When omnibus bills were previously used to implement key provisions of federal budgets, they averaged fewer than 75 pages in length and typically amended a handful of laws directly related to budgetary policy. In other words, they were coherent and not overwhelming.

However, under this regime the practice has changed. Omnibus bills since 2006 have averaged well over 300 pages, more than four times the previous norm. This latest one introduced last week had 556 sections, filled 443 pages and touched on 30 or more disconnected topics, everything from navigable waters to grain inspection, from disability plans to hazardous materials.

That was the previous record before the budget implementation act of a few weeks ago.

TheMinister of Public Safety completed his comments by stating:

It is a complete dog's breakfast, and deliberately so. It is calculated to be so humongous and so convoluted, all in a single lump, that it cannot be intelligently examined and digested by a conscientious Parliament.

I could not agree more with the current Liberal Minister of Public Safety in condemning what the impact is on parliamentarians of having these dog's breakfast omnibus bills. As members know, the current budget implementation bill is the largest we have ever seen dumped on the floor of the House of Commons, and 215 pages are on carbon pricing. This clearly violates the spirit of Standing Order 69.1.

As the Speaker, it clearly gives you the opportunity, despite the loophole I am sure the government House leader or the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader will try to use, to justify what is unjustifiable.

There is long precedence in this place that we try to make sure that our votes count and that legislation is distinct enough so that as members of Parliament, we have the ability to truly represent our constituents.

This dumping in of 215 pages around carbon pricing to make the most massive budget implementation act in Canadian history simply violates to every degree the spirit and the principles around Standing Order 69.1.

You have ruled in the past on these important measures, Mr. Speaker. You have taken the opportunity to judge whether parliamentarians, or parliament, or ultimately Canadians are well served by this dumping in of legislation. It started under the previous government. Standing Order 69.1 was designed to give you the tools to counter that abuse by governments of dumping in separate legislation. There is no doubt that the government is violating the spirit of Standing Order 69.1 by dumping in carbon pricing into this massive bill.

What I ask you to do today, Mr. Speaker, is to take the time to consider what I have said, and other members may choose to join in as well, and ultimately to rule to separate out carbon pricing so, as members of Parliament, we can truly represent our constituents.

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will debate the Senate amendments on Bill C-25, business frameworks.

Monday, we will continue second reading debate of Bill C-74, on the budget.

Tuesday and Thursday shall be allotted days.

Wednesday, we will resume third reading debate of Bill C-55, on ocean protection.

Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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.

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.

Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1

[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—

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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.

[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.

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 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.

Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's Report

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is demonstrating bad faith in suggesting that we do not want to talk about the budget. Earlier, as I was asking his colleague a question, I said that if he kept quiet and did not rise, nobody else on this side of the House would rise either. Accordingly, as per our rules, the debate would have gone to a vote immediately. There would have been a vote and we could have moved on to the item on the agenda, which is the budget. Clearly, my colleague's insistence on continuing to talk is preventing us from getting back to the debate on the budget, Bill C-74.

Why did my colleague rise when he could have kept quiet so the question could be put immediately?

Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1

[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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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 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.

[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.

[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.

[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, 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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon the House will continue second reading debate of Bill C-68 concerning the Fisheries Act. The House will then adjourn for the Easter break and allow members to return to work in their constituencies and also spend some time with family and friends.

Upon our return on April 16, we will commence second reading debate on Bill C-74, the budget implementation act, and continue that debate for the remainder of the week.

I want to take this opportunity to wish all my colleagues, their families, and everyone who works and helps us in this place a happy Easter and a pleasant break.

[Marc-André Pigeon, Assistant Vice-President, Financial Sector Policy, Canadian Credit Union Association]

Thank you for the opportunity to talk about the 2018 statutory review of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act.

I'm going to approach this issue from the perspective of our 260-plus members that we often characterize as the small businesses of the Canadian financial sector. Our concerns, as you'll see in my comments, are really oriented from that perspective.

I would note first of all that the credit union system is pleased to see that the government is seeking a balance between regulatory compliance and the associated costs. Credit unions know they have a role to play in fighting these criminal activities. They are apprehensive, however, about the expansion of this framework to include sectors in which small entities, such as credit unions, do not always have the required resources or knowledge.

We also recognize that financial institutions have a responsibility to know who they are dealing with. That is the foundation of our business model. That said, our members maintain that due diligence as regards money laundering, collecting information, and documentation requirements is costly and prevents them from focusing on their core mandate, which is serving their members.

All this matters because our research, and research internationally, have found repeatedly that regulatory compliance, especially with money laundering and terrorist financing obligations, impose a disproportionately large and heavy burden on credit unions, smaller institutions, and smaller credit unions in particular. In fact, I think this creates a barrier to entry or good competition in the banking sector. It's a serious issue for us.

