Bill C-86 (Historical)

Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2

A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures

Part 1 implements certain income tax and related measures by
(a) introducing rules intended to provide greater certainty with respect to various tax consequences arising from certain foreign divisive reorganizations;
(b) ensuring that the existing cross-border anti-surplus stripping rule cannot be circumvented through transactions involving the use of partnerships or trusts;
(c) introducing rules to prevent misuse of the foreign accrual property income regime through the use of tracking interests involving foreign affiliates;
(d) ensuring consistency between the trading or dealing in indebtedness rules and the investment business rules within the foreign accrual property income regime;
(e) ensuring that the at-risk rules apply appropriately at each level of a tiered partnership structure;
(f) providing that the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness can determine international operational missions for the purpose of the deduction available for income earned by members of the Canadian Forces or police officers on such missions;
(g) amending the synthetic equity arrangement rules and securities lending arrangement rules to prevent the artificial generation of losses through the use of equity-based financial instruments;
(h) ensuring that social assistance payments under certain programs do not preclude individuals from receiving the Canada Child Benefit;
(i) ensuring that an individual who is eligible to receive the Canada Workers Benefit can receive the benefit without having to claim it;
(j) introducing a refundable tax credit for the purposes of the climate action incentive;
(k) providing allocation rules for losses applied against Part IV taxes;
(l) preventing the creation of artificial losses on shares held as mark-to-market property by financial institutions;
(m) revising the rules relating to the non-partisan political activities of charities;
(n) ensuring that a taxpayer is subject to a three-year extended reassessment period in respect of any income, loss or other amount arising in connection with a foreign affiliate of the taxpayer;
(o) providing the Canada Revenue Agency with an extended reassessment period of an additional three years, to the extent that the reassessment relates to the adjustment of a loss carryback for transactions involving a taxpayer and non-resident non-arm’s length persons;
(p) extending the reassessment period of a taxpayer by the period of time during which a requirement for information or compliance order is contested;
(q) requiring that information returns in respect of a taxpayer’s foreign affiliates be filed within 10 months after the end of the taxpayer’s taxation year;
(r) enabling the disclosure of taxpayer and other confidential tax information to Canada’s bilateral mutual legal assistance treaty partners for the purposes of non-tax criminal investigations and prosecutions of certain serious crimes; and
(s) providing a deduction for employee contributions to the enhanced portion of the Quebec Pension Plan.
Part 1 also amends the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act to, among other things, define the term “agreement” as applying, among other things, to tax information exchange agreements and tax treaties to which Canada is a party, and provide for orders to produce financial information for the purposes of investigation and prosecution of certain offences set out in subsection 462.‍48(1.‍1) of the Criminal Code. The enactment also amends paragraph 462.‍48(2)‍(c) of the Criminal Code to provide that information may also be gathered under Part IX of the Excise Tax Act and under the Excise Act, 2001.
Part 2 implements certain Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax (GST/HST) measures by
(a) replacing the requirement that GST/HST be collected on a sale of carbon emission allowances with a requirement that the purchaser self-assess that GST/HST;
(b) extending the assessment period for group registered education savings plan trusts that make a special relieving election in respect of their past HST liability;
(c)  introducing GST/HST rules in respect of investment limited partnerships;
(d) clarifying the intended tax policy of excluding books that are sold by a public service body from the GST/HST rebate for printed books;
(e) introducing amendments similar to those to the Income Tax Act to extend the assessment period of a person by the period of time during which a requirement for information or compliance order is contested; and
(f)  introducing amendments similar to those to the Income Tax Act to enable the disclosure of confidential information to Canada’s bilateral mutual legal assistance treaty partners, or to Canadian police officers, for the purposes of non-tax criminal investigations and prosecution of certain serious crimes.
Part 3 implements certain excise measures by
(a) broadening the refund regime in respect of excise tax on diesel fuel to allow a vendor to apply for a refund where a purchaser will use excise tax-paid diesel fuel to generate electricity, if certain conditions are met;
(b) introducing an anti-avoidance excise measure relating to the taxation of cannabis in respect of the rules establishing the value of a cannabis product on which an ad valorem duty is calculated;
(c)  introducing amendments to the Air Travellers Security Charge Act and the Excise Act, 2001 that are similar to those to the Income Tax Act to extend the assessment period of a person by the period of time during which a requirement for information or compliance order is contested;
(d) introducing amendments to the Excise Act, 2001 that are similar to those to the Income Tax Act to enable the disclosure of confidential information to Canada’s bilateral mutual legal assistance treaty partners, or to Canadian police officers, for the purposes of non-tax criminal investigations and prosecution of certain serious crimes; and
(e) making housekeeping amendments to the Excise Act, 2001 in order to ensure consistency between the English and French version of the legislation.
Part 4 enacts and amends several Acts in order to implement various measures.
Division 1 of Part 4 amends the Customs Tariff in order to simplify it and reduce the administrative burden for Canadian businesses and the Government of Canada by consolidating similar tariff items that have the same tariff rates and removing end-use provisions where appropriate. The amendments also clarify existing tariff provisions and make other technical amendments.
Division 2 of Part 4 amends the Canada Pension Plan to modify the calculation of the amount to be attributed for a year in which a contributor is a family allowance recipient and their first or second additional contributory period begins or ends.
Subdivision A of Division 3 of Part 4 amends the Trust and Loan Companies Act, the Bank Act and the Insurance Companies Act to, among other things,
(a) establish thresholds below which the acquisition of control of certain entities, or the acquisition or increase of a substantial investment in them, does not require the approval of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions;
(b) allow financial institutions to invest in the Canadian business growth fund; and
(c) ensure that customers can provide consent electronically to receive electronic documents.
It also corrects a reference to the Insurance Companies Act in the Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1.
Subdivision B of Division 3 of Part 4 amends the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act to, among other things,
(a) make technical amendments to clarify the method of calculating insured deposits, to remove outdated references, to repeal certain provisions not yet in force and to clarify that withdrawals made following the amalgamation of two or more member institutions or the continuance as a federal credit union will be considered to be made from pre-existing deposits and that the separation of accounts following the amalgamation is limited to a period of two years;
(b) exclude amounts borrowed by the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation under paragraph 60.‍2(2)‍(c) of the Financial Administration Act from the calculation of the Corporation’s total principal indebtedness; and
(c) clarify that the liquidator of a member institution of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation must not apply the law of set-off or compensation to a claim related to insured deposits.
It also repeals two sections of the Financial System Review Act.
Subdivision C of Division 3 of Part 4 amends the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act, the Trust and Loan Companies Act, the Bank Act and the Insurance Companies Act to, among other things, clarify that providing legally privileged information to the Superintendent of Financial Institutions does not constitute a waiver of the privilege.
Division 4 of Part 4 amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to remove the right of persons to decide not to proceed further with importing or exporting currency or monetary instruments that are required to be reported.
Division 5 of Part 4 amends the Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act to, among other things, allow for the application, within the offshore area, of the provincial greenhouse gas pricing regime and to confer powers and impose duties and functions on the Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board for the application of that regime. It also amends the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act to provide that the provincial regime does not apply if the offshore area is mentioned in Part 2 of Schedule 1 to that Act. Finally, it amends the Offshore Health and Safety Act to postpone the repeal of certain regulations.
Division 6 of Part 4 amends the Canada Business Corporations Act to set out criteria for identifying individuals with significant control over a corporation. The Division also sets out a requirement for a corporation that meets certain criteria to keep a register of individuals with significant control and requirements respecting the information to be recorded in it. Finally, the Division includes applicable offences and punishments.
Subdivision A of Division 7 of Part 4 amends the Patent Act in order to
(a) provide a regulation-making authority for the establishment of requirements for written demands relating to patents;
(b) specify that an act committed for the purpose of experimentation relating to the subject matter of a patent is not an infringement of the patent and that licencing commitments that bind the owner of a standard-essential patent or the holder of a certificate of supplementary protection that sets out such a patent bind any subsequent owners or holders;
(c) expand the rights of a person in respect of a claim in a patent who meets the requirements to be considered a prior user;
(d) ensure that patent prosecution histories may be admissible into evidence for certain purposes;
(e) clarify when a late fee must be paid in respect of divisional applications as well as when the confidentiality period begins in the case where a request for priority is deemed never to have been made.
Subdivision B of Division 7 of Part 4 amends the Trade-marks Act to, among other things,
(a) add bad faith as a ground of opposition to the registration of a trade-mark and for the invalidation of a trade-mark registration;
(b) prevent the owner of a registered trade-mark from obtaining relief for acts done contrary to section 19, 20 or 22 of that Act during the first three years after the trade-mark is registered unless the trade-mark was in use in Canada during that period or special circumstances exist that excuse the absence of use;
(c) clarify that the prohibitions in subparagraph 9(1)‍(n)‍(iii) and section 11 of that Act do not apply with respect to a badge, crest, emblem or mark that was the subject of a public notice of adoption and use as an official mark if the entity that made the request for the public notice is not a public authority or no longer exists; and
(d) modernize the conduct of various proceedings before the Registrar of Trade-marks, including by providing the Registrar with additional powers in such proceedings.
It also makes certain housekeeping amendments to provisions of the Trade-marks Act that are enacted by the Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1 and the Combating Counterfeit Products Act.
Subdivision C of Division 7 of Part 4 amends the Copyright Act in order to specify that certain information is not permitted to be included within a notice under the notice and notice regime and to provide for a regulation-making power to prohibit further types of information from being included within such a notice.
Subdivision D of Division 7 of Part 4 enacts the College of Patent Agents and Trade-mark Agents Act. That Act establishes the College of Patent Agents and Trade-mark Agents, which is to be responsible for the regulation of patent agents and trade-mark agents in the public interest. That Act, among other things,
(a) requires that individuals obtain a licence in order to act as patent agents or trade-mark agents and that licensees comply with a code of professional conduct;
(b) authorizes the College’s Investigations Committee to receive complaints and conduct investigations into whether a licensee has committed professional misconduct or was incompetent;
(c) authorizes the College’s Discipline Committee to impose disciplinary measures if it decides that a licensee has committed professional misconduct or was incompetent; and
(d) creates new offences of claiming to be a patent agent or trade-mark agent and unauthorized representation before the Patent Office or the Office of the Registrar of Trade-marks.
That Subdivision also makes consequential amendments to certain Acts.
Subdivision E of Division 7 of Part 4 amends the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to provide that intellectual property users may preserve their usage rights when intellectual property rights are sold or disposed of in an insolvency proceeding or when the agreement relating to such property rights is disclaimed or resiliated in such a proceeding. It also amends the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act to provide that intellectual property users may preserve their usage rights when intellectual property rights are sold or disposed of.
Subdivision F of Division 7 of Part 4 amends the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act to provide that the head of a government institution may refuse to disclose, under either of those Acts, information that is subject to the privilege set out in section 16.‍1 of the Patent Act or section 51.‍13 of the Trade-marks Act. It makes a related amendment to the Pest Control Products Act.
Subdivision G of Division 7 of Part 4 amends the National Research Council Act to clarify that the National Research Council of Canada has the authority to dispose of all forms of intellectual property that it develops, including future rights to such property and to provide the Council with the authority to dispose of real, personal, movable and immovable property, complementing the current provision in the Act that allows it to acquire such property.
Subdivision H of Division 7 of Part 4 amends the Copyright Act in order to modernize the legislative framework relating to the Copyright Board so as to improve the timeliness and clarity of its proceedings and decision-making processes. More specifically, it repeals spent provisions and
(a) codifies the Board’s mandate and establishes decision-making criteria;
(b) establishes new timelines in respect of Board matters, including earlier filing dates for proposed tariffs and longer effective periods for approved tariffs, and empowers the Governor in Council to make additional timelines by regulation;
(c) formalizes case management of Board proceedings;
(d) reduces the number of matters that must be considered by the Board;
(e) streamlines procedural steps across different tariff contexts, maintaining differences between them only where necessary;
(f) amends relevant enforcement provisions, including the availability of statutory damages for certain parties in respect of Board-set royalty rates and enforcement of Board-set terms and conditions; and
(g) modernizes existing language and structure for greater clarity and consistency.
Division 8 of Part 4 amends the Employment Insurance Act to, among other things, increase the maximum number of weeks for which parental benefits may be paid if these benefits are divided between claimants. It also amends the Canada Labour Code to, among other things, increase the aggregate amount of leave that may be taken by employees under sections 206.‍1 and 206.‍2 if that leave is divided between employees.
Division 9 of Part 4 enacts the Canadian Gender Budgeting Act in order to state the Government’s policy of promoting gender equality and inclusiveness by taking gender and diversity into consideration in the budget process. It also establishes related reporting requirements.
Division 10 of Part 4 amends the Bank Act to strengthen provisions that apply to a bank or an authorized foreign bank in relation to the protection of customers and the public. It implements enhancements in the areas of corporate governance, responsible business conduct, disclosure and transparency, and redress. It also amends the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada Act to strengthen the mandate of the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada and grant additional powers to that Agency.
Division 11 of Part 4 amends the First Nations Land Management Act to give effect to amendments to the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management respecting, among other things, procedures for obtaining community approval of a land code, the lands to which a land code may apply, the addition of lands to First Nation land by order of the Minister and the transfer of capital moneys.
Division 12 of Part 4 amends the First Nations Fiscal Management Act to, among other things,
(a) enable more Aboriginal organizations and First Nations to benefit from the provisions of the Act in order to strengthen their financial management systems and give them access to long-term financing;
(b) address certain administrative issues identified by the bodies established under the Act; and
(c) provide another option for First Nations to access moneys held by Her Majesty for their use and benefit.
Division 13 of Part 4 amends the Export and Import Permits Act to give the Minister of Foreign Affairs the authority to issue an import allocation for goods that are included on the Import Control List under subsection 5(6) of that Act.
Division 14 of Part 4 enacts the Pay Equity Act to establish a proactive process for the achievement of pay equity by the redressing of the systemic gender-based discrimination experienced by employees who occupy positions in predominantly female job classes. The new Act requires federal public and private sector employers that have 10 or more employees to establish and maintain a pay equity plan within set time frames so as to identify and correct differences in compensation between predominantly female and predominantly male job classes for which the work performed is of equal value. The new Act provides for the powers, duties and functions of a Pay Equity Commissioner, which include facilitating the resolution of disputes, conducting compliance audits and investigating disputes, objections and complaints, as well as making orders and imposing administrative monetary penalties for violations of that Act. The new Act also requires the Pay Equity Commissioner to report annually to Parliament on the administration and enforcement of the new Act.
Division 14 also amends the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act to provide for the application of the Pay Equity Act to parliamentary employers with certain adaptations and without limiting the powers, privileges and immunities of the Senate, the House of Commons and the members of those Houses.
It also makes the Minister of Labour responsible for the administration of the Federal Contractors Program for Pay Equity.
Finally, it makes related and consequential amendments to certain Acts and repeals the section of the Budget Implementation Act, 2009 that enacts the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act.
Subdivision A of Division 15 of Part 4 amends the Canada Labour Code to, among other things,
(a) provide five days of paid leave for victims of family violence, a personal leave of five days with three paid days, an unpaid leave for court or jury duty and a fourth week of annual vacation with pay for employees who have completed at least 10 consecutive years of employment;
(b) eliminate minimum length of service requirements for leaves and general holiday pay and reduce the length of service requirement for three weeks of vacation with pay;
(c) prohibit differences in rate of wages based on the employment status of employees;
(d) address continuity of employment issues when a work, undertaking or business becomes federally regulated or in cases of contract retendering; and
(e) update group and individual termination provisions by increasing the minimum notice of termination.
Subdivision B of Division 15 of Part 4 amends the Canada Labour Code to allow the Minister of Labour to designate a Head of Compliance and Enforcement who will exercise most of the powers and perform most of the duties and functions that are related to the administration and enforcement of Parts II, III and IV of the Code.
Division 16 of Part 4 amends the Wage Earner Protection Program Act to, among other things, increase the maximum amount that may be paid to an individual under the Act, expand the definition of eligible wages, expand the conditions under which a payment may be made under the Act and create additional requirements related to Her Majesty in right of Canada’s right of subrogation in respect of payments made under the Act.
Division 17 of Part 4 amends the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development Agreement Act and the Official Development Assistance Accountability Act to harmonize the periods within which the reports under those Acts must be laid before Parliament in order to better communicate Canada’s international development efforts. It also repeals the definition of “official development assistance” in the Official Development Assistance Accountability Act and confers the power to define this expression by regulation.
Division 17 also enacts the International Financial Assistance Act, which provides the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister for International Development with powers, duties and functions to support the delivery of a sovereign loans program, an international assistance innovation program and a federal international assistance program that promotes the mitigation of or adaptation to climate change through repayable contributions.
Division 18 of Part 4 enacts the Department for Women and Gender Equality Act which, among other things, establishes the Department for Women and Gender Equality to assist the Minister responsible for that department in exercising or performing the Minister’s powers, duties and functions that extend to and include all matters relating to women and gender equality, including the advancement of equality in respect of sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression and the promotion of a greater understanding of the intersection of sex and gender with other identity factors. It also contains transitional provisions. Finally, Division 18 makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Division 19 of Part 4 enacts the Addition of Lands to Reserves and Reserve Creation Act which authorizes a Minister, designated by the Governor in Council, to set apart lands as reserves for the use and benefit of First Nations. The Division also repeals Part 2 of the Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation Act and the Claim Settlements (Alberta and Saskatchewan) Implementation Act.
Division 20 of Part 4 amends section 715.‍42 of the Criminal Code to require the publication of any decision not to publish a remediation agreement or order related to that agreement and of any decision related to the review of such a decision, to specify that the court may make the first decision subject to a condition, including one related to the duration of non-publication, and to allow anyone to request a review of that decision.
Division 21 of Part 4 enacts the Poverty Reduction Act, which sets out two targets for poverty reduction in Canada.
Division 22 of Part 4 amends the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 to, among other things,
(a) authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting the protection of the marine environment from the impacts of navigation and shipping activities;
(b) authorize the Minister of Transport to
(i) make an interim order to mitigate risks to marine safety or to the marine environment, and
(ii) exempt any person or vessel from the application of any provision of that Act or the regulations if doing so would allow the undertaking of research and development that may enhance marine safety or environmental protection;
(c) increase the maximum amount of an administrative penalty that the Governor in Council may fix by regulation;
(d) authorize the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, pollution response officers and accompanying persons to enter private property in the case of a discharge of oil from a vessel or oil handling facility; and
(e) double the administration monetary penalties for certain violations.
Division 23 of Part 4 amends the Marine Liability Act to modernize the Ship-source Oil Pollution Fund, including, among other things,
(a) removing the Fund’s per-occurrence limit of liability;
(b) in the event that the Fund is depleted, authorizing the temporary transfer to the Fund of funds from the Consolidated Revenue Fund;
(c) modernizing the Fund’s levy so that the Fund is replenished by receivers and exporters of oil;
(d) ensuring that the Fund’s liability for claims for economic losses caused by oil pollution aligns with international conventions;
(e) providing that the Fund is liable for the costs and expenses incurred by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans or any other person in respect of preventive measures when the occurrence for which those costs and expenses were incurred has not yet created a grave and imminent threat of causing oil pollution damage;
(f) authorizing the provision of up-front emergency funding out of the Fund to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for significant oil pollution incidents;
(g) creating an expedited, simplified process for small claims to the Fund; and
(h) providing for administrative monetary penalties for contraventions of specified or designated provisions under that Act.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-86, A second 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.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

There are 23 motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-86.

Motion No. 5 will not be selected by the Chair as it was defeated in committee.

With respect to Motion No. 9, the Chair has received a letter from the member for Banff—Airdrie about why his motion should be selected even though it was rejected in committee. However, I am not convinced that the circumstances surrounding his motion are so exceptional that it deserves to be considered again at report stage as provided for in Standing Order 76.1(5). Motion No. 9 will therefore not be selected.

All remaining motions have been examined, and the Chair is satisfied that they meet the guidelines expressed in the note to Standing Order 76.1(5) regarding the selection of motions in amendment at report stage.

Motions Nos. 1 to 4, 6 to 8, and 10 to 23 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put Motions No. 1 to 4, 6 to 8, and 10 to 23 to the House.

Motions in amendment

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Winnipeg North has informed the Chair that he does not wish to proceed with Motion No. 1. The other members who have also given notice of the same motion are not present to move this motion at report stage. Therefore, Motion No. 1 will not be proceeded with.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-86 be amended by deleting Clause 17.

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-86 be amended by deleting Clause 247.

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-86 be amended by deleting Clause 352.

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-86 be amended by deleting Clause 444.

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-86 be amended by deleting Clause 445.

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-86 be amended by deleting Clause 454.

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-86 be amended by deleting Clause 514.

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-86 be amended by deleting Clause 591.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

moved:

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-86 be amended by deleting Clause 675.

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-86 be amended by deleting Clause 676.

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-86 be amended by deleting Clause 677.

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-86 be amended by deleting Clause 678.

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-86 be amended by deleting Clause 679.

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-86 be amended by deleting Clause 680.

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-86 be amended by deleting Clause 681.

Motion No. 19

That Bill C-86 be amended by deleting Clause 682.

Motion No. 20

That Bill C-86 be amended by deleting Clause 683.

Motion No. 21

That Bill C-86 be amended by deleting Clause 684.

Motion No. 22

That Bill C-86 be amended by deleting Clause 685.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

moved:

Motion No. 23

That Bill C-86 be amended by deleting Clause 692.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, often we say we are honoured to stand up in this House. However, today I am actually very disappointed to have to stand up in the House and talk to the amendments I have proposed, why I proposed these amendments, and how the current government has failed to live up to both its promises with respect to the 2015 election and its commitments regarding engagement with indigenous people before it puts proposed legislation on the table.

Members will recall that back in 2015 the government said there would be no omnibus legislation and that it would never table omnibus bills. It also said that if something was not in the budget it would not be in any budget implementation act. Those were commitments it made to Canadians across this country and it has repeated. However, what we have learned, like with its promises for a balanced budget and democratic reform, is that it is simply not following through on its promises. For some reason, it has managed to get away with people not calling it on that. However, I think it is time that Canadians realize that many of the things the government has said it is not following through on.

What has happened? We had the budget implementation act, Bill C-86, land on our tables and it was 802 pages. That is a significant size for a bill. I guess I should not have said, “land on our tables”, because the bills are not printed anymore and there are very few copies. However, it is really quite a massive implementation act.

We do not get a paper copy anymore. Therefore, as we try to look through and understand what is in this massive bill with the tools we are given, like we often do in this House, the government did not even bother to use a format in the budget implementation act that would link us to the sections we wanted to read. In the case that I am talking about, there were three particular areas that related to indigenous legislation, and I could not even get to read what was in the act in a reasonable manner. I had to scroll for minutes and minutes to get to where I needed to be. Therefore, not only do we not have a hard copy, but the government has made it virtually impossible to try and get to the sections of the bill that we need to get to without going through a very onerous process. Quite simply, it should be ashamed of itself because that is not acceptable.

What do we have in this particular bill? As I indicated, there were three sections, division 11, division 12 and division 19, that were specifically related to the indigenous changes.

I am going to focus on division 19, which enacts the addition of lands to reserves and reserve creation act. That was not in the budget of 2017. It was not in the budget of 2018. It was almost impossible to find, but is a significant change the government is proposing, and should be a stand-alone piece of legislation. I hope when people vote for the report stage amendments that the government will reintroduce it in the way it should have introduced it in the first place, as a stand-alone piece of legislation that will go to the indigenous affairs committee to review further.

The next thing that we spot is that it is in the budget implementation act, but it was not referred to the indigenous affairs committee. A motion was brought forward at the indigenous affairs committee saying that we should at least look at this so that we understand what the intentions are, what the government is trying to do, so that we could determine if there were any suggestions we needed to make through amendments. The Liberal majority on the committee voted that down. Therefore, division 19 has had virtually no scrutiny in Parliament. The second reading debate was cut so short that there was no time to even have a conversation about division 19.

One of the interesting things is this. The government has said there is no relationship more important to it than that with indigenous peoples in Canada. It has also committed to a consultation process before it introduces legislation. It committed to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which ensures that, when laws are going to impact indigenous peoples in this country, the government will have a robust consultation process before it introduces any legislation.

I will talk about what happened as the Senate was doing a pre-study on this particular division.

Susan Waters, the director general, lands and environmental management branch in INAC said, “The Treaty Land Entitlement Committee was part of our outreach and engagement. We work closely with them. We are working with them to address the issues that were identified in the arbitration.... The Treaty Land Entitlement Committee are very much aware; we have spoken with them personally, and we continue to speak with them about this proposal.”

Chris Henderson, the executive director of Treaty Land Entitlement Committee of Manitoba, said:

We are concerned about this proposed legislation simply by the fact that nobody from the government ever asked us if we want the act, and also in terms of how will this act improve the land conversion process under the 1997 TLE framework agreement.... Now, with this proposed new ATR legislation, nobody from the Government of Canada ever came to us or our member First Nations to ask us, first, do you want this ATR legislation; and, second, what impacts will there be if we do propose legislation? We were never asked those questions. So out of nowhere, we have this new proposed ATR legislation before the House of Commons. At this point, it's somewhat premature to ask us if we want it because, again, we were never asked to begin with if it's something we asked for.

What we have in division 19 is a change, and it could be a significant change. However, we do not know how significant it is, because we have not had the opportunity to have it referred to committee to do our due diligence in terms of bringing witnesses forward. There is no question that the government has absolutely failed. I bet if I went across this country and asked chiefs if they knew about the new addition to reserve legislation that was hidden in the budget implementation act, they would be very puzzled and very concerned.

Really, how does that meet the government's commitment? It is another case of the government continuing to stand up and say the nice words but when it comes to doing the work, it just does not get it done. This is why it was such a mistake to put this into the budget implementation act.

We looked at Bill S-3, which was a stand-alone piece of proposed legislation. The government said not to worry, it had it all right, it was a response to a court case, we heard from the officials and it looked like it might be a reasonable path forward. What we found when it got to committee was that it was actually a mess. People who came to us in committee said that it was a problem and that it was a mess.

I hope the other two divisions are fine, but they have not had the scrutiny of divisions 11 and 12. There is the First Nations Land Management Act, which is very significant, the First Nations Fiscal Management Act, which is again pretty significant, on organizations and operations. However, nothing has been done.

I think it would be important for the Liberals especially and all members of the House to say that we promised we would not do this, but we did it. We have some testimony over in the Senate, and it should lead us to be a little concerned about what we have done. We need to actually support the amendments proposed by the Conservatives and do some proper process in terms of making sure that we are going to move forward with a piece of legislation that is going to get the job done. Otherwise, again, it is another broken promise and another failure of the Liberals.

[Fayçal El-Khoury, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

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

This bill will implement key measures from our 2018 budget, including measures aimed at reducing poverty, improving equality and fighting tax evasion.

Can my colleague tell us how much money pollution pricing will put back in Canadians' pockets?

I would be very happy if she could answer that simple question.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will quickly answer that question. Only Liberals could talk about imposing a tax that takes money out of people's pockets and about how much it is going to raise. It is going to be taking money out of people's pockets.

What I really want to focus on, and it was the focus of my speech, is the report stage amendment that talked about the government's commitment to first nations and its commitment to Canadians to not introduce omnibus legislation, not put into budget implementation bills anything that was not in the budget, and its commitment, again, to have full consultation with first nations before it introduced a piece of legislation that impacted first nations.

The government has allowed for none of that, and it should be ashamed of itself.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague gave an excellent speech that really highlights the profound dissonance between the things we see happening in this House every day and the kinds of rhetoric we heard from the government on the campaign trail, the things Liberals say when they are out and about that are totally different from the actions taken here.

We have important changes that affect first nations, and yet very little discussion is happening on those issues in this House. I think my colleague's speech was the first one we heard that really focuses and drills into those issues. Even the questions from the government side do not reflect those issues.

I wonder if the member could speak further about the implications for indigenous Canadians when big changes are made, not only without consultation but without anything resembling a proper debate here in this House.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, with the time allocation on second reading, there was no opportunity to look at this issue at all. The finance committee had very minimal opportunity.

More importantly, we learned from the Senate pre-hearings that the communities that are impacted had no idea that this was coming down and that this was going to be tabled. That was absolutely in direct opposition to what the Liberals committed to doing, which is proper consultation. To be quite frank, I could see us ending up in court again, because the Liberals did not do their job and they did not talk to the people who are going to be impacted by this particular piece of legislation.

The Liberals are now trying to sneak it through in an 802-page bill without anyone paying attention, and this is completely contradictory to anything the Liberals ever promised Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not support the member across the way giving misinformation.

When we look at the government's approach to budgets, the budget implementation bills and so forth, what we see is the Minister of Finance, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and many if not all members of the Liberal caucus working with constituents and stakeholders. I believe they have ultimately come together with a budget that is very sound and that Canadians support.

The budget implementation bill that we are talking about is a reflection on the budget itself. I am wondering if the member across the way would, at the very least, acknowledge that the consultation has been thorough throughout all regions of our country.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely ludicrous.

I have already said that this was not in the budget bill of 2018. As I understand, it was not in the budget bill of 2017.

In terms of talking with the first nations, with respect to the Treaty Land Entitlement Committee, public servants are saying, “we have spoken with them personally and we continue to speak with them about the proposal.”

The Treaty Land Entitlement Committee executive is saying, “So out of nowhere, we have this new proposed ATR legislation before the House of Commons.” “Out of nowhere” is what they said.

Again, to suggest that people are being engaged across this country and that this 802-page bill does not have some serious issues that should have had proper process is absolutely wrong.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this discussion during the report stage of Bill C-86.

In essence, Bill C-86 would implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27 and other measures. The bill builds on the commitments made during the last election and speaks to the government's plan to invest in the Canadian people to build an economy that works for everyone.

Although not the topic for discussion today, the fall economic statement tabled last week, which among other things addressed a lot of the immediate business concerns regarding competition with the United States, should be added in. In doing so, one can really see that all of the actions put together, including in Bill C-86, really show Canada as the place to be. It is the country with which one can invest and invest with some security. It is a place to raise a family, It is a country with a bright future for its citizens, building on a progressive social and economic agenda that began with our policy thrust that followed the last election.

Bill C-86 starts with improving tax measures for businesses and individuals to ensure every Canada has a real and fair chance of success. Through this bill, our government would improve access to the Canada workers benefit, modernize the federal labour standards and improve protection of bank consumers.

The member opposite talked about the size of the bill, but to do all the things we needed to do and carry forward from the previous budget, it had to be a substantively sized bill.

Through the bill, we would correct the damage done by the previous government against charities. The bill would now allow charities to pursue their charitable purpose, but also would allow them to be involved in the development of public policy. That will give citizens back their rights to participate fully in our democracy, even though they are part of a charity.

The bill addresses pollution pricing. It further legislates gender budgeting and strengthens our capacity to advance gender equality with the creation of status of women as a department.

The bill also addresses pay equity. The idea of equal pay for work of equal value is a very progressive step in this legislation. I want to highlight the bill's proposed measures to introduce this proactive pay equity legislation.

Our government committed to tabling such legislation by the end of this year. Today we are living up that commitment as we have lived up to so many of our commitments we outlined in the last election. We are going above and beyond the current approach. We are moving from a complaints-based system to a proactive system, which will require employers to regularly review their compensation systems, identify inequalities between jobs mostly held by men and jobs mostly held by women and take action to eliminate them. In this way, we are presenting Canadians with balanced, meaningful and effective pay equity reform.

In fact, the McKinsey Global Institute estimates that by taking steps to advance equality for women, such as employing more women in technology and boosting women's participation in the workforce, Canada would add $150 billion to its economy by 2026. The reality is that better equality for women means a strong economy for all Canadians.

We are delivering a proactive pay equity regime that works for the diverse types of workplaces found in the federal jurisdiction, ranging from the public service to small businesses. As stated earlier, although it is very progressive legislation, it is also good for the economy.

I want to take a moment and turn to a couple of areas that Bill C-86 builds on and adds to that are of special interest to the people in my province. I will start with the Canada child benefit, or CCB.

Compared to the previous system of child benefits, the CCB is simpler, more generous, entirely tax free and better targeted to those families that need it the most. With the CCB, nine out of 10 families with children are now receiving more money each month than under the previous system. To ensure the CCB keeps up with the rising cost of living, we indexed it last summer, two years ahead of schedule. This means the Canada child benefit will provide even more financial assistance to the low and middle-income families that need it most, such as single parent families. The extra support it gives makes a big difference for those working hard to make ends meet, like single working parents. The additional support from the CCB helps pay for things that can make a real difference in a child's future, like nutritious food, sports activities or music lessons.

The government also cut taxes for the middle class, and those cuts are now helping more than nine million Canadians.

By this time next year, as a result of these two measures, a typical family of four will receive about $2,000 more each year in benefits than it received in 2015.

However, there is another factor with respect to the Canada child benefit that is not often talked about, and that is the stress it takes away from the enjoyment of life for low-income families, the working poor that have children, and their ability to do the job and participate in the general community. The Canada child benefit lessens that stress. It gives them the opportunity to fully participate in the social and economic affairs of the nation.

The bottom line is that this means more money in the pockets and bank accounts of hard-working Canadians, more money to help with the high cost of raising their children and more money for them to save, invest or spend in their own communities. We are seeing the benefits of that across the economy. Canada's economy is strong and growing, and our plan is working.

The budget implementation act also includes an important measure that would directly invest in those Canadians who want to work. I am talking about the Canada workers benefit, or CWB, which would allow low-income workers to take home more money while they work. The new Canada workers benefit is a more generous benefit that will replace the current working income tax benefit as of next year. The CWB is designed to encourage more people to enter and stay in the workforce and to help more than two million Canadians who are working hard to join the middle class.

Under the new CWB, low-income workers earning $15,000 annually could get almost $500 more in benefits in 2019 than they are getting this year. In addition, the CWB's expanded eligible income range will ensure that more workers are entitled to receive it. This will be a big improvement for those Canadians overall. Improvements in the new Canada workers benefit will lift approximately 70,000 Canadians out of poverty.

Bill C-86, which we are dealing with at report stage, really builds on our commitments made in the last election. It is another step along in the process to ensure that all Canadians have the best chance to participate in our social and economic affairs as a nation, as well as to ensure families are more prosperous and have more tools at their disposal to participate in our great country called Canada.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, they say that people always sing the tune that pleases their benefactor. It is a good Yiddish proverb that applies here. The member for Malpeque happens to have the highest benefactor in the land, the Prime Minister, and he sits as the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance, a committee I happen to sit on too.

I want to grab onto a couple of words he said at the very beginning of his speech, a speech I do not think aged very well since it was written. With the Oshawa plant announcement and the closing of it, we cannot be saying that the economy is growing all that fast. However, he talked about the fall economic statement. He knows full well that last Tuesday at committee I moved a motion to invite the Minister of Finance to come and defend the fall economic statement and present to the committee.

Now, that member was not able to vote. However, I want to hear from him why the members on that side of the House, his side, vote against asking the Minister of Finance to appear before the committee.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, we have been very fortunate at the finance committee to have the Minister of Finance come before it many times. He was just there a short while ago for an hour, as were officials after that. I believe it was on the estimates and Bill C-86. As well, as a country, Canadians would want the minister to be out there talking about the programs the government is implementing.

I want to come back to the first part of the member's question. Yes, we are certainly saddened about what happened in Oshawa with respect to General Motors. Things happen in an economy. Sometimes there is a shock to the economy. What this government is doing is investing in the economy so we can be assured, as a country, that we are not tied to one industry or one town. There is no doubt that the government will deal with that problem. We have always tried to be there for the workers in these kinds of situations and have made the necessary investments to ensure business can continue. The fall economic statement addresses that fact as well with respect to ensuring our industries are able to compete with those tax reforms south of the border.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to my colleague's comments with respect to charities. He knows, or should know, that the aspects recently litigated with respect to charities law and the allowance for political involvement of charities were not things introduced into law by the previous government. These were long-standing measures. I know many Conservatives support greater flexibility for charities to be involved in the public policy debate, but this was a question of the previous government involved in litigation related to long-standing principles, which was litigation continued under his government. It is something he maybe conveniently wishes to forget.

On this side of the House, we are very consistent in supporting the right of civil society organizations to be involved in conversations about public policy issues. Why did his government seek to limit that right through its values test attestation as part of the Canada summer jobs program? If it is so committed to allowing charities, not-for-profit organizations, to be involved in public policy conversations even where they may disagree with the government, why did it bring in a values test associated with that program?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, what happened with respect to charities in the last term of Stephen Harper should be a subject the Conservatives want to avoid. The Conservative government, under Stephen Harper, clearly attacked the political rights of those who happened to belong to a charity. Was there a witch hunt against those charities by the previous government? I am not sure. However, the fact is that we are trying to allow those charities to do their charity work and also allow them to be involved in the political policy process, which is the essence of democracy. That is what the previous Conservative government tried to take away from those Canadians who belonged to charities.

We are doing the right thing. I am absolutely proud of what we are doing to give charities the right to collect and do good work, but also to participate in the policy discussions of this nation.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the second budget implementation act of 2018. Of course, this one, like its predecessor, is quite large and has a lot of different things to talk about. I am going to try to spend more time on one aspect of the bill, as opposed to trying to cover the many other aspects of the bill in 10 minutes. If one takes the latter approach, there really is not enough time to say anything of substance at all, which is part of the problem with having budget implementation acts of this size.

The member who spoke previously offered what I think is a pretty timid defence of these kinds of massive budget implementation acts, namely, that there is lot in the budget and that if we want to get all of these things done, we have to put them all in one omnibus bill. Of course, that was not a justification his party subscribed to when the previous government engaged in this kind of activity. If one is trying to be charitable, it is passing strange that, suddenly, that is an acceptable justification. It is also not a very good one.

It is quite obvious, for anyone who has looked at the budget document, to see that it is hundreds of pages long and signals many different policy intentions of the government, some of them quite vague because they were not necessarily very well developed in time for the budget. For the government to later say it can do this because the item in question was mentioned in passing in the budget, I do not think is quite fair.

The budget includes vacuous phrases about helping the middle class, and then we see clauses in this 800-and-some-page budget implementation act that have nothing to do with anything discussed in the election campaign or even in the budget document. The Liberals say that in their opinion this helps the middle class, so it was foreseen in the budget and makes perfect sense to include it in the budget implementation act. Arguments like that do not pass muster, as far as we are concerned on this side of the House. That is why I felt it was important to begin by acknowledging the problem with this kind of massive bill.

Getting into the details of some of what is in the bill and using pay equity as an example—although I think the arguments I am going to make can be applied to various other types of measures in the budget implementation act—one of the problems is the fact that some acts under the government have been heavily time allocated.

At committee, when we are talking about a massive and important change that needs to happen when it comes to paying women fairly in this county, we want time to be able to make sure that we get the legislation right. Why do we want that? It is not so that opposition politicians can spend a whole bunch of time talking in the House. Just because the government drafted legislation does not mean it is perfect. It does not mean that it would do what was intended even with the best of intentions.

We know from the committee process for this bill that a lot of flags have been raised by people who are strong advocates of pay equity, who have been waiting a long time for this legislation and, I think to their credit, who also have been working collaboratively as best they can with the government in the hope that it would get it right, and who are taking the government at its word that it wants to see pay equity implemented in this country.

It was a long wait. For Canadian women it has been a decades-long wait. However, it has been a long wait even within the life of this parliament, because we are over three years into this parliament are only now getting legislation. There is no good excuse for that. In 2004, the pay equity task force of the day did this work and came up with good model legislation, in fact, legislation that is seen internationally as the gold standard and that has inspired and been the resource used by many other countries to implement pay equity, long ahead of Canada who commissioned the work. That is one of the ironies.

The legislation presented in this massive bill got only a limited amount of time at committee, which meant that tough decisions had to be made about prioritizing what would and would not be discussed, and where the effort to make amendments would go and where it would not.

That means that what was presented in this budget implementation act did not get the attention it needs, particularly when people like the president of the Canadian Labour Congress are saying they have worked on pay equity for a long time and that this bill does not do it. That means that Canadian women are going to have to try to straighten this legislation out in the court system, as opposed to having it done here, where it should be done in good faith, a lot more quickly and cost effectively. Who is going to pay for the legal challenges? If the government decides to defend its own inadequate legislation, then taxpayers will be asked to pay for the bad work of the government that could have been improved.

When amendment after amendment was presented in committee by the NDP, working with the same people who worked with the government in good faith over the last three years trying to get them to present decent legislation, those amendments were voted down. For instance, there is qualifying language in the purpose of the act to establish pay equity, such as “while taking into account the diverse needs of employers”. That is nice to put in the bill. We can understand why it seems like a common sense phrase and it would be fine if we were not talking about a fundamental right of Canadian women to be paid fair value for their work.

We do not need that kind of language, which allows for so-called solutions that do not actually meet the bar of paying women fairly, to be implemented under the auspices of this kind of caveat, until it is challenged in court and found not to be consistent with the right of women in Canada to receive equal pay for work of equal value. That is another years-long court battle that will not be free. We are going to pay for that battle when we could have fixed it here. In the meantime, Canadian women are not going to be paid what they deserve to be paid for the work they do. There is a lot of frustration and a lot of ways in that we could have done better.

Similarly, in this legislation, there is language similar to that in Quebec legislation to the effect that when decisions were made about compensating women in the past for their work and they were not paid properly, it would be done between the first pay equity review and the five-year review, limiting the period of compensation to five years. We can see why some people would want that to be the case. It is not fair to Canadian women. We have known for decades that there is a problem. This should have been addressed a long time go, and if it had, we would not have to make huge retroactive payments, but it was not done then. People ought to have acted sooner. In the case of Quebec, the courts found that that kind of provision was not constitutional and did not respect women's right to be paid properly for the work they do.

We already know that this kind of clause does not pass muster. We do not need to include it. We do not need to incite another long legal battle just to get to where we already should be. Above all, it is frustrating to see this from a government that is led by a feminist Prime Minister who believes in pay equity. The government made Canadian women wait three years for this legislation and we already know that this legislation is not good enough.

We see similar frustrating hypocrisies, frankly, when it comes to the Canada Post strike. One of the major issues is a pay equity issue. The government passed back-to-work legislation in the House on Friday above the objections of the union and certainly above the objections of the NDP. There is some terms of reference language around pay equity, but nothing that actually mandates pay equity that the women working at Canada Post deserve, as the court has said as recently as September.

We keep hearing time and time again from Canadian women, Canadian workers and Canadian courts that this needs to be dealt with now. It is a question of justice for Canadian women, who, for too long, have been asked to do work of equal value without getting equal pay. We have a government that says this is what it wants to do and that it wants to honour it, and yet when the time comes to actually getting it done, we are left wanting, knowing that we will have to go back to the same courts that have already said Canadian women deserve fair pay. That is just one example of what is wrong with this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spent a considerable amount of time talking about pay equity. One of the most important things we can do to achieve pay equity is to make sure that we do not put a burden on women who are raising children. We need to make sure that the right supports are there for child care in particular, as we have heard time and time again.

Early in its mandate, this government brought in the Canada child benefit, which was a great change from the previous government, in that this benefit went to support families that needed it more than families that did not.

How does the member see the role of child care in this discussion around equity in the workforce, and pay equity as it relates to women specifically?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, early in its mandate the government introduced a bill to repeal Bill C-377, but did not repeal it right away. Then, what we heard on Friday was that every assault by the government since then on collective bargaining, whether the tight restrictions it wanted to put on collective bargaining in Bill C-7 for RCMP members or the back-to-work legislation it rammed through on Friday, should somehow be forgiven because it repealed Bill C-377.

Early in its mandate the government brought in the child benefit, which did something for low-income families. The funny thing is that that is not in keeping with the government's theme either. Looking at the changes to parental leave under EI, how are low-income families going to be able to access that? They already have low incomes and cannot afford to live on 33% of their income. The extended parental leave time is for who? Is it for low-income families that want to spend more time at home with each other, or is it for the high-income families the government said it was taking on when it eliminated the original UCB?

This is the thing. Early on, the Liberals implemented a couple of their election commitments to workers and low-income families, and that is now supposed to forgive everything else they do for their Bay Street buddies and big multinational companies. The evidence does not bear out that they are serious about helping real Canadians who are struggling every day.

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

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy hearing from the member. He has very good things to say.

With the Liberal government, we are facing a scenario of rising debt and annual deficits way beyond what were promised. We have rising inflation and rising interest rates. Billions of dollars of investment are being lost in Canada. There is a crisis in our Canadian energy sector, and today we learned what is happening in Oshawa.

Does the member have anything he would like to say in regard to the fact that the Liberal government insists on continuing to borrow against the future of our children and grandchildren?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a concern. Where the member and I would probably disagree is that the NDP believe there are ways we can mobilize the wealth of Canada to help Canadians without incurring massive debt. That could be done by ensuring that corporations pay their fair share.

That is why in the last campaign we talked about raising the corporate tax rate. We talked about closing the CEO stock option loophole, something the Liberals promised to do and then changed direction on after being elected to government.

That is why we talk often in this place about closing the option that wealthy Canadians have to use tax havens. That is why we speak against the kind of sweetheart tax treaties that Liberal and Conservative governments have signed with countries like Barbados, the Cayman Islands and others. That is definitely a concern.

No great interest is served by ordering Canadian workers to pay a lot of interest to banks of all people, rather than our being honest about raising revenue to pay for things that would help them.

It also means having rules and expectations in place and enforced by contract when the government provides bailouts to companies like GM, rather than letting corporate Canada walk all over us. That was not done. There was no guarantee that in exchange for taxpayer money, GM would keep jobs in the country, and we see the consequences of that today when we hear that thousands of jobs will be leaving.

The government is certainly not a piggy bank for corporate Canada, but unless we have governments that have the courage to stand up to big corporations and impose some limits on them, we are going to continue to see these kinds of problems arise.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is great to be here this morning to speak at the report stage of Bill C-86.

We heard the news this morning with respect to General Motors, and the workers and their families are in our thoughts. Our government will do everything we can to support them during this period.

Canadians are an ambitious lot and they expect the same from their government. They expect us to be ambitious. They expect us to be bold. They expect us to be trailblazers. In this globally competitive world in which we work, operate and compete, we know that Canadians can compete and succeed globally, which is what they are doing. We also know that our strong economic performance is not only about a strong economic record of performance; it is also about ensuring that all Canadians benefit from strong economic growth. Yes, our government has been bold on pursuing policies that will ensure a robust and strong future for our economy and our workers and help those middle-class Canadians working hard and those who wish to join the middle class and are working hard, but also to ensure that all Canadians benefit. That is what our government has been about since we were elected in October 2015.

In Bill C-86, our poverty reduction targets are one of the things that defines this government. First, we are aiming to reduce poverty levels to 20% below the 2015 level by 2020 and to 50% below the 2015 level by 2030. That is ambitious. We put out a policy paper on that, “Canada’s First Poverty Reduction Strategy: Opportunity For All”, which I looked at over the weekend. That paper is telling of what our government's values are and the values for Canadians and how we are going to lift up Canadians, but we are also going to ensure that those people who take risks are rewarded.

Corporations are enjoying after-tax profit levels that can be measured by margins at a very high level. They are doing well. Wage growth has rebounded from the previous government's era of policies that basically led to stagnation. Employees are doing well. Workers are doing well. That is what our government is about.

Since 2016, the Canada child benefit has provided an extra $25 billion to families in Canada over five years. The guaranteed income supplement provides $647 million or roughly $3 billion or $4 billion over a couple of years, helping 900,000 single seniors across Canada, our most vulnerable, and lifting hundreds of thousands of them out of poverty. The Canada workers benefit provides $3 billion over five years, lifting 70,000 Canadians out of poverty and helping two million Canadians from coast to coast to coast who are working hard. For someone earning approximately $15,000, that is an extra $500 a year. Those are our policies. That is our values statement on where our government is taking this country.

In 2017, we had 3% economic growth and this year it is around 2% and change. We are going the right way. Recently, the Governor of the Bank of Canada was at the finance committee, a committee which I have the pleasure of sitting on. He stated that our economy is chugging along nicely, benefiting from strong export growth and good business investment levels. We have seen that, and we should be proud of that.

Bill C-86 also introduces a number of measures that will benefit my kids in the future. There is pay equity legislation to ensure equal value for equal work. That would benefit women. My two daughters at home will know that the work they do will be rewarded the same as other work. That is very important and should be applauded. We have said that the ministry for women is a full ministry getting full resources. Again, we must reduce and remove structural barriers that women face in this country. We must also help other countries pursue those endeavours, because we know that for Canada and Canada's economy to truly succeed, all Canadians must be full participants. That includes under-represented groups and all Canadians.

I am proud of Bill C-86. There is a lot in it. There is a lot we went through during committee. There is a lot that will strengthen our foundational economy and move us forward. We will do it in a very measured, prudent way.

As many members know, and many of my colleagues have repeated a few times, I spent approximately 22 years in the global financial markets in New York City and Toronto. I was a credit rating analyst which basically means I looked up the ratings of corporations and sovereigns. Canada's AAA rating is thanks to former finance minister Paul Martin. It has been that since our government many years ago. We will maintain our fiscal anchor, our fiscal target and the targeted debt-to-GDP ratio is going to decline. It is going to hit about 28.5% in the 2023-24 period. Again, we are undertaking measures that will strengthen our economy, help the middle class, help those Canadians wishing to join the middle class. We will do it in a measured, prudent manner. That is what we see in many of the measures in Bill C-86.

One of the things that is emphasized by economists is this thing called the labour force participation rate. We see now in Canada looking at working age Canadians, 15-year-olds to 64-year-olds, we are at the highest rate of labour force participation in our history. Why is that? Yes, we have created 550,000 jobs in Canada, a majority of them full time and a majority of them in the private sector. I say “we” very humbly because it is risk-takers across the country, entrepreneurs, small business owners like the ones in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge, very successful people who invest their time and resources, who take risks and yes, hire and employ folks.

What has happened is the labour force participation rates have risen for all groups, including women and under-represented groups. That is what we need to succeed. That is what we are seeing. Bill C-86 contains those types of measures: pay equity legislation which is groundbreaking; a ministry for women; child-rearing drop-in positions; a new parental sharing benefit. It is said that the sincerest form of flattery is imitation, and those provisions are similar to the ones that are used in the province of Quebec. When two parents can share benefits, they get an extra couple of weeks. In Quebec, the labour force participation rate for women is much higher than in other parts of the country. With this, we will improve that. We have learned a measure from la belle province.

On the poverty reduction targets, I cannot emphasize this more than to say that we will be going from one in eight in poverty, about 12% of the population today, to about one in 10 in 2020, which is 10% and we have targeted one in 17, which is roughly 6%. Currently, we have lifted 650,000 Canadians out of poverty by the measures we have introduced in the last three years. That is something worth recognizing, but we need to recognize there is more work to be done.

I often like to say that we have done a lot for our economy. There are a lot of good things. We have created 550,000 jobs. We have attracted a lot of investment. LNG was approved in my home province of British Columbia. I say it is my home province because that is where I was born and raised. However, our work is not done until all Canadians can succeed, have a good job with benefits, good pay and provide for a brighter future for themselves, and most importantly, their families as many of us do here. That is what is important. That is the material in Bill C-86. It was those measures that I had the pleasure of debating at committee.

We have also done some other things that Canadians will benefit from. We have improved their protection when they visit a bank or financial institution. We have introduced measures to make sure that all organizations, all high net worth individuals, pay their fair share of taxes. We continue to do that. We have invested $1 billion into the CRA in the last two or three years to ensure that it has the resources and tools to go after those who are not paying their fair share.

In my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge, I am blessed to have a number of entrepreneurs. They are going to benefit in January 2019. We have moved our small business tax rate from 11% down to 10% and now we are moving it down to 9%, a savings of $7,500 annually for small business owners that work tirelessly day in and day out.

Those are my humble thoughts today on Bill C-86 and I look forward to questions and comments.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague knows that both of us share the concern about the issue of poverty. I have asked him about it in the past.

This budget legislates some targets. Of course the government totally bypassed those making less than $45,000 a year. The previous government cut taxes for the lowest marginal rate and we raised the base exemption. These were things that were not done by the Liberal government, and were much more targeted at those who are struggling and who need the tax relief the most.

We hear a lot of talk from the government about legislating goals in terms of poverty. I found this article in the Globe and Mail which I think he might find interesting. It states:

The Liberal government spent $500,000 on outside advisers to come up with a logo, name and branding for a new agency that promises to alleviate poverty...internal documents revealed.

The government spent $500,000 for a logo. I honestly do not even think it is that good a logo. My five-year-old daughter is available to do some drawings next time the government wants to save a little money.

How many people were lifted out of poverty by legislating aspirations and by a $500,000 logo?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan for his thoughts. He and I actually co-chair the Canada-Holy See Parliamentary Friendship Group. The big message from Pope Francis in a number of his speeches and homilies is for social justice. With that, social justice is helping the poor and helping refugees, helping those less fortunate. That is what is contained in our poverty reduction targets. That is what I would answer to my colleague.

The things we are doing with the national housing strategy, cutting taxes for nine million Canadians and setting targets are things that we need to do as a government. Again, Canadians expect an ambitious government. They are ambitious. We need to act in the same way. Our targets for poverty reduction are bold.

I am glad the member's daughter is a great drawer. I have two daughters and they draw a lot as well.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for referring in his speech to the important piece of legislation around pay equity. I served on the Special Committee on Pay Equity, which tabled its report in June 2016. It is getting close to two and a half years later and we are finally seeing the legislation.

I want to call to the attention of my hon. colleague how long women have been waiting for their basic human right, and that is to receive equal pay for work of equal value. It is their constitutional right. It has been over 42 years.

Now, with this legislation, much of which did not take into account amendments proposed by our expert witnesses, it has actually watered things down. I do want to call to everyone's attention that Canada did have the gold standard of a pay equity report done in 2004, the Bilson report. Most people who came forward and spoke to the Special Committee on Pay Equity said that the government should implement that report, not redo everything, and actually move forward and start to look at the intersectional issues of pay equity between gender and race.

I just wanted to bring that forward. Could the hon. member comment on the fact that it will be four more years before any pay equity impact lands in the lives of working women?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for that very important question, because ensuring equal pay for equal work is a human rights issue, and our government is addressing it. We are not only addressing it with pay equity legislation contained in the BIA, but we are also addressing it using gender-based analysis when we do our budget. We are also addressing it when we improve EI benefits on parental sharing.

It is not just one measure; it is a number of measures. Currently the ratio is about 88.5¢ for every dollar. We need to close that gap and make sure that women in this country are paid the same, equal value for equal work. We are moving that way.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be joining the debate. I have been listening to different members provide their views on the contents of the BIA. Some members have elected to go with a more generalist approach and have talked about the economy. Others have focused on specific clauses, and I will do the same. I am going to focus in the latter half of my comments on clause 470, which was debated at the Standing Committee on Finance, and the very specific amendments proposed.

For a lot of BIAs I have seen before the House of Commons proposed by the Government of Canada, one could say lose an hour in the morning and then chase it all day, which is a Yiddish proverb. It means that if one wastes a lot of time at the beginning of the day, one is going to wind up always trying to catch up, which is what the government has done over the past three years. It is always playing catch-up and using its BIAs to play catch-up.

We seem to waste an inordinate amount of time in the House speaking to different pieces of proposed legislation, and the government never seems to have all its ducks in a row. We saw it with Canada Post over the weekend. It just does not seem to be able to schedule important pieces of legislation and actually consult with this side of the House on matters that interest us.

I would call the BIA an epic failure of leadership. It was time allocated speedily into committee. Once it reached committee, there was what I would call a guillotine motion imposed on members of the opposition, which quite a few New Democrats complained about. It was very stringent in how we could look at it. If we took any time to translate briefs, translate recommendations and amend proposals for amendments, it left very little time for opposition members to propose thoughtful amendments. We tried. We proposed many, but all of them were voted down by the government. I will focus on clause 470 and a specific amendment proposed by the member for Foothills, which received broad support from opposition parties who were members of the committee.

This particular BIA, again, is coddling and compounding the problem of the deficit we have. There was a promise made by the Prime Minister that the government would run itsy-bitsy, tiny little deficits, and in 2019, in just 30 or so days, it would be running a balanced budget, which it has failed to do. Not only did the Liberals fail to do anything about it, but as far as the eye can see, we will have further and further deficits. The contents of the BIA will compound that problem.

In 2017, the net debt hit an all-time high of $670 billion. If we include Crown corporation debt, we are actually over $1 trillion in debt already. Per Canadian family, that is $47,612. If we look at what an average single family is earning with a single earner, they are very comparable.

I heard members mention that the CRA was getting extra tools and extra funding. However, the CRA was lambasted and heavily criticized last Tuesday in the Auditor General's report, which said that with the billion dollars spent on salaries for extra auditors, there were two systems: one for regular Canadians, and one for the monied elite and lobbyists. If people have a problem with the CRA, like some of my constituents, it will chase them down for every single penny owed and make sure that they pay. It will garnish their wages if it has to and take it straight out of their bank accounts. However, if one happens to have an offshore bank account, perhaps in the Caribbean, and has difficulty completing filing or is not on time, the CRA will give one months or years or maybe just close the file and not bother to follow up. Every single year, for the past three years, the CRA has been ticking upwards in its inability to collect taxes, so it is simply writing off billions of dollars it finds it is incapable of collecting.

Back in my home province of Alberta, “build that pipe” is fast becoming the motto or slogan of our province. The Prime Minister experienced it last week when, for the first time I think in a very long time, we saw thousands of Calgarians take to the streets to protest his speech at the Chamber of Commerce. I can say that he did not do well at all. It was quite a frosty reception he received from the business community. Among the protesters, we saw a lot of people in business suits who had come out at lunch time just so they could protest the Prime Minister. Again, in this BIA, there is nothing for them.

To the clause I want to talk about, I think a lot of Canadians will be quite surprised to learn that there are two different sets of systems for bereaved parents. The first system, we are told by officials, is 17 weeks of maternity benefits if one happens to lose a child through a death. That does not apply to fathers, who get five days. They get three paid days and two unpaid days. That seems patently unfair when the member for Foothills offered up an amendment to provide 12 weeks of bereavement leave, regardless of whether it was a mother or father.

We actually suspended the meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance for it to be dealt with, clause by clause, at the end of the day, which we did. Eventually, the members of the government caucus voted against providing equality for bereaved fathers in a situation where they have lost a child, for whatever reason that is. It was a very reasonable amendment proposed by the member for Foothills.

Certain members of the government caucus questioned how they could make a decision to provide 12 weeks of bereavement leave if they did not have all the information, when there was so much in the BIA they were already doing. There is leave provided, 104 weeks, for instance, that would be adjusted, in cases where a child has been killed as the result of a crime. In those cases, 104 weeks is be provided to either parent.

In a case where a mother loses a perinatal child, a baby, she is eligible for up to 17 weeks, under the maternity benefits. However, after 17 weeks and a day, she is not eligible for more. The Conservative amendment that was proposed would have fixed that. It would have provided either parent with an opportunity to grieve for the child they lost, bury him or her, and take care of the other children, if they had any.

Members will know that my youngest daughter passed away in August. Therefore, this was of particular interest to me, because a lot of dads and moms have contacted me over the past few months, both to share their sadness and to explain their experience with the Government of Canada system and the different workplaces they have been in.

I wonder why members on the opposite side would continue to insist that we vote against this particular amendment on clause 470. It was very reasonable. Again, they said that they simply did not have enough information. I would point out to them that the BIA is almost 900 pages long, and because of the guillotine motion, a programming motion that only provided a few weeks to consider the vast contents of this piece of legislation, it is impossible for any member to honestly say that he or she has read every single line and understood every single component. I will admit to not understanding all the components, and I am focusing on those of the greatest interest to me. When I suggested that we delay clause-by-clause consideration just an extra day to get a Department of Justice opinion on whether the 17 weeks and the 12 weeks conflicted, which was one of the arguments for voting against the motion, I was told that it was unnecessary, and we proceeded to a vote, and it was voted down.

The reason I bring it up here is that I will quite gladly vote against this BIA because of procedural tricks like this, procedural tricks the Government of Canada and the Liberal Party expressly said they would not use. I would remind the Liberal members that I have probably read their platform much more closely than they have. On page 30, it states, “We will not resort to legislative tricks to avoid scrutiny.” It goes on to say, “We will change the House of Commons Standing Orders to bring an end to this undemocratic practice.” It speaks specifically about omnibus legislation, which they have here again.

The Speaker elected, for the second time now, to split out portions of the omnibus bill because they did not match the budget. In my office, whenever a BIA is presented to us, we go through it to compare it to the budget document to see what is actually in the budget and what is in the BIA to make sure that the Liberals live up to the promise of not engaging in procedural tricks.

I will gladly vote against this piece of legislation, because it is unfair to dads and unfair to those who are grieving for a child they have lost and because the Liberals are again engaging in procedural tricks, which they expressly said they would not do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe the government has been very faithful in the commitments it made to Canadians last year, especially relating to all budget matters, such as the commitment to Canada's middle class with respect to tax breaks. Today we heard other Conservative members ask about those who are making less than $45,000. All I need to do is remind my Conservatives friends of the Canada child benefit program or the guaranteed income supplement, which have been profoundly positive for them.

The member talked specifically about the size of the budget implementation bill. We passed Standing Orders that in essence allowed the Speaker to take into consideration, in a very real way, the need to break it up where it was deemed necessary, for the first time in years. Stephen Harper, as prime minister, never ever supported amendments coming from the opposition benches. That is quite the opposite of what has happened under this administration.

Would the member not agree that the reason he is voting against this budget implementation bill is because of Stephen Harper and his leadership? The Conservatives were going to vote against it no matter what the contents were.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member brings up the changes to the Standing Orders. He knows it is basically an indictment of the Liberals' own process, because it means that they do not trust the Minister of Finance and his department to get the job done properly in the first place and go through the budget bill and make sure that the BIA is consistent with it. It is an admission of failure once again.

The member mentioned those earning $45,000 and less and then brought up the child benefit, which only applies if one has children, and the GIS, which only applies if one is retired, 65 and over. Anyone else who is a working stiff, who is just trying to get by, does not get anything. Actually, that person gets slammed with a higher cost of living. Study after study has proven that the Liberal government is layering extra costs onto low-income Canadians.

To his point about amendments, maybe he should talk to the members of the Standing Committee on Finance about clause 470 and the amendment proposed by the member for Foothills that was refused on spurious grounds that did not provide equality for fathers who are grieving the loss of a child. That is the type of amendment that should be passed by the House, because it is not a partisan issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member makes a great point about poverty. The way the Liberals approached the child benefit, and it is a good thing they finally came on board in supporting something we did, which was bring in the universal child care benefit, was to change it in certain ways and repackage it. However, at the very least, it was one area where they saw the light, to some extent, which was that giving support directly to parents was better than giving it to bureaucracies.

I am very struck by what the member had to say about equality for fathers. I am a father. I have young children. He is a father as well and has been through a situation that relates very particularly to the provisions he talked about. It is so frustrating when we hear in certain quarters, perhaps socially or in government policy, the presumption that somehow the role of fathers is not important or that fathers would feel less bereaved in a situation of losing a child or that, in general, the engagement of fathers with their children is somehow less important than it is for mothers. I think the member feels the same way I do about that. We hear it come up in certain social conversations and situations. It is something that is wrong. It undermines the role of fathers, and it needs to be pushed back on.

Given the discussion of gender equality and so many other things we discuss in the House, could the member speak to how Liberal members could vote down an amendment that recognizes the role of fathers in their children's live and recognizes that equality?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member asks an important question. I even asked officials at committee whether there was a gender-based analysis done. They could not answer the question, because they simply did not know.

The member for Vaughan—Woodbridge talked about his daughter being quite the artist and how she could have provided a much cheaper option for the government on the FinDev logo than was provided. It is just another case in point. I think we could go to kindergarten and grade 1 classes in our ridings and offer up a MP competition to save the government a little money. It is an example. He knows his daughter quite well. He knows her likes and dislikes. We are heavily involved in the raising of our kids, and we take great pride in it. I think all members in the House take great pride in it.

When we are given an opportunity at a committee to come together in a bipartisan way to vote for providing grieving parents with greater benefits, we should do so.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to rise today to speak to the fall economic statement, and to bring some facts to the discussion.

The 2018 fall economic statement is proof our government is creating real change for Canadians. Our government's plan to strengthen the middle class and grow the economy is working, and the results speak for themselves. Across Canada, more Canadians are working than ever before, wages are growing and middle-class Canadians have more money to save, invest and grow the economy.

In 2017, Canada had the strongest growth of all G7 countries. At 3% annually, we are projected to remain among the fastest-growing economies in the coming years.

In the past three years, our government has created more than half a million new full-time jobs. As a result, the unemployment rate has fallen to 5.8%, the lowest in 40 years. Not only that, employment gains by women have been especially strong and the level of employed Canadian women is at its highest in history.

Our government is also ensuring current wage growth is outpacing inflation, which improves the quality of life for all Canadians. These results speak for themselves. Since 2015, we have seen a strong and steady growth in both the economy and in job creation. Our government is committed to continuing this progress.

The fall economic statement is also proof our government provides tangible and valuable support for Canadian businesses and international investments. Since 2015, we have committed to funding Canadian small and medium-sized enterprises to help them explore new export opportunities.

In July 2017, we implemented the Canadian free trade agreement, which reduces barriers to internal trade in goods and services, investments and worker mobility from all provinces. This is important because if we cannot trade internally and we do not have internal mobility, how will we survive externally?

Through the federal development business innovation initiative, our government has provided mentorship, entrepreneurship, support and financing to help new businesses grow and succeed. In November last year, I had the pleasure of announcing a $400,000-investment in Clear Blue Technologies in my riding of Don Valley East. This small and medium-sized enterprise is leading the way on climate adaptability, by making effective use of sustainable and renewable sources of energy. This is the new economic way, and it will play an important part in shaping Canada's future economy.

Through our government's contribution, this company has been able to expand its marketing activities and sell its technologies to a broader range of international clients, including Côte d’Ivoire. The project alone is expected to create up to 33 full-time jobs. It reinforces our government's commitment to supporting innovative businesses, while advancing our support for the clean technology sector.

As a government, we work hard to ensure the economic well-being of Canadians, as well as that of the businesses, remains our priority.

Also, one of the government's top priorities is to ensure Canada is the top destination for businesses to invest, grow and create jobs and prosperity. We have created the strategic innovation fund, which has since proven successful in attracting and supporting business investment in Canada. Over the past years, several international corporations have invested in Canada, including Amazon, Thomson Reuters, Google, Toyota, UPS and Microsoft, increasing the number of full-time jobs.

On international trade, we have successfully negotiated the CETA, the CPTPP and the USMCA. Statistics indicate that one in every eight Canadian jobs is tied directly to international trade. This amounts to approximately two million jobs in the economy. In Don Valley East, I had the pleasure to announce the grants given to six SMEs that were export ready. They have taken advantage of the trade agreements and have been utilizing markets within the CETA, the CPTPP and the USMCA.

As well, we have reduced small and medium-sized enterprise taxes from 11% to 9%. This has given the impetus for small and medium-sized enterprises to hire more employees. Our government is committed to improving the lives of Canadians on a day-to-day basis.

In 2016, we introduced the Canada child benefit, which is a monthly tax-free benefit designed to help families with the high cost of raising children. To date, the CCB, as it is called, has helped lift more than 500,000 people, including 300,000 children, out of poverty. We have also indexed it to inflation. In my riding of Don Valley East alone, the results have alleviated 17,000 children out of poverty and 9,000 families.

Our government has launched Canada's first-ever national housing strategy, a commitment to $40 billion over 10 years to provide affordable housing to needy Canadians. As well, in May of this year, we launched the new 10-year, $13.2-billion national housing co-investment fund, which will provide low-cost loans and financial contributions to support and develop mixed income, mixed tenure and mixed use affordable housing. This initiative alone is expected to create up to 60,000 new housing units and repair up to 240,000 units of existing affordable housing.

In my riding of Don Valley East, the impact has been the repair of 68 townhouses and buildings managed by the Toronto Community Housing, as well as repairs to seniors' buildings. I was at 16 Concorde and the residents were proud to let me know how our investment in infrastructure had helped them make improvements to the buildings. I heard similar stories of gratitude from residents of 2020 and 2040 Don Mills Road.

Seniors are an integral part of our economy and it is therefore important for us to treat them with dignity. That is why our government increased the guaranteed income supplement top-up payment by up to $947, which has benefited nearly 900,000 low-income seniors. We have also appointed a Minister of Seniors to ensure they get the attention they deserve.

The fall economic statement marks the next steps in our plans. With our 2018 fall economic statement, our government is committed to enhancing confidence in Canada by supporting Canadian businesses as they grow and expand into new markets.

We have come a long way from 2015 when the Harper government, which had inherited a $13-billion surplus from its predecessor, whittled it down and left us in deficit, increasing the debt by $156.5 billion. We are ensuring that our investments give us a return on investment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to challenge the last claim the member made with respect to comparing the fiscal record of the previous government to the current government. It is as if the Liberal government forgot about the global financial crisis. It is as if it forgot that happened and that what happened in late 2008, early 2009 was a government suddenly deciding to spend more money for some reason.

I wonder if the member thinks the deficits run in the immediate aftermath of the global financial crisis had anything to do with global financial events. Does she remember how the Liberals and the New Democrats at the time were pushing the government to spend not less but far more? Does she remember how, in the context of a minority government, the previous government included a timely, temporary and targeted stimulus package that brought us back to a balanced budget? Maybe she will recall how it was her party that thought we should spend far more during those years.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a revisionist's history to which my hon. colleague is referring. The bottom line is that one cannot whittle away $13 billion in surplus. In fact, the Harper government did not even recognize there was a financial crisis in 2008. The Conservatives were the worst economic managers, and any economist will say that, and Harper had the second worst record after former Prime Minister Mulroney.

We were a basket case in the Mulroney era and then the Chrétien-Martin government rebuilt the economy, leaving a surplus. However, the type of revisionist and la la land economics the member is indulging in is not even plausible.

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

Mr. Speaker, when I talk to people in my riding of Kootenay—Columbia, the things they would actually like to see in the budgets coming from the government, from any government, are universal affordable day care and getting to universal pharmacare.

When is the Liberal government going to get to the things that are really important to every Canadian?

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. member that the Liberal government, under Paul Martin, did introduce universal child care. In fact, in my riding, we had 125,000 child care spaces. Unfortunately, at that time, the NDP voted with the Conservatives and defeated that budget. As well, during 10 years of the former Harper government, the Conservatives did not care about anybody but 1% of the population.

Therefore, we must remember that if we break a system, it must be built back. We hope we have support as we move along toward a progressive agenda.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would note that the member has a great deal of credibility on business matters. I think it was in 2009 when she was given the John Leslie award by CGA Canada for her work in the area of accounting and business.

However, there was one word in the member's speech that really struck me, and it was the word “ambitious”. Canada has a 3% growth rate. It is the best in the G7, yet we continue to pursue policies to get things going even more. In other words, we are cutting the tax rate for small business. Investments continue in infrastructure. Of course, we recognize that closing the gender gap, especially in the entrepreneurial area, is not only right and good social policy, but it is a good way to increase the GDP.

I would like the hon. member to comment on that.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in the area of economic growth and the number of things we are doing simultaneously, it is important to note that we cut the income tax for the middle class by 7%. Despite that, we have invested in infrastructure.

The Conservatives talk about our deficit, but they left us with the deficit. There was nothing left but crumbling infrastructure. The best thing they did was to announce the economic statement, spending $172 million on advertising with $72 million going to real things.

I appreciate the fact that we have been doing so much, but women entrepreneurship is critical. The majority of small and medium-sized enterprises are owned by women. Our government has worked hard to ensure there is a woman entrepreneurship fund to help them move along.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, right now in Alberta, over 180,000 people are out of work, and a majority of those people have seen their jobs lost in the last couple of years.

This morning, when I woke up and heard the news that the auto plant was being closed by General Motors, I tweeted the following, “From the tens of thousands of people who have seen their jobs disappear in Alberta, our hearts go out to the people of Oshawa today.” That is a legitimate sentiment. If we are going to be a federation, people in different provinces have to stand up for each other.

From the people of Alberta, I want to send a message to those in Oshawa who are affected: We get it. We are going through this right now. It should not happen. Canada should be a place where we have jobs and prosperity.

The interesting thing is that I had several responses to this comment of sympathy. One of them really stuck out for me, and it was this: “Both [job losses] are tied to outdated fuel sources/transportation modes. Economic hardship is always sad, but it was inevitable we would have to pivot.”

I want to spend the bulk of my time today refuting the government's budgetary plan, because it is based on this principle of economic management. I have watched the government travel internationally to attend wonderful meetings in Davos, and have heard the speeches the Prime Minister has given in Paris in which he talks about exactly what this Twitter response said. It is a leftist, elitist, academic understanding of the Canadian economy. It is a “let them eat cake” understanding from somebody who has never really had to work a day in his life, told to a bunch of people who only want to work.

They are being told their jobs are dirty and outdated. Do we have outdated modes of transportation? The last time I checked, it was cold in Canada, we did not have magical public transit from every place to every different place, and we drove cars. The last time I checked, the auto sector was one of the most important industries to the Canadian economy. The last time I checked, the energy sector in Alberta created so much revenue for all different levels of government in this country such that at the end of last week, we actually had major financial analysts asking the finance minister how he was going to deal with the significant price differential we are receiving for our energy products, compared to if we had market access for these things, in his budgetary forecast.

That is why the government's approach to budgeting is so fundamentally flawed. Liberals do not understand the fact that Canadians want to work and want to be competitive in some of the world's most important industries, such as energy production or manufacturing. They do not understand what their high-level, bourgeois thinking of what “appropriate” industries or “clean” jobs means to somebody who is just trying to make ends meet. They have not taken any sort of understanding of these concepts into a framework that would make us more competitive, not less competitive, with the United States. They do not understand how fundamentally damaging this is to the fabric of the Canadian federation.

If members were to go door-knocking from house to house in my province right now, as I frequently do in my riding, they would automatically hear a tale of somebody being out of work for a very long period of time. They would hear about how people have had to shutter businesses and how we are losing labour to the United States and to other parts of the world. They would hear about the fact that city council is increasing small business taxes by 25%, because the downtown core is now looking at about a 50% plus vacancy rate, even though we had, I think, a zero vacancy rate in downtown Calgary just a few short years ago.

We will hear one other sentiment and that is, why are we sending money to other parts of the country in equalization payments when the rest of the country will not stand up for us? The reality is that the context has changed since 2015. I used to think the Prime Minister's father, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, was the worst possible Trudeau to Alberta, while he looks absolutely great compared to his son. Bill C-69 finishes the job. It shoots the energy sector in the head. Oil is over under Bill C-69 and maybe that is what the Prime Minister wants. Maybe he is celebrating that, but my community sure is not. The tanker ban, the carbon tax, the political veto of the northern gateway pipeline, not saying anything to President Obama when he vetoed the Keystone XL pipeline. The Prime Minister and the government have done every single thing possible to kill the energy sector.

In the last budget implementation bill, the Liberals said they were not going to look at the equalization formula. If the Prime Minister will not stand up for the jobs in every part of the country, including Alberta, then we have to look at that formula because it is not fair. I would not be doing my job as a member of Parliament from that province if I did not stand and say he has a responsibility to make policy that is in the best interests of the entire country, not penalize regions because of his or his father's ideological opposition to having power and economic growth in Alberta. That is where we are at.

We cannot look at 180,000 people out of work and at the response that other industries get and the lip service. I look at his response in Calgary on Thursday. I am so proud of my city for getting out and protesting him. I saw that and thought it was great, give him a message. I am so proud of my city for doing that, but at the end of the day, the people of Calgary and of Alberta have always been happy to contribute to the entirety of Canada. They do not want to be out protesting, they just want to work. However, the Prime Minister comes with nothing for my city. He is still pushing through Bill C-69 full steam ahead, full steam to kill the energy sector. He is not even acknowledging the depth of crisis that his ideological opposition to the development of the energy sector has done to the Canadian economy.

The Liberals will stand with their talking points and will say the economy and the environment go hand in hand. There is only one reason that we will see a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, if we do, in Canada, and that is because he has killed the energy sector. His carbon tax will do nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That is because carbon, for the most part in Canada, is inelastic and we cannot set whatever the United Nations report called for, a $5,500 per megatonne price on carbon, and expect the economy to continue to grow. I cannot stand here on behalf of my constituents and support anything that the government is doing in terms of taxation, in terms of budgeting because it is a lot of spending on nothing. In this entire budget implementation act, there is no spending on any sort of infrastructure that is going to make my city more productive. There is nothing in it for the workers.

Frankly, to add insult to injury, he is not talking about the fact that the Liberals have underwritten and underpinned a continuous welfare system for this country based on the backs of the people in my province. Enough is enough. Either the Prime Minister writes some policy that is in the best interests of the entire country or he starts dealing with the voices of the people in my city and in my province. They are tired of it and they will not go gently into that good night.

Shame on the member for Calgary Centre. Shame on the member for Calgary Skyview. Shame on the members from Edmonton who have had the opportunity to speak up in their caucus for the rights of the people in this country and still see Bill C-69 going forward, still see the budget implementation act going forward, spending and taxing, with nothing happening for them. Enough is enough. There will be more protests like we see in Calgary. We will not go gently into that good night and the bill needs to die.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to listen to this debate go on and on about the Liberals' capacity to properly run the economy.

However, when we actually look at the stats, there is nothing that could be argued away through circumstance. The reality of the situation is over the last 151 years, the Conservatives have been in power for 38% of the time and have racked up 73% of the national debt. Out of the last 16 budgets introduced by the Conservative Party, 13 of them ran deficits, and two of them that ran surpluses were on the heel of Paul Martin's $13 billion surplus, and the last was in 2015. We know what they had to do to get there, including selling off shares of GM.

I have a question for the member. She spent a lot of time talking about Alberta specifically. Is the member proud of the fact that in Alberta, currently, the renewable energy sector is doubling every year in size? That is doubling in terms of employment, investment and outcome. Is she proud of that fact, or would she rather see us go back to continuing to use more oil?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in 2008, Canada saw one of the worst economic downturns since the Great Depression. A Conservative government put in place targeted, short-term infrastructure spending projects, and returned the country back to balanced budgets a few short years later.

The Liberal government, by contrast, in peacetime, has racked up the biggest deficits. Remember the itty-bitty little deficits that the Liberals were supposed to have in 2015? They are massive. Here is the thing, any Canadian who is watching this is going to say, “My taxes have gone up. I have lost my job. What did I get?”

For all the money the Liberals have spent, we should have a gold-plated rocket ship to the moon. We have nothing. Nothing. That is irresponsible spending.

With regard to the clean tech sector, would it not be great if we had the receptor capacity of the big energy sector to adopt some of this technology here in Canada instead of licensing it out? This is a member from Ontario who has fundamentally not educated himself on any aspect of the Canadian economy, including Alberta. I resent being told by him, on behalf of my constituents, what they need. He should have the honour and the responsibility to vote this budget down.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the comments from the member at the beginning of her speech, because I think all members of this House should acknowledge the economic and social impact that is taking place today in Oshawa, and express our support to the residents of Oshawa. That bridges all political parties.

Having said that, then the member chose to go into more of that attack-style personal western alienation, littered with all sorts of falsehoods. That is what I take exception to. I would ask the member across the way to reflect on how poorly Stephen Harper did for western Canada, whether it was western diversification or the fact that not one pipeline was built that would give us an alternative to the U.S. market. Stephen Harper was a disaster for the Prairies.

Could the member name something of significance that Stephen Harper did for western Canada?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the lowest federal tax burden over 50 years; four pipelines built; standing up for the energy sector. We had negotiations with the U.S. that saw our economy grow.

Let us talk about western alienation. It is the current Prime Minister who is putting forward job-killing policies that are undermining the fabric of our Confederation. Stephen Harper always told his cabinet to look at policy that built the country. To anybody who is standing up in Calgary right now and asking, “Where is my job? Why are we paying equalization?”, it is because the Prime Minister is doing what his father almost did but failed to do, and that is to put Alberta down, to shoot Alberta in the head.

I have had enough of this, and I will stand up here every single time, and for a member of Parliament from Winnipeg, my hometown, to somehow try to whitewash or gloss over the fact that this Prime Minister has done sweet fudge all for western Canada, he should be ashamed. He should be ashamed, and his constituents should vote him out. He should be standing up for western Canada, all of Canada, and he has failed to do it.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The time has expired for questions and comments in the last intervention. We will get on with members' statements at this point as we are close enough to 2 p.m.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-86, A second 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.

Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, Canada presently has the lowest unemployment in 40 years. What is also amazing is that Yukon has recently had the lowest level of unemployment in the country. The north normally has higher levels of unemployment. Therefore, this is fantastic for my riding. It is amazing and exciting for Yukoners that we are virtually at full economic employment.

What has caused this great level of work in Canada and particularly in Yukon? There are two items that have made a major contribution to this.

The first is the record level of infrastructure spending, double what has ever been spent before by any government in any part of Canada. In my riding, as an example, over 60 projects have already been announced for over $400 million for virtually every community in Yukon. There is probably nothing more gut-wrenching for people than to not be able to feed their family, to not have a job, to not be able to pay the bills. It must be hard for people to have to tell their family they have to move because they cannot afford to live where they are, or they cannot send their kids on school trips or buy them clothes similar to the other kids' or to not have good food.

The fact that there are so many infrastructure projects putting so many people to work is so edifying. However, that is not the end of it. Last May we signed an infrastructure agreement for $445 million more over the next 10 years for our riding.

The second area that I think is a big contribution to the low unemployment rates is the contributions we have made to all different categories of needy people in my riding an all of Canada. By increasing the GIS, thousands of seniors have been lifted out of poverty. We have increased support for students in general and have more support for low-income students. We have also doubled the number of summer jobs for students, and there are still more waiting. There were more applications to fill even when the number of jobs were doubled.

We have supported low-income people with huge amounts of funds through the child tax credit. It is income-tested. Single mothers could get over $6,000 a child under this plan. Some people talk about the cancelled sports credit and other credits like that where people might have received $50 or $100. However, I think people would rather have the $6,000 to really help them raise their children. The other thing we did was we made it non-taxable. Parts of it in the past were taxable. A single mother, who I think was a reporter, came to me in shock when it came to the tax time of the year and found that she had to pay a huge amount of income tax on the child tax credit, which she was not prepared for at all.

The credit has been increased recently, and faster than we thought we would be able to, by indexing the child tax credit. It is going to continue to rise. In my riding alone, it will increase to $5.6 million from 2018 to 2023 for children in very low-income families.

Another area that helps low-income families is day care. As members know, we had a national day care program under the Hon. Ken Dryden. However, the opposition parties got together and replaced Prime Minister Martin with Prime Minister Harper, who cancelled the national child care program. We have initiated a new program. For my riding, the agreement has been signed with the federal government and the minister in Yukon for $7 million over three years.