With the proposed expansion of the framework to cover new sectors, it would seem this load will spread to more entities. I know it's difficult to argue against the logic behind moving towards functional regulation, but it's also hard to imagine how collecting more information will necessarily lead to a more successful policy outcome. So far, the evidence we've seen does not bear that out.

It's true that some of the proposed changes try to make the overall framework more efficient and responsive. We are concerned, however, that some of these are just tweaks to what is frankly often a burdensome and not always efficient or effective system.

We'd like to suggest a different approach. We'd like to suggest the adoption of a model built around a simplified due diligence process for use in situations where there is little risk of services or customers becoming involved in money laundering or terrorist financing. Other jurisdictions have already adopted this approach. We believe that following their example would lead to the same results, namely reducing or at least limiting the increase in administrative burden imposed by the framework. Further, we think it would do so without affecting the value or quality of the gathered information.

This alternative model could also leverage new technologies to achieve the goal of capturing useful information while minimizing the cost of doing so. For example—I think this has been discussed publicly—the public sector might consider creating industry-wide information clearing houses. These clearing houses could collect beneficial ownership information, from annual tax reports, that could be keyed to unique identifiers assigned to each tax filer. By limiting a reporting entity's obligations to obtaining this unique number from their clients, the resulting compliance burden could be meaningfully reduced. Reporting entities would no longer need to go through the inefficient and duplicative effort of gathering this information from each account holder.

From the client's perspective, it would be less time-consuming and repetitive, especially for clients who hold accounts at several reporting entities. For the public sector, this approach could increase confidence that the information is secure, consistent, verified, and accurate. Since the detection of money laundering often hinges on observing the flow of funds among parties, policy-makers may also want to consider tying this approach into some of the changes that are being proposed as part of the payments modernization effort.

In short, we think the approach we are proposing would give credit unions and other reporting entities more time to focus on what is truly important, namely, explaining the context of transactions, rather than recording the usual, factual information.

The measures we are proposing are not simple to implement. We admit that. Yet if we are to strike a balance between costs and results, we encourage policymakers to carefully consider our proposals.

As I wrap up, I'd like to briefly shift to thanking this committee for the support it gave to credit unions as we worked to secure the right to use generic banking terms. Yesterday, as you know, the federal government introduced proposed changes as part of its budget implementation act that for us represent important progress on this file. This committee deserves credit for its support.

I'd be happy to take your questions on today's topic and also to appear on your Bill C-74 review.

Thank you very much.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

I'm going to point out something here. I'm holding the bill in my hands, but the clause of this motion says that we'll start clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-74 on Tuesday, March 22, and by May 23, if we haven't finished it by 9:00 p.m., all the remaining amendments submitted to committee shall be deemed moved. The chair shall put the question forthwith and successively. This means that there's very little way we can actually get through this. I remember that the last time we went through it, I reserved my remarks to about 12 to 15 clauses with which I had serious issues, where I proposed some amendments. This is a bigger bill than last year's, and it goes into far more detailed taxation issues that I need to read up on and on which I need to get up to speed, because it goes outside of just strict budgetary matters, I would say.

You're severely limiting my ability as an individual member to represent, which is why I kind of have an issue with the “limiting it to the party” thing as well, not that I'm all that verbose at times. I'd like to be able to thoroughly review the budget bill in its entirety, and in its minutiae as well, because a lot of these odd clauses get caught in that moment. I remember that in clause-by-clause you actually learn more about the budget bill than at any point because you hear from others on their viewpoints. I'm just a little bit concerned that we won't be able to give this bill the due diligence it deserves.

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

Out of respect for the witnesses with us today, I will be brief.

Bill C-74, which is 547 pages long, has not even been voted on yet, but the government is already predicting that it will be passed. In other words, it is anticipating the result of a vote in the House of Commons. I would like the record to reflect my disagreement with this practice.

I would also like the record to reflect my disagreement with points 11 and 12 of the motion, which limit the time allocated for the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill as a whole. They are seeking to limit the attention parliamentarians may devote to this 547-page bill. We want to make sure that, at the end of the process, we have done our due diligence.

I would simply like the record to reflect my disagreement with such an undemocratic process.

Status of Women

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

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, since I was cut off. If you seek it, I hope you will find unanimous consent for the Prime Minister to answer the following question.

Since they are missing, will the Prime Minister put pay equity and enhanced parental leave into the budget bill, Bill C-74?

Ways and Means

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

moved for leave to introduce 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 first time and be printed.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)