Another group that has been helped is veterans. The one item I would especially note is that employees now make trips to Yukon three or four times a year to help veterans and veterans of the RCMP in Yukon.

Another group that is disadvantaged is those suffering from mental health and addictions. That has been a high priority for our government. There has been a big need for funding in Canada. My riding alone will get roughly $1 million this year.

This deals with contributions to a vast majority of low-income people. However, there is one large group that I did not mention, and that is the low-income workers. In this budget we have added a low-income worker benefit so people can keep more of their hard-earned money to help them pay the bills as things are getting more expensive for everyone.

In my riding alone, the Canada workers benefit is going to help 1,600 workers. People can imagine across Canada how big this program is. It helps two million workers across Canada, and lifts 70,000 of them out of poverty.

People may ask why I brought up all these contributions to the needy in the context of the great boost to the economy and the full employment. The reason is, it is the right thing to do. That is the most important reason to do it. The second reason is that people really need these funds. Of course when they spend them, they go to small businesses, whose taxes will be reduced, and other expenditures in the economy.

All this employment actually leads to another problem, one which in a way is nice to have, and that is a lack of employees. Everyone has heard in the House of Commons and other debates the number of improvements to the immigration system to deal with this, and the increased training funds. In fact, the 2016 budget was a training budget. A significant portion of those funds goes to training aboriginal people, which is important in my riding.

There is something else exciting for me in the bill. Mining is so important in my riding. In fact mining has been the biggest contributor to the GDP virtually every year since the century before last century, since 1897. Every year since 2003, for anyone who was not here at that time, I have been lobbying very hard to get the mineral exploration tax credit extended. In my riding, the vast majority of exploration projects depend on this credit. I have been fighting year after year, no matter who is in government, to get that extended. Indeed, it was extended each year. I was excited to see that again this year it was extended. I thank PDAC, perhaps the biggest mining association in the world, and MAC, and the Yukon Chamber of Mines who at the Yukon Geoscience Forum a couple of weeks ago applauded my efforts in lobbying for this every year.

Something even more exciting is what the minister announced in the fall economic statement. PDAC was asking for this too. I think it was asking not only for a one-year but a three-year extension as the first priority of a number of things it was looking for. The minister announced not a one-year extension, not a three-year extension, but a five-year extension. It is so critical to such a big industry in Canada. I am so excited about this. Finance ministers, no matter what party, are the ones who say no to all the things that come forward, so for the minister to say yes to making this expenditure is exciting for me, for my riding and for the mining industry. I thank the Minister of Finance for this great success story. The mining industry is the biggest employer of indigenous people, with 16,500 jobs in Canada.

Another problem that all this employment creates is the need for housing. As one of the first members of the Yukon Anti-Poverty Coalition, we have been lobbying for affordable housing for years as well. The new national housing plan, again, is the biggest in Canadian history, of some $40 billion. I have already announced projects in a vast majority of the communities with a population in my riding and the communities of Whitehorse, Carcross, Haines Junction, Burwash, Old Crow, Pelly Crossing, Dawson, Watson Lake and Carmacks.

Also very exciting is the $1 million for the women's entrepreneurship program. I congratulate the women's business network and Tammy Beese. There is another $32 million for the Yukon government, which will spend it and help the economy.

Finally, CanNor, our economic development agency, was about to expire when this budget came in. Again, I thank the Minister of Finance. He made it permanent and provided $20 million a year and another $2 million for innovations and skills, and funded the huge innovation centre so that Yukon is in with a digital economy like everyone else.

For all these reasons, members can see why we are very excited in my riding about the economic interventions by the Minister of Finance.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a budget bill that is over 800 pages long. Despite Liberal members railing against omnibus budget bills when in opposition, this is double the length of any previous omnibus bill.

It is interesting to note what is in the bill and it is also interesting to note what is not in the bill. What is not in the bill is any information about when the government believes the budget will balance itself.

We have asked this question before and I wonder if the member has an answer to it. According to the government's plan, when will the budget balance itself? Liberals promised during the election that it would be done by this fiscal year, 2018-19. That was clearly promised by the Prime Minister. He told the media that this promise was very set in stone. Clearly, that is not the case.

When will the budget balance itself?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, there were a number of questions.

The first was about omnibus bills. What the Liberals railed against was the improper use, not in budget times, of omnibus bills. If the bill is twice as long as any other budget implementation bill, it means we are doing twice as much as any other government.

In relation to the small deficit, we are leading the G7. It is not significant, especially given all of the investments I mentioned and the 500,000 new jobs. All of these workers are paying income tax and the businesses are paying taxes, and all of that is going into revenue.

Low-income seniors, low-income students, low-income workers, people getting child care, veterans, people being helped with mental health and addictions, people in the women's entrepreneurship program, people in the innovation centre and people with the economic development agency are very happy with those investments and that small deficit.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have known my colleague for quite a long time and he is always the champion for the underdog and for many of the families in Yukon who struggle with the high cost of living, of food and so on.

I would like to hear the member elaborate more on the benefits of the infrastructure programs as well as on the child benefit that we now provide.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the member is right. One of the reasons I got into politics was to fight against poverty.

A number of things help low-income people. In my riding, there are a number of indigenous people and a number of rural communities where things are even more expensive. It is very important that Canadians get the child tax benefit, especially if there is no employment.

One of the important things I can tell all Canadians who are listening is to make sure they fill in their tax forms. Even for those who do not make a cent, there are a number of benefits available, such as the child tax benefit and the GST credit. Canadians cannot get them unless they fill out their tax forms.

One thing I did not mention is nutrition north. It helps people in the High Arctic with the high cost of food, which can be two, three or four times what is for the rest of us. Nutrition north has recently, through the economic statement, received more funds, and more studies have been done, helping people to collect country foods as part of the new investment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my Conservative friend across the way make the assertion that this legislation before us is twice the size of Conservative bills. I will just remind members of the House that that is a far stretch from reality, to say the very least. This is not to mention that the content of the bill before us is, in fact, related to the budget itself.

There are many aspects of budget implementation. One of them is very positive and progressive in the area of pay equity. A number of pages are dedicated to the issue of pay equity. There are many other social programs within it that I think move us forward.

Could the member provide his thoughts on how important it is to pass this budget implementation bill?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the member seems to be easier on me than he is with a lot of the question he asks others in the House. I am glad he was so tame on me.

I think everyone in the House, for the sake of the particular part of the bill on pay equity, wants the bill to pass.

I want to add my congratulations to the Liberals' women's caucus, which I have attended off and on for years, and to the all-party caucus for pushing to make sure this important provision got in. I would also like to compliment the finance minister on having recently had the first budget analyzed based on gender to make sure it was fair for everyone.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating Bill C-86, the Liberal government's second mammoth budget implementation bill, related to budget 2018.

As I begin my remarks today, I would invite everyone to reflect on the following section from the Liberal Party's 2015 election platform. Under the heading “Prorogation and omnibus bills”, there is a line that says:

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.

These are stinging words, but as is so often the case with the Prime Minister, the promises he made in the Liberal platform document are not worth the paper they were written on.

The string of broken promises by the Prime Minister is long. Just last week, the finance minister reaffirmed another broken promise to Canadians. In 2015, the current Prime Minister pledged that his budgetary deficits would be small and temporary. However, with this bill and with the recent fall economic statement, the Prime Minister and his government have broken their promise. In fact, the federal deficit is three times what the Liberals pledged it would be, and we all know that more debt today means higher taxes tomorrow.

I could go on about the Prime Minister's broken promises and betrayal of Canadians, but there is a specific part of this bill that I would like to address. Buried in this bill between pages 589 and 649 are divisions 22 and 23, which make amendments to the Canada Shipping Act 2001 and the Marine Liability Act.

To begin, it must be noted that three shipping associations representing members across Canada were all taken by surprise at the inclusion of these clauses in a budget implementation bill. The pan-Canadian Shipping Federation of Canada, the B.C.-based Chamber of Shipping, and the Great Lakes St. Lawrence-based Chamber of Marine Commerce all expressed their surprise at the move, as well as their concern at the speed with which the bill was being rushed through the House of Commons and committee.

Talk about ramming a mammoth bill through Parliament, the bill was introduced on October 29. A day later divisions 22 and 23 were referred to the transport, infrastructure and communities committee, where we were invited to study and then submit any recommendations and/or amendments in less than two weeks.

Despite this ridiculously rushed timeline for reviewing the bill, the transport committee did hold two meetings where we heard from shipping stakeholders who, despite the time crunch, identified some areas of common concern. Our committee also heard from departmental officials about the proposed changes. One shocking revelation from the officials was that the changes being proposed were the most substantial changes to these acts in, in one case, 10 years and, in the other, 25 years.

These substantial legislative changes, with the potential to have a dramatic impact on the Canadian shipping industry, as well as all the way down the transportation chain, are being rammed through Parliament with hardly any time for prudent study. To me, this reflects the disregard with which the government treats the Canadian economy.

Further, I would like to highlight another way that the government is disregarding the transportation sector when it included these divisions in Bill C-86. Apparently, through the framework of the government's much lauded oceans protection plan, it was conducting so-called consultations on potential legislative changes related to marine safety and environmental protection.

These consultations ended on Friday, October 26, and, as I mentioned, this bill was introduced with divisions 22 and 23 on the morning of Monday, October 29. Given the tight timeframe, the Minister of Transport did not appear at committee, so we questioned the assistant deputy minister on how the department managed to craft 60 pages of legislation in just one weekend. Needless to say, we were not satisfied with the answers that we received and were left with only one conclusion, that these consultations were a farce.

While there were some elements of divisions 22 and 23 that stakeholders found agreeable, there was unanimity in the call for specific amendments. I would like to highlight a couple of these amendments that my colleague the member for Calgary Shepard argued for at finance committee. Regrettably, these amendments failed to be passed at the committee.

An amendment was proposed to section 690. This amendment introduced some safeguards regarding the use of the interim orders by the Minister of Transport. Stakeholders suggested that the parameters around which the minister could make an interim order needed to be properly defined. Additionally, they suggested that the use of an interim order needed to be precipitated and/or necessitated by a significant risk and/or an immediate threat. Without these constraining definitions, Bill C-86 would create uncertainty and this uncertainty could become the norm in the shipping industry.

They also suggested that it was essential that the proposal to give the minister the power to adopt interim orders under the Canada Shipping Act be sufficiently restricted through the appropriate checks and balances to ensure that their use would not open the door to the practice of governing by interim order as a workaround from the normal regulatory process. The new subsection they believed was required, because of the potential major ramifications of a minister's making an interim order, was also rejected by Liberal committee members.

This rejected amendment also proposed to reduce the length of time that an interim order would be in effect. The current bill allows for an interim order to be in effect for one year, plus an extension of two years if granted by the Governor in Council. Stakeholders felt that it was quite unprecedented that a new regulation could exist for three years without going through the normal regulatory process. The proposed amendment would have limited the length of an interim order from one year to 14 days and the Governor in Council extension to one year, which is more in line with other legislation.

Another amendment that also failed at the finance committee, but which should have been included in Bill C-86, proposed to amend clause 692. The purpose of this amendment was to introduce safeguards around the use of ministerial powers. What Bill C-86 proposes in clause 692 would go a step further than simply introducing new Governor in Council regulatory powers. In some cases, it would also enable the minister to modify the content of Governor in Council regulations relating to matters like compulsory or recommended routes, cargo loading, and navigation and anchoring by using a ministerial order for up to one year.

To curb this expanded power, the shipping stakeholders felt that their amendment was needed to ensure that the minister would consult with industry before making any order under this section.

In rejecting these reasonable proposals by the shipping industry, the government is turning a blind eye to the concerns of those workers and businesses that would be most directly impacted by these changes.

As the shadow minister for transport, I value the input of key stakeholders. This legislation and the Liberals' rejection of reasonable amendments is a reflection of their disregard for Canada's economy and future well-being.

I want to highlight a final area of concern that was given in testimony to our committee on November 6.

The witness appearing for the Chamber of Shipping noted that clause 692 of this legislation appeared to be another mechanism by which to implement a moratorium on specific commodities through regulation and interim orders, and not through legislation, as this government is doing with Bill C-48. The witness noted that this contradicted what should be the government's objective in providing a predicable supply chain. There is no question in my mind that the inclusion of this clause in Bill C-86 would have a further chilling effect on Canada's oil and gas industry.

The Liberal government has been bad for Canada's economy and this legislation would only take Canada further down this mistaken path.

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

Mr. Speaker, listening to my colleague across the way, I cannot help but think that budget implementation bills include a significant number of needed changes to regulations or for enabling them. It is all a part of it. For example, we see that many of the proposed changes deal with tax laws, tax brackets, and so forth. These are all very important changes when a government introduces a budget and they are why, in the most part, a budget implementation bill is required.

Did the member want to expand on that aspect of the legislation? Not all of it is super attractive stuff or easily commented on, but consists of the details that enable, add to, or take away regulations.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my remarks, the amendments to divisions 22 and 23 were in fact buried in this omnibus bill tabled by the government. These were the most substantive changes. These are not everyday housekeeping changes to regulations or legislation that might be put into a large omnibus bill. These are among the most substantive changes made to the Canada Shipping Act and the Marine Liability Act.

Members of that industry were completely taken by surprise that these changes were included in an omnibus bill. We suggested amendments at committee. We were very genuine in our attempt to review the clauses referred to our committee. They were genuine in their attempt to review the legislation and put forward some very thoughtful amendments, and the amendments were rejected. I would suggest that burying substantive changes to existing pieces of legislation is not the way to go when one dealing with an omnibus bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is so interesting hearing the speeches from different shadow ministers on our side, digging deep into aspects of the budget implementation act that deal with their areas, and to really see how much of an omnibus bill this is, how many changes we are seeing in so many different areas. We are basically getting one good speech on each of those different aspects, providing so much comment with so little debate in response. It is really quite striking.

Today we are going to have an emergency debate on the terrible impact we are seeing in the auto sector. In my province of Alberta, which the member spoke about, we are dealing with major challenges in the oil and gas sector as a result of legislation brought forward by the government, such as Bill C-69, the no-pipelines bill, as well as other steps it has taken.

It really boggles the mind. On the one hand, the government has taken every possible step to kill the transportation of vital energy resources. On the other hand, it has put massive amounts of public dollars into buying a pipeline, supposedly in the name of getting that pipeline built, and it is still not succeeding with that. It has bought the pipeline without building it. We would prefer that we build pipelines without buying them.

Could the member share with us a little more about what positive alternatives there are? The Liberals have said that it would take magic to get these things done, in some cases, and yet we have had success in the past building pipelines. What are the steps we can and should be taking to move these forward?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague put it very eloquently when he spoke about the fact that, because of this Prime Minister and the current government's failure, thousands of Canadians have lost their jobs. As well, Canadian taxpayers are now on the hook for a $4.5-billion pipeline that may never be built. Add to that the legislation that has been introduced. In my comments, I mentioned Bill C-48, and my colleague has mentioned Bill C-69. This legislation is already having a devastating effect on investment here in Canada. Those companies have not just stopped investing, but have taken their investment to other countries. They are going ahead and building pipelines in other places around the world. It is just not happening here in Canada.

I know that the leader of our party, the leader of our caucus, has stood and suggested what a Conservative government would do if it were elected. The first thing Conservatives would do is repeal Bill C-48, a moratorium on tanker traffic off the northwest coast of British Columbia. In itself, that would begin to build some confidence. We would repeal Bill C-69. Again, we have placed a regulatory burden on certain sectors in this country that needs to be reversed if we are ever to see a thriving oil and gas industry in this country again.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased to speak to Bill C-86, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures. I will be talking about the middle class, which is extremely important, and those working hard to join it. In my speech, I will also talk about veterans, women, families and, of course, seniors.

Before I get started, I will talk about what I would describe as Canada being a just society. Our government is working extremely hard to make sure that all Canadians are part of that just society. Throughout my speech, I will touch on that.

Mr. Speaker, as you can understand, we expect the wealthiest 1% of Canadians to pay more to help ensure we have the best country in the world, and that is extremely important. The second piece is ensuring that the middle class is strong and that we create opportunities and good jobs for the middle class. We have to make sure that we help those trying hard to join the middle class and that is a very important focus of our government. We want to move people from below the poverty line to the middle class as well and we want to make sure that people in the middle class do not fall below the poverty line. It is a very important approach. This is what I call a just society and that is why we are asking all Canadians to contribute to that vision.

Let us look at what our government has done, is doing or will do as we move forward. The unemployment rate has dropped to 5.7% from 7.2%. That is very impressive. That is the lowest in 40 years. That is something to talk about and is extremely important. Almost 700,000 Canadians are finding new, good-paying jobs. That is what is important in our focus on the economy.

We are seeing the effect of the Canada child benefit, which is tax free. We are seeing major investment in this area. For example, in my riding of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, people are receiving $5.2 million a month. That is right, $5.2 million a month or $60 million a year. That is happening right across this country. If we play with the numbers, that is 338 times $60 million on average. Billions of dollars have been invested and are having an effect. What is really helping the economy is that money is being spent right away by families because it is needed and it is contributing to the economy. That is what it is all about and that is why it is very important.

The fall economic statement delivered last week has very important strategies, one of which is the accelerated deduction for companies that want to purchase equipment to be more competitive. They are seeing three times the deduction. If we use computers as an example, before the investment would have been about 27.5% and now the first year they can deduct 82%. It is quite impressive.

Now let us talk about families. They are extremely important in my riding of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook. We are investing in the EI parental sharing benefit. The second parent is receiving up to five weeks more to spend more time with his or her family, which is very important. We have established an advisory council on pharmacare. We know this is extremely important to Canadians. We have been talking about it for years, but it is time to take action, and I believe we will see that in the very near future.

To help low-income Canadians, we have introduced the Canada workers benefit, which will help over 300,000 more people. Over two million people will benefit from that investment. The BIA will enact that process. One will not need to apply for it; it will be automatic.

Then we see changes to the labour code that would give up to five days of paid leave for individuals experiencing family violence. Those are added features that are very important.

We have invested almost $10 billion for veterans. When I was going from town hall to town hall and from legion to legion, one of the most important things they asked for was to bring back the option of a monthly pension. Veterans can achieve that goal now. There are three phases to it: the pain and suffering compensation, additional pain and suffering compensation, and income replacement, which would be up to 90% of pre-release salary. Those are major investments for Canadian veterans who have risked their lives, and for their families.

When the Conservatives were in power, it took 10 years of service to get a veterans ID card and then they cut it. I am not sure why. It is hard to understand. We brought back the veterans card, which I heard across my riding was a very important step veterans wanted. Now, as soon as they have basic training, they have the right to a veterans card. The ID card states the name, the rank, the years of service and more information about their service. They will be able to access benefits because of the card.

The budget implementation act supports women. It would actually enable a department of women and gender equality. It is an extremely important piece of the legislation. This would help the minister to implement and move these initiatives forward. We are laying the groundwork now. More consultation is required, and with that consultation we will be able to move legislation within the next year. We have to keep in mind that we are seeing today, as I speak, a historic number of women participating in the workforce. That is because we are creating opportunities, trying to ensure we are supporting women in the workforce, because they can contribute enormously to the economy of our great country.

In my riding of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, we are going to benefit from many initiatives of our government, such as broadband. Access to the Internet is extremely important so people can stay in their rural communities and be able to create a successful business, have a family and build on that prosperity.

The investment of our government in dementia and the autism spectrum disorder is a 10-year investment of $5 million each.

Let me close with the piece that would enact the poverty reduction act. This is extremely important, and it is part of the BIA 2. It sets two targets: reducing poverty by 2020 by 20% and reducing poverty by 2030 by 50%. That is very impressive. How are we going to achieve that? We have already started. We have seen a major investment in the CCB, as I mentioned. We have seen investment in GIS for retired low-income single individuals. We are seeing investment in the national housing strategy. In my riding of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, 155 units have been built or renovated. We are seeing investment in early learning. In Nova Scotia alone, it is over $11 million per year.

Let us talk about the part that I said was important, which is poverty, those who are in need.

With respect to opportunities, last week we moved forward legislation on accessibility, which is extremely important, and on pay equity. There is also a safety net, which is the Canada workers benefit investment. That is also extremely important.

In closing, what is important to note is that this is a process. This government is moving our economy forward and making sure that every day Canada gets closer to its just society.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's interesting exposition on this particular bill. I would like to ask him this. There is only one taxpayer pocket, which is municipal-provincial-federal. However, he makes it sound like it is the government's money. It is the taxpayers' money. It comes out of my pocket and his pocket. It is not the government's money.

Specifically with respect to this new machinery type of writeoff, if we listen to the response the Prime Minister got in Calgary last week, the people in my riding are selling their equipment. It is going or is gone. They are not buying new equipment for the resource sector. This does nothing in Alberta. Nobody is buying new machinery. It is being shipped to the U.S. For the government to say it is giving this incentive to buy new machinery has no value in Alberta.

I would like a response from my colleague about what he think this does for the resource sector in Alberta.

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

Mr. Speaker, I hate to say it, but the facts are in front of us. The Conservative government, after 10 years in power, did not build one kilometre of pipeline. It focused 99% of the investment on the United States. It did not take advantage of the opportunities in the world to move our product, which is extremely important for our economy. It did not do its job. It sat with the Americans, selling them 99%, and that is why we are seeing wholesale prices today. Albertans deserve to get much greater money for their oil. We as a government will make that happen in the very near future, because we are investing in Canadians for Canadians, and for a better country.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke about a “just” society. That is an original term. I wonder if he coined it or something.

I think what we are hearing about is a “just enough” society. We have Canadians who are struggling and who are earning just enough to get by on any given day. I wonder what he thinks about that in particular.

Also, why will his government not tell Canadians when the budget will balance itself?

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

Mr. Speaker, the thing that seems to be missing on the Conservative side is its members do not really understand what spending and investing money is. For example, a company does not wait for a crisis to invest. It has a vision, it sets out a plan to achieve that vision and it invests.

I can tell members this. Because of all of the investments I spoke of in my speech, more and more revenues are coming in as we speak. That will help us pay the deficit and continue to invest in Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, one issue that has been brought up and fought for by many people across Canada and unions is pay equity. People have been fighting for over 40 years to have this come to fruition. During my colleague's speech, he talked about the importance of having that brought forward. However, once again, with what has been put forward in this piece of legislation, women will have to wait another four years. Can he explain why, in 2018, we still have to wait to have pay equity?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, we are focused on pay equity. In the legislation we are proposing a department for women and gender equity, which includes pay equity. This would allow us to move forward on that agenda. Right now we are working on that piece, but we need to consult to ensure we are doing it the right way, because it is extremely important.

Our plan is to move forward in the next year with legislation to achieve that goal.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-86, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures.

The bill has made it to report stage. This is a mammoth bill that is more than 851 pages long. It is truly a massive omnibus bill.

If we combine this bill with the 2008 budget, that makes more than 1,400 pages of legislative changes that all members of the House have to study.

We have said many times that bills like Bill C-86 should be split so that all members of the House have enough time to debate and study them. When bills are this big, it is easy to hide things in them.

In 2015, the Liberals promised to do things differently. When the Conservatives were in power, they had a habit of introducing mammoth omnibus bills. During the election campaign, the Liberals said they would be different and everyone could trust them. However, right after they were elected, back in 2015, they started introducing omnibus bills.

When a government drafts a budget, it makes choices and sets priorities. We are really very disappointed with Bill C-86. More and more, people are hoping the government will enact measures to change their lives for the better. As the NDP sees it, the Liberals have missed that opportunity.

As everyone knows, Canada is a rich country. The gap between Canada's richest people and the rest of the population has never been wider. We believe that that is utterly unacceptable in 2018. Two Canadian billionaires own as much as 11 million Canadians.

Oxfam released a report revealing that the eight richest men own the same wealth as half of humanity.

About 4 million Canadians, including 1.15 million children, live in homes that struggle to put food on the table. Last week, following our weekly caucus meeting, I was able to go back to my riding of Berthier—Maskinongé to attend a Noël du pauvre fundraising dinner in Yamachiche. Volunteers work throughout the year to raise money so that families and children get Christmas hampers.

I would like to recognize the work of organizing committee chair Pierrette Plante and honorary chair Father Julio César Duran. A total of 550 people attended this dinner, which raised nearly $16,000 to help local residents in need.

We are pleased to see that Bill C-86 contains poverty reduction targets. Unfortunately, those targets are not accompanied by appropriate measures or funding so that they can be met.

The Liberals have ideas and targets, but they are not making any new investments to meet those targets. There is a poverty crisis in Canada. People are living in hardship and misery. There are still people struggling to make ends meet at the end of the month.

The important thing in this bill is pay equity. Women have been waiting for pay equity for over 42 years. It is a promise that was made by the Liberals. However, once again, we are waiting. The Liberals like to consult, but what it really boils down to is that they are buying time. They are still consulting about pay equity, when we really need it today.

Another thing we were hoping to find in the bill was a federal measure to tax web giants, but the bill contains no such measure. We are also calling on the government to put an end to pension theft and to give Canada a national child care strategy.

I had my son when I was a teenager, and at the time, it cost me $55 a day to send him to daycare. I had to take out additional loans so I could continue my studies and send my son to daycare. We need a Canada-wide child care system to help families, especially single parents.

Furthermore, we want stronger action to address tax havens, and we also want EI sickness benefits to be extended from 15 weeks to 50. There is a good public awareness campaign on that topic. I will come back to that. We also want a universal pharmacare system.

In addition, we want the needs of indigenous communities to be met, particularly with regard to access to safe drinking water and funding for educational institutions in their communities, which receive less funding than other institutions in the country. Lastly, we want assistance for rural regions.

Regarding the duration of EI sickness benefits, which we want to be extended from 15 weeks to 50, it is important to highlight the work of Marie-Hélène Dubé, who launched a petition called “15 weeks to heal is not enough!”. Half a million Canadians signed that petition calling on the federal government to take action, but we have heard nothing but radio silence so far in response. It is very frustrating.

In 2016, the Prime Minister himself and the Minister of Social Development promised to take action and extend the benefit period. In 2014, the Prime Minister even voted in favour of Bill C-291, which would have extended EI sickness benefits from 15 weeks to 50.

The government needs to walk the talk. Sick people need time to take care of themselves. They do not have time to fight. That is why we continue to pressure the federal government to extend EI sickness benefits.

I represent the riding of Berthier—Maskinongé, which includes the RCMs of Maskinongé and Berthier, as well as three municipalities in the RCM of Matawinie. I travel quite a bit across my riding, and people stop me to talk about the importance of having a national connectivity strategy, which is something we do not currently have at the federal level.

Access to high-speed broadband Internet is vital to strengthening Canada's social and economic fabric. Some businesses really struggle with connectivity issues. I know a business owner in Maskinongé who pays two ISPs and never knows which of the two will work when he needs it. When one does not work, he tries the other.

We have long called for a national connectivity strategy. Although the government offers programs and money from time to time, this is not enough. We need a Canada-wide strategy to connect Canada and Quebec to the Internet.

I should point out that a cell network strategy is needed as well. In my riding of Berthier—Maskinongé, people from Saint-Mathieu-du-Parc to Saint-Édouard-de-Maskinongé tell me how important cell coverage is. The mayor of Saint-Édouard-de-Maskinongé, Réal Normandin, has spoken to me about this, because people in his village have a hard time getting cell reception. The community of Saint-Élie-de-Caxton, the hometown of Fred Pellerin, is in the same boat.

At a coffee meeting last week in Lavaltrie, Sylvie Legault and Gilles Auclair collected signatures for a petition about the 34 homes on the Point-du-Jour concession that have no Internet access and limited cell network access. Lavaltrie is not far from Montreal. These people are calling for a national Internet access and cell network strategy.

We had hoped to find all kinds of good things in Bill C-89, but the NDP will have to oppose this bill, since it does not do enough to address pay equality. Women have been fighting for far too long for the right to equal pay for equal work.

This bill also does not do enough to help rural areas get access to the Internet and the cell network. We also need to improve the pharmacare system. In short, there are many reasons why we will be voting against Bill C-86.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, basically, it looks like we are in agreement in a lot of areas.

The member mentioned that there were a lot of poor people in the country. As I mentioned in my speech in detail, we have contributed to virtually all of those groups. First, for the working poor, we have helped over two million people. We have increased the amount of money for low-income students. We have increased the GIS for low-income seniors, bringing thousands of them out of poverty. There is the new Canada child benefit, which brings thousands of children out of poverty.

I am delighted the member raised the boiled water advisories. I do not have the exact figures, but a record number have been dealt with, I think 60 out of 120. We are well on schedule to eliminate them all. It is very important, and I am glad it is important for the NDP.

Finally, on Internet for rural areas, there is a special program. As an example, in my area, the federal government is investing millions to put a line up the Dempster Highway to Inuvik. Therefore, we will have redundancy with our line from the south from Alberta as it goes down whenever someone breaks a line from Alberta. I am very appreciative of that. I appreciate the fact that the member supports those types of initiatives.

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

Mr. Speaker, I could have talked more than 10 minutes, because there are a lot of issues I would have liked to have brought forward on the floor of the House.

I mentioned the importance to act on ensuring we equalized and had better transfer payments to first nations schools. We hear stories, quite often brought up in caucus and in question period, of devastating circumstances, such as how the schools are filled with mould and people are getting sick. The government is not investing enough in building schools so kids feel safe and comfortable. It is completely ridiculous to think that in the 2018 there is such as injustice in the way kids are treated across Canada.

For the boiled water advisories, some people do not have running water. Parents are afraid to wash their kids because they might get sick. We have not seen a concrete plan and obviously the government has not invested enough.

These are human rights violations. These are important issues that the government talks a lot about, but when it comes to concrete action and money to back it up, it is far too little.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé, which is a magnificent riding.

Earlier, she spoke briefly about pay equity. I have been hearing about pay equity and its importance for years. I even heard about it before I was elected in 2011. It was one of the government's key campaign promises. The Liberals promised to do things differently, and they promised real change. However, we have yet to see any real change on the indigenous file or other key files, including pay equity for women in Canada.

If the campaign promise was sincere, work should have begun on this file the day after the election. Clearly, that did not happen. We are less than a year away from the next election, and the Liberals are promising to hold further consultations. We might see action on this file in another four years.

As I see it, if the Liberals were unable to keep their promise right after the election, it is a sham.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his comments on pay equity.

This situation is inconceivable in 2018, especially since our Prime Minister professes to be such a champion of women and equality. As my colleague aptly pointed out, this was a Liberal campaign promise. They are holding yet more consultations. They are going to create a department.

During the committee's study of Bill C-86, we heard from experts. The committee held three meetings on this bill and heard testimony from experts. The Liberals rejected all of the NDP's amendments, which had been drafted with the help of experts. That is really frustrating because we had something like 30 amendments on pay equity. The Liberals said they knew more than people in the field who have taken cases to court.

What the Liberals are proposing means that groups will have to go back to court to achieve pay equity. That is sad, disappointing and frustrating. The Liberal government needs to take action right now, not hold more consultations. The time to take action is now.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Mr. Speaker, before I start my discussion on the fall economic update, I would like to acknowledge that today is the 10th anniversary of the terrorist attack on Mumbai, where two Canadians lost their lives.

During a state visit with the former governor general, the Right Hon. David Johnston, whom I accompanied to India, we visited the Taj hotel, which was one of the places that came under severe attack. We paid our respects at the memorial that was set up in the hotel. We talked to the survivors of that terrible tragedy. Our thoughts and prayers are with those who were killed and to the people of India. Just a note to my colleagues, the masterminds of that terrorist attack are still free.

On another note, as everyone knows, I am from Calgary. Yesterday evening, I was sitting in a pub with fans in Ottawa for the Grey Cup. I had a great evening when Calgary beat Ottawa. The pub was pretty quiet, but they could not keep me quiet. I was out there rooting for Calgary. I am very grateful that we won the Grey Cup. Go, Stamps, go.

Now I am going to talk about the fall economic update and the management by the Liberal government of the economy. The government gave a fall economic update, and today we heard an announcement that over 2,000 Canadians are going to lose their jobs because of GM's closure of their plant in Oshawa. This has sent shock waves across the country. It will have a serious impact on Ontario's economy, and by extension, the Canadian economy. We will see not only jobs being lost but a subsequent chain of events associated with the plant and the production of vehicles in the auto sector. The impact is going to be huge. Therefore, the fall economic update, as far as I am concerned, is not very valid.

Tonight an emergency debate has been agreed to, which was put forward by the Conservative members. Members of the House will discuss this issue that impacts everyone. Hopefully, everyone will agree unanimously that we should all work together to ensure that Canadians will not be heavily impacted by this loss.

I also want to say that last Thursday, the Prime Minister visited Calgary to talk about the other sector that is crucially important to the economy, and that is the oil energy sector. He had come there to give assurances. He spoke to the Chamber of Commerce, and he met with business leaders. Close to 2,000 people were in the streets asking for action by the Liberal government with regard to the energy sector. Ultimately, his visit provided absolutely nothing of the kind to the oil sector and the workers in Calgary who are suffering. It will subsequently lead to more job losses. The oil sector impacts everyone in this country, yet the government was unable to give assurances to Calgary and Alberta about what it plans to do.

The government's inaction has become so bad, despite having the NDP as its closest ally in Alberta, that the finance minister in Alberta, the Hon. Joe Ceci, who I worked with for many years, because he was a councillor in the same riding I represent today, commented in frustration that if it was something like Bombardier, we would have seen massive action by the Liberal government. However, because it is Alberta, it kind of got the brush-off. This is what the NDP finance minister in Alberta is saying.

This is a warning sign to the federal government that if it does not pick up the ball in the energy sector, it will once more inflame the western alienation that occurred under the Pierre Trudeau Liberal government. It is a good point for the Liberals to know. It is not the Conservatives speaking about it. It is the NDP finance minister in Alberta talking about this issue.

The point of the fall economic statement is how the Liberals have managed our economy, and it is looking really bad. Canadians are concerned. The deficit is going on and on. It is now three times higher than what the Liberals promised during the election campaign. They like to say that what they promised they are delivering, but unfortunately, they are absolutely not.

The government has raised taxes on the middle class. It has raised taxes. The deficit is going up. What does the future of Canada look like under the current government? It does not look very good. Today's announcement is just one of the symptoms of not looking forward. The government should have known this might happen, and if it did, what actions it would take. It was totally caught off guard. We will hear in tonight's debate what it intends to do, as it is in power.

The main issue in the economic update is simple and straightforward. What assurances do Canadians have that there will be sound management? They are worried about jobs, their children and their families, and now there will be a carbon tax.

This weekend, Rex Murphy, a great commentator, said very simply that we cannot have extra burdens when the economy is under stress and that the government should revisit the carbon tax. We are calling on the government to revisit the carbon tax. It should not sit with its head in the sand and say no. There are other options to address climate change as we move forward, but the carbon tax is not the way to go. Liberals say the carbon tax is revenue neutral and they will return the money to Canadians, but what incentive do they have to do this except to create a bureaucracy for the carbon tax.

The main issue is that we need to create an economic environment that will create economic development. The Prime Minister's actions at the first TPP meeting in Vietnam were disastrous. He did not bother giving any attention to the trade file, which is crucial for Canada.

The finance minister was on TV over the weekend saying that the media was not giving him fair coverage. My colleagues and everyone else are wondering if that is why he gave the media $560 million, to make sure that the Liberals get favourable coverage from the media. There is a question being raised about that money, and a lot of the media are attacking that. I know it is about job security for them as well, but it brings into question why the government is favouring one sector. The minister says we need a free press. Indeed, we need a free press. Canadians want a free press, but they can make up their own minds as to what kind of free press they want. They do not need what the government is doing, forcing on them what they do not want. Liberals are not listening to what the media is talking about.

Nevertheless, over the course of the month, we will talk about how the Liberal government failed. In 2019, we hope Canadians will send them packing.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that has been consistent from many of the prairie members of Parliament in the Conservative Party is that something does not have to be true, but they just say it.

They are trying to imply that this government is not proactive in our western provinces. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have no problem comparing what the Liberal government has done with what Stephen Harper did in his 10 years in office, on things such as the infrastructure program, the western diversification fund, and the pipelines. On the pipeline issue, over 99% of oil, the commodity, went to the United States when Stephen Harper first became prime minister, and when he left office, it was still over 99%. The Liberal government is investing hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars in Alberta to ensure that there is a healthier, more robust future for the province of Alberta.

Could the member tell us when we can anticipate that the Conservatives will be more straightforward and truthful with regard to what this government is doing, and that this government has been far more proactive in western Canada than Stephen Harper ever was?

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy hearing the member talk. He should look in the mirror and think about what he is talking about. I do not know what planet he is living on. Is he living in Alberta? He says he represents Winnipeg. Does he know that all three prairie governments do not share his vision? There is no prairie Liberal government. None of them agree with the nonsense he is talking about. He should go and talk to the provincial governments to find out what is happening in the provinces before he stands up talks about the Harper government.

We are talking about the fall economic statement by his government, and what he is saying it is going to do. He should not forget—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Bow River.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by my esteemed colleague.

One of the things we heard from the government when we talked about Alberta was that it had extended EI. That is not what people are looking for. They are looking for jobs, not handouts or bailouts. They need regulations changed. That was not in the economic update.

How would the member respond to constituents in the resource sector? Are they looking for more EI or are they looking for jobs?

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question from my colleague, who happens to also be an Alberta member of Parliament. That is a great question. It is simple and straightforward.

EI is a temporary solution. EI is not and has never been a permanent solution. We want permanent solutions. The permanent solution is straight and simple: jobs, jobs, jobs.

The government is talking about the economy doing well. The Liberals had a surplus, and what they did is they spent everything. The government has now created a situation where we are losing jobs across the country. Today we lost jobs in Ontario. Yesterday we lost jobs in Alberta. The Minister of Innovation got up during question period and tried to say how many jobs were created. That is a normal situation in a country. Nitpicking areas is not.

It is what has happened in Oshawa and what is happening in Alberta that is concerning. It is sending a message that the economic management by the government is a disaster for the country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and debate Bill C-86 and the economic update. This is another omnibus bill that brings into force new spending increases, adding even more to the national debt and reaffirms that the government will continue to borrow, borrow, borrow, with no plan to balance the budget. Canadians are frustrated by the overspending and inept spending of the Liberal government, while growing new boards, commissions and bureaucracy that tie up the true job creators in Canada.

Canadians see our economy as being attacked by the federal government with untenable regulations, tariffs, poor international negotiating, and thank goodness it was a whole-of-government and friends approach, interference, indecision and fake consultation. This creates an environment that no international company wants to waste its time on. Canadian small businesses are running out of resources and laying off workers.

Today we heard from GM that the plant in Oshawa is going to be closed. Under the Prime Minister's watch, over 2,500 direct plus 5,000 other jobs across the province of Ontario are being affected. From the way the Liberals spoke today in QP, one would think this was the first time this was happening. My word, this is only one of many situations, like General Electric in Peterborough which has closed with 358 jobs gone. Campbell soup company in Toronto closed and 380 jobs have been lost. Proctor & Gamble in Brockville closed and 500 jobs are gone. Grenville Castings in Perth closed and 380 jobs gone. A Dixie cup plant in Brampton closed and 133 jobs are gone. A carpet manufacturing plant in Waterloo closed and 256 jobs are gone. An Oreo cookie plant in Montreal closed and 454 jobs are gone.

This is a crisis we are facing in Canada and the government is destroying our economy. Manufacturers in my riding of Yorkton—Melville are desperate for the steel and aluminum import and export tariffs to be removed. They are running out of capital and laying off workers. That passive income the government claimed belonged to them is turning into fumes. There is nothing left for investment in their businesses or preparing for their own retirements. They are just trying to save people's jobs.

To add insult to injury, while the Liberals targeted small businesses with new tax penalties for saving within their company or sharing their business earnings within their family, the Prime Minister protected his trust fund inheritance and his finance minister's billion dollar family business from these tax hikes.

In the first three years of the Liberal government being in power, it will have 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. As a result of the Prime Minister's reckless borrowing, last year the Liberals spent $23 billion just to service the national debt. That is $23 billion just on interest last year. By 2023, the Parliamentary Budget Officer says that amount will rise to $37 billion, a 60% increase. The Liberals will be spending more on debt interest than we currently spend on health transfers across this country.

I know these numbers are hard to comprehend for all of us to truly fathom the extent to which the government is willing to go to announce and mislead. Its intention is to delay, deny and wait until people die. Oh, no, that is the approach the government has to meeting the needs of our veterans as the number who deserve care are in a fishbowl with 29,000 of their comrades. When it comes to our job creators like the resource and manufacturing industries, its approach is to actually compromise, control and then wave goodbye.

The government was blessed with an influx of $20 billion. A responsible government would have paid down the debt so that we would have more fiscal room in case there was a downturn, but instead, the Liberals blew through it and added another $18 billion to the national debt this year.

Here we are facing a downturn in manufacturing and resource development with less and less need for our products as the U.S. becomes more and more self-sufficient and is a growing provider of the resources we once provided it. There is no means to get our oil to customers offshore because the government has so desperately underperformed on empowering and growing our economy. The government needs to stop the reckless spending and balance the budget so that future generations are not stuck with the burden of trying to consolidate the national debt.

The average income tax bill for middle-class families has increased by $840, not including the new carbon taxes and payroll tax hikes. It does not matter how many times the Liberals say out loud that somehow Canadians have more money in their pockets, the Parliamentary Budget Officer does not agree. Since the Liberals came to power, 81% of middle-income Canadians are seeing higher taxes.

It is important to mention that a media tax credit will do nothing to help Canadian families struggling to make ends meet, and buying up media outlets prior to a general election is not a reasonable budget expense.

The many small newspaper outlets in my riding that provide such a crucial service to their communities are struggling, but I have to say that I have absolutely zero confidence that any of the now $595 million plus that the government is allowing the media to self-regulate will make it to where their needs are. Why? The money is not going to rural Canada where the Liberals do not care about the towns, villages and smaller cities that house the families and employees of the economic drivers of our nation in resource development, agriculture and manufacturing.

The government's overwhelming tax hikes and new regulations are making it harder and harder to grow and operate local businesses in Canada. This includes the Liberals' job-killing carbon tax that will not reduce emissions and will only punish families and small businesses. The government is increasing CPP and EI, which impacts small businesses. The government is increasing personal income tax rates for entrepreneurs, and changes to the small business tax rate will disqualify thousands of local businesses.

Businesses in Canada expected to some degree the challenge that was going to come from the south with tariffs, but at a time when they are facing these international barriers and these increased taxes from the government, they never could have imagined that it would be their own government trying to shut them down. It is as if the Prime Minister wants to ship Canadian jobs and investment to the United States.

The finance minister's omnibus budget bill only reinforces his out-of-control spending and major tax increases. It is clear that the Liberals are incapable of managing the federal budget.

The Conservative government dealt with the worst global depression since the 1930s, and yes, ran deficits, increased the debt and even tightened spending across government. As a result, former prime minister Harper, the late Mr. Flaherty and Canada were recognized internationally as the most fiscally responsible prime minister, finance minister and country in the world, the last in and the first out of the depression.

The current Prime Minister and finance minister are breaking their promises, increasing taxes, destroying and inhibiting investment and putting Canada into a tailspin that will take years of good government to correct. The Liberal government under the current Prime Minister is following in the footsteps of the Prime Minister's father, and believe me, I am old enough, unfortunately, to remember both of these points in history. I remember personally the damage done. I remember personally how it impacted our small business, our family and our savings. It was devastating.

However, not to fear, the Conservatives are here. Soon Canadians will have a government that will end the raid on future generations, eliminate deficits, manage the national debt, and grow our economy while taking care of our environment. I am part of what will be a government that is truly fiscally responsible.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, I found the hon. member's statement interesting although largely a piece of fiction, particularly when it came to our government's record of job creation. Over half a million more Canadians are working today than when we took office in 2015.

My question pertains to one comment that the hon. member made during her remarks. She suggested that our plan to put a price on pollution will not reduce emissions. I note in particular that Stephen Harper's former director of policy recommends the approach taken by the federal government. I note in particular Doug Ford's chief budget adviser has suggested that putting a price on pollution is the single most important thing we can do to transition to a low-carbon economy. I note in particular that this year's Nobel Prize in economics was awarded to a gentleman who has come up with a plan that we are now implementing.

I am curious. If the member wants to base her argument on fact, can she point to one leading expert who has suggested that putting a price on pollution would not lead to an emissions reduction?

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

Mr. Speaker, I know that the Liberals are desperate to make this work for them because they have committed to it to a point where they have no choice but to carry forward. My only concern is that we might, heaven forbid, give them the opportunity to do that. I am certainly hoping that Canadians will not allow that to happen, because we know that provinces across this country have said no, that they are not prepared to do that. They have not said it because they are provincial leaders; they have said it because Canadians across this country have said very clearly that they cannot have and do not want a carbon tax.

I am more than aware of multiple ways that we are continuing, in my province, to deal with our environment in a very responsible and capable way to improve production, to improve growth and to protect our environment without having to be penalized by this carbon tax. This is a tax grab. That is all it is, and it is not needed for Canada to continue to grow even more responsibly with our environment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have to ask my hon. colleague from the Conservative ranks to challenge this claim that Canadians from coast to coast do not want a carbon tax. It is very clear that Gordon Campbell's government in British Columbia would never have been re-elected had he not brought in the carbon tax. In fact, the NDP at the time ran a campaign against it, called “axe the tax”, which was a mistake the New Democrats now acknowledge. However, the approximate reason that the Gordon Campbell Liberals were returned to government was that he had put in place a sensible carbon tax, which led to British Columbia having some of the highest growth rates, economic performance, and employment in the country.

Looking at Ontario, does the hon. member honestly think that if Patrick Brown had remained leader of the Progressive Conservative Party in Ontario, supporting a carbon price as he did, that somehow that would have turned the election against the Progressive Conservatives? The reality is that Ontario was going Conservative no matter what the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party at the time said about a carbon tax.

This is sensible economic policy and we need much more of it, not less.

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

Mr. Speaker, the truth of the matter is that I had the privilege of being in British Columbia on the island dealing with veterans affairs issues. Being shadow minister for veterans affairs, I have had the opportunity to talk to veterans across the country.

From the conversations I had while there, I would say that a new realization is developing there as well. The truth of the matter is that there is a good possibility, as with the other governments, that there might be a change of thinking, at least on the federal level. Again, it is not governments that are complaining about this; it is people, and the people on that island understand how valuable their environment is. At the same time, they are totally aware that this tax has not in any way impacted the amount of emissions from Canada, and it is impacting small businesses.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-86, A second 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I go to my prepared remarks on the budget implementation act, I cannot resist making a few comments about the federal government's approach to poverty. There is a story I found in the Globe and Mail and, despite the prospect of hundreds of millions of dollars of government money going to the media, kudos to the Globe and Mail for writing the straight story. It talked about the government's spending $500,000 on the name, logo and branding for a new anti-poverty association. This is quite striking, because I wonder how many Canadians and people abroad who are living in poverty could have benefited from some of that exorbitant sums spent on a logo, which, frankly, is not even very good.

I had the pleasure of having my kids in Ottawa with me last week. My daughter Gianna spent some time in the office with my son Judah and daughter Lilly. Gianna was very keen on helping with the things we were doing in the office. She spent some time shredding paper. If only I had known I could have had her drawing logos. She is very entrepreneurial. She would have been happy to draw a much better logo than it for much less than $500,000, and maybe could have gotten a head start on her university fund.

It really is disappointing to see the government talking a good game on poverty but then frittering away dollars that could have been spent helping those who need it most. Certainly, whenever we look at the government's response to issues like poverty or international development, we will hold it accountable, not primarily on the basis of the dollars that are spent but on the results achieved, because we often see how far away its expenditures are from things that would achieve results.

I will now begin my general remarks on the budget.

The Liberal government claims that the Canadian economy is strong, that the middle class is doing well under this government, that running deficits is good policy, and that a tax on carbon will not have any adverse effect.

Every one of those claims is false. In last week's economic update, the Liberal government painted a nice image of the economy, but it is not an image that exists in real life.

Less than a week after the government's economic update, we learn that GM has decided to cease operations in Oshawa, which will result in the loss of more than 2,000 jobs. The government cannot say that the economy is as strong as it claims when companies like GM close their doors and we lose thousands of jobs in Canada.

The Prime Minister loves saying that he is helping the middle class and those working hard to join it. However, every time he adopts a new policy, it seems to have a negative impact on the middle class and those working hard to join it.

For example, the Prime Minister is still trying to bring in a carbon tax that will mostly affect the middle class and those working hard to join it.

As a result of this tax, every time someone drives to work, to their child's hockey or piano lessons, or to the grocery store, that person will have to pay more for gas. They will also have to pay more for groceries, clothing and almost everything else. That is because the Liberals want to find money to pay for their spending spree.

The Liberal government has also announced that the biggest emitters will not have to pay the carbon tax. It is therefore quite clear that the government is not putting this policy in place to protect the environment.

The carbon tax is not an environmental plan, it is a tax plan.

It is clear that the Liberal government is not helping the middle class and those who are working hard to join it. Taxes for a middle-class family have increased by an average of $800. By contrast, the richest 1% of Canadians paid $4.5 billion less the year after the government's tax changes.

Last week, we moved a motion calling on the government to tell Canadians when it would address its reckless spending and balance the budget. We moved this motion because the Prime Minister told Canadians during the 2015 election campaign that the country would have small deficits until 2019, when the budget would be balanced, as it was under the previous government. However, not all the deficits are small, as the Prime Minister suggested. In fact, the deficits are much higher, three times higher, than the $10 billion he promised. Furthermore, the deficits will not end in 2019, but will continue for several years.

In fact, Randall Bartlett, chief economist at the Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy at the University of Ottawa, believes that the deficits will be even higher. Even the Department of Finance now admits that if we continue down the same path the Liberal Party has started on, the budget will not be balanced until 2045. However, when we gave the Prime Minister the opportunity to clarify this situation and tell Canadians when he plans to balance the budget, he did not take it.

In fact, every member of his caucus voted against our motion. They voted to hide the truth from Canadians. They voted against telling Canadians when the budget will be balanced.

I would like to point out that this bill is over 800 pages long, double the size of the previous government's bill. Many Liberal members were opposed to the Conservatives' bills because they were too long, yet they are in favour of this bill. I find that very interesting.

It is quite obvious that the Liberal government is not serious when it says that it supports the middle class and those working hard to join it. Every time the Liberals announce a new policy, it has a negative impact on the middle class. These policies not only affect today's middle class, but tomorrow's as well, our children's generation. When the Liberals continue spending money and racking up deficits, they are creating a situation in which future generations will have to pay for today's irresponsible spending. They are stealing from future generations.

I do not think it is fair to tell my children, Gianna, Judah and Lilly, that they have to work harder to pay for things that I had in my life. Future generations will have to pay for advantages that they will not have, and that is not fair.

In the final time I have, I want to highlight the challenges we are facing in my province. While we are struggling economically in so many different ways, and while the government is putting in place measures to prevent the development of future pipelines, we are paying for pipelines overseas through the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. We are putting hundreds of millions of Canadian taxpayers' dollars into a Chinese-controlled bank that acts as an agent of Chinese foreign policy. It is building a pipeline in Azerbaijan while we are not proceeding with vital energy infrastructure projects here in Canada. It is these kinds of approaches that make Canadians feel the government is so offside with their own situation and interests. This budget bill must be defeated.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member opposite and share his concern about the expenditures on the logo that clearly, which we heard in question period today, offended the minister and the parliamentary secretary. Hopefully, the arm's-length organization can take better stewardship of public dollars. I share his concern that the scarce dollars we can commit to fighting poverty should be spent on those who need a solution to that dilemma rather than simply on graphic arts. I am as perplexed as the member is as to why those dollars were misdirected.

The member talked about the situation confronting his home province and some of the support it had seen. Would he agree that a substantial investment in housing not only provides relief for those who have low incomes, but also creates jobs for trades people? While the energy sector goes through challenges, the largest single group of employees in the energy sector is construction workers. In other words, a national housing strategy not only solves social problems, but also provides immediate relief for workers in the construction sector who are losing work because of the slowdown in the oil patch. Would the member agree that the national housing strategy is, in fact, a very good investment and one that should have been made years ago?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is part of the discourse of the Liberals in general that they really wanted to find a discourse around a national strategy branded in such-and-such a way. I am very proud of the investments that were made in housing by the previous Conservative government, significant investments in the area of helping the vulnerable and the homeless and addressing the housing issue.

The member talks about the logo issue. This is endemic of the government. Its focus is on the branding, what is put in the window and what one calls it, instead of the substance and the reality. We agree that there was a role for government to be engaged in the area of housing and to help the vulnerable, yet we see that in so many different areas the government puts the emphasis on logos and renaming. It is not just an isolated incident. It is a problem with the way it values style over substance. However, on this side of the House, we value substance over style, whether that is in the area of housing or poverty.

In the budget, in terms of poverty, the government is legislating goals. That is okay, but there is nothing binding about achieving those goals. The fact is that the previous government did far more to fight poverty by lowering the taxes that lower-income Canadians paid. We lowered the lowest marginal tax rate, we raised the basic personal exemption and we lowered the GST. These were elements of targeted tax relief for those who needed the tax relief the most, completely different from what the Liberal government is doing in trying to give advantages to the most well off.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate working with the member on the procedure and House affairs committee. He is very bright.

I want to ensure people know that the Conservatives asked hundreds of questions. They said that they asked hundreds of questions and said that MPs should know when budgets were going to be balanced. They already lost that argument a long time ago. When they were asked before, none of them could tell us that they would run nine deficits and one surplus.

My question is related to transit. I have heard members of the Conservative Party suggest that greenhouse gases will not be cut with programs and that infrastructure would not create jobs. I will ask the member, and I am sure I will get a more intellectual answer. I assume the member would agree that the number of major transit projects we have funded in the west will cut greenhouse gases and create jobs because someone has to build them.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is frustrated because no Conservative would tell him when we would run nine deficits and one surplus. I guess the answer to that is because we did not run nine deficits and one surplus. Maybe he needs to go back and check the record on that.

With respect to investments in transit, I know in various areas, and, in particular, there has been some discussion in the House about the Green Line in Calgary, the Liberals are keen to talk about projects that were put in place and started under the previous Conservative government. I am very proud of the Conservative record in making substantial investments in transit and other areas. Because we did those things in the context of a balanced budget, Canadians could have confidence in those commitments.

When governments make all kinds of unbudgeted commitments in a deficit situation, like we saw in the Province of Ontario under the Kathleen Wynne Liberals, which the government is keen to salute, a situation is created where, inevitably, it is impossible to realize those promises that have been made to people. I am proud of the investments the Conservatives made, whether it was in the area of housing or transit, that were in the context of a balanced budget so Canadians could have confidence that the money was in the bank to deliver on the commitments.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-86 today on behalf of the people of Sherbrooke, who elected me to represent them here in the House.

Today, I have to say that this is a big disappointment. I am also speaking in my capacity as deputy finance critic for my party, the NDP. As deputy critic, I am very disappointed in the Liberal government for picking up the Conservative government's nasty habit of introducing unprecedentedly long budget implementation bills. With every bill, it seems the government hopes to beat the record set by the previous budget implementation bill. The Liberals seem to be competing with the Conservatives to see who can draft the longest bill. This 850-page bill breaks the records for both number of pages and number of clauses in a budget implementation bill.

I feel like I am repeating myself, because last Friday, I spoke about Canada Post and the fact that I was surprised by the Liberals' actions in view of what they said when they sat in this corner of the House. I am also surprised to see the Liberals introducing omnibus bills. When they were the third party, they openly criticized the length of omnibus bills at every opportunity, both here in the House and in committee when we were called on to do an in-depth study of bills.

Today, I am surprised to see the Liberals once again doing the exact opposite of what they said when they sat in this corner of the House and introducing an 850-page omnibus bill. Liberal members who were here at that time and who are still here today seem to have completely forgotten about their displeasure with this type of government action. Today, they seem quite at ease with a process that allows a bill like Bill C-86 to be rushed through. When the bill was introduced in the House, the Standing Committee on Finance was asked to begin studying it even before it passed second reading. When the committee is asked to study the 850-page Bill C-86 in advance, the result of a vote in the House is a foregone conclusion. We were asked to complete our study in two or three weeks.

First we had to read the bill, to see what was in it. How can we do our jobs properly as parliamentarians if we do not have time to read the content of the bill? Then we had to call witnesses to also come and give their input on the bill. They faced the same challenge. I know from experience that many witnesses are caught off guard by such massive bills, and they were called to appear with just a few days of notice, perhaps a week or a week and a half, when they were being asked to comment on a bill as huge as this one. On that note, I have to say how surprised I am to see the Liberals using the same tactics to expedite the process in the House, not giving parliamentarians enough time to study bills properly.

We have clearly seen this in some situations in the past. Some bills have contained errors that had to be corrected later on. Those errors could have been avoided if the proper process had been followed in the first place. In the case of Bill C-86, I feel compelled to point out the Liberals' inconsistency, since they used to criticize omnibus bills, but they are doing exactly the same thing today.

Fortunately, there is some good news for Canadians in this bill. We have to acknowledge that and give credit where credit is due. There are a few good measures in this bill, but sadly, they do not go far enough. That is what we heard from witnesses during the committee's study. Take pay equity, for example. That is something we have been calling for for years, and the Liberals have been promising it for years, if not decades. For once, they seem inclined to actually do something in response to many questions and plenty of pressure from the opposition. Unfortunately, the witnesses said that the implementation would be too slow and that the bill still has some shortcomings. I call it a bill because it should be a stand-alone bill on pay equity, but it was embedded in an 850-page bill.

The experts pointed out some flaws that needed to be fixed, but the Liberals, obviously, flat out rejected their suggestions. It is our job, as members of the committee, to propose amendments when experts come share their views and make recommendations. In this case, our amendments reflected exactly what they asked for. However, as usual, the Liberals think they are always right and will not accept any criticism. They rejected all of the amendments and did not think it was necessary to listen to experts. They left the bill as is, unfortunately.

I want to talk about some of the important measures that are missing from this bill. The government failed to meet a number of our expectations. Our party sent letters to the Minister of Finance to share our observations on the economy and on what could be done to help the majority of Canadians, not just company executives.

The government did not include a single measure related to tax fairness or pension theft, a topic I have heard a lot about in Sherbrooke. I held a town hall on this very issue. People were unanimous in their outrage for companies that run off with their workers' savings, like Sears, which stole its employees' pensions.

Not only are the Liberals not doing anything about pension theft in this bill, they are actually making the problem worse by listening to some of the companies' suggestions and further protecting companies that declare bankruptcy. Not only do they not want to fix this problem in this budget implementation bill, but they are going to make it worse.

The Liberal government is clearly disconnected from reality, or at least from reality in Sherbrooke. The recent budget statement, which follows on the budget implementation bill, makes that all too clear, since it reflects almost every demand that corporate lobbyists have made to the Liberal government. The government came through for them, including by offering tax breaks.

For example, it decided to give businesses $14 billion over the next few years through an accelerated capital cost allowance. This measure was not even properly targeted, since companies will not be able to use it to create jobs or buy the equipment they need for everyday operations. For example, for a plant, purchasing a machine is a good investment. Unfortunately, the bulk of the accelerated allowance deduction will instead help buy things like planes and limousines. Companies will be able to write off that type of purchase.

The government should have seen this coming and ensured that this measure targeted things that companies really need for their daily operations, instead of luxury items that CEOs need to get from Toronto to Dubai. The government is clearly disconnected from Canadians.

What is more, the government is proposing to lower the marginal effective tax rate from 17% to 13.8%, even though corporate profit margins have increased over the past few years and individual tax rates keep going up year after year. In other words, as corporate tax rates go down, individual tax rates go up. This shows yet again that the Liberal government is disconnected from reality.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Madam Speaker, I believe I heard my colleague from Sherbrooke say a few good things about the economic update.

He said that providing an accelerated capital cost allowance for the purchase of machinery, including equipment for producing renewable energy, also affects manufacturers and exporters.

Manufacturiers et Exportateurs du Québec, or MEQ, also complimented the Government of Canada on that initiative. As the member said, new equipment creates jobs, and job creation helps the unemployed get jobs.

Does the member see this as a positive, or is he focusing solely on the things he disagrees with?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the Minister of Transport, for his question.

In general, as an opposition member, I focus more on the negative aspects of what the government proposes. I know that the minister understands that reality because he was sitting on this side of the House just a few years ago. However, I am able to see positive aspects too, and I often point them out in committee.

Of course, there are good reasons to improve the capital cost allowance for the purchase of equipment. I hear the same thing from businesses I visit in Sherbrooke. Business owners want more support so that they can invest in their companies. The problem I have with this measure is that it is basically a general gift from the government that leads to a much more advantageous accelerated capital cost allowance, especially for items that qualify for accelerated depreciation. Unfortunately, it would have been better if the government had taken a more targeted approach that focuses on job creation.

That is what our leader Jagmeet Singh and I say all the time. The government really needs to ensure that incentives to invest are more targeted and better focused on job creation and more tangible things that would help it meet its objectives. It is not enough to give a general benefit and hope that it works.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I have a question for him about tax rates.

The NDP speaks often about corporate or business tax rates. In my mind there are two issues: the question of business tax rates and the question of the tax rates we charge to higher-income individuals. Those two issues are often conflated by the discourse we hear from the NDP.

There is certainly logic on the personal income tax side, focusing our tax reductions on lower-income individuals, and that is what we did while were in government. We raised the base personal exemption, we lowered the lowest marginal rate and we lowered the GST, which is the one tax that all Canadians pay. At the same time, we lowered the business tax. We saw when we lowered business taxes that it made it easier to do business in Canada and that it led to an increased amount of tax revenue coming in through business taxes. It also led to job creation here in Canada, which benefited those who were unemployed.

Would my colleague reconsider his approach a little in recognizing that if we want to raise taxes on those who are well off, there are maybe arguments for what we do on the income tax side? Certainly on the business tax side, we have seen that lowering business taxes actually increases tax revenue for government and it also helps the unemployed get into the workforce.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for giving me an opportunity to comment briefly on the issue of corporate taxes compared to personal income taxes.

Unfortunately, the trend we have seen that drives government spending up over time, which is what the Liberal government is proposing, is that, year after year, taxes are not collected in a manner that is fair.

There is a pattern that has been emerging for many years now. It started under the Conservatives and continues under the Liberals. It is that personal income taxes are constantly going up. For instance, personal income tax revenues are expected to increase next year from $161 billion to $170 billion. During the same period, between 2017-18 and 2018-19, corporate tax revenues will decrease from $49.5 billion to $45 billion.

Who is left paying for Canada's social programs these days? The financial burden falls less and less on corporations and more and more on individual taxpayers. We must ask ourselves why that is.

Bill C-86—Notice of time allocation motion

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-86, a second 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 those stages.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-86, A second 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.

Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to offer a few remarks on the budget implementation act that has been the subject of rigorous debate in this chamber. Over the course of my remarks, I hope to cover a few items that relate to the last federal budget and the implementation act, particularly the themes of pursuing economic growth but also supporting those who could use a little extra help, and some measures we have put in place to help improve the quality of our environmental protections across Canada.

When it comes to the need to help grow the economy, this is at the front of mind for most members of Parliament who become elected in Canada to represent their communities. We have seen some exciting developments over the past few years when it comes to our record of helping Canadians grow the economy. There are over half a million Canadians working today who were not working at the time of the last federal election. We have pursued new trade agreements with the European Union, with the Pacific Rim countries, and recently secured a deal with our largest trading partner, with the new NAFTA. We have invested in skills development and are continuing to invest in ensuring that when it comes to the skilled trades, unrepresented groups have a fair shake. Moreover, we are supporting small business with a cut in its tax rate to 9%, which represents the lowest such tax rate of any comparable economy in the world.

The fact is, growing the economy is front of mind for our development. I know in my own community, on the heels of a secure trade deal with the United States, we recently saw a great announcement that protected 200 temporary jobs that were made full-time and permanent, and 150 additional jobs to manufacture a new product at the Michelin tire plant in Pictou County, Nova Scotia. This is one of a number of exciting developments we have for the economy, including investments in infrastructure that are going to put people to work, like the highway-twinning project from Sutherlands over to Antigonish, the new Institute of Government and Centre for Innovation in Health on the campus of StFX University, the new Trades Innovation Centre at the Pictou Campus of the Nova Scotia Community College, and many others as well.

I would like to shift gears to talk about how this implementation act is not just about creating growth for the sake of growth, but also actually about making sure that growth works for everyone. In particular, I would like to draw attention to the Canada workers benefit, previously the working income tax benefit. It would put about $500 extra in the pockets of people who are working their tails off but are unable to escape poverty. This is going to make a meaningful difference in the lives of many hard-working Canadians who come from low-income backgrounds.

In addition to the Canada workers benefit, there is a larger rubric at play. I would like to thank the minister responsible for establishing, for the first time in Canada's history, a national poverty reduction strategy. This will rely, in particular, on serious investments in housing that we expect will reduce homelessness in Canada by 50%. It includes the Canada child benefit, which is putting more money in the pockets of nine out of 10 Canadian families and stops the sending of any child care cheques to millionaires.

In particular, I cannot stress enough the importance of this policy change. It is one thing to cite the statistics I have just shared or talk about 300,000 Canadian children who will no longer be living in poverty, but behind every one of these statistics there is a very human story. I have had conversations with constituents of mine on Foord Street in Stellarton. I met a young mom who said that September was always a difficult time of the year emotionally for her because she could never afford a new outfit for her kids on the first day of school. She said that she felt proud of herself because the little extra bit of cash she had on hand allowed her to take care of her kids, the same way that her neighbours can take care of their own kids. These are the kinds of human stories that breathe life into the importance of these policy changes that we are making. They touch kids, they touch parents, they touch families and they touch communities, and they are making our country a better and stronger place.

In addition to these measures, we are introducing a poverty line so we can better track the number of people who are living in poverty in our country. Without good data, we do not have the basis for good policy. Our policy changes need to be based on science, facts and evidence, and I am glad that we are moving forward with gathering these data so we know that we will have people living in better conditions based on evidence, and not based on sticking our finger in the air and hoping the wind is blowing in the right direction.

I also want to touch on an important part of this budget implementation act that deals with our plan to help protect the environment as our economy grows. This concerns the topic of putting a price on pollution, which has been the subject of thorough debate in question period and over the course of a number of different committee studies, and during legislative debate in the House as well.

The plan we are moving forward with is a simple one. We do not want pollution to be free anymore. Pollution has been free in Canada since its inception as a nation. We are moving forward with a plan that is actually going to put a price on pollution and that will also leave families better off at the end of the day.

This is going to work, because it is not just people who are going to be paying a price for pollution but industries and businesses as well. We know that at tax time, families will not only be proud to be doing the right thing by our environment but will be left better off at the end of the year.

In the province of New Brunswick where this applies, this means the average household is going to have about $250 extra at the end of the year and will also have done its part to help reduce emissions. In Saskatchewan, where the revenues will be greater, because there are more polluting industries in that province, the average family can expect to retain, I believe it is, just over $600 a year. That is only in the first year.

The Canadians I talk to want to do the right thing by the environment, but they do not necessarily want to be worse off financially as a result. That is why this plan is actually going to help achieve both of those goals. If members do not want to take my word for it, we can point to the former director of policy for Stephen Harper, Mark Cameron, who has actually suggested that this is the right path forward. Members can talk to the chief budget adviser to Doug Ford, who has indicated that the single best thing we can be doing to transition to a low-carbon economy is putting a price on pollution. Members can talk to this year's winner of the Nobel Prize in economics, who came up with this kind of solution and actually pointed to British Columbia as a great example of the kind of policy that could be implemented around the world to help make a meaningful difference in the fight against climate change.

I do not want to belabour the point, but I hope members will take away from the nature of these comments that we are doing the right thing to grow the economy, but we are also doing it in a way that is going to help everyday families and not just the wealthy few. We are at the same time growing the economy and protecting the environment, as we insisted we would do during the last campaign.

I could not be prouder to be part of the government, because I know we are growing the economy in a way that works for everyone and protects the environment at the same time.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, this last weekend, I went back to Prince Albert, where they had their Santa Claus parade. It was very interesting, watching all the kids chase the candy and stuff. They were happy, but looking at their parents, looking at their eyes when I drove by, I could see the uneasiness.

Bourgault Industries just laid off 8% of its workforce, and that is on top of what happened at Bombardier, and that is one top of what has happened in Oshawa. This is heading into Christmas. These families are going toward Christmas not knowing what their future holds. There is nothing in Bill C-86 that gives them comfort. There is nothing at all.

When will the member go to the minister and the Prime Minister and stand up for these families, these families that do not have a nice Christmas coming? They do not know where their future lies. They have been shut down, whether they are in the forestry sector, the manufacturing sector or the gas sector. When will the member tell them to get their heads out of their asses and do something for these families?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I would just ask the member to use parliamentary language in the House.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I apologize, Madam Speaker. He can use whatever language—

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, I think it is important that when we are having these discussions, we are able to maintain composure and debate one another's ideas.

He is continuing to interrupt. I will be polite when he has the floor, and I would ask that he return the favour.

The fact is that families across Canada—

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

You are not listening.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I just want to remind the member for Prince Albert that he had an opportunity to ask a question. Should he wish to try to ask another question, he just needs to stand up and do so, once it is time. In the meantime, I think he has a responsibility to hear the answer the member wants to provide.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is important that we maintain our composure and maintain control of our emotions when we have these important policy debates.

The fact is that the families that are attending these parades the member is talking about are actually anticipated to be, on average, $2,000 better off at the end of the year as a result of these policies. If the hon. member is insisting that blame for any job losses that take place in Canada lay at the feet of the government, then he should similarly give us credit for the 500,000-plus jobs that have been created since we took office.

The member is yelling “government workers” from the other side, and that is not true. There has been significant full-time, private sector job growth under the government. Our record of economic growth is the stuff Conservative dreams are made of. They had 10 years to do something about this. They had the worst economic growth record since the Great Depression. The only reason the member is so upset is that we are doing something the Conservative government could never have achieved.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, the government did go out and buy a 65-year-old pipeline for $4.5 billion. No one could have conceived of that.

There is something interesting missing in those 850-odd pages of the budget. It is the money needed to build this new pipeline the Prime Minister keeps talking about. The Liberals actually have a line for the Trans Mountain pipeline, and in 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021, the figure they have associated with building that new pipeline is zero dollars. That is curious, because the Prime Minister keeps saying that he is going to build this pipeline, yet he has accounted zero dollars to do it. Besides the question of whether it is a good idea to nationalize parts of the oil industry, it is more than curious.

I am looking at the finance minister's own numbers. At the end of last week, the finance minister said that it was the strongest wage growth in years, and he claimed to have facts in hand that showed that wage growth has increased dramatically. However, according to his own departmental statistics, from September 2015 to September of 2018, inflation was 5.2% and wages grew by 4.9%. Wage growth has not even kept pace with inflation. It seems pretty condemning of the finance minister's record that this is true and that he misrepresents the facts to Canadians.

I wonder if my friend can comment.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, there are a couple of things the hon. member touched on in the question.

On the Trans Mountain pipeline, it has been well canvassed in this House that right now we are taking an extreme haircut on the cost of our national resources because we are captive to the U.S market. The fact is that if we want to grow our economy, we need to move forward with a plan that creates other opportunities for buyers outside the U.S. market. That is why we are seeking to move forward with the Trans Mountain decision, but we are seeking to do it in the right way that properly complies with the ruling of the Federal Court of Appeal. At the same time, we are putting forward steps that are going to help bring our emissions down and prevent some of the environmental risks that we know come with energy development.

When it comes to families being better off, I will just remind the hon. member that we are taking steps that will leave middle-class families with $2,000, on average, extra in their pockets.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-86, the budget implementation act no. 2.

The Liberal government is attempting to ram a budget through the House that paints a rosy picture of our national finances. It insists on spending massive amounts of money and promising to increase taxes through its new tax on everything, the carbon tax. In fact, the leader of the official opposition hit the nail on the head when he said of this Liberal government, “Never has a government spent so much and achieved so little.” It is true.

Despite the promises of the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister, all is not well in Canada, certainly not for the people of Oshawa. For over 100 years, Oshawa and General Motors have had a partnership. Now the Oshawa plant is going to be shut down. This is a tremendous blow to the people of Oshawa and Canadian manufacturing in general.

Before going any further, let me express my concern for the people of Oshawa. I cannot imagine what far too many Canadians in Oshawa are experiencing today. My sincere condolences go out to all of those who are going to be negatively affected and will lose their jobs. This is terrible news, and it comes just before Christmas.

The GM plant is important not only to families in Oshawa but to families across Ontario and Canada. The Oshawa plant is closing, and the Liberals have nothing to show for it. Their high taxes and lack of regulatory clarity are forcing businesses all over the country to stop investing or to just plain leave Canada. They have no way of backstopping anything except through more debt. It is important to run a surplus during good economic times so that when the bad times come, there is money to be spent, and as they say, money to be invested. Running deficits during good times means there will be less when the bad times come.

For the people in Oshawa, times are hard. The only way the Liberal government can help them is through more debt. This is debt that Oshawans and all Canadians will have to pay through increased taxes down the road. All Canadians will have to pay through increased taxes down the road, as will the folks in Oshawa, but if there are no jobs, there will be no extra money to pay extra taxes. This is precisely the situation the Liberal government is creating in Canada.

The U.S. administration has cut taxes for businesses, and this has caused many businesses to choose to relocate to the United States. The finance minister and the Liberal government declined to match any of those tax cuts. Consequently, many businesses are choosing to invest in the United States as opposed to Canada. The tax cuts and the corresponding lack of action by the Liberal government may have played a role in the closing of the Oshawa plant by General Motors.

Manufacturing across Canada is concerned, particularly about the issue of tariffs on aluminum and steel. Despite significant concessions to the U.S. in the recent NAFTA negotiations, now called the USMCA, the Liberal government was not able to get the Trump administration to lift the tariffs on steel and aluminum. This is costing manufacturers and industry dearly.

In my riding, my constituent Marilyn N. is a small business owner. She imports aluminum-based products from the United States, and because of the tariffs and the retaliatory tariffs we have put on, she has indicated to me that if these tariffs are not lifted, she may be forced to lay off workers, as her costs are not sustainable in the long term.

Many business owners across Canada can relate to her story, but Liberal failures are not limited to manufacturing. The Prime Minister and his Liberal government have failed with our natural resources as well. Their failures have resulted in the loss of thousands of jobs and over $100 billion of investment in our energy sector.

Energy east, Pacific Northwest LNG, northern gateway, Aurora LNG, and Grassy Point LNG are all examples of the government's inability to deliver on developing and getting to market our natural resources. The Trans Mountain crisis has made things even worse. The taxpayer is on the hook for $4.5 billion for a pipeline that may never be built. Under the previous Conservative government, four pipelines were built. This included the Enbridge Alberta Clipper, the Trans Canada Keystone, the Kinder Morgan Anchor Loop, and the Enbridge Line 9B reversal.

As soon as the Liberals took office, the Prime Minister and his government started their reckless spending and arbitrary regulatory changes. This caused business investment to plummet and confidence in Canada to decline. Even the Montreal Economic Institute said, “People are giving up on Canada as a safe place to invest in natural resources...It’s seen as a very hostile environment now.”

It is quite clear that the Liberal government has failed in encouraging foreign investment in Canada. Our country has so much to offer and the Liberal government is throwing away potential investment opportunities because of its failures. In fact, though the economy has grown, very little has been the government's doing. Growth was driven by oil and gas markets, a strong housing market and consumer spending. Consumers were able to spend because interest rates were low. The Liberal government has had very little to do with any of that. It has not helped and in many cases it has hindered growth areas in our country.

When it comes to oil, the Liberal government, under the current Prime Minister, has been an absolute failure. When he formed government in 2015, he did so with three large pipelines ready to be delivered. Two of those pipelines abandoned Canada due to the regulatory environment created by the Liberal government. The third was bought by Canadian citizens, through no choice of their own, for $4.5 billion for a pipeline that was worth just over a billion dollars and a potential of building and constructing a new pipeline for another $3.5 billion. That was basically goodwill, and now that goodwill does not look like it is going to be worth very much.

The Prime Minister has failed to realize that oil and gas is not an unfortunate part of Canada; it is a vital component of Canada and our economy. It is important to the people of Alberta and all Canadians who depend upon government services, which are possible because of oil royalties.

When the Prime Minister said that he wanted to phase out the oil sands, I think he meant it. The cost to Canadians has yet to be fully accounted for, but already it is hurting our country. His reckless commitment to dismantling the oil and gas sector, an essential of Canada's economy, will undoubtedly lower our growth potential.

In addition, his inability to build a pipeline to tidewater means that our oil is largely captive to the American market, where it is bought for considerably less than it would be worth on the world market. Less money in the provincial and federal coffers means that without spending cuts, the governments must either raise taxes or borrow more money.

If governments borrow more money, interest rates will go up. Higher interest rates will affect consumer confidence. Less consumer confidence means less willingness to undertake large expenses. Housing will suddenly be less sought after as Canadians are forced to pay more interest. They will borrow less money. Suddenly, the three main drivers of growth in Canada, oil and gas, housing and consumer spending, are no longer the powerful drivers that they once were.

Due to high levels of government debt and historically low interest rates, the federal government will have very few tools left to deal with any upcoming crisis. This is not a healthy place for a government to be in. Nor is it good place for our country. The next crisis to befall Canada is going to be dangerous.

The Liberal government loves to talk about the debt-to-GDP ratio. That sounds good. However, it is only one tool and if we consider the implications, it is not reassuring at all. In fact, it could be bad and very bad for Canada. This way of accounting is only positive if the economy grows. It is based on economic growth. If the government continues to spend money, but the economy starts to slow, then we are in a bad situation and that debt-to GDP ratio quickly gets skewed.

Debt consists of principal, which is the amount borrowed, and interest, which is the amount paid to service the debt. If interest rates go up, we are paying more for the money that we have borrowed. Debt is a reasonable option if it allows for long-term gain. However, the Liberal government has borrowed money with reckless abandon and very little of it has gone to any kinds of projects with long-term sustainable benefit to Canadians.

Spending on infrastructure has not materialized. Of the $180 billion that the government committed to infrastructure spending, only 6% or just under $10 billion of that has actually been spent and invested in Canada. That would be a real investment, spending money on infrastructure, but the government has not allowed it to happen.

[Bob Bratina, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am always pleased to hear the interventions of my friend for Provencher, Manitoba. However, I want to point out the things that are happening. The member has mentioned several critical issues that are unfortunate. We hope to make better and make whole the economies of the hard-hit areas of our country, and he gave some good specifics.

In the particular, in the case of my city, the Conference Board of Canada cites 32,000 net new jobs in 2017. The unemployment rate is at 4.9% and the economic growth has been at 3.6%.

Among the facilities that have been enhanced by government investment is the Parrish & Heimbecker flour mill. Parrish & Heimbecker from Manitoba saw advantages in shipping grain through the port of Hamilton, created a facility, and our government was pleased to provide several million dollars to allow for the creation of a flour mill. Of course, rail cars are being made in Hamilton at that facility, which will enable grain to move in his province and so on.

Would my friend not admit that even though there are serious issues that we have to approach, some good has been created, such as the 32,000 net new jobs in Hamilton?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am delighted that Hamilton has experienced 32,000 net new jobs. However, the Parliamentary Budget Office paints a different picture. This year, so far the only growth in real jobs has been in government jobs. In the private sector, there actually has been a shrinkage in real job growth. That is not very encouraging news.

I recognize that part of the Liberal ideology is bigger government, more control, more taxes and more spending. However, I am delighted that the member from Hamilton has seen good things happen in his constituency.

The House resumed from November 26 consideration of Bill C-86, A second 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.

Report stage

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

Mr. Speaker, it is exciting to be here today to support the budget implementation bill and specifically the legislation establishing the college of patent agents and trademark agents. This is at subdivision D of division 7 of part 4 of the budget implementation bill.

This is an important element of the government's IP strategy. Taken as a whole, that strategy will ensure that Canada's intellectual property regime is modern and robust, and that it supports Canadian innovations in the 21st century.

Patent and trademark agents are a key component of the innovation ecosystem, as they help inventors to secure exclusive IP rights. I was the only Newfoundlander who was a patent agent at the time of my election. Although I am not practising in that area of law now, I have some pretty good information regarding the need for a college of patent agents and a college of trademark agents.

Given the rising importance of IP in the innovation economy and the central role of patent and trademark agents, it is time to have a professional oversight body responsible for maintaining the high standards that are expected of trusted advisers. As a bonus, this would address long-standing gaps in the current framework for regulatory oversight, which previously lacked clarity and transparency and was without a binding code of professional conduct. Given the importance of the profession, good safeguards here are needed to ensure that agents do the jobs they do well and have the trust of their clients and of Canadians more broadly.

While there is no evidence suggesting a large problem with agent conduct, the need for modernization is imperative now that communications with IP agents are protected by statutory privilege in the same way as solicitor-client advice. This is an extraordinary right that requires ethical guidelines to prevent its abuse.

The college of patent agents and trademark agents act would establish an independent regulator, specifically a college, for the professional oversight of IP agents in the public interest. The college would administer a licensing system to ensure that only qualified professionals are authorized to provide agent services. As an independent regulator, it would also be responsible for enforcing a code of professional conduct to ensure that IP agents continue to deliver high-quality advice.

The college would also be responsible for implementing requirements for continuing professional development to ensure that agents stay informed of the ever-evolving IP practice landscape. Ultimately, these measures would raise the bar of IP professional services in Canada.

The college would have an investigations committee to receive complaints and conduct investigations into whether or not a licensee has committed professional misconduct or been incompetent. A separate disciplinary committee would have the authority to impose disciplinary measures if it is decided that a licensee has in fact committed professional misconduct or been incompetent.

Finally, this bill also creates new offences for claiming to be a patent agent or a trademark agent, or for the unauthorized representation of another person before the Canadian patent office or the office of the registrar of trademarks. These offences are intended to serve an important consumer protection function to ensure that innovators are receiving representation from qualified, licensed agents.

I would like now to speak about the important features that have been built into the legislation to ensure that the regulation is undertaken within the public interest and with the public interest as the priority.

Careful consideration was given to ensuring that the legislation supported the public interest in a competitive marketplace of well-qualified and professional IP agents. For example, the college would be governed by a board of directors that includes public interest representatives appointed by the minister, and patent and trademark agent representatives elected by members of the college itself.

Further measures directed toward safeguarding the public interest include providing the minister with the authority to review the board's activities and, if necessary, to direct the board to undertake any action to ensure regulation in the public interest. Another measure requires the board to report to Parliament annually on its activities.

The framework for the legislation takes into account comments from stakeholders over the course of several public consultations. During these consultations, risks were identified relating to the fact that many IP agents are also lawyers. Concerns were expressed about dual regulation, that is that lawyers and agents would be subject to two potentially conflicting regulatory schemes.

In recognition of this potential for overlap, the legislation would ensure minimal regulatory conflict for lawyers who may also be agents. In addition, where appropriate, the college's investigations committee would be authorized to refer a complaint to another body that has the duty to regulate another profession, for example a law society for a lawyer.

In fact, in my experience as someone who has been regulated as an engineer, regulated as a lawyer in three different jurisdictions, and regulated as a patent agent and a trademark agent in two different countries, I appreciate the concern that might exist about overrepresentation or over-regulation, as well as the concern that might be raised by conflicts in ethical obligations.

Whereas a lawyer, for instance, may have an ethical obligation to maintain strict solicitor-client privilege, an engineer is in fact required to put the public interest ahead of that interest. Therefore, it is important to note that there can be proper and reasonable conflicts in the ethics associated with different professions.

Patent agents are there to obtain the most protection possible for their clients' inventions or the broadest scope of trademark protection for their brands. Sometimes that might conflict with another ethical obligation that might apply in a different fashion to a lawyer or an engineer.

Balancing these is important and means making sure that when patent agents wear their patent agent hats, they are regulated as patent agents, and when they wear their lawyer hats they are regulated as lawyers, and when they wear their engineer hats they are regulated as engineers. This legislation allows for that nuanced differentiation.

We also heard during consultations that specific care must be taken to safeguard privileged information. Significant measures must be in place to ensure the appropriate handling and safeguarding of privileged information and to strictly control access to such information. To do so, the legislation draws upon safeguards and processes similar to those used by provincial law societies in order to safeguard privileged information in the investigation of college members.

More specifically, privileged information can only be used for the purpose of regulating agents. Disclosing privileged information to the college will not be considered a waiver of the privilege, and the privilege will be preserved for other purposes. Those purposes could be some type of lawsuit before the courts on solicitor-client privilege or the maintenance of the confidentiality of an inventor's right to an invention for having filed before first being disclosed to the public, for instance.

The act places strict obligations on employees and directors of the college, preventing them from disclosing privileged information, and further clarifies that the government cannot use its oversight authority to access privileged information. There is a strict process of court oversight to access and contest access to solicitor-client privileged information. These were of importance to the patent bar in the development of the legislation.

From my perspective, as someone who went through the process of becoming a patent agent, I can attest to the fact that an additional element is brought to bear on a regulated profession. Sometimes professions can be regulated in such a manner as to encourage more people to join the profession, and sometimes they can be regulated in a fashion that prevents new people from entering the profession.

The fact that the United States has 100 times as many patent agents or practitioners as Canada does with only 10 times the population demonstrates that our regime for licensing patent agents has become too restrictive.

The creation of an independent college will have the extra function of aligning the college's role of growing the profession with the public's interest in having more patent agents available to help inventors spur the creation of these assets. Patent and IP assets simply do not exist if they are not filed and registered, and if professional advice is not brought to bear.

It is not like in copyright, where people create a new work and then own the rights to that work. In the patent and trademark space, it is the professionals who assist the creators or the brand makers in protecting, acquiring and preserving those rights, both at home and abroad. If that work is not done, there is no asset to protect. Canada needs probably 10 times more patent and trademark agents than it currently has in order to have the same level of asset creation as the United States. This is important in the 21st-century economy.

In conclusion, the college of patent agents and trademark agents will be responsive to stakeholder input and follow international best practices in professional regulation. Care was taken with the legislation to establish well-structured bodies to ensure proper independent oversight, with an option for the government to intervene only if necessary. The checks and balances included in the legislation will ensure regulation in the public interest.

As a whole, I would encourage all members to support the budget implementation act, including this subdivision of part 7.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, in his support of Bill C-86, my hon. colleague talked about IP and IP strategy. As a member of the industry committee, I can attest that it really is important to understand that a comprehensive IP strategy helps businesses not just to protect their IP on the home front, but to grow and succeed and then be able to export to international markets.

I am wondering if my hon. colleague can also talk about what he is hearing from small businesses in his riding about this strategy, its comprehensiveness, the fact that it would include education and the ability to grow and prosper, and how it has impacted businesses in his riding.

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

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the work of the industry committee members. They have a lot of very interesting files. With my professional background, I think I would probably bring too much bias to that committee. I do read their reports with a lot of great interest. It is nice to see what a fresh perspective brings to those topics that are close to my heart.

I know that in Newfoundland and Labrador, when I was the only patent agent there, it was very difficult for me. I had to travel to get the support I needed to maintain my professional credentials. I lacked the network of local folks to bounce ideas off of. It really is important to have a true bar.

The creation of an independent college would help grow the profession and result in more patent agents in small communities, like Newfoundland and Labrador, and the markets in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, so that they could have the proper coordinated, long-term professional development that would benefit their clients. There are plenty of innovative companies in Newfoundland and Labrador that seek professional services from Boston, California, Montreal or Alberta, depending on their industries.

The creation of a college would allow better local representation for these folks and growth of our industry.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague, and I appreciated his comments.

However, the member is defending a budget that is indefensible. Canadians did vote for a change in 2015. However, what the government promised and what it is delivering are very different. The government promised to balance the budget. Now the budget before us is not even close to being balanced.

Could the member tell us when the government will balance the budget?

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

Madam Speaker, that is really quite an ideological question, a “direction of the country” question that goes to what the appropriate fiscal anchors are that should guide our development, borrowing and spending practices.

As someone who has knocked on just over 10,000 doors and got to speak to just over 4,000 folks at the door, I know that my commitment to them was that we would focus on growing the economy for the middle class, and that if that meant deficit spending to do it, we would be guided by the principle that we would grow the economy more than the deficit, so that in the long term the deficit would shrink as a percentage of the economy. That is exactly what we have done.

The proof is in the pudding. Canada's growth has led the G7 for much of our mandate. I think we are now in second place. The debt-to-GDP ratio has fallen to the lowest among the G7. That allows us the economic resilience to put in place new programs to help the folks in Oshawa respond to crises, to create supercluster funds and to do things that will create the jobs of the future.

With respect to the portion of the bill that I am speaking to, I will say that it is cost-neutral for the government. The college will pay for itself through its fees to its members.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, when the member was knocking on those doors, did he mention that the government would pass on a debt to every many, woman and child in his riding of at least $600 per year? If he even mentioned that to them, what sort of reaction might the member have gotten?

It is abysmal that the government keeps passing on this massive debt to future generations who will have to pay it back.

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

Madam Speaker, when I speak to people at the door about the complicated issue of the debt-to-GDP ratio, I say to them, “Listen, yes, you are going to have debt that will be $600 more, but the growth in the economy will mean there will be closer to $2,000 more on average in the pockets of working families.” They understand that.

We have to spend money to make money. Canadians think we are growing the economy, and they appreciate that.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to talk to Bill C-86. Since we came into government, we have really focused on the middle class and those working hard to join it. This legislation would help us to continue along that trajectory, continue to make Canada one of the fastest growing economies in the G7 and continue to help ensure that Canadian companies are able to create good middle-class jobs. In fact, they have been able to create over half a million jobs. Our government created the conditions with investments to ensure that these companies and Canadians would be able to grow and prosper. It has done so through our trade and other investments in education and skills training, and will continue along that path.

However, I want to focus my comments today on three specific points that I will ground within the sustainable development goals. Earlier this year, I was with the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development in New York to present our voluntary statement to the United Nations on the sustainable development goals. Canada has a role to play to ensure that we reach those 169 targets and 17 goals by 2030. We are well on track to do that. We have been doing it from day one.

I am going to focus on particular components of the sustainable development goals emphasized through this budget. The first is goal 5, one that is really important to my heart. It has to do with gender and ensuring that we have gender equality in our country. As we are in the midst of 16 days of activism against gender-based violence, I want to ensure that my actions matter. Speaking to this particular legislation, Bill C-86, allows me to do that.

What we have in front of us are a number of different initiatives that would help to ensure we have gender equality in Canada. Our government has legislated gender budgeting, made Status of Women a full department and enacted proactive pay equity legislation.

With regard to Status of Women becoming a full department, the future department of women and gender equality, it is nice to have the word “wage” included in the title when we are introducing proactive pay legislation. When we think about the fact that indigenous women, women of colour, women with disabilities, religious individuals, people with different sexual orientations and women who are too old or too young face disproportionate negative impacts and barriers in their workplaces and communities, it is important that we be sensitive. When we are enacting legislation, it is also important to look at how our legislation impacts individuals differently. By legislating gender budgeting and ensuring increased participation of women, especially the ones who are most vulnerable, we are working toward supporting women and girls and reducing the gender wage gap. We are making sure that our country is prosperous for everyone.

The current gap of around 20¢ per dollar of earnings between what men and women make grows proportionately bigger when we think about some of these vulnerable communities or look at intersectionality. When there are different intersecting identities, we see that the gap between men and women gets larger, so ensuring that our country is prosperous for everyone is really important.

As I mentioned, having a full department dedicated to the status of women, the women and gender equality department, is really important. It will have an expanded mandate for gender equality, including sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, and for the promotion of a greater understanding of gender diversity, often through what is known as a gender-based analysis plus.

We need to ensure that we have the capacity to leverage movements like #MeToo and Time’s Up and ensure that every woman in this country feels that she has a place and is valued and respected. The initiatives we have taken so far with regard to gender will ensure that this happens.

Continuing with my theme of the sustainable development goals, goal 8 speaks to decent work and economic growth; goal 9, industry, innovation and infrastructure; goal 10, reducing inequalities; goal 11, sustainable cities and communities; and goal 16, peace, justice and strong institutions. To tie up all of those goals is really the work that we are doing with stakeholders in the charitable sector.

I worked in research before I came into politics. I owned a research management company, but I worked with organizations like Neurological Health Charities Canada, the Alzheimer Society of Canada, Parkinson Canada, Epilepsy Durham and many organizations in my riding like Sunrise Youth Group in Whitby or the Charles H. Best Diabetes Centre, of which Kenadie, a sixth grade student, is a very strong champion. She came to see me in Ottawa last year.

These charitable organizations are the foundation on which our middle class rests. They are the ones that do a lot of hard work to ensure that we are able to continue to function as a society. For example, the Sunrise Youth Group supports adult individuals with developmental handicaps so that their parents can go to work. This is what our charitable sector does and it really is a strong part of our society.

In strengthening that role of our charitable sector, we are ensuring that charities are able to do the work they want to do on behalf of Canadians. We are removing the limits to their political activities, allowing charities to participate fully in policy development. They could provide feedback on legislation and legislative proposals. We are providing a permanent advisory committee on the charitable sector.

The charitable sector is one of the sectors that contribute to our economy. It can generate up to $2 billion in economic activity and create as many as 100,000 jobs. The charitable sector is growing, is vital, and innovative. It does a lot with very little and we need to support it. Our government will be providing supports and resources of up to $750 million over the next 10 years to support and establish a social finance fund. When we look to our charitable organizations to provide support for our families, we need to support them. That is what we are doing here in this budget implementation act.

The last things I want to speak to are goal 1, no poverty; goal 2, zero hunger; and goal 3, good health and well-being. When we look at reducing poverty and ensuring that people have the capacity to live a full life and contribute to our economy, we need to look holistically at the social determinants of health to ensure that we help create the conditions that allow Canadians to live their best lives possible. With our poverty reduction strategy, programs like the Canada child benefit, our national housing strategy, enhancing seniors benefits, the Canada workers benefit, we have lifted 650,000 Canadians out of poverty, including 300,000 children.

We are developing our first national poverty reduction strategy and establishing for the first time ever an official poverty alliance. We are looking holistically at ensuring that Canadians of all stripes will be able to have a good quality of life. Since October 2015, we have hit the ground running to ensure that this happens in a comprehensive, holistic way. Not only are we going to be able to achieve our sustainable development goals and the agenda 2030, but we are doing it here in Canada. We are taking leadership by ensuring that everyone has a fair chance to succeed.

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

Madam Speaker, it is disturbing to see how far the Liberals have led us into increasing debt, despite the fact that they promised in their election campaign that by now we would be coming back to balance. That is far from the truth. In fact, the cost of interest alone in 2017-18 was $23.9 billion. By 2021-22, the cost will be $39 billion. That is a $15-billion increase in interest costs alone. That has nothing to do with paying down the debt. It will cost an extra $15 billion to pay the interest on our debt, which is rising every year because of increased deficits as a result of the government's spending. This is in spite of the fact that it promised a very small deficit and promised to bring us back to balance by now.

My question is simple. Could that extra $15 billion we are spending on interest not be put to better use to provide, for example, great palliative care for Canadians?

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, we are keeping our debt-to-GDP ratio low. The investments we have made to date have ensured that we have created the conditions in this country that have allowed our small to medium-sized businesses to create over 500,000 jobs. We have invested in technology and skills training. We have invested in public transit in Durham region, the largest investment in public transit we have ever seen, which allows us to reduce our carbon footprint as well.

We have made investments to ensure that Canadians have a bit more in their pockets. Over the next year, an average family of four will have $2,000 more in its pocket to spend on the things they find are necessary.

We are reducing poverty, we are investing in communities and we are helping to grow a strong Canada, and that is what Canadians find important.

[Georgina Jolibois, NDP, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, before I ask my question, I want to clarify some points. One of the recent reports that came out in Canada about poverty indicated that the top two areas in Canada affected by child poverty are northern Saskatchewan and northern Manitoba. My experiences in northern Saskatchewan have shown that all levels of government, whether the federal Conservatives or Liberals or governments at the provincial level, are way out of touch. They ignore and neglect northern Saskatchewan and possibly northern Manitoba as well.

I am curious as to what this poverty reduction plan looks like. I want to believe that it is suitable for northern Saskatchewan and northern Manitoba. Can the government clearly explain? I do not want to hear about first nation involvement. I want to hear specifically about ridings like mine, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, with a specific population of northerners that are first nations, Métis, farming communities and rural municipalities. Can the Liberal government clarify this point?

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for focusing her concerns on areas in her riding. We have been taking a whole-of-government approach from the very beginning, which ensures that we are listening to stakeholders to ensure that when we introduce Canada's first national poverty reduction strategy, we do it in a way that would eliminate poverty. We are establishing an official poverty line for the first time ever in the history of this country.

We know the devastating effects of poverty. We want to reduce poverty and ensure that we are giving her constituents and constituents in my riding the best possible chance. I was at a school the other day for the breakfast program.

We want to ensure that we are listening to everyone. We want to make sure that our poverty reduction strategy has a real impact on Canadians across the country.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, the good news is that despite this “man cold”, as my wife calls it, my voice seems to be back. I hope it will stick around for the next 15 minutes so that I can speak to budget implementation act, 2018, No. 2. Before getting to what is in the bill or, more to the point, what is not, which might make up the bulk of my comments, I want to talk about the process.

After all, this is an omnibus bill, like the ones we saw so often under the previous government. The current government actually campaigned on a pledge to end the use of omnibus bills. The Liberals not only broke that promise, but they are constantly introducing omnibus bills. They use them not just for budgets, but also for other areas like public safety, transport and justice. We keep getting bills that are harder and harder for parliamentarians to study in any meaningful way.

I may be mistaken about the numbers, which we can check, but the mere fact that we can evoke this type of image says a lot. The Conservatives' first omnibus bill, Bill C-38, which was introduced in 2012 in the last Parliament, showed how abusive this practice had become. The bill was the nadir of this anti-democratic tendency, seeking to undermine the employment insurance program and eliminate the already inadequate environmental assessment process. The bill was hundreds of pages long.

If we were to combine the Conservatives' first omnibus bill from 2012 with the Liberals' first omnibus bill—not the one we are currently debating—we would have a bill the same size as the one before us, which is over 800 pages long.

That is completely ridiculous. I gather some of us are burning the midnight oil in our offices to read the bill. Some members say that they are sick of looking at the four walls of their offices, so they go read it at home. However, let us be honest. The idea that we have the time to consult our constituents, speak to stakeholders on the various files that critics are responsible for, read up on subjects of interest to MPs, and also read Bill C-86, including all the acts it amends, is simply unrealistic.

Some might say that this violates our parliamentary privileges. I am not looking to start a debate on privilege, but I do think it is important to point out how hard this makes it for us to do our jobs.

Even setting aside the size of the bill, the weight of it, and the rule against using props during debate in the House, I would advise my constituents not to print it out. It would be a waste of paper. The thing is massive.

On top of introducing a massive bill, the government has moved time allocation. Not only is it limiting debate in the wider sense by introducing a bill that is extremely difficult to study and therefore to debate, but it is also limiting the time for debate. In 10 or 20 minutes, the normal length of a speech in the House, it is impossible to address every issue. Plus, the government wants to limit the time for debate. This means that we, as the second opposition party, get to put up about eight speakers at most, out of about 40 or so MPs.

Some might say that the budget process, and therefore the budget implementation bill, are among the most important duties of the federal government. The fact that less than one-third of the members of a recognized opposition party get a chance to speak is a real problem.

Let us put the procedural issue aside, since we could talk for ages about this broken promise. I also want to talk about what is missing from this bill and, by extension, from the Liberals' budget. Unfortunately, the Liberals have neglected these elements too often over these past few years, since they came to power.

I would like to focus on a few aspects in particular. First, the government is still not charging web giants sales tax, even though that is a relatively simple matter. It is a matter of fairness and common sense.

When I was in my riding during the last parliamentary recess, I spoke with a constituent who told me that that is today's reality. We now get services via the Internet. That is how we download music, movies and television shows.

We are not asking the government to reinvent the wheel or to go against an existing trend. We are asking it to do two things. First, we are asking it to put all businesses on a level playing field. If Canadians order goods or services online, then they should have to pay sales tax the same way they would in a regular store. That may seem obvious to those watching at home, but the Liberal government has failed to do anything about this for far too long.

The Government of Quebec has led the way, and we hope that the other provinces and territories will follow its lead. However, with all due respect for our National Assembly colleagues, I have to say that it is not enough. The federal government has economic levers that it must use to level the playing field for businesses so that Canadians can benefit from the revenue generated under the law. That is what is lacking right now. However, it is not only the web giants, such as Netflix, Google, and Facebook, that must be required to charge sales tax. All the other digital platforms on which people can purchase goods must be, as well. The government is currently relying on the good faith of some stakeholders who have chosen to proactively charge sales tax.

Second, an agreement needs to be made regarding the future of our culture, specifically with regard to Netflix. I am not as familiar with this topic as my colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, who I am sure would have a lot to say about music platforms like Spotify and Apple Music. For now, I want focus on Netflix because I do not have much time.

I will not discuss the sales tax for now. I have no doubt the former heritage minister had a rough time in Quebec. Pretty much everyone unanimously agreed that her Netflix deal fell short, not only because of the percentage of francophone and Quebec content, which is nil, but also because the government asked so little of Netflix. The government is counting on the company to operate on the honour system and obey the law proactively.

Madam Speaker, I see your signal that I have just two minutes left. What better proof that it is impossible to study an omnibus bill in the time provided.

France and other countries offer examples of different ways to do this. We can also come up with our own model to acknowledge that this is the new normal without letting Internet giants rake in the profits while crushing our culture. We need to promote our cultural sector so that it can continue to make all of its unique offerings available to us with content that is our very own. This is about quality content and our duty to remember and share.

I will now move on to something else that is missing from the Liberals' budget.

The Minister of National Revenue keeps talking about a $1-billion investment. The only thing that investment did was rub salt in the wound by uncovering the billions of dollars that are lost to tax evasion and tax avoidance. We see that cronyism is alive and well in the Liberal Party. The issue of the Panama papers and the paradise papers has not been resolved. Nothing has been done to recover those billions of dollars. Again, it is a matter of fairness.

In closing, I would say that the omnibus bill does very little to address the problems that the supposedly progressive Liberals promised to fix and this is their third attempt at it. That is three attempts and three failures.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague's comments. I really appreciated the parallel he drew at the beginning of his remarks between the current Liberal government and the previous Conservative government and their approach to doing things.

I wonder if he could expand on that because on reading Bill C-86, I am having a hard time differentiating between the Conservatives and the Liberals. Employment insurance has been overlooked, the fight against tax evasion and tax havens has been abandoned. The hon. member talked about Netflix and web giants. All these questions that we have been asking since our cohort was elected in 2011 have not been getting answered, not by the Conservatives or the Liberals.

Is it six of one and half a dozen of the other with these two parties?

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. He is right.

This government is even more frustrating than the previous one because it just talks and talks and talks, but does nothing. I want to go back to the example of Netflix. The minister kept telling us that Canada had entered the digital era. It was not just worth having for Infoman, it was the subject of Infoman a number of times because it was always being talked about. However, in the end, nothing was done.

My colleague mentioned EI and the issue of 15 weeks of benefits. People who are seriously ill are being ignored even though, as he said so well, people have been asking about it since before this government was elected. In 2015, I participated in a debate specifically on employment insurance that was held in my riding. Without me and my predecessor, who was running for the Bloc Québécois at the time, little would have been said about employment insurance. It seemed to be of no interest to the Liberal candidate. What we can see is that the Liberals still are not very interested. It is unfortunate because the most vulnerable are the ones affected.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate some of the member's comments. There are a couple of thoughts that cross my mind with respect to the implementation of the budget. One is the fact that for the first time, we are looking at a pharmacare program. The Standing Committee on Health has been looking at this over the past few years. Now a special group is looking at it and will be coming forward to the Minister of Health with recommendations. This would be of great value to Canadians from all regions of the country.

Could my colleague provide his thoughts on the importance of moving forward on a national pharmacare program?

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yes, of course we want to move forward on that, and we do not understand why the Liberals are not doing so.

They have been promising a pharmacare program for decades. It would be the logical next step in a public health care system that was implemented in the 1960s. However, nothing has been done.

Now they want to study the issue some more. The member mentioned the work of the Standing Committee on Health, which tabled a unanimous report dealing with that issue in which it makes recommendations based on the advice of expert witnesses. I fail to understand why they insist on studying this issue over and over again without ever taking action. The member asked me whether we should move forward. Yes, we need to do so now, because vulnerable people are paying the price of inaction.

As a member from Quebec, I have to point out one last thing. As everyone knows, Quebec is way ahead when it comes to pharmacare. That said, the federal government could do its part by offering the right to opt out with no strings attached and with compensation. Ottawa has tremendous purchasing power that could help bring down the price of prescription drugs for the provinces.

Obviously, this will all depend on how the negotiations go. A lot of work remains to be done to implement this, so let us stop with the studies and let us actually do the work. People desperately need this.

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in support of Bill C-86.

For people watching at home, some of what we are discussing today may sound familiar. That is because we heard about these programs earlier this year when the Minister of Finance presented the 2018 budget on February 27.

Budgets, by their nature, are aspirational, forward-looking documents. They are an expression of what we, as a government, are planning to do.

In order to achieve the objectives which we have set out for ourselves in the budget, we must make new laws or make changes to existing laws. To do that, we must pass legislation.

The aspirations in this year's budget took nearly 400 pages to express. If the budget took nearly 400 printed pages to express, the laws needed to implement the plan have to be written. That generally involves multiples of 400 pages and then those laws have to be presented and debated in the House of Commons, be examined by a committee or committees, be passed by the House, then sent to the Senate, debated and reviewed by a Senate committee, passed by the Senate and then sent to the Governor General for royal assent. All that takes a lot of time.

Therefore, we divide the budget plan into those items that need to get passed right away. Soon after the budget is presented, we deal with those items with a first piece of legislation. Then later we deal with the more forward-looking plans in the budget and we create a second piece of legislation to implement the remainder of the budget plan.

Today we are discussing that second piece of legislation to implement the 2018 budget. One of the aspirations expressed in budget 2018 was that we should address the gender wage gap by making progress toward equal pay for equal work. The issue arises because, as the budget said:

In Canada today, women earn 31 per cent less than men do....the median income for women is $28,120, compared with $40,890 for men....As the largest employer in the country, many have called on the federal government to lead by example—and that is what the Government will do.

The bill we are debating today introduces proactive pay equity legislation for workers in the federal government and in federally regulated sectors. Equal pay for work of equal value is the smart thing to do. We are very proud to be moving forward with proactive pay equity legislation. It is a key way in which our government is delivering on its commitment to gender equality.

Bill C-86 proposed to enact the pay equity act to establish a proactive process for the achievement of pay equity by the redressing of the systemic gender-based discrimination experienced by employees who occupy positions in predominantly female job classes. The new act would require federal public and private sector employers that would have 10 or more employees to establish and maintain a pay equity plan, with set time frames, to identify and correct differences in compensation between predominantly female and predominantly male job classes for which the work performed would be of equal value.

The new act would provide for the powers, duties and functions of a pay equity commissioner, which would include facilitating the resolution of disputes, conducting compliance audits and investigating disputes, objections and complaints, as well as making orders and imposing administrative monetary penalties for violations of that act. The new act would also requires the pay equity commissioner to report annually to Parliament on the administration and enforcement of the new act.

Bill C-86 would also amend the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act to provide for the application of the pay equity act to parliamentary employers. It would also make the Minister of Labour responsible for the administration of the federal contractors program for pay equity.

On modernizing the federal labour standards, the amendments to the Canada Labour Code that Bill C-86 would make are:

(a) provide five days of paid leave for victims of family violence, a personal leave of five days with three paid days, an unpaid leave for court or jury duty and a fourth week of annual vacation with pay for employees who have completed at least 10 consecutive years of employment; (b) eliminate minimum length of service requirements for leaves and general holiday pay and reduce the length of service requirement for three weeks of vacation with pay; (c) prohibit differences in rate of wages based on the employment status of employees...(e) update group and individual termination provisions by increasing the minimum notice of termination.

Bill C-86 would also amend the Wage Earner Protection Program Act to:

...among other things, increase the maximum amount that may be paid to an individual under the act, increase the maximum amount that may be paid to an individual under the Act, expand the definition of eligible wages, expand the conditions under which a payment may be made under the Act.

It is interesting to note that while the Liberal federal government is enhancing labour standards for workers, the Conservative provincial government in Ontario is in the process of diminishing labour standards. We would think that the first rule of government would be like that of the medical profession: First do not harm.

I share the disappointment of some members of the House that we were not able to take a further step forward by protecting worker pensions in the event of insolvency of employers. Bill C-86 would make amendments to Canada's insolvency legislation and would improve the Wage Earner Protection Program Act. However, it does not address the issue, which is essentially of deferred wages remaining unpaid. The pension of workers need protection from employers' bankruptcy by giving pension funds priority in employer bankruptcies. I hope we can move forward to correct this problem in the not too distant future.

I also want to talk about our record of our government and what we have done for middle-class Canadians.

The investments made from our government in middle-class Canadians consist of $40 billion in a national housing strategy. This is much-needed and will help Canadians have a decent home to live and raise their families. We have also increased the Canada child benefit, which will be indexed as of this year. An average family will receive $2,000 more in its pocket to help with the high cost of raising its children. We have lifted hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty.

With respect to jobs, we have created over 500,000 new jobs since 2015. We have had the lowest unemployment rate in 40 years. The unemployment rate nationally is around 5.8% to 6%. In Waterloo Region, at the end of October, that unemployment rate was at 5.2%.

We have also announced federal funding for a high-tech company in my riding, North Inc., which is making high-tech Focals, eyeglasses. This has increased jobs in my region. It has added 230 good well-paying jobs in the high-tech sector.

As well, and not in terms of the budget, in my committee of citizenship and immigration, we brought in the global skills strategy to bring in high-tech workers to our region to ensure we closed the gaps in the high-tech sector.

In infrastructure spending, we have added historic spending of $120 billion in infrastructure projects. In my region alone, I have announced $97 million for a highway expansion, going from six lanes to 10 lanes, so we can get our products to market faster and can have faster commutes to and from the GTA from our region.

Also, we have lowered taxes for the middle class, from 22% down to 20.5%. We have also lowered taxes on businesses, from 11% to 9% in 2019.

These are some of the things our government has laid out and it is our record since we formed government. This is why I am supporting this budget.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my Liberal colleague sharing with this House and Canadians his perspective on how good the budget is. The theme is spend, spend, spend and spend some more. If any organization, business or family in Canada spent the way the government is spending, would it be sustainable? If a company was to hire more staff, pay higher salaries, provide additional benefits, and spend and spend all on borrowed money, how long can that go on? I believe it cannot go on, it is not sustainable, and a company would go out of business because it cannot live and prosper on borrowed money. Therefore, the question is this. Does he believe this is sustainable? Hopefully, he will say no. If so, when will the budget be balanced?

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are the opposition and, rightfully so, they have to ensure the government is investing in Canadians, that investment is recuperating and that investment is coming back to Canadians. Therefore, I will provide the House with the record.

Since we have taken office, we have invested in Canadians. We have seen an unemployment rate hovering around 7%, now down to 5.8% or around 6%. As I mentioned in my speech, in my region it is at 5.2%. When we put the investments in place for Canadians we see that record.

Also, we have lowered taxes on middle-class Canadians from 22% down to 20.5%. That has led to Canadians spending more in the economy and when there is more spending more businesses will be able to sell their products. We have seen that kind of a record. When we invest in Canadians, we see that record coming back.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague mentioned the Bankruptcy Act. He was talking about pension protection on deferred wages. Did I hear him correctly? Did he say that he is for making sure that pensions are protected and that these are deferred wages and should have a higher priority with respect to a bankruptcy liquidation?

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there have been companies in the past that have gone into insolvency or bankruptcy and a lot of the time pensioners were the last to get paid. We have seen it here with Nortel in Ottawa and I am sure the member has seen it in his region in Hamilton. Moving forward, we want to see that pensioners are protected. A lot of the pensioners who are in unions have taken minimal wage increases throughout the years in order to protect their pensions and their benefits. Therefore, we want to ensure that pensions are protected. Personally, I want to see this going forward so that we can see pensioners being protected.

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

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

Everyone understands that it is never a good idea to limit debate on a bill, especially on such a large bill. This one here has nearly 900 pages.

We cannot forget that this political party made a promise during the last election campaign to not introduce massive omnibus bills. The Liberals also promised to limit the use of time allocation measures. They are reneging on their commitments.

For us, the worst part is having to watch the government continue to run up deficits. We have no idea when the budget will be balanced again. A member was elected three years and a couple months ago on the promise that Canada would return to a balanced budget in 2019.

Why did the government and this member not keep their word?

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we made a promise to invest in Canadians, and that is what we are doing. We are doing the best of the G7 countries. Canadian wages are among the best in the G7 countries. We will continue to invest in Canadians. We will see this record through. We will ensure that we are doing the best for Canadians by investing in them and opening up markets, which we have done with the TPP, CETA and the new USMCA. We will continue to deliver for Canadians.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-86, the budget implementation act. I feel fortunate that I will get to speak on this bill, but because of time allocation on this bill and multiple others by the government, many of my colleagues are not going to have the opportunity to debate it. I feel fortunate that I at least get to debate the bill and question the government.

It has been pointed out many times that the government made numerous promises in its election campaign that it has no intention of upholding. When I make a promise, I vow to uphold it, but the government seems to have no respect for that whatsoever or for Canadian citizens, which I find simply abhorrent.

Liberals promised not to introduce omnibus bills and yet we have a budget implementation act of over 800 pages, almost 900 pages, in fact. Just the summary of this bill is over 12 pages long. It is a massive bill that deserves full debate in the House, but with time allocation being applied, we will not get that opportunity. I have spoken with my colleagues who wanted parts of this bill taken out and debated separately in committee, but those requests were denied by the Liberals at committee. It is a shame that we cannot properly debate a bill that is so important to every Canadian.

I will go back to the election promises that the government made back in 2015. Liberals claim to have been elected on a mandate of what they said they would do for the Canadian public and a big part of it was to keep the deficit below $10 billion per year. That is a promise broken. Another part of the 2015 election campaign was that deficits would decrease annually as Liberals moved through their mandate. That is a promise broken. Liberals promised to reach a balanced budget by 2019. That is a promise broken. They promised to be open and transparent in their government. We have seen multiple times how that promise has been broken and we have another example of it again today with time allocation being applied to debate on this bill so that we cannot fully expose this bill for what it is to the Canadian public.

When I return to my riding of North Okanagan—Shuswap, increasingly people approach me and ask what we can do to stop this out-of-control spending by the government and the debt that it is passing on to future generations. That truly concerns me. There are a lot of young entrepreneurs in my riding looking to a brighter future, but we see what the government is doing with these continual deficits of nearly $20 billion year after year. Most people cannot visualize what that $20 billion would look like in a project in the town or community they live in or a project at home.

That $20 billion does not translate easily to individuals, but it creates an approximate $600 debt load per person. The government puts every man, woman, child, infant and senior in Canada further in debt by almost $600 every year. In three years, that is $1,800 for every man, woman and child. Imagine what it will cost a family of four people. It is unbelievable when people hear what this really means for families and individuals. When we work into that the percentage of Canadians who are full time in the workforce, it is probably about 25% of Canadians. Therefore, one in four Canadians is paying back the incredible debt that the government is building up.

In 2019, we are working towards electing a Conservative government, led by our leader. We are looking forward to bringing reality back to finances in Canada, so that we can provide hope and prosperity, and a future for those young Canadians.

The only way we are going to be able to do that is to try to keep them out of this incredible debt that the government keeps piling on. I cannot imagine. I have a daughter and son-in-law who have established themselves, but I cannot imagine having teenagers or young children right now and having to tell them that, with the government, they are going to be another $500 or $600 per year further in debt every time the government passes a budget. That is very troubling to me. I cannot imagine passing on that information on the doorstep.

That is what I am hearing from people when I am back home. They do not want that debt passed on to their children. Time and time again, people are asking, “How can we stop this?”

Another of the factors that have popped up in this bill and that have been pointed out is the increase in the debt servicing costs of government. It will not matter whether it is a Liberal, Conservative, coalition or minority government. It will not matter; the increased debt servicing costs could grow by up to 60% under the current government's plan. That is incomprehensible. It will mean that we could end up paying more in debt servicing per year than our current health care transfers to the provinces.

What it means is that what the government is creating in deficits and debt load to future governments is going to be taking away from something else that we should be able to pay for in the future. Whether that is housing, health care or business investment, all of those things are going to be impacted by the debt load that is currently being passed on by the government.

Getting back to some more of the promises that were made by the government and have now been broken, it promised to reduce business taxes. It has done that in some ways, but in other ways it has reached into the back pockets of business people and taken more out than it has actually put in. It did that earlier this year with the implementation of the deferred income taxes.

The government increased taxes on passive income investments. It will be up to 73% that individuals will have to pay on those passive investments. That is absolutely killing corporate investment in avenues other than their core business. Many people who had surplus income in their primary business decided to purchase rental properties, whether it was detached homes or small apartment buildings and so on. They would invest their extra income in purchasing those rental properties to create lower-income rental opportunities for individuals in the community who could not afford to purchase their own home.

I have had those individuals approach me time and time again over the summer and since, and they say they are no longer going to do that. There is no point in investing in a secondary business other than their primary investment. It is no longer feasible because of what the government is doing.

I know my time is running down, so I will try to wrap up. With over 800 pages in this bill, it is really difficult to fit in much detail about the individual pieces in a 10-minute presentation. Again, I want to stress the fact that the government has moved time allocation on the bill which, for most of our members, will remove the opportunity to speak on this bill. Again, it is deplorable that the government keeps doing this. I cannot comprehend how we are going to get past this.

We need to work together, as government and as opposition, on what is good for Canadians, but the government is making it almost impossible. I will wrap up with that statement.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the common issues constantly brought up by Conservative members, whether in speeches or when asking questions, is the deficit.

When I think of deficits, I think of the last 151 years of the Canadian Confederation. In that last 151 years, Conservatives have governed the country 38% of the time, and yet have accumulated almost 75% of our deficits. Nevertheless, when they are in opposition, they seen to be so focused on deficits. That seems to be at odds with their history. In government, the Conservatives do not really care about deficits, as the historical numbers clearly demonstrate, yet when they are in opposition they want to talk about deficits. Could my colleague explain why?

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the biggest reason we have had to deal with deficits is that we have taken over from Liberal governments that have spent the cupboards absolutely bare. We come back in when the economy has changed and business investment has left the country because of the tax situations that Liberal governments have created. We come in as Conservative governments and have to put the books back in order, and so we have to take on debt load to try to bring business investment back to Canada to turn around the negative situation the Liberal governments continually put Canada in.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's speech was thoughtful, highlighting that the government continues to fail, and its legacy of broken promises.

The government members have said they are investing in Canadians. Where is this money coming from that the Liberals are investing in Canadians? If they are spending, spending, spending, is it sustainable?

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Langley—Aldergrove asked where the money is coming from. It is plain and simple where. It is coming from future Canadians, but they do not realize it yet, unfortunately. We cannot continue to wrack up deficit after deficit after deficit.

I came from a small business. If I ran my business that way, it would be bankrupt. If I ran my household that way, spending more every year than I was bringing in, either I would go bankrupt or I would pass on a huge debt load to my children and grandchildren.

However, that is what the current government seems to think it is okay to do. It boggles my mind how the Liberals think it is okay to pass on huge debt to future generations like they are doing.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I pointed out that it was the Conservatives who accumulated most of Canada's debt, almost 75% of it. The response I got was that the Liberals made them do it, so it is the Liberals who forced the Conservatives to do it. That is just not true.

The Paul Martin budget was a multi-billion dollar surplus. The cupboards were not bare. It was a multi-billion dollar surplus that Stephen Harper inherited. Even before the recession kicked in, that multi-billion dollar surplus was converted into a multi-billion dollar deficit.

I wonder if my colleague would change his mind, upon reflection, as opposed to trying to say that the Liberal Party made the Conservatives run deficits, and maybe take responsibility and allow for the fact that the Conservatives really do not know what they are talking about when it comes to deficits.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, deficits arose with the great global recession of 2007-09. We were forced into running deficits to keep Canadians working. In fact, when we were running those deficits, it was the Liberals who kept screaming, from this side of the House at that time. They wanted bigger and bigger deficits, and yet now they want to stand back and criticize us.

Now when times are good, when the economy seems to be relatively stable and there is some surplus income, that is when most prudent businesses and governments try to pay down their debts. They try to put it toward paying off those debts so that when the tough times come, they are not in such a drastic situation, trying to scramble and find out where they can save and cut money to pay back the debt they have built up.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to stand today to support the initiatives of our government that are expressed through the bill as we implement the budget promises we made last spring, and to deliver real hope, real change and real possibilities for growth in the country for some of Canada's most vulnerable populations.

The main focus of my comments will be on the poverty reduction strategy. It is Canada's first-ever poverty reduction strategy with real targets and real tools to measure not just poverty as it exists across the country, but also as it exists in specific regions, centres, and within specific populations.

The new strategy is critical, because one of the goals of the government—and we hear the phrase repeated often—is not just growing a stronger middle class, but the support that is required to help people join that middle class, to lift themselves out of poverty by giving them the tools they need, the support they require and the opportunities they desire to make sure their lives are transformed. This is critical for the success of our country, because as we build stronger families and healthier communities, we also build more resilient children. That gives us hope for the future that the next generation will have the capacity to provide much more support for all of us as we move forward together as a country.

To set the context, we need to understand that the poverty reduction strategy, while it is a new strategy enunciated in policy, is not something we just started to begin work on. The day we took office, we began making investments right across the country to make a transformational change in people's lives. In fact, well over 600,000 Canadians have been lifted out of poverty as a direct result of the steps taken by our government. That does not include the close to 500,000 new full-time jobs that have been created, which have also created a situation allowing people to avoid poverty. I say this because the prevention of poverty is just as important as its alleviation.

The $22 billion we invested includes about $5.6 billion invested in housing. As soon as we introduced our first budget, we tripled the transfers to the provinces and doubled the investments in community organizations that are leading the fight against homelessness.

We also introduced the Canada child benefit and changed its profile. Not only is it a more generous benefit, but it is also now tax free and means-tested, which means that those with the greatest need will get the greatest support. Unlike the previous government, we do not send the cheques to millionaires and we do not tax the dollars after they have arrived in families' bank accounts. This has probably been the most profound change in social policy in this country in a generation, and probably the most important component of lifting those children I just referenced out of poverty.

Additionally, changes have been made to the CPP as we move forward to secure people's retirement funds. We have also boosted the GIS to make sure that single women, in particular, who are often alone at the end of their lives, get the boost they need to make sure that their incomes are better supported, giving them the capacity to maintain their living standards.

In addition, $7.5 billion has been invested in early learning and child care. These transfers were delivered directly to the provinces, who since the collapse of the previous national day care strategy have evolved their programs and now have a more asymmetrical situation across the country. As we invest that $7.5 billion over the next 10 years, it has already started to sustain existing spaces, provide new capital for expansion, and also provide that critical expansion of the child care system. In fact, in Ontario, 100,000 new spaces of subsidized, quality, affordable child care have been created as a direct result of the investments in partnership with the provinces.

For the first time ever, child care support has also been directed toward indigenous organizations to make sure that distinction-based programs, led, designed and delivered by indigenous communities for their children, are now part of the program. We have also made those investments, which are having an impact on families outside the mainstream programs that have existed for a generation in our country.

On top of child care, substantial investments have also been made in indigenous communities, both on and off reserve, both inside and outside of treaties, both in rural-remote regions and urban centres. These investments have led to cleaner drinking water, better housing, better education and, most importantly, better health programs being provided. In particular on Jordan's principle, in comparison with the approval and enrolment rates under the previous government, which in 10 years managed to get only one child served under Jordan's principle, we are talking about thousands and thousands being served every single year.

These are transformational changes, which have set the base for an even more aggressive push to eliminate even more of the poverty we see in our country, because we cannot sustain poverty in a country as rich as ours with a clean conscience.

As we set the new poverty standard and come across a standard way of measuring it so that we can have a common base to understand exactly whom we lifting out of poverty and how our programs are having that impact, we are often criticized for not having announced new programs simultaneously to our establishing this poverty line.

Let me assure members that there are already programs and investments forecast into the future that have not been included in the 650,000 calculation we have already used to address the people we have lifted out of poverty. For example, we have the signing of bilateral agreements. I was just in the Northwest Territories doing exactly this, signing bilateral agreements on the Canada housing benefit.

The Canada housing benefit is a new way to subsidize people's living arrangements, giving agency and choice to low-income Canadians to choose the housing that best suits their needs. Those subsidies do not kick in until next year, but will have a dramatic impact on the quality of life and alleviation of poverty among those people who are in core housing need. In fact, when one includes all the other components of the national housing strategy, we seek to support well over 650,000 Canadians, and closer to 700,000. Then we get into repairs and some of the other programs that are part of the 10-year forecast.

Those dollars are locked in and are built on top of the $5 billion we have already spent. We have also reprofiled those dollars to make them more flexible, in particular in the way in which they impact women and children, to make sure that those housing needs are addressed specifically through a national housing strategy. They were not in the previous iteration of the program. The new national housing strategy re-profiles that $40 billion and projects it into those people's lives as yet another way to alleviate poverty.

This particular bill also addresses pay equity. I have heard the members opposite complain that the bill is too big. It covers seven distinct pieces of legislation, but the piece on pay equity covers the entire breadth of federally regulated and federally administered pay programs. It is a big, complex bill because pay equity touches virtually every corner of the government, as well as significant parts of the country's private sector. That is why the bill is 850 pages long.

The bill is a comprehensive all-of-government, all-of country approach to pay equity. We are very proud to push that forward, because pay equity, again, is one of the most important tools we can put together to ensure that we reduce poverty, in particular of women but also of families and Canadians right across the country. Pay equity, giving a fair chance to everybody, in particular women, benefits us all. As women's economic situations solidify and strengthen in this country, small and medium businesses and all our social dynamics strengthen as women become more powerful. That is one of the most important reasons to support pay equity. It is good for everyone, even those who are not women.

Additionally, we have also included an indexing formula in the Canada child benefit so that it will grow over time for families to ensure that inflation does not claw back the good, strong investments we have made to eradicate child poverty. Again, those dollars are not calculated as part of our poverty reduction plan, which was in place prior to the strategy, but will have an impact afterward.

Then of course there is the national housing strategy, the $40-billion investment. I have heard some suggest that the way to do a housing program, which we have seen in the platforms of previous parties as they tried to get elected to Parliament, is to put the money upfront and just let the program drift off into the future. As someone who has done much of the consultation work with the minister and CMHC to put this strategy together, I can say that the reality is that the advice we were given by academics, housing providers, municipal partners and provincial agencies was that the best way to build a housing program was to invest heavily to start and then grow the investment as the system gets bigger over time.

In other words, if a riding were to receive a thousand units of public housing this year, a thousand next year and a thousand the year after that, its housing needs would go from 1,000 to 2,000 to 3,000. Repair needs grow with that, as do subsidy requirements, and if the program is not back-end loaded, one will not be able to build a successful system while building good, strong housing programs. That is why the program not only lasts 10 years, past two elections, but also grows over time to support a bigger, stronger, more robust capacity to house Canadians in need.

Put together, this constitutes our government's strategy for housing, poverty and improving the lives of indigenous people, women and many of the marginalized and racialized communities in this country. We have focused our programs based on data, the information we have received from stakeholders, and partnerships with indigenous, municipal, provincial and territorial governments. In total, the early investments, the project investments, the new tools to measure, study and drive data into the system to alleviate poverty are the reasons this bill is large, why are ambitions are just as big, and most importantly, why the achievements are so profound.

We are very, very proud of this particular piece of legislation. I hope that all of Canada can support it. I hope that everyone in Parliament can support it. This is delivering real change, real housing and real support to Canadians from coast to coast to coast, and I encourage all parliamentarians to support it as such.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member tries to make the world look pretty rosy through his glasses. In fact, the simple question of when the budget will be balanced cannot be answered by anyone on that side of the House. They are embarrassed that it will be at least 27 years before that happens

We have heard a lot about the half-million jobs the Liberals say they have produced. I was only here for 23 months in the former Harper government, and we produced 1.2 million permanent jobs in Canada.

I would be in favour of a poverty reduction program as well. However, only the Liberal government, as we found out earlier this week, can spend half a million dollars on a slogan for a poverty reduction program instead of putting half a million dollars toward poverty.

Out-of-control spending of $4.5 billion for a pipeline no one wants to buy now and $10.5 million for a convicted terrorist, Mr. Khadr, are examples of why Canadians are upset today with the government. Never mind the fact that the Liberal government has not been able to build pipelines to get our natural resources, which are an economic driver for our country, in place so it can do the kind of spending it would like to do.

I would like to ask my colleague if he can tell us how soon he believes the budget will be balanced, and more so, if that is actually important to him.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, making sure that Canada's fiscal house is in order is critically important. That is why we have made sure that we sustain the discipline so that our debt-to-GDP ratio continues to trend in the right direction and is in fact the lowest ratio in the G7. It is one of the things that has given us the capacity to stimulate the economy and grow those jobs.

The member opposite talks about jobs created. What he did not talk about was the jobs lost as not only a global recession hit this country but the Conservative austerity measures plunged this country into a second recession, the only G7 country that managed to achieve that. As a result, the net number of jobs that came to Canada were significantly reduced. It is why we have the lowest unemployment rate in 40 years right now, which is a good anti-poverty strategy.

As it relates to the deficit the party opposite talks about, there are lots of different deficits within a complex economy. For example, there is an infrastructure deficit. The previous government left us with a $660-billion infrastructure deficit. That meant that expressways were falling down, bridges were not being built, transit was not being delivered, water was not clean, highways were broken, and housing was not being fixed or repaired. That deficit was real, because it impacted people's lives and the economy and productivity of this country. The Conservatives passed that on to this government and future generations.

The books need to be brought back into balance. However, it is not just the books as they relate to deficits and debt. It is also the social deficit, the environmental deficit and the infrastructure deficit of this country. One reason the Conservative Party was tossed out was that those other deficits were atrocious and required change. The change people are getting includes sustained and focused investments that are not only good for the people using the infrastructure and social pieces of government but are good for the country, because they grow—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Jonquière.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this massive 850-page bill contains seven different pieces of legislation, and yet the Standing Committee on Finance held only three meetings to study it.

What is more, the 36 amendments proposed by the NDP in committee were all rejected. The Liberals did not even take the time to study or debate them. They rejected them all, including those recommended by the Ontario Equal Pay Coalition, the Canadian Labour Congress or CLC, the Canadian Union of Public Employees or CUPE, Teamsters Canada and the Public Service Alliance of Canada or PSAC. All of the witnesses from these unions agreed that amendments were needed so that the bill would remedy the shortcomings in the legislation, which requires women to go to court to get equal pay for equal work.

If the Liberals were serious about pay equity, why did they not create a stand-alone bill on this subject that we could have debated in the House? That way women would not have to wait three or four years for pay equity.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP members often complain about two things: either we are consulting and are going too slow, or we have not consulted and are going too fast. I think we have hit the right balance here. We have put together comprehensive pay equity legislation after substantial consultation over the last three years with stakeholders, unions, private, public and governmental sources.

With regard to amendments, we have all been around committees in this place. We all see sort of a consensus emerge on how to fix a particular bill. The opposition presents one way to fix it, and the government produces a different way. The opposition's proposal might be defeated, but a very similar proposal will have the support of the government side. It is really a question of detail, sometimes, in those decisions.

As for pay equity, it is essential that we get it done in this term of Parliament. Women have waited too long. I was here in 2005 as a reporter when the NDP members rolled the dice and decided they could get a better deal under Stephen Harper than under Paul Martin. They not only collapsed the Kelowna accord, they not only collapsed an extra $2 billion for housing, they not only collapsed a national child care strategy, they collapsed comprehensive pay equity legislation as well.

Members will say that they did not roll the dice and that Canadians changed the government. Sure, Canadians changed the government, but at some point, the NDP is going to have to take responsibility for what it does, not what it aspires to do. In this case, it collapsed those pieces of legislation, and it can live with that. That is its party record.

I would also remind the party members opposite of the zero dollars they wanted to spend on housing this year or the $25 million they wanted to spend on indigenous infrastructure, a grand total of $375 million. If that is what they thought was the scope of the problem with indigenous communities across this country, they either did not care, did not know, or did not want to act.

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

Mr. Speaker, today we are talking about the Liberals, who are proposing a hefty 850-page bill. It is an omnibus bill. It is the largest bill ever introduced in the House of Commons. The omnibus bills that the Conservatives used to introduce were 75 pages long. Today we are seeing an 800% or even 900% increase with this 851-page bill. The Liberals were elected on a promise to be more transparent and more accountable.

Furthermore, we are debating this unusually large bill under a gag order. This morning, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour was boasting about how she has already given opposition members 15 hours of debate.

According to my calculations, 15 hours of debate divided by 851 pages equals one minute and five seconds per page. Is it responsible to allocate so little time to debate a bill? I use the phrase “debate a bill” loosely, because only eight NDP MPs and five Conservative MPs spoke to this bill before today, if memory serves.

The Liberals say that they are more democratic, more transparent and more accountable, but I have my doubts. I think that everyone has reason to doubt the goodwill and good faith of the Liberals.

As my colleague from Jonquière said, this bill amends seven acts. The Liberals have never been able to tell us how many clauses and subclauses are in this mammoth bill. They themselves do not even know. They do not even know all the things they put in this bill. It is ridiculous to have to debate it under time allocation.

I will focus on just a few points in my speech because, unfortunately, nobody in the House can cover all the measures introduced in the nearly 900-page bill in just 10 minutes.

Women have been waiting 42 years for the Liberals to keep their promises on pay equity. Unions have been fighting Canada Post in court over that for 30 years. The government is yet again telling women they will have to wait. Pay equity legislation will come into force not in a matter of weeks or months, but in four years.

Our party has been a tireless advocate for this important issue. We have even proposed changes in the past. As we heard from my colleague from Jonquière, the NDP proposed 36 amendments. The Conservatives proposed amendments. The other parties proposed amendments. How many amendments did the Liberals accept? Not one single amendment was accepted, despite the fact that they reflected the demands of unions and the demands of various women's groups. Not one amendment was accepted to improve the bill, to give women a stronger voice. The Liberals did not agree to any of our suggestions.

Canada is facing some major challenges that require a bolder approach than the one the Liberals are using. The first initiatives requiring employers to determine how many people must receive more pay are a step in the right direction. However, what could possibly justify how long it will take to implement this? Is it acceptable that women continue to be underpaid for another four years under this government?

In 2018, women earn on average $12,700 less than men. If we multiply that by four, that means nearly $51,000 less for women. The government says it is proud to have introduced pay equity legislation. However, women will still have $51,000 less in their pockets, which is a lot.

If I had to summarize the government's action, I would have to say that it is nothing but half measures. The time it will take to implement pay equity is the biggest problem lurking behind the government's facade of good intentions, but it is not the only one. There is also the fact that budget implementation act, 2018, No. 2 does not require employers to apply pay equity to workers who were already under contract if changes are subsequently made to the contract following a call for tenders. Why? We do not know.

The bill also does not include any of the pay transparency measures that advocates have called for. Salaries cannot be compared when pay equity issues are being addressed. What is wrong with that picture? Will the pay equity commissioner have the resources needed to do his or her work properly? We do not know that either.

Speaking of half measures, why did the government not adopt the recommendations set out in the Bilson report, including the creation of a pay equity hearings tribunal? Lastly, the Liberals are once again professing to support equality while telling a segment of the population that is being treated unfairly to grin and bear it. I would like to remind the government that women represent 51% of the population.

The government made its choice. It chose not to make the investments needed to ensure that women receive equal pay, and chose instead to give big business, the richest people in the world, $14 billion in tax cuts. This measure was introduced last week in the Minister of Finance's fall economic statement. Did the rich and these big corporations really need that $14 billion this fall? I do not think so. They are getting help, yet many of them evade taxes or openly use tax havens to avoid paying taxes.

The same is true for web giants like Netflix, Apple and Facebook, which pay virtually nothing in taxes and then get tax breaks. However, they use our services and are quite happy to hire highly skilled workers from Quebec and Canada. The Liberals claim that our SMEs are important and that they want to support buying local, but they support the web giants that do not need to worry about all of the taxes imposed on our SMEs under Canadian law.

How much of this money will go to rural areas? We have no idea. The government is allocating billions of dollars for businesses to buy new equipment and innovate, but how can we innovate when our rural areas do not even have access to high-speed Internet or a 3G or LTE cellular network?

The Auditor General criticized the government for its lack of judgment in managing public money allocated to the connect to innovate program. Some municipalities in my riding are turned down for this program or CRTC funds for ridiculous reasons, such as the fact that there is already a home with high-speed Internet within a 25-kilometre radius. This is happening in Saint-Louis-de-Gonzague, and all the areas served by Coop CSUR in the Soulanges area are under the same restriction. Do we really want a double standard for our rural and urban areas?

On another subject, how will the poverty reduction strategy be funded? Apparently, it will be made up of existing programs without any additional money. I think the Liberals are just thumbing their noses at us. They have targets, but no plan. That seems to be a theme with this government, because it does not have a plan for the environment either. The Liberals got themselves elected in 2015 by saying, “We have a plan, we have a plan, we have a plan”. Today, there is no plan, there is no plan, there is no plan. I think I will use that in an ad.

Are they going to help the most vulnerable citizens access health care services more easily? No. There is no plan for pharmacare either, even though we know that we could save $3 billion a year according to conservative estimates. We could make a lot of investments in health care with that money.

What other measures does the bill include to drastically reduce our CO₂ and methane emissions starting this year? None. Is the government planning to help rural areas go green, develop public transit, make their homes more energy efficient, or use solar and wind power? No.

Is the government going to implement restrictions to help big corporations reduce their greenhouse gas emissions? No, of course there is no plan to do that. Will the federal government finally have a costed plan for reducing its own greenhouse gas emissions? No, it has no plan for that either.

It has been pointed out that many citizen movements have been launched. In Quebec, artists, scientists, economists and citizens have signed A Pact for the Transition. Millennials have been criticized for not being more involved in all kinds of things, but yesterday, young people who realized that the government is not doing anything for the environment took action, and a youth environmental group called ENvironnement JEUnesse brought suit against the federal government for failing to take action on the environment.

I have to stop now because I am out of time, but that shows just how important the environment is to people 35 and under and how absurd it was for the government to spend $4.5 billion of taxpayers' money on a pipeline.

That move was not a plan or investment for keeping our planet healthy for current and future generations. It is shameful.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have the opportunity to ask my colleague opposite a question.

The purpose of my question is simple.

The member opposite complained that there was not enough investment to back up the strategy or move forward some of these critical social issues in order to achieve them. I will take housing as an example, because I have often heard the opposite side say that it all comes after the next election.

The member opposite knows, because she complained that in the first budget the money was too little to solve the problem. I agree, we needed the full $40 billion on top of the first investment. However, in our first budget, we tripled transfers to provinces and that money is building housing now, supporting housing now and renewing housing agreements now. We doubled the money that was going to homeless organizations that are fighting homelessness. We have now added an additional $40 billion on top of that, and reprofiled the money to be a little more flexible so that it can, in particular, support women and children across the country. In other words, the national housing strategy is not a 10-year, $40-billion program, but actually closer to $55 billion over 14 years, if we take into account the dollars announced before we reprofiled the money.

Would the member not agree that, from the minute we took office and the first budget we passed right through to now, we have invested well beyond $40 billion? Will the member also agree that those dollars are being spent as we speak?

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

Mr. Speaker, I hear my colleague from Hamilton Mountain shouting that it is 14 years. I am not the one saying so. Many social housing organizations across Canada are saying that 90% of the investments in social housing announced by the Liberals will not come until after the next election.

Way to go. The housing crisis is happening right now.

People are also talking about other crises. I do not know if the Liberals have their heads buried in the sand or what, but every week for the last four weeks, someone has had something to say about the environment. Global warming is the number one issue. Everyone says that urgent action is needed now.

What do the Liberals propose in these 851 pages? There is nothing for the environment, a big fat zero in terms of investment and a big fat zero in terms of plans. There is nothing for decarbonization, nothing for public transit, nothing for reviewing building codes to make them more energy efficient. There is also nothing to keep fossil fuels in the ground or to promote the development of green and renewable energy sources.

Where is the Liberals' vision for addressing climate change? I do not see it here. It is nowhere to be found.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I wholeheartedly agree with what she said about climate change.

What we need right now is not a plan to deal with a small issue because this is no longer about the environment. No, climate change has now become a critical and urgent issue. It is clearly no longer an environmental issue. It has become a threat to the security of our country and our planet.

I would like to ask the member if she has anything else to propose to effectively address this threat.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands. She is obviously very involved in this file and her involvement in and commitment to society in general are a good example of some of the things that can be done.

Many scientists, industry representatives, workers in the environmental field, and people around the world are carrying out initiatives in this regard. Thousands of initiatives are being carried out around the world. I am talking about initiatives pertaining to permaculture, local currency, buy local networks, geothermal energy, wind energy, the creation of construction standards for more energy efficient buildings, and awareness campaigns regarding the fight against plastic.

We are calling on the government to establish a plan for every department. Right now, only 5 out of 19 departments have a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Environment Canada does not even have one. That makes no sense at all. I cannot believe it.

The government needs to have its own plan to adapt to climate change and apply it through public policies in every department and every sector, whether it be transport, food, housing construction and so on. There is an urgent need to act now.

Young people and the general public understand that. The only one who does not is the government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today in the House to speak to our economic update.

I did not get a chance to ask my colleague who just spoke a question. I think she was a bit unfair to the connect to innovate program. We invested $500 million in Canada, and the CRTC will invest even more to create the backbone of the system.

True, there are some challenges with the maps, but the CRTC and the Minister of Innovation are always open to redrawing the maps to better connect Canadians.

We invested $100 million in Quebec, and I was there for a number of the announcements. I assure the member and the House that we are working on getting people connected, since this has become a necessity in our country.

I would like to take a moment with the time that I have to speak about some of the intellectual property provisions in the economic update, with the backdrop being that the government had to address yet another deficit from the previous government, which was the innovation deficit.

The previous government, under Harper, had not invested for 10 years in either basic research or in innovation. We had fallen behind our neighbours and competitors in a variety of different ways. We had previously been good at this.

We have now brought that back, with massive, historic investments, in both fundamental curiosity-based research, as well as investing in both people and technology in order to make Canada a world leader in a variety of different digital areas, the new economy, artificial intelligence and training people, from kids all the way to the elderly, upscaling and retraining, in order that we be positioned to take advantage of that.

All of this is framed by an IP strategy that we announced earlier in 2018. It really pushes Canadians and Canadian inventors to think about intellectual property as part of the way in which they monetize their investments. I know the minister is fond of saying, and he is right, that companies that think about intellectual property tend to be more profitable and do better. We certainly are trying to buttress that with an array of policies in the IP strategy, as well as in the fall economic statement.

First, I want to speak a little about notice and notice regime and the improvements we have made to that. It is an interesting Canadian invention, the notice and notice regime. One of my old colleagues, Daniel Gervais, who was at the University of Ottawa at the time and is now at the University of Amsterdam, came up with this. The idea is that Internet service providers should not be liable for copyright infringement going on the Internet when they are acting only as a conduit. This accords with our traditional underlying principle of net neutrality.

What we do is we allow copyright holders, right holders to point out to an Internet service provider that there has been an alleged infringement of copyright through its architecture. Then we ask the Internet service provider to act in a certain way in order to maintain an immunity from liability.

In the United States, the Americans reacted with something called notice and take down, in which a copyright holder would tell the Internet service provider that there had been an infringement. In order for the Internet service provider to maintain its immunity, it would simply take down the work.

This system was widely criticized in the United States because it was being abused. People were alleging copyright infringement in all sorts of cases, when perhaps there was not even copyright infringement at all. It led to a silencing or had a chilling effect on free speech, among other things.

Our Canadian response was quite a good one. When such an allegation would be made, we would ask the Internet service provider to first freeze the information, archive it, and then give notice to the person who had put up the content that some sort of infringement had happened. This then would allow for both the information to be preserved and for the copyright holder to pursue it in our court system, if he or she wanted to do that, a court system in which we have a great deal of confidence, and get to the right result without the abuse that happened in the notice and take down system.

What began to happen in Canada, and I saw this myself a number of times in my teachings, was that American rights holders, through American law firms, would often allege content infringement in Canada. They would then send a letter to those people telling them that they had infringed copyright and that they would be sued unless they paid x thousands of dollars by clicking on the link included. Sadly, a number of people did not realize this kind of claim was in contravention of Canadian law and they paid the money. This kind of trolling is what we are trying to prevent by standardizing the kinds of letters that are used in the notice and notice regime and by prohibiting any request for a monetary settlement in these letters.

We also heard from Internet service providers in Canada that it was difficult for them to maintain and archive all these various kinds of claims. Therefore, by standardizing the form, we also reduce the costs and increase the incentive for Canadian Internet service providers to comply with the system.

It is a good system. We are improving it by standardizing costs, making it more fair and preventing trolls from taking advantage of the system.

I am very proud of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and her team for having preserved the notice and notice regime in the renegotiation of the free trade agreement with Mexico and the United States. It is a strong Canadian addition to international copyright. I am pleased we have taken steps to improve it, based on the consultations we have had. These were widely shared among people and were widely agreed upon.

We are also making improvements to the patent regime, which again will help the innovative climate in Canada. We are allowing for experimentation on patents and not calling it patent infringement. It has been said that the patent system is a bargain whereby a person gets a monopoly for 20-odd years for an invention after having disclosed the secret of the invention publicly. Yes, it is true. We do not want people to infringe on the economic rights of the patent holder. However, it is not an infringement on the economic rights of the patent holder because it is not an absolute right for some other researcher to do experiments with the patent to develop another invention or improve an invention. We have recognized that in the statute.

Because licensing is such an important part of the patent regime, we have also protected licensees who licence a critical patent for their own processes and inventions, such that if the company falls into insolvency or bankruptcy or goes under creditor protection, the licensee will not lose the right to use that licence.

With respect to trademark, we are adding bad faith as a ground for opposition to trademarks. That too is something that accords overall with what we are trying to do.

I and other colleagues have spoken about a new college for patent and trademark agents to improve the quality of advice and service that is given. Again, this helps Canadian innovators.

Finally, we have brought in major improvements to the functioning of the Copyright Board, which plays such a critical role for both rights holders and users with respect to establishing rights and tariffs moving forward. If we can do that more quickly, more efficiently and in a substantively better way, it helps everyone.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has expounded on a number of programs that the Liberals think they are putting to good use in Canada. However, I have one problem. They are spending $49.5 million more every day than they are taking in. They are adding that much to the debt, over $2 million an hour.

Programs and projects could be put in place that would help them with the revenue side and sustain the jobs we already have rather than lose them, and one would be the building of pipelines in Canada. It would even reduce greenhouse gases around the world if we could get pipelines to both coasts. We would have a more efficient export program and help put people to work in other countries, as well as reduce greenhouse gases with oil they could use here rather than the products they presently use.

I wanted to point that out for my colleague across the way.

I heard the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour this morning refer to this as a fiscally sound management update for the fiscal accountability of the government. I would like to ask the member two things. When does he think the budget will ever be balanced? With $49.5 million more being spent every day than the government is taking in, how is this sound fiscal management?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am a homeowner and I have a mortgage on my house. If the roof caves in or the plumbing breaks, I will have to spend money to fix it. My colleague next to me referred to that as an infrastructure deficit. There are simply times when in order to preserve the whole of the investment, we have to make other investments. That is precisely what we are doing.

We inherited a massive infrastructure deficit. In my home province, bridges are falling, infrastructure is deteriorating, water and environmental infrastructure. We had an innovation deficit. Now we are remedying that.

Yes, we have to spend money to do it, but, as has been pointed out a number of times, our debt-to-GDP ratio is going down and we have the best position in the G7 with respect to both overall debt and debt-to-GDP ratio. We are doing it prudently and saving the house.

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard talk from the other side of the House about lifting people out of poverty. I hear that constantly. I am going to state some figures. My colleague on this side of the House was getting into some of them.

The first figure is $2,066,210, the second figure is $17,948 and the third figure is $49,589,041. I could do a quiz, but maybe the folks on the other side of the House realize that the first figure is the amount the debt is going up per hour. The second figure is the amount that every Canadian owes, $17,948. The third figure, $49,589,041, is the amount the debt grows every day.

When Liberals talk about lifting people out of poverty, what does my colleague tell Canadian youth who are faced with a debt of $663 billion right now? How is that lifting them out of poverty?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his proficiency in math. The answers are quite obvious.

First, the major part of Canada's overall debt was loaded by Conservative governments, first Mulroney and then Harper, in a massive way. It was only Liberal governments, such as Mr. Martin's government and this one, that managed to reduce the overall debt load.

Our overall debt load is going down as a function of our GDP. Precisely the answer for young people is that we are investing in the kind of economy that is going to give them great jobs when they finish school. It is going to subsidize the education they are getting to get those great jobs. As the economy grows, the overall percentage and importance of the debt actually goes down. I would put it to young people that they would like more challenging and better-paying jobs, knowing the debt has been managed moving forward.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I see the hon. member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame. We are out of time for this particular five-minute period, but I can promise him that we will get him the next time around.

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

[Pam Goldsmith-Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Consular Affairs)]

Mr. Speaker, this budget builds upon previous budgets by protecting the environment and strengthening the economy, and the results quite clearly speak for themselves. At 3%, Canada has the strongest economic growth of the G7 countries. In the last three years, Canadians have created 550,000 new jobs and have pushed unemployment to a record 40-year low. More Canadians are working, wages are growing and business confidence is strong. Budget 2018 is the next step in our plan to ensure that every Canadian has a real and fair chance at success.

In British Columbia, we understand the importance of measures that protect our oceans and ensure a strong and biodiverse ecosystem. Canada relies on safe and healthy coasts and waters for trade, economic growth and quality of life, and we recognize that the ocean holds a special place in the traditions and cultures of Canadians, and in particular, of indigenous peoples.

It gives me great pleasure to focus on the oceans protection plan legislative amendments that would enhance marine environmental protection and strengthen marine safety to support safe and environmentally responsible shipping.

Passage of these amendments would strengthen safeguards to better protect marine environments from the impacts of shipping, including protecting endangered whale populations. They would enable a more proactive, rapid and effective response to oil spills in Canada's waters. They would modernize Canada's ship-source oil pollution fund, including unlimited compensation for victims and responders in the event of an oil spill from a ship, and they would support research and innovation to enhance marine safety and environmental protection.

Our government is entirely committed to the sustainability of wild Pacific salmon and recognizes that this commitment requires ongoing action to succeed. Recognizing the importance of fisheries to Canada's economy as a whole, and commensurate with the Atlantic fisheries fund, this budget would create a British Columbia salmon restoration and innovation fund, which would include a contribution to the Pacific salmon endowment fund of $5 million in 2018-19. As well, our government is committed to the sustainability of wild stocks and would invest $107 million to support stock assessment and rebuilding efforts from coast to coast to coast.

Canadians are deeply concerned about threatened whale populations. We would commit $61 million to help whales recover, building on the approximately $800 million in investments to date under the oceans protection plan and the $167 million in budget 2018 dedicated to protecting endangered whales. The additional measures announced today would focus on increasing the food supply for whales, reducing the disturbance caused by vessel noise and addressing ocean contaminants to strengthen our overall effort. Our government is making a real long-term and sustained effort to help whales recover.

Plastics in the ocean are a threat to whales and to many other species. In my riding, the Pacific Science Enterprise Centre, on the West Vancouver waterfront, was the staging ground for Vortex, an art display by internationally renowned artist Douglas Coupland that was commissioned by the Vancouver Aquarium to draw attention to the magnitude of the ocean plastics global challenge. Coupland collected plastic waste from the shores of Haida Gwaii, which most people think of as pristine. Over the course of a few months, he assembled a display that is at the aquarium today.

The Pacific Science Enterprise Centre is partnered with the Coastal Ocean Research Institute at the aquarium, resulting in collaborative laboratory research on microplastic distribution and its effects on the marine environment. This is really important, because under the previous government, the long-term viability of this DFO lab on the West Vancouver waterfront was under severe threat. Today we are expanding science research and partnerships to address ocean health.

We know that pollution is not free. We pay for the cost of storms, floods, droughts, wildfires and extreme heat, which is why we are ensuring a price across Canada on what we do not want, which is pollution, so that we can get what we do want, which are lower emissions, cleaner air and new business opportunities.

British Columbia has been a leader in pricing pollution since 2008. We were successful in British Columbia, and we know why. That success is about to be Canada's success.

I would like to share the outcomes from a report I was involved with in 2015 about why B.C. was successful. First, we found that pricing pollution and a thriving economy can co-exist. Second is that strong political leadership is needed. Third is to keep it simple by creating broad coverage. Fourth is to start with a low price. Fifth is to commit from day one to a schedule of price increases and to stick with it. Sixth is that revenue neutrality will make pricing pollution durable. Seventh is that a price on pollution cannot be everything. It needs to be part of a suite of climate policies. Eighth is to prepare for a vocal and not fact-based opposition. Finally, expect a cleaner environment, an enhanced reputation and a thriving clean-tech sector. That is where the budget would bring this country.

We would also support the transition to a cleaner economy by providing an accelerated capital cost allowance for clean energy equipment. To increase investment in the clean-tech sector, the government proposes that specified clean energy equipment be eligible for immediate expensing. With this change, the cost of clean energy equipment would be eligible for a full tax writeoff the year it was put into use in the business. This change would encourage investment to create jobs for the middle class and would help Canada achieve its climate goals.

The fall economic statement proposed two further important changes to Canada's tax system to enhance business confidence. First, allowing businesses to immediately write off the cost of the machinery and equipment used for manufacturing and the processing of goods would fuel new investments and support the adoption of advanced technologies and processes. Second, introducing the accelerated investment incentive and accelerated capital cost allowance for businesses of all sizes across all sectors of the economy that are making capital investments would help encourage investment in Canada, providing a timely boost to investor confidence.

Coupled with these new incentives is our government's strengthening of free trade agreements, which is something I have been very honoured to be part of. Canada has a unique place in the world. It is located next to the world's largest economy to the south and has close business, economic and historic ties to Europe to the east and deep connections to the fast-growing Asia-Pacific nations to the west.

With the successful conclusion of the United States-Mexico-Canada agreement, the Canada-European Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, Canada is the only G7 country to have free trade agreements with all other G7 nations. These countries represent two-thirds of the world's total GDP taken together. The government's ongoing commitment to free trade with economies around the world, including those in vibrant emerging markets, will help further strengthen and grow the middle class and deliver long-term economic growth to benefit all Canadians.

Equal pay for work of equal value is smart and just. We are very proud to be moving forward with proactive pay equity legislation. It is a key way our government would deliver on its commitment to gender equality. Work is under way, and consultations on key design elements of the proactive pay equity system with stakeholders, including employers and organized labour, as well as other experts, have concluded. Our government will introduce proactive pay equity legislation for workers in federally regulated sectors in 2018.

As we work hard to protect the environment and to build a robust, resilient economy, it is important to remember the difference we have made for families at home. In the 2017-18 fiscal year, 9,650 families in my riding received the Canada child benefit; 16,060 children benefited from just over $57 million of investments through the Canada child benefit payments. Since introducing this legislation in 2016, the policy has lifted more than half a million people, including 300,000 children, out of poverty. We believe in supporting Canada's middle class, and that is why we created the Canada child benefit. This summer, we increased the CCB to keep up with the cost of living two years in advance of our initial plan so that families can keep up.

This budget would put this government on the right path. We take into account the environment and the economy. We take into account the importance of a strong middle class and we take into account what is required for the 21st century for each and every Canadian.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member opposite, a fellow British Columbian. It is always wonderful to hear B.C. voices here in this chamber.

The member talked about the need to support the clean-tech environment. General Motors announced in many different press releases that it wants to build more high-tech autonomous cars and that these cars of the future also need to be electric, yet the Oshawa plant is not part of this. The member is part of a government that says a lot of things about innovation and investment rules, but it appears that Oshawa, and perhaps other parts of Ontario's economy, are not going to be part of that future. How does she square the two?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to express my empathy for the employees who are facing such a devastating decision.

Ours is a government that is standing up for a 21st century economy, where the fundamentals must include putting a price on pollution. The opposition party continues to live in the past and continues to advocate for a future that is very bleak for our children and grandchildren.

I am very proud of the fact that we are focused on growing the clean-tech sector and are admitting the challenges we face so that Canadians can thrive in the future.

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

Mr. Speaker, I understand that when in government, they have to make tough decisions and have to decide where technology is going and listen and whatnot. I think the government probably has the resources it needs. However, the member did not even try to address the question. She just pointed her finger at the Conservatives and said that somehow it is our fault that they are not succeeding in attracting investments in clean tech for the next generation of automobiles in places like Oshawa. Could she give some concrete examples as to why someone on the streets of Oshawa right now should believe the rhetoric of the government?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am choosing not to exercise selective thinking. I think we are all well aware of the GE plant that opened in Welland and created 250 jobs.

The point is what the future of Canada's economy looks like and the fundamentals of that future. I am quite surprised, because the member opposite is also from British Columbia and is well aware of the success of putting a price on pollution in British Columbia and how the economy of British Columbia has thrived, if not led the country, in the context of being properly rooted in what our future is telling us we simply must do.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite was looking for an example of a targeted investment supported by the federal government that is driving new work in Oshawa related to the auto industry. Is the parliamentary secretary aware that as part of our $5.6 billion investment in the auto sector, GM selected Oshawa for the site of its new electronic vehicle research centre? Close to 1,000 engineers have been hired in southern Ontario. The member for Milton says that engineers do not matter and are not part of the ecosystem of the auto sector. She dismissed them as good jobs and as a remedy for some of the unemployment challenges in the country. Is the parliamentary secretary aware that these investments are being made in Oshawa today and set the stage for retooling the plant that was closed yesterday?

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

Mr. Speaker, yes, of course we are. I would like to further stress the importance of the free trade agreements we have worked so hard on in the space of three years to improve upon what went before and to finalize agreements around the world to benefit Canadian workers and their families.

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the member saying I should know British Columbia's experience with the carbon tax. Actually, I do. I was on a task force with the B.C. Chamber of Commerce to evaluate it. There are two very different sides to this. If by innovation she means the results of the carbon tax, in the last year that was referenced, 2016-17, we actually saw an increase in overall carbon emissions. We have also seen a decrease in the amount the local cement industry has in its own marketplace.

Washington State has decided not to go ahead with a carbon tax. It has actually voted it down twice. If she is saying that the only innovation to come out of that is to have higher gas prices and at the same time higher subsidies, she is kidding herself. They may say it is a price on carbon, but they are also subsidizing a number of different industries. If they look at B.C., greenhouse growers and the cement industry have seen—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to focus on the fact that putting a price on pollution puts Canada in a global leadership position. It brings together business, academics and research, and most importantly, it offers hope for the future for our children and grandchildren.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-86, A second 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.

Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a real honour to able to represent my beautiful community of Langley—Aldergrove and share with the House a perspective of what I am hearing from the community on the growing debt that we are hearing about from the government.

The government is defending the fact that the debt is growing and growing. The last Liberal speaker highlighted that the B.C. carbon tax is going to be providing hope for the next generation. However, this is not what I am hearing from British Columbia residents. The question has come out about the $35 a tonne, and what percentage it is. I was asked by a constituent if I realized what we were paying in the form of a tax. Is it 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%? What is the percentage that we are paying on the energy, on the carbon, on the natural gas in British Columbia? Most Canadians, in fact, everyone I have asked after meeting with that constituent said that they had no idea.

Therefore, we asked Canadians to check on their bills. In British Columbia, natural gas is provided by FortisBC, which has it listed on the bottom of the bill. I would ask anybody in the House, or any Canadian watching, what they think the government is endorsing as its model, its plan, for taxation on carbon. We are told that it is $35 a tonne. Last year, it was $30 a tonne, but $35 this year, and every year it goes up another $5 a tonne. What does that mean in a tax? People do not understand, and we do not know. I did not know. However, when we checked the bill, it is 112%. Last year, at $30 a tonne, it was $72%. Can members think of this in any other country in the world?

The Liberal government is bragging saying that it is providing great leadership, and the great leadership is being provided by a 72% tax on carbon last year. This is what the Liberals are saying is going to provide hope to the next generation. This year, on April 1, the carbon tax on energy, on natural gas, in British Columbia is 112%. On April 1, just a few months from now, it will go up to $40 a tonne. It will be over 155% that the government will be charging on energy. That is what $40 a tonne means to British Columbians, and that is what the government is saying is the hope for the next generation. It will be putting debt upon debt with a growing interest rate and uncertainty in the economy. That is not hope.

However, this is what the government does. It says one thing and does something else. The Liberals promise one thing and do something else. When we actually dig down, open the curtains and look at the Wizard of Oz who is pulling the rods, this is what we get with the government. It says one thing and does another, and it is hurting Canadians. It is hurting this generation. It is hurting the economy. It is hurting confidence in the economy. We are seeing this now come out.

The Liberals have been in government for three years, and in three years they have broken promises and made a growing mess. I am hearing from the young, middle-aged and middle-income. I am hearing from a full spectrum of the economy, from my constituents and even the youth who are getting fed up with the government. They do not trust the government. There is an uncertainty with the government. Canadians are getting more and more desperate and looking for a change in government, because the pathway that we are on is not sustainable.

Before I was elected federally, I was a bureaucrat for a few years. Before that, I was an entrepreneur, a business person. Therefore, I know what it means to take a risk. I was a business person for 25 years, and it is hard to make a buck. People who work hard and take a risk and hire people are needed. They are the economic engine of this country. That is what the government has said and the Liberals know that to be true.

We need to create an environment in this country where people are willing to invest and take that risk, where there is a possibility of a profit, where they do not have a government calling them tax cheats and where Canadians are willing to be fair and pay their fair share of tax.

I have just shared with my colleagues the shocking news of what the Liberal carbon tax actually equates to in the form of tax, that being 112% tax on energy. I encourage people watching to go and check their bills. People do not realize that natural gas right now is not that expensive. It is a very clean energy source. However, who in the world, in good conscience, could charge Canadians 112% tax? That is what the Liberals are saying is leadership, world leadership. It amounts to tax, tax, tax.

I have been in this House since 2004. What a great honour to be here. In those years, I have heard over and over again that the Liberals love taxes. They will say whatever Canadians want them to say to get elected. However, it is a great honour to be here, to represent our communities. Everyone of us, I am sure, realizes that great honour but we have a responsibility along with that honour, to represent well and make sure that we make this country better, stronger, with a better future for this generation and generations to come.

Not keeping our promises and putting growing debt on this country is not leaving the country in better shape than when we came. It has been three years of a four-year term of this Parliament. This Parliament began in 2015 and will end in 2019. Less than a year from now, Canadians will be going to the polls to vote.

Canadians are realizing what promises were made by the government, such as having a balanced budget. There was going to be a temporary phase with a maximum $10 billion spent that one year. Within three years, it would be balanced. Why did the Liberals make that promise? Canadians realized that it is not sustainable to continue to go into deficit budgets. A business cannot operate like that. If a business year after year after year had deficit spending, was spending more money than what was coming in, the business would go bankrupt. We see that. It is a proven fact. Again, a family cannot spend more than what is brought in.

It is the same thing in our country. The government knows that and that is why, leading up to the 2015 election, the Liberals promised that they would balance the budget. Have they kept that promise? No, they have not. Have they promised to be a world leader in putting a price on pollution? They have said they are going to do that. They put a price on pollution of 112%. Next year it will be going up to 155%. I cannot imagine any country in the world that would brag to say it is providing world leadership while we have the highest rate of taxation on any country on this earth on energy, 112%, and next year going up to 155%.

That is not what the government promised. The government promised change, but not this kind of change. We will be approaching, in less than a year now, an election where Canadians are going to be faced with a decision. The expression says, “Fool me once, shame on you.” Canadians are not going to say, “Fool me twice, shame on me.”

I have listened to the youth. I have a youth advisory board I listen to. They are not happy with the government. They are not happy with what the government has done to their future in saying no to pipelines, to the point where we are not getting world prices for our natural resources. That is their future being squandered. It is our youths' future that is being squandered by the government borrowing against them. They did not give their credit card to the government, but the government has taken their credit card and is mounting debt on their credit card. They are fed up.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague spoke about leaving the country in better shape than it was when we came to government.

I would remind him that ours is one of the fastest-growing economies in the G7. We have put policies in place to ensure that we are lifting 650,000 people out of poverty, 300,000 of whom are children. Next year, a family of four will receive $2,000 more in its pocket than it is currently receiving. There have been 500,000 new jobs created by Canadian small and medium-sized businesses. In Bill C-86, we have introduced a social finance fund to help charitable organizations. We have introduced a poverty reduction strategy.

What would the member say to his constituents who are benefiting from the policies we have put in place?

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

Mr. Speaker, I trust the member balances her budget every month. She is asking this House what Canadians say regarding spending more money than they are taking in.

Let us say a company is spending money, increasing the wages of its employees at the employees' cost, and saying, “Yes, I'm paying you more, but you are actually paying for all that extra pay and all that extra economic activity. It makes us look good as a company.” Is that sustainable? The answer is no. It can only go on for so long.

Where does the money come from? It comes from Canadians. There is only one taxpayer. The government needs to realize that. The taxpayer is getting fed up. It needs to stop.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

The hon. member will have three minutes and 15 seconds remaining in questions and comments following the hon. member's speech when the House resumes after question period.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-86, A second 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise to talk about important pieces of legislation that come before the House. However, there are very few budgetary measures as important as what we are debating today in the budget implementation bill. There are so many things one could talk about, it is hard focus on one.

However, one I have highlighted in the past a great deal is the Canada child benefit. That is one of the jewels in the budget. We have saw it virtually from day one when this Prime Minister made a commitment to Canada's middle class. One of the centrepieces of that commitment was the Canada child benefit. For the constituents of Winnipeg North, it has had a profoundly positive impact. To give members a sense of that, imagine approximately $9 million-plus coming into the community of Winnipeg North every month as a direct result of the Canada child benefit program.

When we think about the economy, we think of what moves an economy forward. Often it is when we have consumers who are spending. Therefore, if we think about that $9 million-plus a month that Ottawa sends to Winnipeg North for those residents, they use the money to support their children in their community. That is one of the reasons in the bigger picture, the macro picture, that we have seen over the last number of years an economy that has grown to the tune of creating over 500,000 new full-time jobs in a relatively short period of time. Contrast that with when Stephen Harper was the prime minister. It took him approximately 10 years to generate one million jobs. Here we have 500,000 full-time jobs and tens of thousands of part-time jobs. It is because of the very progressive measures this government has taken to support Canada's middle class. When we talk about the Canada child benefit program, we also have to take into consideration that this budget implementation bill recognizes the need to have annual increases to support our families.

We not only think of our young people but also of our seniors. Again, Winnipeg North has benefited from a direct enhancement by this government of our social programs. Here I am referring specifically to the guaranteed income supplement. Once again, literally hundreds of seniors in Winnipeg North are benefiting directly from a positive decision by the government to enhance the guaranteed income supplement. That means that some of the poorest seniors in our country in Winnipeg North are receiving an annual increase of more than $900 a year. Again, that goes a long way in assisting our seniors.

I have had the opportunity, through knocking on doors and attending many different types of events, to talk with seniors, and one of the common things that comes up for seniors, and even those receiving the guaranteed income supplement, is the cost of medication. The reason I bring up the cost of medication is that not only is it an important issue for the residents of Winnipeg North, but also an important issue for all Canadians.

That said, I would argue that there is one social program that most, if not all, Canadians get a sense of pride from. Whenever we talk about the great things about being a Canadian, one is the fact that we have a fantastic health care system. It is a system that is envied around the world. If we talk to immigrants who come to Canada from other countries, they often say how wonderful the health care system is in Canada.

At times we need to recognize the need for change, and change is in the wind. We have a Prime Minister and a Minister of Health, now the our second Minister of Health, who have looked at how Ottawa can assist in continuing positive change on the health care front.

For many years, I thought that the cost of prescribed medicines ways fairly prohibitive for people at the low-income threshold. The cost can even be prohibitive for the middle class and those doing exceptionally well financially, given the portion of their monthly salaries going toward paying for their medications.

For the first time, we have a government that is committed to looking at pharmacare. The Standing Committee on Health that brought the issue forward. The first health minister worked with provinces to try to get better prices of pharmaceuticals for provinces, and I believe the next step is a pharmacare program. I have had the opportunity to introduce numerous petitions in the House on this issue. Many of my constituents have taken the time to sign petitions saying that they want a pharmacare plan. As a longtime Liberal, I believe this is an important social issue, and it is so rewarding to see a government that is finally prepared to bring that to a reality.

I realize there is a lot to be done on it, because health care is not just a federal responsibility but a shared responsibility between Ottawa and the provinces and territories. I would go even further to say there is a moral, if not a legal, obligation to take indigenous people into consideration. Through this budget implementation bill, we are once again moving forward on a possible pharmacare program for all of Canada. I hope that some day we will see that, but at least we are moving forward. I look forward to hearing from the Minister of Health in the coming months, and possibly the Minister of Finance who may be able to give a better indication of whether this is doable.

I have talked about how some of these decisions have had a positive impact on Winnipeg North. If we look at the bigger picture, I often talk about taxation and some of the positive tax measures this government has put in place from day one. I often talk about the tax cut for the middle class and the special tax on Canada's wealthiest. Moreover, many business incentives have been put in place. We have reduced taxes for small businesses, the backbone of our economy, by about two percentage points, reducing the small business tax rate to 9%. At the same time, we are investing in infrastructure, recognizing the importance of supporting our communities. All regions of our country have seen many benefits.

It was not that long ago I was talking about everything from splash pads to community facilities, to roads and infrastructure. All of those things are really important. This government believes in investing in Canadians and infrastructure. At the end of the day, the Prime Minister is committed to delivering on the commitments we made in the last election campaign on things such as a healthier middle class—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Unfortunately, the time is up. I am sure the member will be able to add more during questions and comments.

The hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I once read to the House an excerpt from a Liberal platform in 1997, I believe, where the Liberals identified the problem of Canadians who do not have access to necessary and essential medicines. They told Canadians that they were going to immediately bring in pharmacare to fix that gap. Here we are over 20 years later, and we have a Liberal government that is prepared to act, but of course prepared to act not by bringing in pharmacare but by convening a committee and having another study, which is going to be reported maybe by June.

Is my hon. colleague going to stand in the House and tell his constituents and the people of Canada that his government is going to bring in universal public, single-payer pharmacare in the next year? Will he do that, or not?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, whether in the Manitoba legislature or the House of Commons here in Ottawa, I like to believe I have been consistent on the importance of the pharmacare issue. My daughter, who happens to be an MLA in the province of Manitoba, has also been advocating for provinces to do it alone if Ottawa does not move forward.

It is a program that I would like to see further advanced. I believe there are a good number of members in the House who would like to see it advance. For the first time in generations, virtually since medicare was established, we are seeing some movement forward on this particular file. I am encouraged by it, and we will have to wait and see. However, at the end of the day, as I indicated, we are very fortunate to have the type of health care we do in Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, the previous speaker commented about how the economy is doing so well. My question, then, is why is the Bank of Canada warning us about the decline in investments in Canada? Over the last three years, Canadian investment in the U.S. has increased by 65.8%, and yet in that same time span, investment in Canada has decreased by 5%. Where is the confidence that my colleague has about the economy, and what can we look forward to?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am confident because if we compare Canada and the G8 countries, we find that Canada is performing exceptionally well. We are leading the pack. The member can cite specific stats and then call them into question, but in most part, Canadians will realize that as a whole the government has been moving this country forward. Working with Canadians, what we have seen over the last couple of years is amazing growth. We would have to go back 50 years, 60 years or 70 years before we would see the type of growth in terms of the number of real, tangible numbers of jobs generated. Over 600,000 have been created, and more than 500,000 of them are full-time jobs. That is real, tangible proof that the economy is moving forward in a healthy way.

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

Madam Speaker, I wonder if my colleague across the way finds it inappropriate of the current government to once again introduce a mega-bill with a tremendous amount of pages and details. Everyone is having a tough time deciphering all these details.

I am vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. The committee has to review the Copyright Act. No one knows where this is going and we learn in this bill that this is how the Copyright Board of Canada will be reviewed.

Can the hon. member understand how someone like me, who is committed to understanding the issues, may find it unacceptable that the Copyright Board of Canada is being reviewed in an omnibus bill when it is such an important issue right now?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I suggest to the member that from virtually day one, we have seen a very ambitious government on a number of different files. We have seen substantial good changes. I remember not too long ago a constituent come to me saying that this government had done more in two years than the previous government did in 10 years. I believe that individual was talking about things in a very positive way. The results are very tangible, and I do not make any apologies for a government that wants to work hard. I look forward to 2019.

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

Madam Speaker, I too look forward to October 2019.

While I am glad to rise today and lend my voice and the voice of my constituents to this debate, I would be remiss if I did not also register my frustration that the majority of my colleagues in the House will not be able to give any input on this piece of legislation. The government has again moved time allocation, effectively ending debate.

Here we go again with more broken promises. Over and over during the campaign, the Liberals railed against time allocation and they railed against omnibus bills, yet all the promises they made are out the window. This is an 800-page omnibus bill. It would take Canadians more time to read this legislation than we have been given to debate it. It is outrageous and it is undemocratic, but it is made even worse because of the campaign promise of the Liberals not to use omnibus bills.

I will be focusing most of my time today on the lack of action taken by the Liberal government in order to improve Canada's competitiveness on the world stage. The imposition of a carbon tax, the spending spree and the debt spiral the government is plunging Canada into are all part of the abysmal track record of the Liberals on keeping their promises to Canadians.

Remember those promises? They were a maximum $10-billion deficit, and a balanced budget in 2019. Again, we have more broken promises.

The Business Council of Canada, which represents the largest companies operating in Canada, made the following submission to the finance committee during pre-budget consultations:

[W]e ask the government to introduce a comprehensive strategy to improve competitiveness, diversify trade and attract private sector investment. According to a recent survey of our members, only one in seven CEOs expressed confidence in the competitiveness of Canada's business climate. According to that survey, the tax and regulatory burden combined with concerns around the availability of talent were the most important factors affecting company investment plans in Canada.

Among other recommendations, we've called on the government to undertake a comprehensive review of Canada's tax system with the goal of strengthening the incentives for investment and growth. We believe the need for this review has only been intensified by the implementation of the U.S. Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

It went on to say:

Effective January 1, 2018, the U.S. reduced its federal corporate income tax rate from 35% to 21% and allowed for full expensing of investments in machinery and equipment. This tax reform package also introduced new international tax rules. They encouraged multinationals to shift capital back into the U.S.

These changes have given the United States a significant tax advantage over many advanced economies but in particular Canada, given our very close proximity and dependence on that market. According to a...study that we commissioned by PwC Canada on the implications of U.S. reform, failing to respond to these changes threatens 635,000 jobs and $85 billion in GDP.

In their last budget and their most recent fall economic update, the Liberals have done absolutely nothing to address the concerns outlined by the Business Council of Canada on Canada's lack of competitiveness on the world stage. The Liberals are just out of touch with Canada's business community.

Our Conservative team has been on the ground from coast to coast to coast, talking with business owners, investors, and employees. Personally, I have visited Sault Ste Marie, Belleville, Guelph and all throughout the Waterloo region. I was proud to host a round table with local business several months ago, with the shadow minister for international trade, the member for Niagara West. While the round table focused on the trade negotiations between Canada and the United States and the retaliatory tariffs, we also heard how the Liberal government is not creating a healthy environment to enable small and medium-sized businesses to grow.

One business from southwestern Ontario that participated in our round table shared that in 2009, during the global economic recession, it lost 800 employees. However, because of the policies of our Conservative government at the time, it was able to recoup its loses in just eight months.

Contrast that with today. The same business is looking at job losses of over 1,000 employees as a result of slow economic growth. It is worried that the Liberal government is spending the cupboards bare, so that when a recession hits, it will not be able to recoup like it did previously.

We also heard that, just as the Business Council of Canada outlined in its submission to the finance committee, the competitive climate is causing many companies to move south of the border. Even worse, it is discouraging entrepreneurs from starting businesses here in Canada at all.

For those already in operation, any foreseeable plans to expand have been put on hold. Companies that once felt they were supported and encouraged by the policies of the federal government just do not feel that same level of support anymore. That the government is raising taxes and has no plan to balance the budget is making this climate of worry and concern much worse.

Speaking of debt, in the first three years of the current government, the Prime Minister added $60 billion to the national debt. Deficits are even higher than expected and higher than what was promised in the 2015 election campaign. The Parliamentary Budget Officer projects deficits of $22.2 billion in 2018-19 and $21.4 billion in 2019-20, which is $4 billion higher than the government showed in budget 2018.

Last year, Canada's net debt reached an all-time high of $670 billion, or $47,612 for every Canadian family. According to the finance committee, the budget will not return to balance until 2045, by then racking up an additional $450 billion of debt.

When the economy is strong and growing at 3%, a responsible government would pay down debt, so that we have more fiscal room in case of a downturn. However, we see the current government doing the exact opposite.

In 2009, the Conservative government was able to take decisive action to support the Canadian economy, yet it returned to balance and a surplus by 2015. However, with no plan or commitment to balance, the Liberals have budgeted the cupboard bare. The next time Canada is faced with a crisis, there will be nothing there.

The cost of interest alone on our debt will increase from $23.9 billion in 2017-18, almost doubling to $39 billion in 2021-2022. That is $39.1 billion, which is more than the $36.1 billion we spend on federal health care through the Canada health transfer.

Let us think of what that money could do if we were to provide our veterans with the help they desperately need. We could properly invest in mental health care throughout Canada. We could provide palliative care to every community from coast to coast. Instead, it is going toward paying for the government's out-of-control spending.

My last point is on the carbon tax. Following the Liberals' announcement of their forced carbon tax on Canadians, the president of the Cambridge Chamber of Commerce said that although he is a climate change believer, the senseless response by governments all over the world is, simply put, ridiculous. He said there should never be a cost to using less, that it makes no sense. If less use is required, he described punitive measures as the lazy man's way of reducing carbon emissions. As he said, it is completely counterproductive to take money out of circulation, hang on to it for a period of time, then give 90% of it back. That was a promise he had heard from the Prime Minister on a report by 570 News, which he felt was insulting to the intelligence of every taxpayer, like we need to be babysat.

The chamber of commerce president said he was reminded of an old saying: A tax is a fine for doing something good, and a fine is a tax for doing something wrong. He said the carbon tax is a fine everyone will have to accept, and that is just wrong. He said that today, when business is burdened in every manner by government, it's time that it be recognized by all politicians that without business there is nothing for anyone. Businesses, he said, need a path that clearly demonstrates our economy is first and foremost, so it can provide all the money government needs to save the world.

It is clear that the government is far more interested in imposing its ideology on Canadians than it is in listening to and working with Canadian business.

I am going to finish with this. According to a website that tracks the success of the Liberal government, after 1,119 days in office, the Liberals have broken or completely ignored as many promises they made in the 2015 election campaign as they have kept. That gives Canadians much reason to worry, because a government that campaigns on one thing and does exactly the opposite only increases Canadians' mistrust in our democratic institutions.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member was all over the place with a lot of different points. Unfortunately, I will not have time to address issues like the carbon tax supported by pinko commie Preston Manning and other Conservatives. I will not get into that. I will not get into his misleading Canadians on raising taxes. We only did that to the wealthiest one per cent. I will not address that either.

I would like to ask, though, about his love of U.S. tax changes down south and the massive deficits they have caused. While the U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio is increasing, ours is decreasing. The hon. member is in love with that deficit and the Conservative deficits run by the Harper administration. Why is he against ours?

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

Madam Speaker, I know my colleague was not here in 2008, 2009 and 2010, those years when we were facing not just a Canadian downturn in the economy but a global recession. My Conservative colleagues are on the opposition side now, but when we were in government in 2008 and 2009, we had a minority government and we were suggesting stimulus funding. The Liberal Party then actually said that we were not spending enough to stimulate it. They wanted us to go deeper and deeper into deficit.

Former prime minister Harper had the wisdom to know that there was a limit to how much the government could spend and how much it could go into deficit. The Conservative government at the time also had an incredible plan to bring us back out of deficit spending within a three- to four-year period, which we accomplished.

There is a big difference between going into deficit financing to stimulate a lagging economy that is in recession and comparing that to today, when we are in an economic growth period and still spending way more than we are taking in. It is a recipe for disaster.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member talked a lot about balancing the budget. I am just wondering if he would comment on how much easier it would be to balance the budget if the government did not forgo $10 billion or more per year in taxes by not closing down overseas tax havens. I have often stood in this place and brought up an example of one Canadian company that, for the price of a post office box in Luxembourg I think it was, has evaded $690 million in taxes. That is one company alone. It does not have any employees in Luxembourg. It just made the big investment of getting a post office box.

I am just wondering if he would like to comment on why the government, in this budget or any other budget it has put forward, has not brought forward measures to close those tax havens instead of opening new ones.

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

Madam Speaker, it is just a clear indication of the misplaced priorities of the government. We saw the same thing a year and a half ago when the government started attacking our farmers and our small businesses, trying to go after them and calling them tax cheats, yet at the same time ignoring their multi-billion dollar corporations. This is just another example of that.

I agree with my colleague. We should be going after those who are cheating our tax system and evading taxes. It is a clear indication that those are areas we need to shore up. However, the Liberals are going after small-business people, who are the backbone of our economy and provide thousands of jobs for Canadians. Not only do we need to leave those people alone, but we need to have policies in place that encourage them to maintain those businesses and expand them as they are able.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House today to discuss Bill C-86, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures.

Bill C-86 represents our government's commitment to do more for Canadians. The bill acts as a framework to implement key measures proposed in budget 2018 that will ensure Canadian businesses remain competitive and successful, globally as well as domestically.

In 2018, our government is placing people first, by creating a competitive, sustainable and fair Canada. Throughout my speech, I will provide several examples as to how Bill C-86 would accomplish such objectives.

Last week, on November 21, the Minister of Finance addressed members of the House to unveil the 2018 fall economic statement. His statement reiterated the commitment of our government to continue investing in the middle class to ensure that our economy would remain robust and would continue to flourish for years to come. We are experiencing a strong and growing economy from coast to coast to coast.

We, on this side of the House, have always believed that investment leads to growth and growth leads to more jobs. That is why we can all be proud as we witness new jobs being created, which in turn provide new opportunities for many Canadians to succeed.

In 2017, Canada experienced the strongest economic growth among all G7 countries, accumulating 3% GDP growth. Due to the hard work of Canadians, the results continue to speak for themselves.

We are also experiencing a healthy wage growth. In fact, we are now experiencing the fastest rate of wage growth in the last eight years. With more jobs and the lowest unemployment rates reported in 40 years, consumer confidence remains strong. Our plan is to put more money in the pockets of Canadian families next year, whereby a typical Canadian family of four will be $2,000 better off.

Allow me start off with examples by citing the significance of Bill C-86 to legislating gender budgeting.

We have placed gender equity at the forefront of decision-making by introducing gender budgeting legislation. The future of Canada's economic and social prosperity depends on supporting women of all ages, reducing the gender wage gap and increasing the participation of women in the workforce.

This comes after the failure of the Harper government to recognize women as a driving force in the economy. We, on the other hand, are ensuring every Canadian has an equal and fair chance to succeed. This is not just the right thing to do, it is the smart thing to do. In fact, there are now more women employed than ever before in our long history.

Another example is the significance of Bill C-86 to the issue of pay equity. To further complement legislating GBA+ budgeting, our government aims to provide pay equity to all Canadians by implementing measures to create a more inclusive work environment. For this reason, work has already begun with key stakeholders to introduce proactive pay equity legislation.

To deliver on our commitment to gender equality, we are proud to offer equal pay for equal value of work. This has been long overdue, and we hope to set a precedent for the global community as leaders and champions of equality.

The next thing I would like to cite is the significance of Bill C-86 insofar as the new employment insurance benefits for second parents. As I have already touched on the significance of gender equality in the workplace, allow me to now emphasize our government's interest in introducing legislation to ensure that there is similarly gender equality at home. The new parental sharing benefits will provide all parents, including adoptive and same-sex parents, an opportunity to focus on sharing the responsibilities of raising their children as they see fit.

The new employment insurance benefit for second parents provides more flexibility for parents to set aside time and ensure greater success at shared parenting. Encouraging equality is the right thing to do for all Canadians.

Finally, allow me to talk about how crucial Bill C-86 is to the establishment of the department of the status of women.

Unlike the previous Conservative government, this government keenly understands that gender equality is a key factor in stimulating economic growth. Bill C-86 proposes to create the department of women and gender equality. This new department will solely focus on the status of women in Canada and strengthen our capacity to advance gender equality and stimulate the middle class through innovative policies and programs.

By preserving the department's place as a centre of gender expertise, we hope to prevent gender-based violence as well as expand the mandate for gender equality. This is inclusive of sexual orientation, gender identity and expression by promoting greater understanding.

We have come a long way by appointing the first gender-balanced federal cabinet and the first federal minister fully devoted to gender issues. We hope, and I think it would be fair to say, that we have seen that Canada is serving as an example on the world stage.

Bill C-86 signifies our government's commitment to next steps in advancing our economy by focusing on the growth of the middle class and those who are working hard to join it.

Through Bill C-86, we are taking significant action to invest in this plan. Canada's future prosperity depends on offering equal and fair chances at success.

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

Madam Speaker, I enjoy working with my colleague on the scrutiny of regulations committee. I find him to be a very collegial colleague.

He commented frequently in his remarks about supporting families and children, with which we certainly agree. If that is true, why then did his colleagues oppose Motion No. 110 the other day, which sought to give additional support to families after they had the unfortunate situation of losing a child. It seems to me that this is a common sense motion and the House should get behind it. However, when it went to committee, the Liberal members on that committee put roadblocks in the way and would not allow the amendment to go through.

Could my colleague comment on how he squares the circle of support for families with children, but for those who have actually experienced the loss of a child, which is one of the most devastating experiences a family can endure, his government seemed rather uncaring in that situation?

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a great honour to serve on the scrutiny of regulations committee with my colleague. I might as well add that he does an admirable job of chairing that committee.

As he rightly pointed out, we are into common sense economics. I do not think for a second that any Canadian would doubt our commitment to Canadian families and to Canadian children. For the past three years, every decision we have made has been to put families and children at the centre of economic planning, and the results speak for themselves.

If we look at GDP growth, if we look at the rate at which Canadians are experiencing wage growth, we can all be very proud that Canadian families are doing admirably and we are all seeing the positive results of focusing on families.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, there are so many questions I could ask for my colleague across the way. I could ask about why we are getting these huge budget implementation bills of 850-something pages with only a couple of days to assess it before we begin debate and then only a few hours of debate in the House and a few hours in committee.

I want to go back to the big picture. One of the things we really should be concentrating on in Parliament is to reduce the gap between the wealthiest of Canadians and the rest of us, the 1% and the 99%. That gap has been growing since the 1980s and 1990s. One way to do it is to ensure everybody pays his or her fair share in taxes.

The Liberals had an opportunity to close tax loopholes for CEOs and to close offshore tax havens where the wealthy hide their money. Instead they go after the little fish and it is very little return for a lot of work. Why are the Liberals just missing the boat on fixing this problem that will help us get back to a fair society in Canada?

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Madam Speaker, my hon. friend has alluded to the fact that the budget bill is a lengthy one, and I could not agree with him more, the reason being that we are doing quite well and we are leading the G7 in terms of economic growth, but our work is not done. It is absolutely imperative that we continue to tackle various issues.

This budget, as the member is fully aware, is all about ensuring that we have a competitive, sustainable and fair system. Therefore, every single one of the various issues that are addressed in this budget focus on addressing the issue of ensuring that we have more inclusive economic growth and that all Canadians can share in the new prosperity.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-86, budget implementation act, 2018, no. 2, more specifically to modernizing federal labour standards as well as the wage earner protection program.

The Government of Canada has a mandate to modernize labour standards and adapt them to today's reality. Bill C-86 is the first step in making this modernization a reality.

I want to begin by providing a bit of context. Part III of the Canada Labour Code establishes basic working conditions in the federally-regulated private sector, such as working hours, minimum wage, statutory leave, annual leave, and various other types of leave.

They would also create a level playing field for employers by requiring all of them to meet these minimum entitlements. Many employers already go above and beyond what is in the code, but for some workers, these standards are the only protections they have.

Unfortunately, these things have remained largely unchanged since the 1960s when most Canadians had steady jobs with regular nine to five hours.

Today, many Canadians are struggling to support their families in part-time, temporary and low-wage jobs. They may work several jobs to make ends meet, face unpredictable hours and lack benefits and access to certain entitlements.

The government understands that the nature of work is changing. That is why we held extensive consultations that highlighted the need for updated federal labour standards. That is what we are doing with budget implementation act no. 2.

Our consultations made it clear that there were a number of complex issues related to federal labour standards and the changing nature of work that required more in-depth review and discussions. A modern set of federal labour standards would better protect our workers and help set the stage for good-quality jobs.

A group of experts, soon to be announced, will be looking at these issues.

Let us talk about some of the changes being introduced through Bill C-86:

Subdivision A of Division 15 of Part 4 amends the Canada Labour Code to, among other things,

(a) provide five days of paid leave for victims of family violence, a personal leave of five days with three paid days, an unpaid leave for court or jury duty and a fourth week of annual vacation with pay for employees who have completed at least 10 consecutive years of employment;

(b) eliminate minimum length of service requirements for leaves and general holiday pay and reduce the length of service requirement for three weeks of vacation with pay;

(c) prohibit differences in rate of wages based on the employment status of employees;

Many Canadians are victims of domestic violence. It takes so much courage and determination to make that decision to leave a violent situation. These individuals experience extreme stress and vulnerability. Sometimes, they just cannot go to work for a number of days, and the trouble is, they do not know what type of leave they can use to justify their absence.

This five-day period of leave will help more Canadians get out of violent situations without the risk of losing their job.

By introducing equal treatment protections, these amendments would also ensure that employees in precarious work are paid and treated fairly, and have access to the same entitlements as their full-time counterparts. As well, they would ensure that employees receive sufficient notice and compensation when their jobs are terminated, to help protect their financial security. However, change of this magnitude does not happen overnight.

That is why up to approximately $51 million over five years starting in 2019-20, and up to about $12 million ongoing will be allocated to support the implementation and enforcement of the labour standards amendments, including education and awareness, training and increased resources for proactive enforcement and timely resolution of complaints.

In addition to these changes to the code, we are also enhancing the wage earner protection program to provide more support for Canadians during difficult times when their employer is insolvent and they are owed wages. The wage earner protection program is a Government of Canada program that provides financial support for workers who are owed eligible wages when their employer files for bankruptcy or becomes subject to receivership. In short, the WEPP is there to help workers when they need it the most.

Budget 2018 announced that the government would propose legislative amendments to increase the maximum payments under the WEPP and make eligibility more equitable. As such, our government is proposing to increase the maximum payment under the WEPP from an amount equal to four weeks of maximum insurable employment insurance earnings to an amount equal to seven weeks. For 2018, this would amount to an increase of up to $3,000.

I think the members of the House would agree that this increased support is a welcome change for Canadian workers, and I am glad to say that the increase in the maximum payment would come into force on royal assent and would apply in respect of bankruptcies or receiverships that occurred on or after February 27, 2018.

Changes would also be made to program eligibility more equitable so that workers who are owed wages, vacation, severance, or termination pay when their employer files for bankruptcy or enters receivership are better supported during a difficult time.

The changes proposed today are part of our plan to modernize federal labour standards as part of Bill C-86. We are also introducing historic proactive pay equity legislation. This legislation would ensure that women and men in federally regulated industries receive equal pay for work of equal value.

We have already introduced in the Canada Labour Code the right to request flexible work arrangements, new leaves and new protections for unpaid interns. More recently, we passed Bill C-65, which addresses workplace harassment and violence. We are bringing in change that Canadians have been asking for.

We spent nearly a year consulting with Canadians, stakeholders and experts to get their perspectives on what a robust and modern set of federal leader standards should look now. Now we are taking action. We are ushering in modern and robust standards that will benefit both workers and employers.

With modern labour standards that support good-quality jobs, employees can thrive and achieve a better balance between the demands of their personal lives and the operational requirements of their jobs, which can lead to a greater sense of well-being. By the same token, they can help employers recruit and retain employees, which can lead to an increase in productivity. Employees who come to work feeling supported by their employers are able to do their best work and to innovate, which can create a better working environment and lead to long-term gains for employers.

It is a win-win for everyone.

I request the support of the House to get rid of these 1960s-era provisions that are well past their best before date. We must update our labour standards to reflect the equality and quality of Canadian jobs across the country.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

Many people in Canada who are aware of problems in the cultural sector and the media might be asking themselves this question. As my colleague said, our economic performance was among the best in the G7. However, yesterday in committee, Facebook representatives told us they had decided to set up their sales offices in Canada and would begin collecting GST on their ads sometime in mid-2019. How can that be?

How can it be that our government does not have the backbone to tell companies that sell ad services to Canadians to collect GST? That failure to act is inexplicable and has probably cost us billions in uncollected revenue at a time when we really need it.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. In 2015, Canadians spoke out loud and clear, choosing our government's plan to invest in Canadians and create good jobs, valuable opportunities and positive growth for everyone.

We are serving Canadians and meeting their needs along the way.

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

Madam Speaker, in 2015 Canadians had their voices heard, but in 2015 Canadians also heard significant promises by the current government that the deficit would be $10 billion maximum and that there would be a balanced budget by 2019. Now the Liberals go on and say they are just investing in the economy and that it is making our economy stronger, but the record is clear.

Budget 2016 promised that spending would raise the GDP by 0.5% in 2016 and by 1% in 2017 and 2018. However, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has estimated the infrastructure spending only contributed a tiny 0.1% to the GDP growth in both years, or not even 10% of what was promised. How can the Liberals continue to go down this path of spending more money, increasing our deficits and increasing our debt payments $15 billion more over a four-year period? That is $15 billion more in payments just for interest.

How can the government continue to support investments like that, requiring more interest payments by this generation and, more importantly, downloading them onto our children and grandchildren?

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague opposite for his question. I repeat once again that, in 2015, Canadians spoke out loud and clear, choosing our government's plan. I would also add that we have decided to invest in an economy that works for everyone, and I will give a few example of what we have achieved since 2015: over 500,000 jobs created; the lowest unemployment rate in nearly a decade; the Canada child benefit, which is helping many families in my riding; opportunities created for young people thanks to the Canada summer jobs initiative; support for our seniors as part of the new horizons for seniors program; significant investments in infrastructure across the country; and the list goes on.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, there is almost no way for me to exaggerate the crisis in housing being experienced across this country, and particularly in the Lower Mainland. In my constituency of Vancouver Kingsway, we have renters who cannot find affordable places and a dream of home ownership by young people that has been crushed. People are leaving the communities they grew up in.

Members of the current government claim they are interested in housing, and while the Liberals say they have allocated $40 billion for housing, it is actually $20 billion because $20 billion of that is coming from the provinces. The $20 billion is tied to provincial contributions and it is over 10 years, most of which would flow after 2019.

Does my hon. colleague really understand that there is a housing crisis in this country? If that is the case, why are the Liberals putting so little money into housing, and why are Canadians having to wait so long for any of that federal money to actually flow?

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague that there is an affordable housing crisis. To answer his question, I want to tell him what is happening in my riding, specifically in Laval. People have been particularly happy with our government since last year because we are taking action and introducing something that is going to help people who really need it.

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

Madam Speaker, I am going to start where the Liberals just left off. The Liberals said, unbelievably, that somehow Canadians who are in the immense turmoil that exists currently with the housing crisis in so many parts of this country are happy with the government. I can say first-hand, from living in New Westminster—Burnaby, which is, in a sense, in the epicentre of the housing crisis, that tonight there are women, men and families wondering whether they can keep a roof over their heads. As rents rise, and they have limited pensions or are working at minimum wage, they do not believe they can keep up. There are women, men and families worried about whether they will ever have housing again. That is why so many shelters are filled to the brim. It is a national tragedy, yet what we have heard today from the Liberals is that everything is just fine. It clearly is not.

We need a federal government that understands the principle of a roof over every single Canadian's head and that will make the required investments so that housing becomes a priority again in this country. That is certainly something Jagmeet Singh has been speaking to right across this country as he talks with Canadians. There is no doubt in his mind that the housing crisis is critical and that we have to respond with the kind of effort we did after the Second World War.

I have mentioned this before in the House. We built 300,000 housing units in the space of 30 months. Governments at that time understood that the men and women in service overseas were coming back to Canada and deserved to have a roof over their heads. That is why in places like New Westminster, like 109 Glover, which is my address, those houses were built in 1947, 1948 and 1949. We built hundreds of thousands of units. Today the government pretends that it has done something. It has manufactured, in a bizarre way, some cooked-up figures, as if it is actually addressing the housing crisis. It is a tragedy that the government does not understand the importance of this. There is nothing in this budget implementation bill that addresses the housing crisis.

There is nothing in the budget implementation bill that addresses the crisis in pharmacare, either. The lack of pharmacare is something so many Canadians feel acutely. One in every five Canadians, as my colleague, the member for Vancouver Kingsway, has mentioned numerous times in the House, has no access to medications. They simply cannot afford to pay for them. Businesses have to pay billions of dollars a year for drug plans. The good businesses, of course, provide drug plans to their employees. Businesses that care less choose not to do that, but then those employees become part of the one in every five Canadians who cannot afford medications.

These are the big, glaring errors in this budget implementation bill. When the government could have chosen to take action, it chose, instead, to do nothing. It aggravated it, appallingly to me and to so many Canadians, with a massive $14-billion corporate tax writeoff scheme. That is $14 billion of taxpayers' money. Stunningly, when I talked to the finance officials and asked if it was true what I was reading on page 58 that plush corporate jets and stretch limousines were included as part of these massive corporate tax writeoffs that could go to Bay Street companies, they said yes, it was very true; stretch limousines, absolutely; plush private jets, absolutely.

The government is not prioritizing the needs of Canadians by putting in place single-payer universal pharmacare, putting in place housing in this country at a time when it is in crisis or responding to the needs of indigenous children. They are profoundly underfunded and disadvantaged for life because of the up to $10,000 funding gap per pupil per year in indigenous schools because of the chronic underfunding by the federal government.

Instead of responding to all of this, we have what is before us. What is before us had some good intentions. Pay equity was a very good intention. The federal government slapped itself on the back and said it did a good job. It was then referred to committee, which heard from witnesses. It heard from the Coalition for Pay Equity, CUPE, the Public Service Alliance of Canada and the Canadian Labour Congress. It heard from a wide variety of activists who have been fighting for pay equity and making sure that women are paid equally for work of equal value for years. Each one of them said that there were major flaws and that this bill had holes that must be addressed.

The pay equity coalition was particularly eloquent in this regard. It said that unless these flaws were fixed, women would have to go back to court so they could actually get equal pay for work of equal value. That is a compelling argument. Parliamentarians from the Liberal Party were at the committee and heard from the Coalition for Pay Equity, the teamsters, CUPE, PSAC and of course, the CLC, all of them saying the same thing, to fix the flaws. Every single one of them said that if these flaws were not fixed, women would have to return to court. Therefore, the Liberals cannot brag about bringing pay equity. All they can brag about is bringing a flawed bill to the floor of the House of Commons.

The NDP, because we are the worker bees in this House, went to work. We worked night and day. We came up with dozens of amendments to fix all the flaws. The Liberals put forward a flawed bill. However, our job, as parliamentarians, is to fix the flaws. When I went to committee last week, my full expectation, despite the fact that the Liberals were bulldozing the bill through committee, was that the Liberals would accept the amendments and fix the flaws in the bill, even though we did all the work. Unbelievably, the Liberal MPs who sat at committee and heard about the massive flaws that would lead to women having to go back to court to achieve pay equity refused to entertain any amendments whatsoever.

Now we are left at report stage with a deeply flawed piece of legislation. Not a single Liberal can get up and say that the government has fixed pay equity, because it has not. The Liberals had a chance. We did the work for them. We were willing to let them take the credit, because the only thing that seems to concern them is who gets credit. We do not care. We just want this fixed. We want pay equity to be a reality. We do not want women to have to go back to court. The Liberals said no. Therefore, we are left with a bill with all the massive flaws identified by witness after witness. Not a single Liberal MP was willing to stand up for pay equity at committee. Not a single MP was willing to fix the flaws.

That is just one issue in a very sad narrative. I only have 10 minutes. I could speak for hours on this, because there are flaws identified in other parts of this massive omnibus piece of legislation. It is the biggest in our history, at 850 pages. It was thrown at the House of Commons with all kinds of flaws and mistakes written in, yet the Liberals were unwilling, even when other parties did the work for them, to entertain any fixes to the flaws.

Unfortunately, what that means is that this will be exactly like what we saw with the Harper government. Half a dozen times, a court threw out the legislation, because the Conservatives steamrolled it through the House of Commons rather than listening to elected representatives and experts so they could fix the flaws. Tragically, we are going to see women being forced to go back to court to throw out a piece of legislation on pay equity that could have been fixed. We did the work for them.

The most frustrating thing is that the current Liberal government does not have the character to understand that it is not who gets the credit; it is that the work is done right. We have always believed that the work needs to be done right. That is our role in Parliament, as Canadians chose in the last election. Up until the next election, we will continue to do that work.

I must oppose the bill at report stage. There are huge errors in this bill, and the Liberals rejected dozens of amendments that we proposed. They refused to improve the bill, and this is why I will vote against it.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, I am going to focus my question on the member's housing analysis for a very simple reason. Not one single fact was presented in the argument he made to the House.

The NDP will complain that if we spend money this year, we should have spent it last year. If we spent money last year, why are we not spending it this year? If we spend it over 10 years, why are we not spending it all right now? If we are spending it all right now, what are we going to do for the next 10 years? It has an argument against any action any government takes ever.

When we take a look at what the NDP promised, if it had been elected to government this time, it would have spent zero dollars on affordable housing in the year we are currently in. It is in the platform. Actually, it would have been three years in a row of zero dollars on affordable housing, not a single penny on new housing.

On homelessness, the issue the member spoke to specifically, which he thinks is suddenly a crisis, quite clearly, the drafting of the platform last time did not see it that way, because there was $10 million a year. Liberals are spending $10 million in Vancouver and Toronto alone in new dollars and $100 million across the country. We doubled those funds. The only thing worse than the argument just presented was the NDP platform presented to Canadian people in the last election.

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

Madam Speaker, the member needs to understand that despite the influence of Donald Trump and Trumpism, repeating something that is false over and over again does not make it true. That is very simple and very straightforward.

Heather has a daughter and a mother. The three of them live together in a one-bedroom apartment, and the fact is that she is wondering whether next month she will still have a roof over her head, because she works for minimum wage.

The fact is that when John's pension could not keep up, he ended up sleeping on the sofa of a friend, and eventually, a senior who had worked all his life, on the Liberals' watch, ended up at a parkade in downtown Westminster sleeping in his last possession, which was a car.

The fact is that Ed tries every night to find an affordable apartment, because he wants to move out of the shelter. However, he finds that within minutes of anything going online, it is already impossible to get that particular apartment, because it is taken so quickly.

Those are the facts. I wish Liberals would listen to real Canadians for a change.

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

Madam Speaker, this kind of debate is devastating for me. There are parts of what the Liberal government is saying that are quite correct. There is much I agree with from the New Democrats. We could just have a conversation saying that we need pay equity, we need universal child care and we need housing and ask how we get there from here because we know it is not in this budget. More than anything, we need a climate program that actually ensures that we have a world that will allow human beings to live on it. We need a habitable planet. We do not have that from the government. We have promises of it from many of the parties in this place.

I would just ask my friend from New Westminster—Burnaby if there is any way we can see a way out of this constant hyperpartisan wrangling. If we can put our political stripes aside and find ways to agree with each other on some things, we can move to agree with each other on the big things.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to start off by congratulating the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands on her engagement. She will be married very soon, and I think all members of the House join in congratulating her and wishing her and her husband-to-be the very best in the years to come.

Second, the reason we worked night and day to get those amendments in to fix the pay equity bill was that we do not care who gets the credit. What we do care about is that pay equity becomes a reality in this country and that women are not forced to go back to court to obtain the rights they had to go to court to acquire in the first place. That is the starting point.

The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands raises an important point. We have to make sure that we are getting the work done. It is not a series of talking points that makes difference. It is developing and producing results. That is why we worked so hard at report stage at committee to fix all the flaws identified in the bill by witnesses. We listened to witnesses and provided those amendments. I share her incredible disappointment that the Liberals did not accept a single opposition amendment. They became partisan. If they had accepted the amendments, we would have a much better piece of legislation.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, International Development; the hon. member for North Island—Powell River, Housing; and the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, Employment Insurance.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism]

Madam Speaker, it is a great privilege to speak to this House about Bill C-86, which represents our government's next steps to advance the mandate given to us by Canadians.

In 2015, Canadians sent us to Ottawa on a promise to grow the economy, support Canada's middle class and most vulnerable, and build a more inclusive and prosperous nation for all Canadians. Over the last three years, our government has made great progress on this promise.

Across the country, a strong and growing middle class is driving economic growth, and creating new jobs and more opportunities for people to succeed. While there is still more work to be done to ensure that every Canadian has a fair chance at success, real progress has been made. More Canadians are working, wages are growing, and Canadians and business are confident in their future.

The Canada child benefit, CCB, is helping families with the high cost of raising children by putting more money in the pockets of nine out of 10 families, helping to lift 521,000 people, including nearly 300,000 children, out of poverty. It is a measure that is making a real difference in Halifax.

This summer, I was at Mulgrave Park in our city's north end. It is a vibrant public housing community where many families benefit from the CCB. In a conversation with the executive director of Mulgrave Park Caring and Learning Centre, Crystal John, I asked her what she had been hearing from families about how the CCB is helping them. She told me that one important way to help is by giving families the funds to purchase nutritious meals for children. We know that food is expensive and that healthy food is even more expensive. Therefore, ensuring children are well fed, receiving the nutrients they need from healthy food, with fresh fruits and vegetables, is critically important. This is the positive impact of the CCB on the ground in Halifax and across the country.

Of course, more than nine million Canadians are also benefiting from the government's middle-class tax cut. By this time next year, a typical middle-class family of four will receive on average $2,000 more each year as a result of these two measures to help with the cost of raising their children and saving for their future. This will help grow the economy for the benefit of everyone. We have also enhanced the Canada pension plan, which will provide more Canadians with a secure retirement.

We have made historic investments in infrastructure, including the national housing strategy, which is helping Canadians with a secure, safe and affordable place to call home. I will say that, as a former city planner, this is a point of great pride for me. Secure and affordable housing is fundamental to a citizen's well-being. We have taken important steps to create a strategy that is smart, focused on the vulnerable and rights-based. Now, Canada's strong fiscal position, which includes the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7, allows the government to continue investing in the middle class and to lay a solid foundation for future generations.

In November, the Minister of Finance presented the federal government's 2018 fall economic statement, and here are some of the measures that it included.

First, the government is taking action to help Canadian businesses to compete, succeed and create good, well-paying jobs. We are introducing new tax incentives that will support business investment in Canada, including allowing businesses to immediately write off the full cost of machinery and equipment used for the manufacturing or processing of goods. We are also cutting red tape to make it easier to do business in Canada while protecting Canadians' health, safety and the environment.

The fall economic statement also makes important investments in a new social finance fund. The government recognizes that innovative approaches are needed to tackle persistent and complex social challenges that make it difficult for some Canadians to succeed and reach their full potential. To encourage and realize innovative ideas, the Government of Canada is creating a new social finance fund to allow potential investors to partner with charities, non-profit and social purpose organizations to work together to solve our country's biggest social challenges. We are also providing support to social purpose organizations to improve their ability to successfully participate in the social finance market. All told, the social finance fund is expected to help create thousands of jobs, foster economic growth and help us build a more equal and fair Canada.

In Halifax, we are so lucky to have a vibrant community of passionate people working in the social innovation field. Just last week, I had the opportunity to invite the Minister of Innovation to Halifax for a reception at Common Good Solutions, an incubator and consulting agency that helps social enterprises start and grow. Its fearless leader, David Upton, has been a strong voice for government support for social enterprises, and I have been proud to stand along with him. In speaking with him since last week, he is thrilled with what the new social finance fund will mean for this growing industry.

One more important update in the fall economic statement is support for Canadian journalism. A strong and independent news media is crucial to a well-functioning democracy. The government recognizes the vital role that journalism plays in communities across Canada and is making key investments to ensure that Canadians in underserved communities continue to have access to informed and reliable news coverage.

New measures include allowing non-profit news organizations to receive charitable donations and issue official donation receipts; introducing a new refundable tax credit that supports original news content creation, including local news; and introducing a new temporary, non-refundable tax credit for subscriptions to Canadian digital news media.

There is still more work to do but the progress we have made to date is extraordinary and we are not slowing down. We will continue to fight for Canada's middle class and vulnerable Canadians. The budget elements included in Bill C-86 will go a long way to help us realize this goal. I encourage all members to support it.

I am going to share a few more excellent points about the budget bill and I am sure that everyone in the House will be interested in hearing them.

Members have heard me say before that Nova Scotia is home to some of the brightest scientists and researchers in the world at leading research institutions like Dalhousie University, St. Mary's University, the Bedford Institution of Oceanography and the IWK, the Izaak Walton Killam Children's Hospital and more. For the last year, they have rallied around the recommendations of the Fundamental Science Review, also known as the Naylor report, which was commissioned by this government under the leadership of our Minister of Science and Sport. This report called for significant investment in investigator-led research.

Our government agreed with those calls for action, because research expands our understanding of how the world works, allowing us to address existing and emerging challenges in our region in new and effective ways.

Equally important, basic research also serves as the foundation for the knowledge-based economy. That is why budget 2018 includes the single largest investment in investigator-led fundamental research ever. That is $4 billion for fundamental science and research infrastructure and it includes a 25% increase to funding of the tri-council of NSERC, CIHR and SSHRC.

We have said it before, science is back, but more than that, with budget 2018 it is unstoppable.

The final measure I want to highlight is conservation, and this is a topic that many of my constituents in Halifax care deeply about. A whopping $1.3 billion to protect Canada's landscapes and biodiversity, including species at risk, is included in the budget. It also includes funding to protect endangered marine life such as the right whale.

These measures are joined by several others that are geared toward protecting our environment for generations to come, including funding for the implementation of Canada's pricing of pollution system.

There is $56 million to expand an existing home energy retrofit partnership with efficiency in Nova Scotia.

One of my favourite measures is making entry to Canada's national parks free for kids forever.

These are the kinds of investments that will keep Canada on a path to prosperity along with others that I mentioned in my speech today and countless additional initiatives from budget 2018 that I did not have time to address.

I hope that my colleagues from all corners of this place will agree that this plan is working for Canadians and that they will vote for this budget implementation measure to keep this spectacular momentum going.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is a bit unfortunate to notice that the parliamentary secretary cannot spontaneously speak without any notes about their supposedly great budget engagement.

I went out for a few seconds and I am sure I missed the point where the member said when his government would balance the budget. I am sure I missed that. The Liberals seem to want to be a responsible government, so I am sure I missed that point.

Could the member just repeat to me in which year the government will balance the budget?

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for creating a wonderful opportunity to talk about the importance of the economy in Canada and how well it is doing.

The member would know that Canada has the lowest GDP-to-debt ratio in the G7. We have the lowest rate of unemployment in 40 years. In fact, in Canada right now we have a labour shortage, not an unemployment problem. We have the highest productivity in the G7. This is an economy that is doing extremely well.

Someone who works in the finance world in Ontario told me that he does not right now see any room for expansion in the economy the way that it is right now. Everything is working at full capacity and it is a remarkable thing to behold. This has been made possible by key budget measures that this government has made, which have allowed Canadians to expand their companies and to create new employment opportunities.

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

Madam Speaker, I know that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage is not the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance. However, if he is following this file within his own department, he knows full well that failing to require that companies like Netflix or Google collect GST on their services is an injustice to all competitors that are Canadian and hire Canadians.

I am not even talking about corporate taxes, because I know that the Minister of Finance will say that it is complicated. The Liberals do not have much initiative, but I can understand that corporate taxes are complicated. That said, applying a transaction tax on transactions made in Canada is pretty basic.

Are the minister's rose-coloured finance glasses so big that he does not even see a need to collect taxes from service providers? Pathetic. Does my colleague have nothing to say on this? He knows very well that the cultural sector is unanimous on this issue.

Our service providers and creators at least want local broadcasters and over-the-top television services, which are comparable to Netflix, to be on an equal footing with the others.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, right now, the industry committee and the heritage committee are undergoing parallel studies that in the end will have the result of proposing measures to the House that we can all debate and vote on, that will help to level the playing field in this point of transition from an analog to a digital economy.

I think the member would be very happy to realize that in fact Netflix has announced the production of its first Quebec-based film, which is going to be very wonderful in Canada. This is an evolving media landscape, and we are, all together, going to be finding solutions to address the realities of a new world of media.

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

Madam Speaker, this is the problem as I see it. I watched the budget cuts in 2012. Environment Canada and Parks Canada lost 10% of their budgets. That money has not been replaced. Yes, it is wonderful to see investments in new protected areas, but as the Auditor General's report pointed out, our heritage buildings are not even being properly tracked. They are under Parks Canada's jurisdiction. Our lighthouses are not being protected. Meanwhile, on the species at risk side, the Canadian Wildlife Service does not have the people to prepare the recovery strategies. That is why it took 14 years to get a recovery strategy for southern resident killer whales, and it is still not being enacted.

I am frustrated. I see the nice words, and I know there are a lot of iconic measures in press releases, but we are not seeing restoration of Environment Canada to what it was before the cuts.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, I would like to add my voice of congratulations to the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for her wonderful news. We are all elated. It is a beautiful bit of news for all of us to hear at this time.

Like many federal departments, Parks Canada had to labour under terrible and debilitating budget cuts for nearly a decade under the previous Conservative government. It is now working valiantly to come out from under those dark days and produce work plans, business plans and strategic plans to restore the system of Canada's parks and the environment it administers back to what they have been and should be. Unfortunately, we never have enough resources. We are going to continue to work hard to give them what they need to succeed.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to respond to something the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands said. She said the government always has iconic and historical engagement announcements. I have come to think that it is all the government is about. It is always historical, amazing, so great, but we have never in Canadian history seen a government spend so much money to do so little.

I am very happy to speak today in the House of Commons on behalf of the citizens of Beauport—Limoilou.

Centre Block will soon be closing for complete renovations for 10 or 15 years. I wanted to mention that. There is no cause for concern, however, because we will be moving to West Block. I will therefore be able to continue to speak on behalf of my constituents.

Today I am discussing Bill C-86, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures.

I will focus on the fact that the members of the Conservative Party are extremely disappointed with the bill. We have witnessed a string of broken promises over the past three years. It is a little ironic that the hon. member for Papineau, the current head of the Liberal government, said during the election campaign that he wanted to do something to make people less cynical of politics, to help them have more confidence in politicians, in the ability of the executive branch, the legislative branch and members of Parliament to do things that are good for Canadians and especially to respect the major promises formally made during the campaign.

A group of researchers at Laval University have created what they call the Vote Compass. It shows the number of promises kept and broken by the provincial and federal governments.

I remember that, to their chagrin, a few months before the 2015 election, the research institute had to acknowledge that 97% of all promises made by Mr. Harper during the 2011 election campaign had been kept.

The Liberal government elected in 2015 broke three major promises and is continuing to break them in the 2018 budget. These were not trifling promises. They were major promises that were to set the guidelines for how the government was to behave and for the results Canadians would see.

The Canadians we talk to are familiar with the three major promises, since I often repeat them. I have to, because this is serious.

The Liberals promised to limit themselves to minor $10-billion deficits in the first two years and a $6-billion deficit in the third year.

What did they do? The first year, they posted a deficit of $30 billion. The second year, they posted a deficit of $20 billion. This year, the deficit is $18 billion, or three times what was announced.

That is the first broken promise, and it was not just some promise that was jotted down on the back of a napkin. In any case, I hope not. In fact, I remember quite well that the promise was made from a crane in the midst of the election campaign. The member for Papineau was in Toronto, standing on a crane when he said that he would run deficits to pay for infrastructure. That is the second broken promise. He said that the $10 billion a year in deficits would be used to inject more money into infrastructure. However, of the $60 billion in deficits this government has racked up to date, only $9 billion has gone to infrastructure. That is another problem, another broken promise.

That is why I was saying earlier that we have rarely seen, in the history of Canada, a government spend so much money for so few results. This is probably the first time we have seen this sort of thing.

I will give an example. He said that he would invest $10 billion in infrastructure in 2017, but he invested only $3 billion and yet racked up a deficit of $20 billion. Where did the other $17 billion go? It was used for all sorts of different things in order to satisfy very specific interest groups who take great pleasure in and boast ad nauseam about the Liberal ideology.

The third broken promise is an extremely important and strategic one. In fact, it was so obvious that we did not even really think of it as a promise before.

All Canadian governments, in a totally responsible manner and without questioning it, traditionally endorsed this practice. If there was a deficit, the document would indicate the date by which the budget would be balanced. There was a repayment date, just as there is for anyone in Canada. When the families of Beauport—Limoilou, many of whom are watching today, want to buy a car or appliance, such as a washer or dryer, not only does the seller ask them to get a bank loan, but he also asks them to sign a paper that indicates when the debt will be repaid in full.

Thus, it is quite normal to indicate when the budget will be balanced. We have been asking that question for three years, but what is even more interesting is that the Liberals had promised that the budget would be balanced in 2019, and now there are 45 days remaining in 2018. Telling us when the budget will be balanced is the least the Liberals could do.

There are consequences to running up large deficits, however. The Liberal government has been accumulating gigantic deficits at a time when the global economy is doing rather well, although forecasts indicate that we will enter a recession in the next 12 months. Although times are tough in Alberta and Ontario, where General Motors just closed a plant, the situation is positive. There are regions in Canada that are suffering tremendously, but the global economic context is nevertheless healthy. Knock on wood, which is everywhere in the House of Commons.

The first serious mistake is to run up deficits when times are good. When the global economy is doing well and our financial institutions are making money, we have to put money aside for an emergency fund and an assistance fund, especially for the employees of General Motors who lost their jobs and for all families in the riding of my Alberta colleague who have lost their jobs in the oil sector.

We have to have an emergency fund for the next economic crisis because that is how our capitalist system works. There are ups and downs. That is human nature. It is random. Agreements are signed, things are done, progress is made, and there are ups and downs. The current positive situation has been going on for five or six years now, so we need to be prepared. That is why growing the deficit during good economic times can have very serious consequences.

I would like to talk about another serious consequence, and I am sure this will strike a chord with the people of Beauport—Limoilou who are listening to us now. Does anyone know how many billions of dollars the government spends on federal health transfers? It is $33 billion per year. To service the debt, to pay back people around the world who lend us money, we spent $37 billion last year. We spent $4 billion more on servicing our debt than on health transfers.

[An hon. member]

That is shameful.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Yes, Madam Speaker, it is shameful. It sure looks like bad management of public affairs. It makes no sense, and I am sure Canadians agree. I am sure they are sick and tired of hearing us talk about $10-billion, $20-billion, $30-billion deficits and so on.

Canada's total debt is now $670 billion. My fellow Canadians, that means that, at this point in time, your family owes $47,000. That is a debt you will have to pay.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage was very proud to announce that the government was giving nearly $6,000 a year per child, through the Canada child benefit, to people earning less than $45,000 a year. They are not giving money away, however; they are buying votes, which is unfortunate, since the very children this money is helping will end up having to pay it back. This is completely unacceptable on the part of the government.

I am proud to be part of a former Conservative government that was responsible, that granted benefits without running deficits and that also managed to balance the budget.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I am sure that the hon. member will be able to elaborate during questions and comments.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I know the member from Quebec has a lot more to say so I am going to let him say it because my comment has nothing to do with his speech. Therefore, he can finish his speech when I finish.

I do have to put something on the record, which has come up a lot in this debate, about omnibus bills. Some people do not understand how it works. Since 1888, there have been omnibus bills and they have not been able to be split, except politically, maybe, with the great bell ringing in 1982.

There are two types of omnibus bills. One is on regular bill time, when a bill is on more than one topic. The other is with the budget. There was a problem that the use of omnibus bills was being abused, especially the example of the budget with a whole bunch about the environment that was not in the budget. Therefore, we promised to change that, and we did.

In section 69.1 of the Standing Orders, we changed that and it had those two categories of bills. Therefore, that promise was kept. That section has been used three times. It was used on October 31, 2017, on a corrections bill, which turned out not to be split; on June 11, 2018, on the national security bill, which was actually split, showing that it worked; and then on November 3, 2017, on a budget bill that was split five ways. Not only did we put in a mechanism, but it works.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will respond to that, because the Conservatives do not hide and we are not afraid of the truth.

The fact is that the MP for Papineau, the Liberals' leader, the Prime Minister presently, said during the last campaign that never in the world would he present an omnibus bill. There was no nuance. It was, “no omnibus bill, ever”. The fact is that it is the biggest omnibus bill we have ever seen in this Parliament. It is bigger than an elephant. Seriously, it is huge. It is over 800 pages.

The blunt fact is that we were not ashamed of putting forward omnibus bills, because Canadians wanted the House to be efficient. Canadians wanted the House to go forward to make changes when necessary. Sometimes, when we had to debate every article, it did not go fast enough for the quickly changing pace of the world and all the needs of the Canadian people.

Right now the member is trying to engage with people to try to hide the fact that the Liberals are doing omnibus bills. They are ashamed of it.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, I heard my hon. colleague's speech. I am very intrigued by some of the aspects that he believes are a disgrace.

Just on that, I want to talk a bit about some of the amendments in this budget implementation bill that are about bankruptcies and about commercial licence holders in corporations being protected from bankruptcy. However, we do not have any amendments that allude to workers' pension protection in bankruptcy. This is a moral failure of this budget implementation act. I wonder what the hon. member thinks about protecting pensions when we are talking about bankruptcy legislation.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I personally believe we should ensure that workers pensions are protected when a company files for bankruptcy.

As a society, we cannot tell workers who have worked for 30 or 40 years and who were counting on a pension that, all of a sudden, for purely capitalist reasons, their pension will be slashed.

There are people in my riding who suffered a great deal when White Birch Paper almost went under. There were unbelievable cuts to employees’ pensions. The only comfort I could find when I met with the people on the board of White Birch Paper, which employed 400 people, was when they told me that their pensions had been cut as well.

The NDP is working hard on this. Good for them, because it is an important issue.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-86, A second 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.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism (Multiculturalism)]

Madam Speaker, I am very glad to speak on Bill C-86, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures.

At the outset, I will take stock of where we are as a country today. Economically, this is one of the best economic times we have had in our history, with a 40-year low in our unemployment rate. Our growth in GDP is one of the top in the G7. We have an unprecedented amount of growth taking place in various sectors, particularly the high-tech sector. A complaint I often hear from employers is their inability to hire people. There is a labour shortage, as we have heard in the House a number of times, in different parts of the country, but also in the area I represent in the greater Toronto area.

Middle-class Canadians are seeing first-hand that this plan is working. They are getting $2,000 more a year compared with what they got before. Budget 2018 is a step in that plan, supporting our government's people-centred approach to ensuring that every Canadian has a real and fair chance at success.

This has been a difficult week for some of us, especially those close to the GM plant in Oshawa, and our hearts go out to all of the hard-working men and women and their families in the Oshawa region. I have constituents in my riding who depend on the plant, and all of us across all parties hurt along with the families in Durham and the general region.

The fall economic statement presented by the Minister of Finance set out some very specific targets that allow more competitiveness in the Canadian economy. This past Saturday, all of us got back to our ridings very late in the morning, but I had the pleasure of opening a new company in my riding. It is located on Thornmount Drive in Scarborough—Rouge Park. It is called Sakara Wood Inc. It manufactures wood panels. It invested in very expensive manufacturing equipment and did not know about the accelerated deduction. I was able to inform the owner of the deduction that is available. This individual, who has worked for a very long time, is going to be hiring people. I am very proud that he chose to establish his business in my riding. When these types of businesses are opening, it shows the confidence that people have in the economy right now.

It is fair to say that since we took office three years ago, we have worked on a number of important initiatives, but particularly to ensure there is gender equality in this country. That has been a cornerstone of our Prime Minister and of the mandates of many ministers. Our budgetary process goes through a gender-based lens, which oftentimes was not the case in the past. This allows the full participation of all women in the economy, which will help grow our economy in the long term.

I want to highlight some of the specific things that budget 2018 offers in this respect. Something I have heard throughout my adult life over and over again is pay equity and the challenges and failures of successive governments to fully implement it. The statistics are startling. Men and women do not make the same amount of money for work of equal value. Over time that has really limited many women from progressing in the workforce and being able to attain the same level of economic security that men have been able to attains. It affects pensions and a whole host of benefits, because oftentimes our benefits are based on earnings.

I believe that the pay equity component of this budget essentially sets us on the right path. It does recognize equal pay for work of equal value. It is a very smart thing to do. We are also very proud to move forward with this proactive legislation. It is a key way in which our government is delivering on its commitment to gender equality.

Our government will introduce proactive pay equity legislation for workers in federally regulated sectors in 2018. This is on top of a number of other initiatives, most notably the establishment of a full status of women department. This is long overdue. I recall that a number of very progressive initiatives have been undertaken by the current minister to challenge many of the barriers to women's full participation and to ensure there is a safe and secure place for women and girls, as well as for boys, as equality takes shape in the years to come.

We recognize that it does require a lot of work. The stand-alone department speaks to the importance that our government assigns this issue. This bill will allow for additional resources for the department. It will give additional funding opportunities and resources, so that the minister will be able to target very specific issues and gaps within Status of Women currently.

As I go across the country, undertaking anti-racism engagements in several cities, the issue of racialization has come up, as well as discrimination against women and intersectionalities. This points to the fact that we are going in the right direction. Certainly, there is a lot more to do, and as a government we will do it.

Another important aspect is the poverty reduction strategy. It is part of an overall strategy to allow many Canadians to get out of poverty. Poverty in 2018 should not be a reality for Canadians. As we look at different parts of the world that are impoverished and have limited economic resources and opportunities, it is a shame that in a country like Canada, which has one of the highest GDPs and best economies in the world, we have people living in poverty. However, we do.

As a government, we were successful in lifting 650,000 Canadians out of poverty, including 300,000 children. That is a very significant improvement, but, again, this is an ongoing process. It includes support for infrastructure and support for housing. As members know, for the first time in a generation, we have a national housing strategy. That, too, will assist people living under the poverty line to be able to get out of poverty altogether.

Poverty limits individual success, limits the ability of young people to attain their maximum potential, whether at school, in the workforce, or other areas of life. It is very important that as a government we are doing this, and I am very proud of it.

Once again, time appears to be running out. I look forward to questions.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-86, A second 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.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. I do not doubt his sincerity, but I really did not get an answer to the question I asked earlier. It was a very simple question.

My colleague attends many of our committee meetings and he knows very well that the Quebec cultural sector sees as an injustice the fact that regular buyers of their content will be at a disadvantage compared with Netflix, for example, when it comes time to offer content on the web using their on-demand platforms.

He knows full well that the entire cultural sector would at least like to make sure that buyers are not at a disadvantage on the web, since the government is not requiring that Netflix collect GST on acquisitions and services in Canada, just as it does not require that Google collect tax on ad sales.

I am asking the question. I hope that my colleague will not give excuses and that he will answer my question. It is baffling that, despite the fact that Canada is a G7 nation and that it is performing better in certain areas—although it is also less savvy—we are not asking that federal and provincial taxes be collected on these subscriptions.

I hope to get an answer or at least an admission that he does not know.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, I certainly do not doubt the sincerity of my friend on the other side with respect to this issue. He has been a very strong advocate for culture in Quebec and Canada.

The nature of production is changing. Our government has made it very clear that high-tech companies are not getting a free ride in Canada. If they participate in the system, we expect them to pay into the system. That is why we will be undertaking consultations on this issue.

With respect to the overall strength of the economy, I can speak to the greater Toronto area. Virtually, every weekend if I go downtown, I am seeing dozens of vehicles stopping traffic because of productions taking place. There are many production houses in the greater Toronto area, Montreal and Vancouver. I think this speaks well of our overall cultural sector.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert on a point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, I do not know whether this is a translation problem, but I was expecting a very simple answer. It took two minutes and I did not hear the words “I do not know”.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I think that is a matter for debate. If the hon. member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert has a question, he may stand.

Resuming questions and comments, the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am sure that the member must have skipped one of the paragraphs in his speech where he was intending to announce when the government would balance the budget. That has always been the case in Canada's history. Maybe he could check his speech once more. All of my constituents are calling non-stop every single day about when the budget will be balanced.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am surprised the member has time to be in the House when he is answering so many questions from his constituents.

The paragraph I want to refer to is one that deals with the strength of the economy. Canada has one of the lowest debt-to-GDP ratios of any G7 country. We are on a sound economic footing.

I would love to talk about deficits. We can talk about the social deficits resulting from 10 years of neglect by the previous Conservative government. If one looks at the infrastructure deficit in Toronto community housing, where walls are falling apart and have not been painted for over a decade, one can see a serious deficit. We can talk about a number of issues, but when we talk about deficits it is also important to understand the effects that our infrastructure deficit has had on our country.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, as their federal member of Parliament, I thank the good people of my riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke for giving me the privilege to represent their interests. Together, we inform all Canadians about the deteriorating state of the nation's finances, as demonstrated by the economic update that was delivered by the government less than a week ago. It is even less relevant today than on the day it was delivered.

The Conservatives believe in clean air, low taxes and a healthy economy. A clean environment and well-paying jobs are only possible when taxpayers are treated with respect. This is in marked contrast to the Liberal governments, which stifle competitiveness and investment with their out-of-control deficit policies.

In Ontario, we have suffered rising small business and personal taxes. A higher minimum wage was introduced with no thought of its negative impacts, like job losses and soaring electricity rates. However, the additional environmental laws and regulations brought on by the federal Liberal government are driven by ideology rather than common sense, including the new carbon tax that will do nothing to help the environment and will make Canada a bad place to invest. Of course, entrepreneurs already figured this out years ago when they moved their capital out of Canada after the last election.

Carbon taxes raise the cost of doing business, a cost that will be shouldered on the backs of ordinary Canadians.

Thoughtful Canadians who follow my speeches in Parliament will recall when I first sounded the alarm, shortly after the 2015 election, on where the finances of our nation where headed.

Since the 2015 election, there has been an unprecedented flight of capital from Canada. After October 19, 2015, over $122 billion fled the country. For the first time, according to Statistics Canada, total Canadian investment in the United States exceeded that of the United States holdings in Canada. Scared investors fled the country. Capital that should have been available for the private sector to create jobs in Canada instead was used to create jobs in Trump's America.

Make no doubt about it, the government has been getting a free ride on the American recovery. As demonstrated by the announcement of more job losses in the automotive manufacturing sector, the free ride is over. Between Canadian investment dollars and cheap oil, the Prime Minister has been Donald Trump's best friend, to the harm of working Canadians.

In the first five months of office, the Liberals spent the Conservative budget surplus and burned through billions more. Then they proceeded to fake news their way through their bad spending and changing accounting methods to try to cover up the Conservative budget surplus. Ontario taxpayers have seen this cover-up before, when the disgraced former Ontario premier Kathleen Wynne tried to cover up how much the Toronto Liberal Party had driven Ontario into debt with her bad spending and making election bribes and promises that taxpayers could not afford.

This economic statement is costly and dogmatic, with no plan to balance the budget and the finances of Canada anytime in the future. Only a Liberal government would brag about taxes fattening coffers.

What did the finance minister do with the tax windfall the government collected from average, working, middle-class Canadians? He spent it. Rather than slowing the growth of the federal deficit in a budget that will never be balanced, as long as the member for Toronto Centre is the finance minister, he spent the additional tax revenues and more on bad spending.

The government wasted taxpayer dollars on things like a $500,000 logo and $40,000 on propaganda and Facebook ads aimed at telling children how to use a stove. Let us not forget the $65 million dollars that was spent on big greenhouse gas producing SUVs to impress G7 members as part of the Prime Minister's vanity project to buy a seat on the UN Security Council.

The Liberals broke their election promise in raising taxes on small business. By selectively raiding the employment insurance account, payroll taxes are set to rise along with the changes to CPP the government has legislated to start next year.

These additional costs are layered on top of the rise in minimum wage.

Our party left government with a $3.2 billion surplus and had the best job creation record among the G7 countries. As a result, we were able to keep taxes low for Canadian families and businesses. We reduced taxes to their lowest point in 50 years, with a typical family of four saving almost $7,000 a year.

Energy poverty is now a fact of life in my riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. This economic statement does nothing to help people in need. Luckily, smart voters elected Doug Ford to put a stop to corrupt electricity practices of the previous provincial party. The good he is trying to do is being undermined by the deficit-obsessed Liberal Party. The economic statement makes energy poverty worse for all Canadians, with more money for industrial wind turbines. Unlike before in only Ontario, now every time one is put up, everyone's taxes increase.

In Ontario, the price of electricity to consumers rose to the highest level in North America. This federal government action just picks a different taxpayer's pocket with the same failed policies that resulted in Ontario being the most indebted subnational government in the world.

What is the policy of the government that is driving the deficit so high and costing more job losses in the automotive manufacturing sector? The policy of the Liberal government is to intentionally wind down Canada's fossil fuel industry and with the most recent announcement from General Motors, the products which use the fuel as well.

The Prime Minister clearly stated in January of 2017, “We need to manage the transition off our dependence on fossil fuels.”

The Calgary Herald wrote:

That’s what the Liberals have been doing since being elected in 2015.

They’re managing down Alberta’s industry by imposing new regulations, killing pipeline options, withdrawing tax incentives and passing energy-hostile bills such as C-48 and C-69...

The crash in prices for Alberta oil and bitumen is a direct result of Liberal hostility to both the Northern Gateway and the Energy East pipelines....The damage to federal finances...will be huge...but it seems slow to sink in.

[Maybe that's because] for many [government] MPs and ministers, the energy crisis may even look look like a kind of victory.

Now, the Liberal Party can claim another victory with the announcement that thousands will lose their jobs at the General Motors factory in Ontario. While the policy to kill the Alberta economy is working, maybe a bit too well, it remains to be seen how the federal government will react as this policy to shut down the fossil fuel industry is felt across the country, with more job losses, particularly in the automotive manufacturing sector which is centred in central Canada.

The policy to shut down the oil and gas industry can only be followed by shutting down the industries that need fossil fuel to operate. I am waiting for proper main stream media reporting on this story.

As the rising deficit and more of the government's disastrous policies work their way into Canada's economy, the only response by the government can only be labelled as a threat to democracy in Canada.

Rather than changing direction, the response by principal secretary Gerald Butts and the rest of the Prime Minister's handlers is to double down with a propaganda campaign and an audacious plan to bribe the Canadian media in how facts are either reported or selectively omitted.

When a Conservative MP utters the words “fake news”, it launches headlines in the Globe and Mail, Global News and the Ottawa Citizen. When the member for Ottawa Centre calls a columnist she does not like “fake news”, or attacks a climate scientist or another member of Parliament, the response by too many members of the captive media is silence or some form of fake news. How many more independent voices in the media will be silenced with this bribe that is being offered? As well, how about the timing, in an election year?

Democracy depends on an independent media. The so-called “arm's-length panel” that will act like a government censor board to determine who gets direct funding is a model ripe for abuse. Censor boards will censor. That is what they are intended to do. The Liberals have stolen the media's power to set the federal election debates. Now they are turning the media into a political wedge issue on what gets reported.

The voters in my riding know a bribe when they see it and they know when a political party is trying to stack the deck in its own favour. All of this bad spending is being done with borrowed money.

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

Madam Speaker, the problem with asking a question is because there is so much inaccurate information, where does one begin. Every year, over 200,000 people die in Canada. I am surprised she did not blame that on the Government of Canada.

To focus the member on a specific question, could she explain to the House why the Conservatives, who have been in power for 38% of the time in Canada's 151 years, have accumulated 75% of the debt. They are very good at debt accumulation. When I asked the previous Conservative member this, he said “blame the Liberals”.

In case she is thinking of blaming the Liberals, let me just remind her that Stephen Harper inherited a multi-billion dollar surplus and before the recession even got under way, he converted it into a multi-billion dollar deficit. I wonder if she could explain to Canadians why they should believe the Conservatives know anything about deficit management.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I thank my most loyal fan across the way for asking the first question today.

I want to remind everyone of the Flaherty principle, which really does work. Flaherty's principle is that as we reduce taxes, overall revenues increase. That is why when we were government, we were able to lower taxes and grow jobs and the economy at the same time. In fact, we saved the average family of four $7,000, the lowest tax rate in over 50 years.

Let us not forget what has happened just this week. It is not just the oil sands the government is shutting down. Now, and we are seeing it at GM, it is beginning to shut down the industries that are related to and use fossil fuels. This is only going to compound the problem. The debt it is racking up is going to cost even more.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think all parliamentarians were quite shocked when the retirees and employees of Sears, after it shut down, lost significant amounts of their pensions. I know one of the deficiencies in the bill before the House, and something on which the government chose not to act, was to amend the Bankruptcy Act and other similar legislation that would ensure that workers' pensions would be protected upon bankruptcy.

Does my hon. colleague agree that workers who defer their salaries and wages and put them into company pension plans should have their money protected from creditors in the event of a bankruptcy or is she content with the status quo?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, like the member who just spoke, we in our community have many people who were already retired and were collecting pensions from Sears. We also endured many people who suffered as a consequence of Nortel.

With Sears specifically, and with the different automotive companies that have huge debts, this has come from the provincial holiday given these companies. Therefore, the most important measure to be taken first is for the non federally-regulated pensions to be required to ensure there is always more than enough funding in the pension pool.

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

Mr. Speaker, I heard my hon. colleague mention several times through her address that reducing fossil fuels was put forward as a bad thing. I wonder if her view is that we should increase production of fossil fuels or eliminate them so we have some chance of survival on this planet.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the fossil fuel industry in Canada winds down and more fossil fuels are taken out of the ground in countries outside of Canada, in places where they do not have the environmental laws we do, the emissions are actually increasing. As a total result of shutting down our oil sands, we are getting more emissions overall in other countries, because they do not sequestrate the carbon, let alone pay attention to the overall emission rules.

[Eva Nassif, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on the topic of Bill C-86.

As the member for Vimy and a member of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, I am proud of our government’s accomplishments and their impact on the lives of middle-class Canadians in my riding and across the country.

We continue to implement policies to benefit the middle class and all those who are working hard to join it. We believe in the importance of investing in all Canadians. Our economy is strong and in full expansion, and middle-class Canadians are enjoying the direct and concrete benefits of our plan’s effectiveness.

The number of employed Canadians is on the rise; the unemployment rate has reached its lowest level in 40 years; we have seen the strongest economic growth of all the G7 nations; salaries are increasing; consumer and business confidence is on the rise; and businesses are investing because they believe in our plan, which promotes sustainable growth.

A year from now in 2019, a typical middle-class family of four will be taking home $2,000 more. Thanks to the Canada child benefit, 300,000 children will be lifted out of poverty. Nine out of 10 families receive this benefit, which, in my riding alone, has helped more than 19,000 children.

Thanks to programs such as the Canada child benefit and the national housing strategy, we have improved Canadians’ living conditions. Last week marked the strategy's first anniversary. Since we took power, we have also improved seniors’ benefits by bringing the eligibility for old age security back down to age 65 and by enhancing the guaranteed income supplement. We have done all this by reducing taxes for the less fortunate and increasing them for the wealthy.

We have also invested in sustainable infrastructures and created numerous jobs. I am pleased to inform the House that, in the past 12 months alone, more than $55 million was invested in the electrification of public transit in my riding of Vimy. I am proud that the City of Laval is showing leadership in the area of sustainable infrastructure.

Moreover, to address the affordable housing crisis across Canada, we invested to help our most vulnerable families. In my riding, we invested in the first stage of the Val-Martin affordable housing project, and people are thrilled. There is still a long waiting list as 1,000 people still await affordable housing. This is a first step, and we are moving in the right direction.

Our constituents are happy because they are seeing the positive impact of our investments on their lives. Yes, we have a lot of debt, but we are investing in Canadians’ lives. Affordable housing is an issue of interest to all Canadians. There is still a lot to be done, but we are happy to continue to work to solve this problem that has been around for decades.

As a woman and a member of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, I would like to point out that, like each year, the 16 days of activism against gender-based violence will take place from November 25 to December 10. This is an opportunity for every one of us to reaffirm our commitment to preventing and eliminating the violence suffered by almost half of all girls and young women in Canada.

These 16 days are essential because we honour the work done in the past to fight gender-based violence. We also see the importance of contributing to the fight so that we can make a difference by working together.

Our government has also advanced the cause of pay equity, since ensuring equal pay for equal work is the smart thing to do. It is a key initiative our government has taken to honour its commitment to ensuring gender equality.

We have passed legislation according to the results of gender-based analysis to make sure that every Canadian has a fair and equal change to succeed. It is not simply the right thing to do, it is the smart thing to do. Canada’s future prosperity depends on it. Our government placed gender equality at the heart of its decision-making process in order to support women, reduce the gender wage gap, promote the participation of women in the workplace, and continue to build a country and an economy that works for everyone.

We have created a whole new department: the department of women and gender equality. Our government understands that gender equality is key to economic growth. The new Status of Women department will improve our ability to advance the cause of gender equality, and grow the middle class through policies, programs and the funding of community organizations dedicated to ensuring equality.

Thanks to these laws and policies, the government will be better able to capitalize on the momentum of international movements such as #MeToo, Time’s Up and women’s marches to make major changes for the benefit of Canadians of all gender identities. Our government launched the women entrepreneurship strategy and gave it $2 billion in funding.

We also opened the country up to foreign markets and new clienteles. This is the spirit in which our government negotiated the trade agreements that will give Canadians privileged access to 1.5 billion new overseas customers.

We have made a lot of progress in three years, but there is still a lot to do. I am proud to be part of this government. I am still very proud of representing the people of Vimy, and I promise them that I will do my best, with our government, to help all of the poor and grow the economy in my riding and across the country.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague listed a number of accomplishments that the current government has achieved, but she did not list the great increase in the deficit and the increase in interest costs. At one point, she said that investor confidence is growing.

It certainly is not growing in my area. I can tell her of a number of small and medium-sized enterprises that are losing confidence. Not only are they unable to expand like they had hoped to do, they are laying off people. This is going on across the country.

The Bank of Canada actually confirms this because the new Canadian investments into the U.S. have gone up by two-thirds, by 66%, over the last three years. U.S. investment into Canada decreased by 52%.

I would like it if my colleague could give us some actual concrete evidence for her comments that investor confidence is growing, because that is not my experience.

[Eva Nassif, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague opposite for his question. Yes, in fact, we do have a lot of debt but we have invested in economic growth and infrastructure and we have created over 600,000 jobs. I can assure my colleague opposite that a lot of jobs have been created in my riding of Vimy. We have also boosted investor confidence. Investor confidence has increased since we were elected. We are leading the G7. We are working hard to continue on this positive course.

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

Mr. Speaker, this has been a question asked regularly and I wonder if the member has any thoughts on it. Since we have limited time, I will state it simply. When will the budget balance itself?

[Eva Nassif, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is not what is most important right now. We inherited a lot of debt from the Conservative government, which never managed to achieve good economic growth.

I just told the member's colleague that we are sure that we are on the right track. In the current economic situation, investing is the right thing to do. The numbers speak for themselves. We are leading the G7. We have a good economy that works. We have a lot of jobs. That is the proof. We will balance the budget, but we are proud of what we have accomplished and of the fact that Canada is leading the G7 at this time of global uncertainty.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

It being 5:45 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on Motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 3. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 4. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 6. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 7, 8, 10 and 11. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred. This recorded division also applies to Motions Nos. 7, 8, 10 and 11.

The next question is on Motion No. 12. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 13 to 22.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 13 to 22.

The next question is on Motion No. 23. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions at the report stage of the bill. Call in the members.

(The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #952

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare Motion No. 2 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 3.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you would find agreement to apply the result of the previous vote to this vote, with Liberal members voting against.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we agree to apply and the Conservative members will be voting yes.

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

Mr. Speaker, the NDP agrees to apply the vote and will vote no.

[Simon Marcil, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will be voting against the motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party agrees to apply the vote and will be voting no.

[Erin Weir, Independent, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the CCF agrees to apply and will vote no.

[Hunter Tootoo, Independent, Nunavut, NU]

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and will be voting no.

[Darshan Singh Kang, Independent, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and will vote no.

(The House divided on Motion No. 3, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #953

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare Motion No. 3 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 4.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I believe you will find agreement to apply the results of the previous vote to the current vote, with Liberal members voting no.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we agree to apply the vote, with the Conservative Party voting yes.

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

Mr. Speaker, the NDP agrees to apply this vote and will vote no.

[Simon Marcil, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will be voting against the motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party agrees to the application of the vote and votes no.

[Hunter Tootoo, Independent, Nunavut, NU]

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree to apply and will vote no.

[Darshan Singh Kang, Independent, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and will vote no.

[Erin Weir, Independent, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the CCF is pleased to confirm that there is unanimous consent to apply and will be voting no.

(The House divided on Motion No. 4, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #954

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare Motion No. 4 defeated.

The question is on Motion No. 6. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 7, 8, 10 and 11.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you would find consent to apply the result of the previous vote to this vote, with Liberal members voting against.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we agree to apply, with the Conservative members voting yes.

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

Mr. Speaker, the NDP agrees to apply the vote and will vote no.

[Simon Marcil, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will be voting against the motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party agrees to apply the vote and votes no.

[Hunter Tootoo, Independent, Nunavut, NU]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to apply and will vote no.

[Darshan Singh Kang, Independent, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and will vote no.

[Erin Weir, Independent, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the CCF agrees to apply and will vote no.

(The House divided on Motion No. 6, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #955

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare Motion No. 6 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 7, 8, 10 and 11 defeated.

The question is on Motion No. 12. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 13-22.

The chief government whip.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find agreement to apply the result of the previous vote to the next vote, with Liberal members voting no.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we agree to apply the vote, and Conservative members will be voting yes.

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

Mr. Speaker, the NDP agrees to apply this vote and will vote against it.

[Simon Marcil, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will be voting no.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party agrees to apply and votes no.

[Hunter Tootoo, Independent, Nunavut, NU]

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and will be voting no.

[Darshan Singh Kang, Independent, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and will be voting no.

[Erin Weir, Independent, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the CCF agrees to apply and will vote no.

(The House divided on Motion No. 12, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #956

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare Motion No. 12 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 13 to 22 defeated.

The question is on Motion No. 23.

The hon. chief government whip.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe again if you seek it you bill find consent to apply the results of the previous vote to this vote, with Liberal members voting against.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we agree to apply with Conservative members voting yes.

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

Mr. Speaker, the NDP agrees to apply and will vote no.

[Simon Marcil, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply and will be voting against the motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, we agree to apply and vote no.

[Hunter Tootoo, Independent, Nunavut, NU]

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and will be voting no.

[Darshan Singh Kang, Independent, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and will be voting no.

[Erin Weir, Independent, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the CCF agrees to apply and will vote no.

(The House divided on Motion No. 23, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #957

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare Motion No. 23 defeated.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

moved that the bill be concurred in.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

All those in favour of the motion will please rise.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #958

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion carried.